• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's approval rating at 45%

I live in the Universe of truth, where we look at polls that don't select their own polling groups to make Obama look worse.

I was looking at Gallup, which had him at 5 more points then about a week ago.


The right likes Rasmussen. It's amusing.


But, re: Gallup, I don't know what caused the rise. I'm interested too. They didn't have a story accompanying the poll yesterday. Maybe they will today or tomorrow.
 
WOW, if you mean the universe of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and going "LALALALALALALA I Can't Hear You,LALALALALALALALALA" Then I might agree with your statement. Okay, let's take it from the top, Zogby, Ipsos, and Rasmussen all have Barack Obama at 45% as of this period of time, ...


Zogby flat out sucks, Rasmussen polls (except election polling) are deliberately skewed to the right, and Ipsos/McClatchy's latest poll showed 56% approval.

Gallup did show a 5 point increase, and that is what the poster was asking about. A quite reasonable question, and not cause for a partisan attack.
 
Oh, the right loves them some Rasmussen
Yeah, it's funny what factual and unbiased results will do for polling credibility. Okay, listen carefully, Rasmussen is a center-left individual, so is Zogby, they don't let their political preferences hinder the results because they care about their credibility.
 
Zogby flat out sucks, Rasmussen polls (except election polling) are deliberately skewed to the right, and Ipsos/McClatchy's latest poll showed 56% approval.
Were you saying the same thing when they had George W. Bush's presidential approval ratings at 20%, which was lower than the media and gallup polling?

Gallup did show a 5 point increase, and that is what the poster was asking about. A quite reasonable question, and not cause for a partisan attack.
*Sigh* Did you even bother to look back at the subgroups and wonder why he has a net gain when he loses in every three day sample in every singe subgroup?
 
Yeah, it's funny what factual and unbiased results will do for polling credibility. Okay, listen carefully, Rasmussen is a center-left individual, so is Zogby, they don't let their political preferences hinder the results because they care about their credibility.

What's funny is that the right thinks a polling firm who is consistently demonstrated to be the outlier has factual and unbiased results. Listen carefullly, Rasmussen is NOT center left. And Zogby just sucks.




Were you saying the same thing when they had George W. Bush's presidential approval ratings at 20%, which was lower than the media and gallup polling?

*Sigh* Did you even bother to look back at the subgroups and wonder why he has a net gain when he loses in every three day sample in every singe subgroup?


Show me where in the Gallup poll he lost in every single subgroup and yet has a net gain.
 
What's funny is that the right thinks a polling firm who is consistently demonstrated to be the outlier has factual and unbiased results. Listen carefullly, Rasmussen is NOT center left. And Zogby just sucks.
Right, because it makes your guy look bad because his administration sucks.







Show me where in the Gallup poll he lost in every single subgroup and yet has a net gain.
Post 99 has a link to the actual data and methodology.
 
Right, because it makes your guy look bad because his administration sucks.


Post 99 has a link to the actual data and methodology.

First, wrong on the reason for not relying on Rasmussen. 'Outlier' actually means something when discussing polls. Take a look at the post where major polls showed results not at all like Rasmussen's 45% ...


And, your post 99 with a link to data and methodology has absolutely nothing to do with yesterday's poll. It's data and methodology are for four weeks, the last of which was Aug 24 - Aug 30 .... obviously that has nothing to do with a poll on Sept 3.


:doh
 
Okay, let's take it from the top, Zogby, Ipsos, and Rasmussen all have Barack Obama at 45% as of this period of time, they had him at 85% approval at the beginning of his presidency less than a year ago, this is the FASTEST drop in approval ratings since political polling began.


Obama was at 85% approval a year ago??

...you wanna link to that please? :doh
 
And, your post 99 with a link to data and methodology has absolutely nothing to do with yesterday's poll. It's data and methodology are for four weeks, the last of which was Aug 24 - Aug 30 .... obviously that has nothing to do with a poll on Sept 3.


