Obama job approval at 48% (Pollster)

[rollingrock]

Pollster was a very popular source of polling information here on DU during the 2008 campaign, so I was curious to see what their numbers show for the president's current job approval ratings. Pollster puts together the numbers from all the major national polls, so I consider them to be the most accurate source for polling information. The 48% figure is the average from many recent polls. Their site was also quite popular on DU during chimpy's 2nd term, when they were showing his steep and steady decline in the polls.




Job approval on healthcare: 40.6%




http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-presobama-health.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/USObamaJobPresHealth.xml&choices=Disapprove,Approve&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=">Healthcare

(as of Dec. 4, 2009)

Pollster Dates N/Pop Approve Disapprove Undecided
CBS/Times 12/4-8/09 1031 A 42 50 8
Bloomberg 12/3-7/09 1000 A 40 53 7
Marist College 12/2-7/09 858 RV 40 53 7
Quinnipiac 12/1-6/09 2313 RV 38 56 6
USA Today/Gallup 11/20-22/09 1017 A 40 53 7
Quinnipiac 11/9-16/09 2518 RV 41 53 6
CBS News 11/13-15/09 873 A 44 48 8
ABC/Post 11/12-15/09 1001 A 47 49 3
AP-GfK 11/5-9/09 1006 A 49 46 5
AP-GfK/RWJF/Stanford 10/29-11/8/09 1006 A 47 47 5
Pew 10/28-11/8/09 2000 A 43 47 10
Zogby (Internet) 11/4-6/09 2293 LV 39 59 1
YouGov/Polimetrix 11/1-3/09 1000 A 46 46 8
CNN 10/30-11/1/09 1018 A 42 57 2

...more
----------------------------------------------------------------


Overall job approval: 48.3%





http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php?xml=/flashcharts/content/xml/Obama44JobApproval.xml&choices=Approve,Disapprove&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=&trends=&lines=">Overall job approval

(as of Dec. 7, 2009)

Pollster Dates N/Pop Approve Disapprove Undecided
Rasmussen 12/7-9/09 1500 LV 46 53 -
CBS/Times 12/4-8/09 1031 A 50 39 11
Gallup 12/5-7/09 1500 A 50 45 -
PPP (D) 12/4-7/09 1253 RV 49 47 5
Bloomberg 12/3-7/09 1000 A 54 41 5
Marist College 12/2-7/09 858 RV 46 44 10
Rasmussen 12/4-6/09 1500 LV 49 50 -
Ipsos/McClatchy 12/3-6/09 1120 A 49 49 1
Quinnipiac 12/1-6/09 2313 RV 46 44 10
Gallup 12/2-4/09 1500 A 52 41 -
CNN 12/2-3/09 1041 A 48 50 2
Rasmussen 12/1-3/09 1500 LV 46 54 -

...more

[rurallib]

1. Got to give a lot of credit to the 95% RW media.

Constant negative bombardment has an effect.

[Ildem09]

4. right.

It couldn't have anything to do with Obama completely disregarding his base and his incessant need to be seen as everything to everybody. his desire to be the high school quarterback that is loved by everyone will be the down fall of his administration

[JuniperLea]

7. Awesome! I caught you at a mere 13 posts!

PLOINK!

Awwww... that spells relief!

[vadawg]

9. dude thats harsh lol

:) if you can see this that is...

[JuniperLea]

12. Totally!

:rofl:

I am sick and tired... I'm putting many I agree with on ignore too, just for the record. I have enough angst of my own, I don't need anyone else's!

:)

[vadawg]

16. wow im actually surprised that im not on ignore :)

lol

[JuniperLea]

23. Hey, don't take this as a sign you need to try harder!

:rofl:

[vadawg]

24. rofl, it will have to wait until monday as im going off shift for a long weekend

another day where no one died and we all get to go home, a good day...

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue-Jay]

20. Nice catch, Junie!

:rofl:

(but the term is "PLONK" - that's the sound of a heavy turd hitting a hollow log) :D

[JuniperLea]

22. See, you give him too much credit...

A turd? Really? A whole turd? I was thinking of a little drop of piss myself... ploink! :P

[JuniperLea]

39. Haha! Ignored must have been a real rat bastard to me in that last comment...

I see it was deleted! :rofl: And I wasn't the one to alert, because I couldn't see the damn post or the alert button! :rofl:

Life is good:) Karma done happened:)

[spanone]

42. really, please expound on your President Obama theory of high school quarterbacking....

[jgraz]

33. Not very likely.

The people who watch RW media already hated Obama. Nothing he could do would ever get their approval.

