44 Percent Say They Will Definitely Not Vote For Obama in 2012, 29 Percent Say They Definitely Will

Up a few percentage points from the August 2011 Reason-Rupe poll, President Barack Obama's approval rating is now 49 percent, with 47 percent of Americans disapproving of his job performance. A little more than half of those who approve of Obama's job performance say they will definitely vote for him in the 2012 general election, but a third were not ready to commit their votes, saying instead they would consider voting for him.

Among Americans who disapprove of Obama's job performance, 84 percent say they will definitely not vote for him and 11 percent will consider voting for him. Taken together, about a third of Americans plan to definitely vote for Obama in 2012, a quarter say they will consider voting for him, and a little less than half will definitely not vote for him. Obama's chances of winning will largely depend on the share of votes he can capture among those who are considering voting for him. Clearly, getting his job approval ratings up will help in this endeavor.

As you may know, the 2012 presidential election is less than a year away and President Barack Obama is running for re-election. Would you say you will definitely vote for him, you will consider voting for him, or you definitely will not vote for him? 

 

How would you rate the job performance of President Barack Obama? Would you say you approve or disapprove of his performance? 

Find full Reason-Rupe Q4 2011 poll results, question wording, and methodology here.

The Reason-Rupe Q4 2011 poll collected a nationally representative sample of 1200 respondents, aged 18 and older from all 50 states and the District of Columbia using live telephone interviews from December 1-13. Interviews were conducted on both landline and mobile phones. The margin of sampling error for this poll is +/- 3 percent.

Follow Emily Ekins on Twitter @emilyekins

Comments

[Cy Nickelfuque]

As you may know, the 2012 presidential election is less than a year away and President Barack Obama is running for re-election.

Gives me pause right there.

[The Other Kevin]

Wow, I had no idea that 71% of Americans are still racist. That is depressing.

[Eric Holder]

Welcome to my world, Kevin. I am fast becoming furious over this.

[Fist of Etiquette]

How can so many people say they definitely will or will not vote for him at this early point in the process? The Republicans haven't even nominated Romney yet to oppose him.

[Gannicus]

There will be a Team Blue and a Team Red candidate. What more do those people really need to know about who they will vote for?

[mad libertarian guy]

Nothing.

Every 2008 Obama voter I know I have asked one simple question: Will you vote again for him in 2012? Their answers have been as if they read it in a script, all being some variation of "it depends on who Team RED runs."

I take that to mean 1 of 2 things: 1) They will vote for Obama no matter what; 2) they will vote for Obama because it will be the "lesser of two evils".

[Federal Dog]

Because it's Barack Obama?

His history to date gives people ample grounds for refusal.

[R C Dean]

I continue to be gobsmacked that 49% of this country actually thinks Obama is doing a good job as President.

[Paul]

So, let me get this straight, the Definitelys went UP form 25% to 29%. So people who loved him in August, love him more five months later?

And the "considers" went from 29% in August to 23% in that same period, suggesting that people moved from 'consider' to 'definitely'.

Add the "definitelys" at 29% with the "considers" at 23%, that makes up 52% of the electorate with the full-frontal knowledge-of-fact with Obama's job performance, eagerness to enter into new conflicts, failure to meaningfully change any Bush-era policy?

Obama's a lock in 2012. A straight up lock.

I hope Romney's at least got his concession speech in draft-form...

[Invisible Finger]

People feel better after they go Christmas shopping.

[robc]

See my math below, yours sucks.

[Paul]

My math doesn't suck, I'm assuming that the 'considers' are going to vote for him at effectively 100% because I'm a cynical libertarian whose hopes and dreams have been repeatedly crushed by reality.

My reasoning for assuming nearly 100% of the considers will swing Obama is because in my little fucked up world, if at this point you're still "considering" Obama, there's no fucking hope for you.

Although Romney is close enough to Obama where it could be a toss-up.

We'll see whose math sucks on election day.

[PapayaSF]

I believe the rule of thumb is that undecideds tend to break against the incumbent, though.

[Paul]

But who are the 'undecideds' in this poll? The 4% "don't knows" or the 23% considerings?

[Paul]

Shyeah, I'm breaking this down further. The 44% "definitely not" are basically the republicans- including the 22 (not percent, but 22 total) or so Libertarians in this country.

Because of the well-established anyone-but-Romney attitude in the GOP, that means if Romney gets the nod, a shit ton of those GOPers are going to stay home and not vote. Meaning Obama's percentages go up on election day.