:doh
Yeah, okay, guess you missed that the four weeks were broken up into three day subgroups.:doh
 
Yeah, okay, guess you missed that the four weeks were broken up into three day subgroups.:doh

It doesn't matter what subgroups they were broken up into.
An analysis that ended on Aug 30 has nothing to do with a poll published on Sep 3, which would be, btw, a three-day rolling average of Aug 31, Sep 1, and Sep 2. Not one of those days were in your analysis ended on Aug 30.

This really isn't rocket science. What you posted has nothing to do with the poll I posted.
 
obama's entire agenda is completely pfft

losers, all---cap and trade, the public option, personal diplomacy with iran, reaching out to rogues and runts, blaming bush, closing gitmo, investigating "torture," prosecuting cheney, paygo, cash for clunkers, cutting the deficit in half, czars like van jones, afghanistan, addressing school kids, the stimulus, the car takeovers, bailouts and bonuses for bums and bunglers, ending rendition, ending detention, ending don't ask don't tell, reversing the patriot act, ending earmarks, hiring lobbyists, hiring tax cheats, putting legislation online, transparency, card check, taxing medical benefits (the mccain plan), taxing folks under 250G, deficits at 13% of gdp (keynesian suicide)...

what great obamite ambition remains within the restricted reach of the Already Irrelevant?

minimum wage?

he had it all---both houses, 60 senators, a thrilled media, an entire world all hyped and hyphy for him, the good will of all americans...

he's a loser

sorry
 
It doesn't matter what subgroups they were broken up into.
An analysis that ended on Aug 30 has nothing to do with a poll published on Sep 3, which would be, btw, a three-day rolling average of Aug 31, Sep 1, and Sep 2. Not one of those days were in your analysis ended on Aug 30.

This really isn't rocket science. What you posted has nothing to do with the poll I posted.
Okay Mr. Statistical master, then answer why the trend is downward consistently, there are no bumps up, and he is losing support in typically democrat friendly sub-groups of voters, he won't win Republicans, but he is losing Independents and Democrats, he is losing Minorities and every single income bracket, yet he got a 5 point bump up? Sure, sub-groups don't matter.:rofl
 
Okay Mr. Statistical master, then answer why the trend is downward consistently, there are no bumps up, and he is losing support in typically democrat friendly sub-groups of voters, he won't win Republicans, but he is losing Independents and Democrats, he is losing Minorities and every single income bracket, yet he got a 5 point bump up? Sure, sub-groups don't matter.:rofl


I am neither a statistical master, nor a Mr, but the answer to your question is simple. You simply do not understand that an analysis of polls that pre-date your poll have nothing to do with your poll.

This isn't even statistics. This is basic logic.

Find an analysis that actually discusses the poll in question, and we'll have something to talk about.
 
I am neither a statistical master, nor a Mr, but the answer to your question is simple. You simply do not understand that an analysis of polls that pre-date your poll have nothing to do with your poll.
Sorry bout the Mr. Thing, but trends matter when there is a constant rate of either incline or decline, when there is an uptick in Obama's ratings then dismissing older data will be relevent, or even when the trend levels off, but until then, what we have is a downward trending of all concievable blocks, also keep in mind that we are talking about a less politically relevant poll because this one includes those unlikely to vote as well as likely voters, unlike the more accurate Rasmussen/Zogby polls.

This isn't even statistics. This is basic logic.
Nope, sorry, but it is illogical to disregard any methodology used, especially when the counter argument is not compatable with the result
 
Last edited:
Sorry bout the Mr. Thing, but trends matter when there is a constant rate of either incline or decline, when there is an uptick in Obama's ratings then dismissing older data will be relevent, or even when the trend levels off, but until then, what we have is a downward trending of all concievable blocks, also keep in mind that we are talking about a less politically relevant poll because this one includes those unlikely to vote as well as likely voters, unlike the more accurate Rasmussen/Zogby polls.