This drop is almost certainly from the left and independents. Obama is screwing his base and they're getting sick of it.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. bingo! n/t

[rurallib]

48. Yes, that is where the drop is from. But even the left & indys hear

dozens of times a day how bad Obama is just in passing when they go by a TV or watch the noon news or turn on their radio for the drive home.
There are many different ways to relate a story and the 95% RW media chooses words that paint an extremely negative story.

[jgraz]

50. Couldn't disagree more

I'm not Obama's biggest fan but nothing makes me want to stick up for him more than when I hear some right-wing tool tearing him down.

This is just my personal reaction but I think it applies to a lot of people. Nothing has helps to shore up Obama's left support more than attacks from the right.

[rurallib]

57. I don't think many people listen to radio or TV with a critical ear

So those 5 minute news blurbs every hour use negative words and connotations for anything to do with Dems. Without having your defense shields in place, it is very easy to walk away from one of those slowly forming a concept of incompetence in the admin whether it is true or not.
Even the vaunted NPR is guilty.

[bluestateguy]

2. Gosh, that's great news for President McCain

And the point is....

[rollingrock]

3. McCain won't be running again

(for president) he's much too old.

[notesdev]

11. not only that

he'd lose to "none of the above" in a one-on-one matchup

[Fearless]

5. Well I don't approve of his job as of this morning so...

I guess polls can be misleading.

[Blue-Jay]

6. Honestly, that's not so bad statistically.

I don't approve of many of his choices, but I'd still vote for him in a heartbeat. I wouldn't sit on my ass during an election or vote for some "perfect" third-party mook because I'm so ideologically pure.

[rollingrock]

13. It's getting worse everyday

when you see the black line going down very steadily on a downward path, that means his job approval is getting worse and worse by the day, so that cannot be a good sign.

[Blue-Jay]

18. Do you consider that to be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

[rollingrock]

25. It's not a good thing for the Obama administration

nt

[Blue-Jay]

28. Statistically, it's not bad. Look it up.

I don't want to "go there", but I need to ask:

Are you posting these stats as some sort of personal validation, or are you instead honestly concerned about these numbers?

Trust me, I'm no "cheerleader" or "true believer" or any other popular derogatory name that some people like to invoke. There are plenty of problems that I have with the current administration's handling of important issues. I still think that he was the best person for the job, given all other viable options.

[rollingrock]

29. For the same reason

that DUers were constantly posting polls of Bush's approval ratings on a daily basis, especially during his 2nd term. that is, to start a dialogue and get people's various input and interpretation of the numbers.

[Blue-Jay]

30. So you're just providing numbers as a public service,

and not seeking some sort of misguided vindication?

For the record, 24% is much different than 48%.

Thanks for posting some actual statistics. Much appreciated.

[rollingrock]

31. What do you mean by 24%?

if you are trying to compare Bush's approval rating at the end of his 2nd term to Obama's approval rating at or near the end of his first year in office, then I think it is you who is being misguided. at this rate, Obama may indeed be headed towards Bush-like approval ratings by the end of his term.

[Blue-Jay]

32. I wasn't the person trying to make that comparison.

Quote:

"DUers were constantly posting polls of Bush's approval ratings on a daily basis, especially during his 2nd term. that is, to start a dialogue and get people's various input and interpretation of the numbers."

Did you forget posting that?

[rollingrock]

34. So you object to my posting a poll

only because you do not like the results of the poll?

what if the poll showed a 70% approval rating? would you be asking such a silly question as to why I would be posting the poll?

or do you prefer that the polls be censored only when the results are not favorable for you?

[Blue-Jay]

35. I don't object to any statistical results.

I actually thanked you for posting the poll, didn't I?

You're just making shit up now. I *did* ask about your reason for posting this poll (a question that you didn't answer), but I never argued with the data, nor did I disagree. I even said that I'm no big "fan" of Obama's policies. So, WTF? Why don't you answer the questions that I posted instead of trying to move the goalposts?

I don't give two rat turds about polls that are favorable/unfavorable to me. I'm interested in the data, and I'm also interested in your interpretation of the data. In good faith, I asked you some questions, and instead of posting an answer, you decided to attempt to back me into some imagined corner. Bad form, and I'm not falling for it.

I'll restate my original post: Statistically, those results are not too bad. (you know what statistics are, right?)

I'll also restate that I'm no Obama-worshiper. I think he was the best of viable candidates, but some of his positions (or LACK of positions) are reprehensible to me. Don't try to categorize me, therefore discounting me. Only a suckass ideologue would do that.

[rollingrock]

36. Why are you asking me the reason for posting this?

why does anyone ever start a new thread about anything on DU? its a very strange question to ask. you might as well ask anyone who has ever started a new thread on DU their reason for doing so.

[Blue-Jay]

38. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I often am.)

Here's what I think:

1. You’ve never really liked Barack Obama. (Which is fine with me. That’s your right, and I’d never try to change your mind. That’s OK.)

2. You posted this poll as some sort of vindication of your views. (Which is also fine, but I don’t think that you have a good understanding of Approval Ratings, considering statistics and past presidents. No big deal. Not everybody understands everything – maybe you’re good at macramé.)

3. You seem to think that not hating Obama is the same as loving Obama . (That’s a logical fallacy that many people seem to fall into. I don’t blame you for that, but it’s a very simplistic way of viewing things. Sure, I don’t regret my vote for him, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with All Things Obama. That assumption could not be further from the truth.)

4. It seems like you’re trying to make a point, but you’re afraid of stating what that point actually is. (Don’t be afraid. It’s OK. Make your point. Say what's on your mind. That's what message boards are for.)

[rollingrock]

40. I like Obama just fine

it is his many of his regressive policies that I do not like. I know politics seems to be little more than a popularity contest for some people, but to me I will judge them on their actual policies and not their personality traits, which I could care less about. I'll leave that stuff to the tabloids and fashion magazines.

[Blue-Jay]

41. OK.

I'm officially too bored to continue this.

[rollingrock]

44. Sorry if policy talk bores you.

would you prefer to talk about where Obama will spend his Christmas vacation this year or his holiday fashion choices?

[Blue-Jay]

51. I'll readily admit that I'm not the smartest guy in the world, BUT

when did you attempt to to discuss policy? I sometimes skim threads, but I don't see any attempt by you to talk about policy. I'd appreciate it if you'd point me to a single post in this thread where you say anything about policy.

You & I probably agree about most issues.

Where is the policy-discussion? I don't see it.

(and no, policy talk doesn't bore me. YOU bore me.)

[rollingrock]

53. When I said that I was interested in Obama's policies,

not his personality, you said that it bored you.

I guess the feeling is mutual, because YOU bore me too with your vapid questions.

[Blue-Jay]

54. "vapid questions" that you never answered.

Whatever. You're about as interesting as dog poop.

I tried to be nice. I tried to engage you in actual discussion. (really, I did) You, however, are apparently unable to have a discussion that is more in depth than "NO, YOU!", so I guess we're done. I'd like to say that it was enjoyable, but it was an exercise in stupidity and a waste of keystrokes.

[rollingrock]

55. Do you suffer from ADD?

I know that for you discussion politics doesn't go beyond 'liking him' or 'not liking him,' and apparently you are easily bored by any talk that doesn't involve that. I guess the feeling is mutual, because you bore me to death with that tabloid stuff.

[Blue-Jay]

56. Oh good lord...

I already said that "discussion politics" is not a yes/no situation.

No, I don't suffer from ADD or ADHD or Ass-boogers or whatever.

Where did you get the idea that I like "that tabloid stuff"? What does that even mean?

I'm done. Go ahead and keep out-stupiding yourself. I tried to engage in honest conversation with you, but you're not capable of that. Thanks to your replies, everyone sees you for what you are. Congrats, and Merry X-Mas! I hope that you and your family enjoy a wonderful holiday season.

[Alexander]

8. His *disapproval* is at 46.6%, his *approval* is at 48.3%.

You might want to change your headline for the sake of accuracy.

[rollingrock]

14. You're right

my mistake.

[JVS]

10. Rarely has a politician sacrificed so much political capital for such a shitty legislative result

[deaniac21]

15. Wish he would make a stand. I thought when he went from

legislative to executive he would take command instead of voting present.

[anonymous171]

27. He instead of shooting for the stars, he shot for compromise and ended up in a heap of shit

That's why compromise for the sake of compromise is dumb.

[Thickasabrick]

17. Wasn't Clinton at 37% after 8 months? nt

[dysfunctional press]

52. and if the job numbers go up, his approval numbers will go up...but if they don't, they won't.

[Marr]

21. Blue Dogs? How do you explain this?

You can't really blame the mean old corporate media if the people to your left aren't.

[stiplic]

26. Maybe if he learned how to act like a PROGRESSIVE

he would do well.

[FarLeftFist]

37. Actually, according to FOX "news" his numbers went up....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579944,00.html?test=latestnews

Ironic.

[bigwillq]

45. And it'll be 52 next week, and 45 the next and 54 the next

Why are some here so consumed and obsessed with approval ratings? :shrug: They will go up and down a million times in the next three years.

[rollingrock]

47. But the chart is not fluctuating

it shows only a steady downward movement ever since the peak high in January or February.
if this trend continues his approval ratings will only get worse as time goes on.

[bemildred]

46. So does the polllster have a good approval rating?

If the pollster doesn't have a good approval rating, maybe we should just ignore what he has to say.

[seeinfweggos]

49. not all that shabby considering the unemployment numbers

obama's fate is tied directly to the level of joblessness