• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Interesting Point on recent Obama Poll numbers

cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,627
Reaction score
39,897
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
... After hiding the partisan composition numbers for the last two months, today’s poll includes that data from the last three presidential polls. Let’s take a look at the D/R/I series, keeping in mind that the D/R/I from the 2010 midterm elections was 35/35/30:


  • March: 31/27/36
  • February: 34/23/37
  • January: 32/25/36

The February poll from which the WaPo/ABC series derived its previous Obama approval numbers gave Democrats an 11-point edge and undersampled Republicans by 12 points in relation to their 2010 turnout. This survey has a difference of seven points in the gap. Let’s take a look and see how Obama’s approval numbers line up with that in mind:



  • Overall approval: 50/46 in Feb, 46/50 in Mar (8 point difference in the gap)
  • Economy: 44/53 in Feb, 38/59 in Mar (10 point difference in the gap)
  • Deficit: 38/58 in Feb, 32/63 in Mar (11 point difference in the gap)
  • Afghanistan: 53/43 in Feb, 46/47 in Mat (9 point difference in the gap)

Interestingly, the WaPo/ABC poll had never asked about gas prices before this survey, and the last time they polled on energy policy was in … August 2009. Obama is at 26/65 on gas prices and 38/48 on energy policy, after having been at 55/30 in August 2009....
Click to expand...


so maybe at this point there isn't really any movement, and it's simply hey, if you poll more Democrats, you get more favorable treatment of the President, if you poll fewer, you get less.

Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if they polled "excited" or "motivated" voters.
 
Is the format positive/negative, or negative/positive?
 
cpwill said:
so maybe at this point there isn't really any movement, and it's simply hey, if you poll more Democrats, you get more favorable treatment of the President, if you poll fewer, you get less.
Click to expand...

Only if you assume that partisan affiliation is an unchanging fact of our national demographics like race or gender, as opposed to something that moves in tandem with the political winds. If Democrats now compose a larger share of the electorate than they did in 2010 (and I don't know if they do), then it would make sense to poll more Democrats than they did in 2010.
 
The DRI numbers certainly do not look anywhere near outside the limits that they would be. Nothing shocking here.
 
cpwill said:
so maybe at this point there isn't really any movement, and it's simply hey, if you poll more Democrats, you get more favorable treatment of the President, if you poll fewer, you get less.

Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if they polled "excited" or "motivated" voters.
Click to expand...

Most polls are weighted to account for differences between the stated party affiliation in the sample and the actual party affiliation ratio in the country.

This is a frequent, bogus argument that Republicans employ when the polls go against them. Notice that they will NEVER bring up the sample makeup if the poll goes their way. :lol:
 
Someone mistook nervousness for excitement.
 
Redress said:
The DRI numbers certainly do not look anywhere near outside the limits that they would be. Nothing shocking here.
Click to expand...

Reuter's recent poll that shows the President's approval at 50% had a D/R/I sampling of 51/39/10. Hows that for redonkulous?
 
AdamT said:
Most polls are weighted to account for differences between the stated party affiliation in the sample and the actual party affiliation ratio in the country.

This is a frequent, bogus argument that Republicans employ when the polls go against them. Notice that they will NEVER bring up the sample makeup if the poll goes their way. :lol:
Click to expand...


2008 exit polls had D/R/I at 39/32/29
2010 exit polls had D/R/I at 35/35/30

It would be silly to think that any poll that doesn't stay in that general range isn't screwed up beyond the margin of error.
 
Surprise...Surprise... another Republican claiming the President is responsible for Fuel prices. Claiming Obama is responsible for foods prices is like claiming Bush was responsible for 9/11. The president has no direct influence on gas prices, world markets set the demand which is EXACTLY why Obama is being a TRUE leader by telling the American people the truth. The only way to lower gas prices long-term is to invest in alternative energy sources. Lying like Mitt Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich only creates false hope that the president has any influence on world fuel markets...but I guess anyone will say anything these days to get elected and the poverty, teethless tards in the deep south will buy it.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
2008 exit polls had D/R/I at 39/32/29
2010 exit polls had D/R/I at 35/35/30

It would be silly to think that any poll that doesn't stay in that general range isn't screwed up beyond the margin of error.
Click to expand...

So you don't understand weighting?
 
AdamT said:
So you don't understand weighting?
Click to expand...

Weighting is one thing but to undersample or underweight a political party below the 2008 banner year for Dems is unreal. The R number is 32 for 2008 and 35 for 2010 and the poll is using 23, 25, and 27.

Its not realistic or representative of the actual electorate. I would expect the number to be between 32 and 35. 23? Thats ludicrous.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Weighting is one thing but to undersample or underweight a political party below the 2008 banner year for Dems is unreal. The R number is 32 for 2008 and 35 for 2010 and the poll is using 23, 25, and 27.

Its not realistic or representative of the actual electorate. I would expect the number to be between 32 and 35. 23? Thats ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The sample is what the sample is. You know what random means, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom