• 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!

AP-GfK poll: Obama approval hits 60 percent

Your only complaint so far is with the results of the poll,


I'd like to revisit this. Redress, why are you lying? this is not at all what my complaint is about. My complaint, even the most basic of those who can read, see my complaing is with the sampling pool. Fail.
 
polls with a 17 point advantage for one side or the other (as in, polling 17% more Democrats than Republicans, or visa versa) are for sheep.

Ah I get it. Moving to goal post. Did you actually read the poll? Here is how it breaks down:

Democratic - 35%
Independent - 28%
Republican - 18%
Don't know - 20%
Strongly Liberal - 9%
Somewhat Liberal - 14%
Moderate - 36%
Somewhat Conservative - 22%
Strongly Conservative - 16%
Don't know - 3%
Refused - 1%

Break down:

Liberal - 23%
Moderate - 36%
Conservative - 38%

... what a surprise... 38% of those sampled were conservatives or leaned conservative... so much for "17 point advantage".
 
mine, as I stated above, is the methodology. Polling too heavily on one side or the other will naturally slant the results in favor of that side.



He knows that's mine too, Redress, tends to like to nit pick at the Greatness that is the Good Reverend for whatever reason. :shrug:
 
mine, as I stated above, is the methodology. Polling too heavily on one side or the other will naturally slant the results in favor of that side.

It's not that simple. Pollsters don't actively outright pursue Democrats over Repubs, or vice versa. The difference has to do with varying definitions of "likely voters." A pollster like Rasmussen's definition of "likely voter" skew towards conservatives/Republicans, whereas another pollster's definition might intentionally, or unintentionally, correlate more with Democrats. It's not as simple as the pollsters are actively seeking out more lib/Dem respondents.
 
This poll is todays...from rasmussen: Daily presidential tracking poll...doesnt sound like 60% approval to me.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™
 
It's not that simple. Pollsters don't actively outright pursue Democrats over Repubs, or vice versa. The difference has to do with varying definitions of "likely voters." A pollster like Rasmussen's definition of "likely voter" skew towards conservatives/Republicans, whereas another pollster's definition might intentionally, or unintentionally, correlate more with Democrats. It's not as simple as the pollsters are actively seeking out more lib/Dem respondents.

I did not say they did it on purpose. I am saying that when you poll, if you poll too heavily to on demographic or the other, logic dictates that your results will be similarly in favor of that demographic.
 
I believe you are smarter than that, but I will explain anyway. If you get an anomoly, such as a higher percentage of one group in your sample, than you or your peer get, perhaps the poll is innaccurate.

If the methodology is sound, the results are what they are. That is why polls list things like "margin of error" and "sample size" and usually information on how the sample was taken. That is where an error would be, and neither you nor any one else has even looked into this.

Perhaps it's because I don't discount that possibility, however it's not the only one, but that sure is a good reason for you to hone in on one small portion to attack me personally.

I have not attacked you personally. Nice try.

Wow, again, show me where I have ever denied that polls could be used for whatever position one holds. Stop lying redress, it's getting rather pathetic.

Why would I address something totally irrelevant to the point I made. I point out that you say today polls are for sheep, but when polls go the way you want, you create threads about those polls. Your counter: that you did not say polls could not be manipulated, which does not in any way, shape or form counter what I said and is irrelevant. Then you throw in a lying claim because if I had said what you wanted me to say, then I would be lying. Unfortunately for you, I did not say that, so your lying charge fails too.
 
I did not say they did it on purpose. I am saying that when you poll, if you poll too heavily to on demographic or the other, logic dictates that your results will be similarly in favor of that demographic.

I agree. I usually stick with Gallup.
 
approval ratings are usually nonsense, and the public mind is fickle. Kill a terrorist, your ratings go up by 10 points. Price of gas goes up, you get crucified, even if you don't control gas prices.
I agree with this, what the killing of Osama means, is the GOP can't attack him on weakness.
 
That may be true for you, but not all of us live in North Texas.

My beef with approval ratings is that "approve" vs. "disapprove" are such general and inaccurate terms. How bout "I think he is doing a mediocre job"? Where is that option?

I travel every week, all over the country. The support ain't there, at least not among the working people I deal with. I can't imagine the non-working people are that giddy either.
 
really redress, anything else you want to talk about me on, I mean really this thread is on an obama poll but searching my posts selectivley for a "gotcha" attack is really helping this thread along.

Duck and run Rev. Good tactics there. Wouldn't want to admit you got caught red handed in hypocrisy.
 
I travel every week, all over the country. The support ain't there, at least not among the working people I deal with. I can't imagine the non-working people are that giddy either.

"Approve of," and "support," are two different terms with different meanings. I think that might be part of it.
 
I'd like to revisit this. Redress, why are you lying? this is not at all what my complaint is about. My complaint, even the most basic of those who can read, see my complaing is with the sampling pool. Fail.

Then why have you not actually addressed the sampling? You have only addressed another part of the poll results, and this is something that your source provides an explanation for.
 
Then why have you not actually addressed the sampling? You have only addressed another part of the poll results, and this is something that your source provides an explanation for.



Are you serious? That is what I am addressing the sampling group, not the results. seriously brother, your losing it. /facepalm
 
Last edited:
Duck and run Rev. Good tactics there. Wouldn't want to admit you got caught red handed in hypocrisy.



no I'd rather not deal with someone who resorts to blatantly lying about me. I've tried to explain it to you, you'd rather make **** up me taking issue with the results, rather than address the skewed polling group.


Call it what you want brother, the reality is, you resorted to dishonesty here, because I don't think polls are usually very accurate given that they can be manipulated to ones favor.
 
Name calling? Really now....

I call them as I sees them. :shrug:

This in a christie thread.

There is on example. Show me an example where I ever defended a poll, Have I used them in debate sure., but I will always admit they can be used for whatever one wants.

Prove me wrong.

BTW: 2009 called, they want thier link back. :lamo

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...poll-public-losing-trust-president-obama.html

Oh I get it... move the goalposts...

You did? Can you link to them, I can't find them.

Obama: 48%
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

Congress:

15%

Congressional Performance - Rasmussen Reports

You were saying? :lamo

Lol@ haymarket.


That poll is over a year old. :lamo

Fail.


Here is a more recent poll.

FDU: Christie approval rating at 53% | