Obama's chances at re-election "Gallup-ing" off into the sunset.

President Obama was recently polling at 38 percent approval in South Dakota, according to new Gallup poll. He’s also at 38 percent in Nebraska, at 37 percent in North Dakota, 34 percent in Montana, and 28 percent in Wyoming.

Read the entire story here.

25 Replies to “Obama's chances at re-election "Gallup-ing" off into the sunset.”

  1. Anonymous

    If my math is correct, that’s a whopping 17 delegates going Romney’s way if all of the states you’ve mentioned vote Republican. Were any of them ever expected to support Obama?

  2. MJL

    Did you read the whole article? “If Obama were to win in the states in which a majority of residents approved of the job he was doing across the first six months of the year, he would have roughly two-thirds of the electoral votes he would need to be re-elected. That seems a reasonable possibility, given that those states have generally voted for the Democratic candidate in recent presidential elections.

    Under that scenario, Obama would then need roughly 90 more electoral votes to win re-election. Whether he can reach that total will depend on how those in key swing states, particularly Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, view him, and whether turnout of those who approve of him in those states exceeds turnout of those who disapprove.” Boy things look bad when you already have about 66% of the electoral college locked up needed for re-election.

    In those close states, there is some other polls that should be a concern for Romney: “Last week, a Mitchell Research poll gave Romney a 45%-44% lead in Michigan, well within the margin of error, but several other recent polls have shown Obama ahead in the state — which he won by 16 points in 2008. Rasmussen Reports had Obama leading Romney by 6 points last week, while Public Policy Polling put his lead at 14 points.”
    “Obama leads Romney 50 percent to 44 percent in Ohio, according to Quinnipiac University?s Swing State Poll.”
    “The Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll showed Obama leading his Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Florida 51%-45%, in Ohio 50%-44%, and in Pennsylvania 53%-42%. Florida and Ohio are considered toss-ups in November’s general election, while Pennsylvania is rated “lean Obama” on CNN’s Electoral Map.”

  3. Lee Schoenbeck

    I would agree with the commentators above, except for a couple of realities:
    (1) undecideds break against incumbents – has always been true and will be this time (it?s probably because if they are undecided on the known entity, they have already decided to take their vote elsewhere)
    (2) look at the Obama trend in those states – his supporter above noted (with a positive spin!) Obama dropping 17 points in Michigan from 3 and 1/2 years ago. With 100 days to go, and a trend line that is wind in your face, Obama’s people have to know that time is not their friend. (ask the first George Bush about that phenomenon – and he even had a “recovered” economy by election day)
    (3) Cash is king and Rove and crew have about a billion of it coming into the race in the next 100 days. Anybody think that will have no impact?
    (4) finally – as this analysis ignores Obama’s opponent, and Obama’s supporters find refuge there — while ignoring their own history. In 2008 voters didn’t know Obama, and mostly didn’t care – he was a “change”. While Obama’s people are putting a lot of negative bucks into getting Romney known as they want him known, that hail mary is probably the only option they have (PS anybody seen an ad yet where Obama is bragging about his accomplishments — pretty glaring admission)

    1. MJL

      Remember though that right now many polls are reporting that only about 4% of the voting public in those states are undecided. I know that the number is not set in stone and that it is probably like 10%, but that is interesting so many would be locked in stone this early.

  4. Spencer

    Wow. George W. Bush’s lowest state approval rating from the 2004 exit polls came from Massachusetts with a job approval of only 36%. He ended up losing the state 62 to 37%, which will likely be close to the margin Obama will lose South Dakota by. Additionally, George W. Bush did not win a state in 2004 according to the exit polls with an approval rating of 50% or lower. He narrowly lost both PA and MI with approval ratings right at 50% on Election Day and needed 53% approval in NM and Ohio and 54% approval in Iowa to win those three states by the slimmest of margins. If Obama thinks he is going to win states with less than 50% by trashing Romney and increasing the base?s turnout, what exactly does he think Bush and his allies were doing to Kerry in 2004? It has been tried before, and it is not going to work for Obama with approval numbers this low.

  5. Anonymous

    I think we are deluding ourselves. Slick Willard Mitt Romney isn’t that well liked or trusted either. The real question for republicans is: how do we make sure our base turns out to vote? Palin was McCain’s answer.

  6. Anonymous

    Now we know why Herseth didn’t want to challenge Kristi in a rematch for congress. Obama is still pulling Dems down in red states.

  7. Troy Jones

    Bill,

    Nate does a good job. However, he projects that a majority of the undecided’s will go Obama. The difficulty in me believing it is Obama’s numbers in the swing states is roughly equal to his job approval number. So Nate is projecting that a majority of those who disapprove of his job approval will vote for him anyway. He might be right but it seems unlikely to me. Give Romney the 60% of the undecided (see Lee’s point plus remember almost all undecided went Noem vs. Herseth) he is giving Obama and the numbers virtually flip.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think this is going to be whisper close.

  8. Bill Fleming

    Trou? Gawd, my typing is ridiculous today…. Sorry, TroY. (…gotta admit, that was a pretty funny typo though, huh?

  9. Lee Schoenbeck

    Bill – that link is to a Democrat political activist’s blog post, who writes for a mag that endorsed Obama:

    Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, and a Special Correspondent for The New Republic.

    Anybody,a nd that includes you, that has been around campaigns enough to see the polling numebrs in real time and then see the results after the votes are counted – knows that the undecideds rule is based on decades of empirical evidence. But, I don’t blame you for pitching the “earth is flat” perspective – you gotta throw whatever the best is you got in the bag 🙂

  10. Bill Fleming

    Lee, it’s a comment on Nate Silver’s analysis. There are numerous others.

    I figured you would go head Silver’s analysis from there, but if not, here’s a direct link:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule.html

    You really should read it, Lee. Your thinking is old school and no longer considered “conventional wisdom.” Sorry to be the one to break it to ya, brother.

    p.s. It’s also not especially smart to make a snap judgement based on your quick reaction to a source link, but then, you knew that, right ;^)

  11. Bill Fleming

    The long and short of it Lee, is that if the election were held today, your guy would be toast, no matter how much money your guys and their guys wanna throw at it. And further, my hunch is, Romney’s numbers now are probably as good as they’re ever going to get (unless he can figure out a way to pull a rabbit out of a hat.)

    1. Oldguy

      Bill you are talking about what if’s that really don’t matter because the election isn’t today. A lot can happen by Nov.

      1. Anonymous

        Old guy, technically, I’m taking about Troy, Lee and Pat’s what-ifs not being quite as what and if as they might suppose. But yes, like I said, it’s always possible that Mitt can find a way to turn things around. What I find interesting is the denial that he’s behind, because he is.

  12. Lee Schoenbeck

    Flemdog –
    Read the Silver article. He is only talking about polls that are done 5 to 11 months out:
    “This analysis focuses only on early polls: those conducted between January and June of an incumbent’s election year. I do not attempt to evaluate such claims with respect to late polls, such as those conducted in the weeks immediately preceding an election. It is late polls which are traditionally the subject of the so-called “incumbent rule”, which is the idea that voters who remain undecided late in the race tend to break toward the challenger at the ballot booth. (Note, however, the evidence for the late version of the incumbent rule is also mixed.)”

    If you want a political scientist read that explains why undecideds break for challengers, the book to read is Coming To Public Judgment and I probably have a copy on my bookshelf at the office I would borrow out.

    1. Anonymous

      We’re getting closer, Lee. In races where the incumbent is polling under 50% a month from now…