PDA

View Full Version : Obama Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss


petegz28
02-01-2012, 06:47 PM
Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:


Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/sites/default/files/styles/blog_listing_full/public/Screen%20shot%202012-02-01%20at%209.41.29%20AM.png

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/gallup-state-numbers-predict-huge-obama-loss/352881

petegz28
02-01-2012, 06:49 PM
What this says to me is not only will Obama lose but that a lot of the bickering we hear about the Repub nominees being not conservative enough, etc. is pretty much bunk and that voters are not looking to who is more conservative but rather they just don't want Obama.

The underlying tone here as well is it could spell another ass whipping at the polls for Democrats in Congress.

alnorth
02-01-2012, 06:55 PM
OR, PA, and IA?

The creator of this map is on drugs.

edit: thread bookmarked

BucEyedPea
02-01-2012, 06:56 PM
Looks to me like any Republican could win. If that's the case, why not choose a real conservative instead of going with another Bush ( Mitt or Newt )?

I'll tell you why Rs won't. They prefer BIG govt—just their kind of BIG govt.

Saul Good
02-01-2012, 06:58 PM
OR, PA, and IA?

The creator of this map is on drugs.

edit: thread bookmarked

IA and PA are both very much in play. Not so much Oregon.

Either way, this map isn't a prediction. Its a visual representation of Obama's approval by state.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 06:59 PM
OR, PA, and IA?

The creator of this map is on drugs.

edit: thread bookmarked

Yeah I was rather shocked by those. Particularly OR. PA and IA I can see swinging to the right. Lot's of unemployment in those states.

La literatura
02-01-2012, 07:08 PM
Yeah I was rather shocked by those. Particularly OR. PA and IA I can see swinging to the right. Lot's of unemployment in those states.

IA's unemployment rate is relatively low. I could see them swinging for Romney, however. It's all up for grabs right now though. Can't predict.

alnorth
02-01-2012, 07:11 PM
Yeah I was rather shocked by those. Particularly OR. PA and IA I can see swinging to the right. Lot's of unemployment in those states.

IA is actually doing really well, we're a lot better than the national average for unemployment and usually top a lot of those "best place to get a job" lists that magazines like to publish. We do have a Republican governor, but he won only by running as a moderate, after the IA GOP voters dismissed his looney raving far-right-wing primary challenger. (I wasn't sure about him, but I now have a lot of respect for Branstad, he's turned out to be a very intelligent and effective governor)

Obama did very, very well in Iowa (beat the hell out of McCain by 10 points), and I'm not sensing that things have changed much here, though maybe I'm in an urban Des Moines bubble.

petegz28
02-01-2012, 07:11 PM
IA's unemployment rate is relatively low. I could see them swinging for Romney, however. It's all up for grabs right now though. Can't predict.

Guess I should have clarified...Iowa's unemployment rate is damn near the highest it's been in 2 decades.

So relatively speaking....

petegz28
02-01-2012, 07:12 PM
IA is actually doing really well, we're a lot better than the national average for unemployment and usually top a lot of those "best place to get a job" lists that magazines like to publish. We do have a Republican governor, but he won only by running as a moderate, after the IA GOP dismissed his looney raving far-right-wing primary challenger. (I wasn't sure about him, but I now have a lot of respect for Branstad, he's turned out to be a very intelligent and effective governor)

Obama did very, very well in Iowa (beat the hell out of McCain by 10 points), and I'm not sensing that things have changed much here, though maybe I'm in an urban Des Moines bubble.

My gut tells me you are going to see a lot of the independents that voted for Obama swing towards Romeny. Romeny can walk the middle line pretty well. You have the right saying he isn't conservative enough and the left saying he is too conservative.

banyon
02-01-2012, 07:19 PM
Kind of a specious article and map. For example, Obama loses North Carolina based on his mid 40's approval rating, but somehow Mitt Romney wins with a 28% favorability rating in that state?

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/obama-leads-battered-republican-field-in-ohio.html#more

alnorth
02-01-2012, 07:20 PM
Guess I should have clarified...Iowa's unemployment rate is damn near the highest it's been in 2 decades.

So relatively speaking....

We're under 6. Gotta take things in perspective, if its the highest in 2 decades, then Iowa's been kicking the country's ass for 2 decades.

alnorth
02-01-2012, 07:24 PM
Kind of a specious article and map. For example, Obama loses North Carolina based on his mid 40's approval rating, but somehow Mitt Romney wins with a 28% favorability rating in that state?

