I was just noting that approval ratings do matter, and that 39% is a very troubling approval rating, and that Obama's opponent doesn't matter a whole lot (unless they're immensely unpopular) once you get into the sub-40% range.
Many things besides the approval rating matter. I'm trying to factor all these variables, whereas the OP and some supporters of what little he said are positioning it to be the only thing that matters in this thread.
And Obama's opponent does matter. That's another one of the variables in this equation that many dissenters have no problem ignoring or avoiding when providing their opinions.
Currently there is no official challengers against Obama for President. You have a bunch of people wanting to be that challenger on the GOP side and polls taken by their most devoted followers saying that "any Republican is better than Obama". But Romney, Bachmann, Paul, Cain, Perry, Huntsman, Gingrich and all the other wannabes are not "any Republican". They are specific people that don't poll well against the President when we go past the distortions and the misleading headlines and get to the specifics. It is thoroughly disingenuous to imply that his opponent doesn't matter and hide behind something as random as an approval rating and a supposed referendum, when full statistics clearly show that
all of the possible contenders anyone has dreamt up at this point don't look good on an actual one-on-one against the President.
You know, maybe there is a person out there with the actual name of "Any Republican"? Well, until (s)he speaks and make themselves known I'm not buying the rhetoric. Same thing goes for some of the disgruntled progressives who think they can find someone who can pose a threat to Obama to force a Primary challenge. Put up the candidate and let's talk the issues. Otherwise, who really cares about whom someone personally likes or hates?
I do think "but unless someone provides another real alternative he's still getting the votes of many, MANY people" implicitly underestimates the electoral implications of low approval ratings a little.
No it doesn't. What I'm trying to do is put everything in their proper perspective so that viable information rises to the top of the list and other various bits of info are not inflated to being doctrine. With information provided by a few other thread contributors (including myself), we have seen a number of presidents and other politicians have a major dip in their approval rating somewhere in the middle of their current term, yet still win re-election.
Reagan had 35% in January 1983.
Clinton had 37% in May of 1993.
Harry Reid had 28%.
All lower than Obama's current rate and all have won re-election.
Shouldn't this be a clue as to how relevant this Gallup poll really is?