Nope, sorry, but it is illogical to disregard any methodology used, especially when the counter argument is not compatable with the result


No problem on the Mr, but to re-iterate, you simply do not understand that an analysis that predates a poll has nothing to do with the poll in question. The link to the analysis you posted discussed absolutely nothing about the poll in question. I could not. It was written before the poll was taken.

Wait a few days, I'm sure Gallup will post an article on recent approval ratings changes. Which would be relevant.
 
No problem on the Mr, but to re-iterate, you simply do not understand that an analysis that predates a poll has nothing to do with the poll in question. The link to the analysis you posted discussed absolutely nothing about the poll in question. I could not. It was written before the poll was taken.

Wait a few days, I'm sure Gallup will post an article on recent approval ratings changes. Which would be relevant.
Here's the deal, I hate political polling, politicians are disingenous and they use the polls to stay employed, this leads to the current mess we have in both of the major parties, I would much rather a system that forces representatives and executives to play the cards based on their ideologies and let things fall where they may. But the reality is we have political polling, and to disregard any analytical data is illogical, that would be like a baseball game with only a limited amount of statistics and declaring a certain winner, not taking into account the sub-variables like how well a hitter handles a given pitcher, how many steals a team allows, a pitchers era versus a team, etc. The fact is these groups were included in analysis without any blips or fluxuations, the trend is constant and down, I do get what you are saying about waiting a few days, but don't see a positive change with the way things are going.
 
Here's the deal, I hate political polling, politicians are disingenous and they use the polls to stay employed, this leads to the current mess we have in both of the major parties, I would much rather a system that forces representatives and executives to play the cards based on their ideologies and let things fall where they may. But the reality is we have political polling, and to disregard any analytical data is illogical, ....


ia w/ you on political polling, however, there IS no analytical data article on the gallup poll posted. Once again, analytical data for a previous poll is not relevant to a subsequent poll. When there IS an analytical data article or chart available for that poll, I'd be happy to discuss it.
 
ia w/ you on political polling, however, there IS no analytical data article on the gallup poll posted. Once again, analytical data for a previous poll is not relevant to a subsequent poll. When there IS an analytical data article or chart available for that poll, I'd be happy to discuss it.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on the sub-sets, but I am standing by the assertion that trends matter until they are broken, and this trend has been a constant throughout this presidency.
 
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on the sub-sets, but I am standing by the assertion that trends matter until they are broken, and this trend has been a constant throughout this presidency.

We do not disagree on subsets. HOWEVER, the subset analysis you posted predated the poll that was posted. It is not relevant in any way.

And yes, trends matter.
 
We do not disagree on subsets. HOWEVER, the subset analysis you posted predated the poll that was posted. It is not relevant in any way.

And yes, trends matter.
My overall point is the trend is steadily down, I'll give you that the data needs to be updated, but with the caviotte that I don't see an upward change unless something radically changes from the administration's given actions or message, I don't see that happening within the next few months, while the message may be modified, I think it will be a softer approach to the same mantra which would change little in the way of approval. While this is speculation on my part, it does follow a certain logic given the precedence currently set by our current political class.
 
Oh, the right loves them some Rasmussen

The right likes Rasmussen. It's amusing.

Zogby flat out sucks, Rasmussen polls (except election polling) are deliberately skewed to the right, and Ipsos/McClatchy's latest poll showed 56% approval.

What's funny is that the right thinks a polling firm who is consistently demonstrated to be the outlier has factual and unbiased results.

You can chant this mantra all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rasmussen is one of the best polling organizations out there, had the best results in 2008, and consistently is on point.

Their numbers are generally slightly lower than other polls - that's not because of some secret plot to screw Obama, it's because they use likely voters, instead of all adults.

I don't give a **** what all adults thing, because all adults don't vote. Accordingly, I pay attention to Rasmussen. When you make ridiculous claims about how he's biased to the right, you just demonstrate your own bias.

Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary for President George W. Bush, attacked Rasmussen’s polling on the War in Iraq. More recently, Democrats have attacked his polling on President Obama’s Job Approval Rating and other topics.