I guess I don't know why this pisses me off, because I've predicted a two-term Obama presidency since 2008. So, nothing to see here, move along.

[Barry D]

41% of voters VOTED for Jimmy Carter in 1980, didn't just respond to a poll. And that was a 3-way election with a moderately-popular independent running, so those weren't even simply "anybody but Reagan" votes.

I'm always surprised at the numbers of people who can be found who think or support some weird stuff.

If you polled people across the US, I'm guessing that you'd get close to 25% of respondents to support the following proposals...

Bring back Jim Crow
Adopt Communism
Ban petroleum
Make smoking a joint a capital crime
Imprison homosexuals

You get some weird results when you poll the population of a country like this one.

[Paul]

I think they did that and found a shocking percentage of people would support making interracial marriage illegal. But I'm too lazy to look it up.

Here in Seattle (and Washington state), you'd be amazed at the number of people who salute the nut-bag shit-crazy stuff that gets raised up the election-day flagpole around here.

The state shall supply Companion Monkeys to all low-income families: 49.4%

[Barry D]

Why not? They did it at airports and called it "security".

[Auric Demonocles]

But what percentage of Hit and Runners definitely not donate to alt-text less publications?

[anonymous commenter some guy]

This is evidence in support of Ron Paul's comment in that last debate that any of the Republican candidates could beat Obama. In only 4 years we have gone from "Any Democrat will do" to "Any Republican will do". Surely this is a sign of some underlying problems with our political process....

[robc]

Assume:

1. These numbers are accurate
2. Obama needs 50%+1 vote to win

Obama needs 21% out of the remaining 27%, or 78% of the undecided.

Literally, his only hope would be a 3 way race. In 1992, Bush got 37% of the vote, so lets say it takes 38% to win a 3-way race. Then, Obama would only need 9% of the 27%, or 33% of the undecided. Much more plausible.

[R C Dean]

That's the ratio I was looking at. Looks really bad for him right now.

Of course, there will be movement in his direction once we know exactly which soulless corpocrat the Repubs are going to put up.

[robc]

The GOP is going to nominate Paul. Im going to believe that until evidence suggests otherwise.

[BakedPenguin]

You mean "voters currently voting for a Republican". The GOP is going to do everything it can to avoid Paul.

[Paul]

The GOP is going to nominate Paul.

Nationally or in Iowa? Because I'd take that bet nationally. I don't see any way that Paul wins the nomination. And I want Paul to win the nomination more than in any previous election.

[robc]

Iowa numbers are the only ones that matter so far. I will look at NH once Iowa is over and SC once NH is over.

[cynical]

The totals at the bottom of the second chart don't actually match the sum of the previous rows (96%, 97%, and 96%_, since the "don't know" row is missing.

[?]

Obama needs 21% out of the remaining 27%, or 78% of the undecided.

And he wins the "consider vote" approval # by 3 to 1 up there.

78% sounds like a high mark to hit, but he's approaching 70% before there's a Republican candidate for non-Republicans to (be instructed to) hate personally?and for Republicans and con-symps to have no vote-motivating reason to favor over Obama.

Two-man race, O vs. Romney = O by ten. Maybe twelve.

[Paul]

This with bells on.

I appreciate robc's optimism, really I do. But at this point, it's still Obama vs [Cardboard Cutout]

When they finally paste Romneys photo over the Romney-shaped cardboard cutout, it's O in a slide.

[Paul]

Shorter: in '12, we're all gonna get to see the "O" face.

[robc]

Im not sure thinking Obama loses to Romney qualifies as "optimism".

[Paul]

I'm gleaning from your comments that you think there's a chance that Obama will lose to Paul because Romney will never win the nomination.

[protefeed]

Obama might win because it is hard to lose when you're running unopposed.

Romney might win the nomination because it's hard to lose when all the not-Romney candidates except Paul have flamed out, one by one.

[protefeed]

What's up with the people who disapprove of Obama's performance, but will vote for him anyway?

That's taking the lesser of two evils thing pretty far ...

[Paul]

"Disapprove" has a very nuanced meaning if you read between the lines.

"Disapprove" in the Obama context can mean he's not standing up to the Republican Juggernaut. It means that he's being too much of a statesman - Obama's biggest weakness to his supporters- and giving too much to the opposition.

[Jon Q. Publius]

According to Gingrich, anyone in favor of Gay marriage should vote for Obama, I presume regardless of what they think of his economic policies:

http://caucuses.desmoinesregis.....for-obama/