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/obama-leads-battered-republican-field-in-ohio.html#more

call it the Sharon Angle/Christine O'Donnell rule. "anybody but Reid" can easily turn into "oh God, not her", except here, Obama is not really that disliked on a personal basis. Outside of the right-wing Limbaugh-listening crazies, the harshest the criticism ever gets is "he's such a nice guy and has a great family, but gosh I just think we need someone else. Its too bad, really"

alnorth
02-01-2012, 07:32 PM
Oh by the way, all you O'Donnell/Angle apologists out there who were all about purity, and we dont need RINO's, and we don't care if its Delaware and Republicans never, ever win here, and this is a chance of a lifetime to miraculously steal a dark-blue seat away, you still gotta support the tea party (and holy crap look at O'Donnell, aint she cute?) folks out there:

I haven't forgotten about you rocket scientists. If you nominated sane rational candidates in NV and DE, not only would Reid be a distant memory, but the Republicans would have an absolute guaranteed hammer-lock on getting the majority in the Senate in 2013 regardless of the presidency. Seriously, as in, "Obama could beat the crap out of Romney by 15, and the GOP would probably still win the Senate".

Its still likely, but now there's an outside chance that Reid could keep a slim majority for the next 2 years if Obama does well and has any coattails at all.

Chocolate Hog
02-01-2012, 07:33 PM
Obama's not losing Ohio or PA.

Chocolate Hog
02-01-2012, 07:34 PM
Oh by the way, all you O'Donnell/Angle apologists out there who were all about purity, and we dont need RINO's, and we don't care if its Delaware and Republicans never, ever win here, and this is a chance of a lifetime to miraculously steal a dark-blue seat away, you still gotta support the tea party (and holy crap look at O'Donnell, aint she cute?) folks out there:

I haven't forgotten about you rocket scientists. If you nominated sane rational candidates in NV and DE, not only would Reid be a distant memory, but the Republicans would have an absolute guaranteed hammer-lock on getting the majority in the Senate in 2013 regardless of the presidency. Seriously, as in, "Obama could beat the crap out of Romney by 15, and the GOP would probably still win the Senate".

Its still likely, but now there's an outside chance that Reid could keep a slim majority for the next 2 years if Obama does well and has any coattails at all, and the next election in 2014 wont be nearly as logistically favorable for the GOP with quite a bit more seats to defend.

And it still wouldn't matter because the "sane" Republicans aren't serious about cutting the debt and would sell out on taxes.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2012, 07:58 PM
Amazing. The guy has failed at every turn and the Obots are still backing this loser

banyon
02-01-2012, 08:02 PM
Amazing. The guy has failed at every turn and the Obots are still backing this loser

I didn't see anyone "back him" in this thread. Are you on the crystal?

Making predictions or saying someone else's look sketchy (when they have problems that are pretty obvious) isn't backing anyone.

I think the Giants will win the SB, but I don't like them.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2012, 08:06 PM
I didn't see anyone "back him" in this thread. Are you on the crystal?

Making predictions or saying someone else's look sketchy (when they have problems that are pretty obvious) isn't backing anyone.

I think the Giants will win the SB, but I don't like them.


Ok then

Did you have a point or just feel a need to post?

banyon
02-01-2012, 08:11 PM
Ok then

Did you have a point or just feel a need to post?

I made my point. Others had no trouble following it.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2012, 08:16 PM
I made my point. Others had no trouble following it.

Sure you did

banyon
02-01-2012, 08:18 PM
Sure you did

Ever the fascinating insights.

alnorth
02-01-2012, 08:21 PM
Ok then

Did you have a point or just feel a need to post?

His point was: you concluded that people were overtly backing Obama in this thread. You were mistaken. There was only impartial attempts at neutral analysis without regard to each poster's personal preference.

The prediction in the link is highly flawed, and it was criticized. It doesn't take an Obama backer to wonder how the hell you can call PA, IA, and OR all for Romney.

HonestChieffan
02-01-2012, 09:26 PM
His point was: you concluded that people were overtly backing Obama in this thread. You were mistaken. There was only impartial attempts at neutral analysis without regard to each poster's personal preference.

The prediction in the link is highly flawed, and it was criticized. It doesn't take an Obama backer to wonder how the hell you can call PA, IA, and OR all for Romney.

And until the election we won't know. The data are interesting and do reflect a deeper dissatisfaction by many including indies and conservative Dems who realize Obama has yet to produce on his promises and campaign commitments

AlL predictions are flawed but when backed by reasonable data they can be predictive.

KCinNY
02-01-2012, 09:35 PM
The prediction in the link is highly flawed, and it was criticized. It doesn't take an Obama backer to wonder how the hell you can call PA, IA, and OR all for Romney.