Rasmussen’s reported Job Approval Ratings for President Obama are typically several points lower than Gallup’s. He says this is because Gallup polls all adults and he polls likely voters.

Both Republican and Democratic candidates for office cite Rasmussen data in their correspondence. Susan Estrich, who managed the Presidential campaign for Michael Dukakis said, “If you really want to know what people in America think, you can't find a smarter guy to ask than Scott Rasmussen."

Rasmussen's polls are notable for their use of automated public opinion polling, involving pre-recorded telephone inquiries. These types of polls have been shown to produce accurate results at low cost. But some have doubted their reliability. In 2004 Slate magazine said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.

At the end of the 2008 Presidential Election, there were eight national tracking polls and many other polls conducted on a regular basis. Liberal polling guru Nate Silver reviewed the tracking polls and said that while none were perfect, "Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island." After the election, Rasmussen's poll was rated as the most accurate, when compared to various other final pre-election polls.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rasmussen]Scott Rasmussen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
You can chant this mantra all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Rasmussen is one of the best polling organizations out there, had the best results in 2008, and consistently is on point.

Their numbers are generally slightly lower than other polls - that's not because of some secret plot to screw Obama, it's because they use likely voters, instead of all adults.

I don't give a **** what all adults thing, because all adults don't vote. Accordingly, I pay attention to Rasmussen. When you make ridiculous claims about how he's biased to the right, you just demonstrate your own bias.



Scott Rasmussen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's not a chant, and it's not a mantra, and you should pay closer attention before disparage. Rasmussen polling - OTHER THAN ELECTION POLLING - is consistently biased to the right, and has outlier results. That he has such accurate ELECTION polling demonstrates that he does know how to construct a reliable poll, and chooses not to on issue and soft polling.

So, get used to hearing it. Rasmussent polling - OUTSIDE OF ELECTION POLLING - sucks the big one and makes the right look foolish for quoting them so often.

It's like the right WANTS to be deluded.

Hm. Maybe they do. :cool:
 
I bet when Ramussen, Gallop and Zogby were putting GB at 28%, the Libbos were hailing those numbers as the most accurate in history. Now, when things are going against their boy, it's all BS.

Nope. Always used polls that were averaged and adjusted for outliers. Rasmussen is historically wrong. Just look at the election.
 
It's not a chant, and it's not a mantra, and you should pay closer attention before disparage. Rasmussen polling - OTHER THAN ELECTION POLLING - is consistently biased to the right, and has outlier results. That he has such accurate ELECTION polling demonstrates that he does know how to construct a reliable poll, and chooses not to on issue and soft polling.

So, get used to hearing it. Rasmussent polling - OUTSIDE OF ELECTION POLLING - sucks the big one and makes the right look foolish for quoting them so often.

It's like the right WANTS to be deluded.

Hm. Maybe they do. :cool:

Even then, they are on the low side for numbers concerning Dems or any liberals during elections. They are still outliers, just less so when it comes to elections. I think it's because they are being more closely watched by everyone instead of just by the conservatives during elections.
 
Even then, they are on the low side for numbers concerning Dems or any liberals during elections. They are still outliers, just less so when it comes to elections. I think it's because they are being more closely watched by everyone instead of just by the conservatives during elections.

I think their election polling results can be measured against an actual election, so they don't play with question wording, etc during elections. Not so for issue polling. On election polling, I do trust Rasmussen. On issue aka 'soft' polling, I do notm ,kjnb jmnvcc.


For the person who mentioned Zogby (was it adst?), here is Nate Silver discussing how Zogby is the worst pollster in the world.

And here is Matthew Yglesias discussing why issue polling at Rasmussen is different than election polling (hint: Scott Rasmussen SELLS weekly issue polls, and his politics lean right, he was a paid consultant for GWB re-election).


If either of those sources are unacceptable to some righties, try googling. There is no shortage of articles discussing the bias and outlier-ness of Rasmussen's issue polling, nor a shortage of articles discussing the suckage of Zogby's polls.
 
Back
Top Bottom