Barack Obama peaked in our national polling at a 55/38 spread last May. Now he's at 48/47. What's most interesting to note about that shift in his numbers is that it has come completely among white people. In May his approval with racial minorities was a 73/17 spread and now it's an almost identical 77/17. But with whites he's fallen from slightly positive ground at 48/45 to strongly negative territory at 37/58.
That is part of the problem for Democrats this year in the midterm election. While white voters were only 74% of the electorate in 2008, they made up 79% of it in 2006 the last time there wasn't a Presidential contest on the ballot. So before taking anything else into account the party is at a disadvantage simply because of the likely demographics of the electorate.
It's important not to jump to too many conclusions about 2012 based on what happens this fall though- just because a whiter electorate helps contribute to Republican victories this year doesn't mean all those nonwhite voters won't be back to the polls to reelect Obama in 2012. But Obama probably does need to get his numbers with whites turned around if he's going to get reelected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"Obama probably does need to get his numbers with whites turned around if he's going to get reelected."
...especially when you consider that minorities are concentrated geographically. Blacks are concentrated in the south, which is generally unwinnable for Democrats. Hispanics are concentrated in the Southwest, where Obama only won marginally and is experiencing significant slippage. Asians are concentrated in areas Democrats reliably win: CA, NY, university towns, etc.
Obama's slippage among whites makes him vulnerable not only nationally, but especially vulnerable in key states like NH, MO, OH, IN, MI, IA, NC, VA, PA, OR, WA.
Obama needs white states to win reelection. And if Democrats get smart about how vulnerable Obama really is, he will discover that he needs white support to win a contested renomination.
How much $upport have the Democrats LO$T in the past year?
"Consider these six numbers: 62, 53, 54, 60, 60, 53.
Those numbers are the percentage of voters who supported Barack Obama last year in Westchester and Nassau Counties in New York, Bergen and Middlesex Counties in New Jersey, Fairfax County in Virginia, and Bucks County in Pennsylvania, respectively.
Now, here are the percentages of the vote that the top-of-the-ticket Democratic candidates got in each of those counties this year: 43, 48, 48, 44, 49, 45.
...these six counties ...(are) among the wealthiest in the nation. There are 3,141 counties in the United States; ranked by median household income, Nassau ranks 12th highest nationally, Westchester ranks 47th, Bucks ranks 76th. ... Fairfax County ranks 2nd; Bergen ranks 28th, Middlesex ranks 68th"
http://article.nationalreview.com/415848/a-tale-of-six-counties/jim-geraghty
Is it the fault of Whites that Obama pursued an unpopular agenda? In a lot of polls you can see Obama's popularity has dropped among all groups, not just among whites. Please don't blame those of us who are light skinned for Pres. Obama's popularity ratings.
Sad how people think this is race. Has nothing to do with race. has to do with adding debt, a campaign that was not honest.
How many of you get 6 weeks vacation to which is cover by tax dollars
mrs obama has a staff of 24, all other first ladies have a staff of 1-3, if they wanted a personal hair dresser it was paid for out of there personal salaries, this are small yet show' how the pres and his administration are using your money and the saying goes. WHEN THE PRES TALKS TOUGH CHOICES NEEDS TO START FROM THE TOP DOWN. INCLUDING THE PRES. MANAGING AND LOWERING WHIS BUDGET AND THE WASTED SPENDING. NO DIFFERENT THEN A FAMILY. A pres nor anyone can ask a business cut your pay, if you are not willing to do this yourself you CANNOT ask this of others.
he should have let them fall, not bail them out.
now lets bail out only sertain states, campaing for a senator we all no will lose. if a senator cannot win on his own does NOT DESERVE TO BE IN OFFICES.
this is why the pres is losing everyone one..there is an African american running in north carolina. HUMBLES HONEST AND I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM 2 HANDS UP. It is not about taking care of the poor, white, african american. it is HAVE A DREAM AND GO FOR IT STOP THE PITTY PARTY
Given the numbers being provided here, showing Obama's current approval/disapproval ratings at 48/47 overall, doesn't at all reflect how well (or not) the President is actully doing amongst likely voters in this country. By taking the approval/disapproval numbers as stated here for minorities
(77%/17%) and then for whites
(37%/58%), multiplied by the percentage of U.S. white voters
(81%) versus those attributable to U.S. minority voters (19%), as determined by the most recent government census (see www.2010.gov), the approval/unapproval numbers for Obama changes to 44.6/50.2 (-5.6%) By the way, I am not attempting here to discount or discredit the numbers that you have provided, in respects to the percentage of white voters in the elections of 2006/2010. considering the lack of support/ enthusiasm amongst conservatives and independents towards the GOP (in general) during those particular years (hence, lower GOP white voter turnout), your numbers seem to me, as quite reasonable. In any event, the numbers, as provided by me, are, in fact, a little more generous, in favor of Obama, than those as shown by the most recent Rasmussen Poll; of which shows the approval/unapproval ratings for Obama to be 45/53 (-8%). Additionally, that same (Rasmussen) poll shows that voters of whom strongly approve/disapprove of Obama's performance as President are 23%/40% (-17%). Irrespective of how one chooses to interpret the census/poll numbers, it nonetheless seems quite apparent to me that the prospects for Obama and the Democratic party (in general)for elections being held later this year and 2012 are looking rather bleak, if not disasterous. What a difference a year can make. Astounding!
We have found nine polls in House districts that clearly illustrate the high cost to a House member who voted for the Pelosi version of health care in the House. All nine of these House members are in districts that are at risk for a Republican pick-up in November. Seven of them voted for the health care and two did not. See the table at: http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2010/02/high-cost-of-voting-for-obama-care_21.html.
As you can see every Democrat who voted for the Pelosi health care bill is either losing or tied at best. On the other hand, both Democrats who voted against the bill are ahead. We don't know about you but to us this is a very powerful message. Voting for Obama care in any of its various forms is the kiss of death politically speaking. A yes vote was very costly already and that is before ads appear pointing out this vote in the worst possible light. There is still time for the Democrats in competitive districts to save themselves because the Democrat leadership is stuck on stupid and planning to put all of these Democrats on the spot with another health care vote and thereby seal their fate.
Far be it for us to give Democrat House members any advice but it comes down to voting for Obama care or getting re-elected because they are mutually exclusive. Still it would seem to us that voting against Obama care this time around would allow a Democrat to counter those very damaging ads by pointing out in their own counter ads their second vote on the subject and say that they listened to their constituents and changed their minds and their votes. Reps. Kissell and Spratt clearly are already benefiting from their no votes and it is apparently not too late for other Democrat House members to do the same.
I am very interested to see what percentage of eligible voters actually vote in the 2010 elections. Midterms, correct me if I'm wrong, usually have a lower turn out, but I am very curious to see if the Tea Party movement and frustration in general actually motivate people to get out and vote.
As far as approval ratings by race, I think that factor isn't going to be as decisive as the question of what the heck is he going to run on? Everything he's been promoting (mostly Health Care) is so unpopular I don't really see any way for him to justify the need for 4 more years... but he has surprised me before.
This is nothing but meaningless statistical noise. If you look back you will see that Clinton's approval never moved much one way or another with blacks. They overwhelmingly support democrats. They have for years. This has nothing to do with Obama.
Post a Comment