Agree that the premise of the map graphic is highly flawed.

But even if you give Obama Pennsylvania, Iowa, Oregon and even throw in Ohio, he still short of the 270 needed to win.

Just sayin'.

alnorth
02-01-2012, 09:51 PM
Agree that the premise of the map graphic is highly flawed.

But even if you give Obama Pennsylvania, Iowa, Oregon and even throw in Ohio, he still short of the 270 needed to win.

Just sayin'.

I figured someone would make this argument, which by implication presumed this map was *AT ALL* valid outside those 3 states. It isn't. Again, approval <50% doesn't mean you lose the state. Kerry can tell you that you can't beat a weak vulnerable incumbent president with a nobody, no matter how good things look, and Obama is in better shape than Bush was.

We haven't gotten to the battlegrounds, the map in the OP presumed that Romney would deliver an incredibly large ass-kicking to Obama, which doesn't even pass the giggle test.

No one is conceding NV, FL, NH, OH, NM, CO, IN, VA, NC, etc

|Zach|
02-02-2012, 12:48 AM
Oh by the way, all you O'Donnell/Angle apologists out there who were all about purity, and we dont need RINO's, and we don't care if its Delaware and Republicans never, ever win here, and this is a chance of a lifetime to miraculously steal a dark-blue seat away, you still gotta support the tea party (and holy crap look at O'Donnell, aint she cute?) folks out there:

I haven't forgotten about you rocket scientists. If you nominated sane rational candidates in NV and DE, not only would Reid be a distant memory, but the Republicans would have an absolute guaranteed hammer-lock on getting the majority in the Senate in 2013 regardless of the presidency. Seriously, as in, "Obama could beat the crap out of Romney by 15, and the GOP would probably still win the Senate".

Its still likely, but now there's an outside chance that Reid could keep a slim majority for the next 2 years if Obama does well and has any coattails at all.
LMAO

ChiefaRoo
02-02-2012, 08:25 AM
Obama is going to lose. The US economy is bad and the guy doesn't lead. Romney will be President.

Amnorix
02-02-2012, 09:14 AM
Did you have a point or just feel a need to post?


Oh sweet irony...

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 09:25 AM
Amazing. The guy has failed at every turn and the Obots are still backing this loser

Getting more socialism is not a failure to them. Once you see it from their pov you'll that what is failure to them is success for the right. Different values.

boogblaster
02-02-2012, 09:28 AM
the bad is this .. big-gov in either party still means F*** us ......

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 09:44 AM
A good reason why, which I feel is true, despite the dissing of anecdotal evidence, the so called "science" of Keynesian numbers or when recessions technically begin is Mises' concept of Human Action:

The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates, or even monthly jobs numbers," White House senior adviser David Plouffe said at a Washington event on Wednesday. … People won't vote based on the unemployment rate, they're going to vote based on: “How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?”

Later on down:

Since World War II, only once has a president been reelected or party kept the White House when the unemployment rate was above 6%. That exception was Reagan in 1984 – and he benefitted from a rapidly declining unemployment rate - 10.8% peak to 7.2% - as well as his mass media savvy.


Never thought I'd agree with the Daily KOS on a domestic issue. If you skim the rest of the article their solution is to ask Obama not to run. They think it's just the man, not the ideas, which they still believe in. Cognitive Dissonance at work.

Anyhow here's their map:


http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j270/JohnnyGunn/Obama2012UnempFore2.jpg

alnorth
02-02-2012, 12:43 PM
Never thought I'd agree with the Daily KOS on a domestic issue. If you skim the rest of the article their solution is to ask Obama not to run. They think it's just the man, not the ideas, which they still believe in. Cognitive Dissonance at work.

Those guys are idiots, and its not hard to see the bias driving the author to this insane conclusion. (The west coast is up for grabs. ROFL)

Despite the ravings on the right about how much of a far-left socialist loon Obama is, the reality is he's acted like a moderate, and that has royally pissed off the far left, to the point where they bitterly regret not nominating Hillary.

If Obama had toed the line, was ultra-combative with the GOP in speeches and negotiation, and did everything or tried to do everything the Daily KOS folks wanted him to do, they would be confidently beating their chests right now about how Romney's going to get skunked.

Instead, they really, really don't like the guy, they think they have been sold out and betrayed, and that colors a lot of their analysis when Obama is involved.

ChiefaRoo
02-02-2012, 01:20 PM
Those guys are idiots, and its not hard to see the bias driving the author to this insane conclusion. (The west coast is up for grabs. ROFL)

Despite the ravings on the right about how much of a far-left socialist loon Obama is, the reality is he's acted like a moderate, and that has royally pissed off the far left, to the point where they bitterly regret not nominating Hillary.

If Obama had toed the line, was ultra-combative with the GOP in speeches and negotiation, and did everything or tried to do everything the Daily KOS folks wanted him to do, they would be confidently beating their chests right now about how Romney's going to get skunked.

Instead, they really, really don't like the guy, they think they have been sold out and betrayed, and that colors a lot of their analysis when Obama is involved.

The ultra left nominated an incompetent. At least Hillary has balls and the clarity that comes with them.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 01:34 PM
Those guys are idiots, and its not hard to see the bias driving the author to this insane conclusion. (The west coast is up for grabs. ROFL)
I am not relying on this for any specific prediction but just to show what former O-bots think. Like it or not these people are or were his base that helped elect him in 2008.

So I don't see the "bias" claim though since they were big O-bots in 2008. They're right in sync with Obama's ideology.

Despite the ravings on the right about how much of a far-left socialist loon Obama is, the reality is he's acted like a moderate, and that has royally pissed off the far left, to the point where they bitterly regret not nominating Hillary.

No that wouldn't make him a moderate it makes him a Corporatist. Only, if you define moderate as being between the current versions of the two-parties it might be moderate. That depends on what the two sides stand for though. Problem is both parties have shifted further left. The right are the national socialists aka corporatists and the left or international socialists. Look at the policies being recommended—not whether they sit between the two parties.

Obama is no moderate. No moderate shreds the Constitution and tries to rule by decree via EOs when he can't get his agenda passed through congress. Sorry this moderate label is a red herring.

If Obama had toed the line, was ultra-combative with the GOP in speeches and negotiation, and did everything or tried to do everything the Daily KOS folks wanted him to do, they would be confidently beating their chests right now about how Romney's going to get skunked.
True, but you know I didn't put that up because I am a Daily KOS person—they're the opposite of what I am. I am just being the messenger here. However how the economy and unemployment are perceived by the voting public, not govt stats, will drive this election. So they are right about that.

Instead, they really, really don't like the guy, they think they have been sold out and betrayed, and that colors a lot of their analysis when Obama is involved.

No I disagree, they once LOVED the guy and still adhere to Obama's real ideology.* They're disappointed in the results. They're wrong about how to fix things but they still love their ideology of govt solutions.

Obama has handlers. He doesn't really run the show entirely. Plus poor results means he has to shift in some of his opinions. In fact, I read that he is given multiple-choice memos to check off on from his advisors. If that's true, then he's just a puppet.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 01:37 PM
The ultra left nominated an incompetent. At least Hillary has balls and the clarity that comes with them.

She's a bigger war monger than Obama and Bush. She is a blood-thirsty Medusa. Surprising based on her former disdain for the military and her former anti-war activism of the 60's.

Calcountry
02-02-2012, 01:38 PM
Yeah I was rather shocked by those. Particularly OR. PA and IA I can see swinging to the right. Lot's of unemployment in those states.The R's did extremely well across the midwest.

Santorum on the ticket definitely puts the blue rust belt states in play.

Romney puts Michigan in play. Obama is on defense big time.

Calcountry
02-02-2012, 01:39 PM
She's a bigger war monger than Obama and Bush. She is a blood-thirsty Medusa. Surprising based on her former disdain for the military and her former anti-war activism of the 60's.You don't think she's pissed about a blue dress? Just a thought.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 01:42 PM
You don't think she's pissed about a blue dress? Just a thought.

:LOL: Well, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Calcountry
02-02-2012, 01:46 PM
I figured someone would make this argument, which by implication presumed this map was *AT ALL* valid outside those 3 states. It isn't. Again, approval <50% doesn't mean you lose the state. Kerry can tell you that you can't beat a weak vulnerable incumbent president with a nobody, no matter how good things look, and Obama is in better shape than Bush was.

We haven't gotten to the battlegrounds, the map in the OP presumed that Romney would deliver an incredibly large ass-kicking to Obama, which doesn't even pass the giggle test.

No one is conceding NV, FL, NH, OH, NM, CO, IN, VA, NC, etcWhile all those states were languishing in recession, all Obama could do, was force his Obamacare down the throats of the unwilling American people. A clear majority still opposes it.

The message was sent in 10, He isn't listening. He blew his whole wad of political capital on health care, filibuster proof senate. If it weren't for the establishment gop, we would have the senate right now, Obama owes them and that snake Reid. Now he proposes shit, that has no hope of passing, and cries about the do nothing Congress, half of which is the Dems in Senate. In conclusion, he pissed half his presidency on Obamacare, and half on getting reelected.

Sounds like a great president. 4 more years.

Calcountry
02-02-2012, 01:47 PM
:LOL: Well, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."How's Monica doing these days anyway?

Hell hath no fury like a woman spermed.

alnorth
02-02-2012, 02:54 PM
I'm of course using the common understanding of the word moderate, not whatever definitions you use or don't use.

No I disagree, they once LOVED the guy and still adhere to Obama's real ideology.* They're disappointed in the results. They're wrong about how to fix things but they still love their ideology of govt solutions.

Obama has handlers. He doesn't really run the show entirely. Plus poor results means he has to shift in some of his opinions. In fact, I read that he is given multiple-choice memos to check off on from his advisors. If that's true, then he's just a puppet.

No, they don't, at all. They are going to vote for him because they are stuck with him. This is not a case of "I don't get it, Obama did everything we wanted and it didn't work?" That couldn't be further from how they perceive and react to him.

It is hard to underestimate just how greatly disappointed and pissed off the left was at Obama for pushing Obamacare instead of the national single-payer system, how betrayed they felt when he dropped support for the public option to get a deal done, and how enraged they are at extending the Bush tax cuts and his willingness to give away the store last year to the GOP for a budget deal.

They do not like Obama at all because he has turned out to be far less liberal and non-combative than they expected, they wish they would have nominated Hillary instead, and now they are stuck with him in November as the lesser of two evils, in their eyes.

Because of this bias and the far left's anger at Obama, their analysis sometimes gets skewed when Obama's involved.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2012, 03:14 PM
I'm of course using the common understanding of the word moderate, not whatever definitions you use or don't use.
What exactly would that be then?

I've looked it up and it's a vague definition that doesn't tell us anything without any context as what is extreme is subjective and varies.

No, they don't, at all. They are going to vote for him because they are stuck with him. This is not a case of "I don't get it, Obama did everything we wanted and it didn't work?" That couldn't be further from how they perceive and react to him.

It is hard to underestimate just how greatly disappointed and pissed off the left was at Obama for pushing Obamacare instead of the national single-payer system, how betrayed they felt when he dropped support for the public option to get a deal done, and how enraged they are at extending the Bush tax cuts and his willingness to give away the store last year to the GOP for a budget deal.

They do not like Obama at all because he has turned out to be far less liberal and non-combative than they expected, they wish they would have nominated Hillary instead, and now they are stuck with him in November as the lesser of two evils, in their eyes.

Because of this bias and the far left's anger at Obama, their analysis sometimes gets skewed when Obama's involved.

Everyone has confirmation bias in this election...even moderates, but one thing we can count on is that it's volatile and so no one really knows. I know the left is disappointed in him, understandably so since he has done little of what he promised. Such as war etc. But his going for another war is hardly cut from moderate cloth.

I agree with part of what you say here [ like Obamacare*] but based on this article, they are saying he's going to lose based on the criteria of the economy and unemployment which is why I posted the criteria I posted. That is going to be BIG. So, I don't think that can be dismissed even by the far left. Using this criteria, removes them from their own ideology.

* If Obama could have got a govt universal pay system he would have done it. The process doesn't always favor that though. That doesn't make Obama, himself less of a left-winger, it just means it was what he got or nothing.

Amnorix
02-02-2012, 03:57 PM
She's a bigger war monger than Obama and Bush. She is a blood-thirsty Medusa. Surprising based on her former disdain for the military and her former anti-war activism of the 60's.


This is based on what, exactly? Other than your flaky notions of the world, I mean.

alnorth
02-02-2012, 06:15 PM
Things aren't looking good for Romney in Ohio (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/ohio-poll-obama-moves-ahead-as-romney-stumbles.php?ref=fpblg). Without that state, it gets awfully hard for the GOP to win.

Saul Good
02-02-2012, 09:05 PM
Things aren't looking good for Romney in Ohio (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/ohio-poll-obama-moves-ahead-as-romney-stumbles.php?ref=fpblg). Without that state, it gets awfully hard for the GOP to win.

The Democrat polling firm shows Romney trailing in Ohio? Shocking

alnorth
02-02-2012, 10:07 PM
The Democrat polling firm shows Romney trailing in Ohio? Shocking

PPP is not exactly a wild-eyed Democrat hack firm. If that is the argument you are trying to make, you pretty much lose all credibility.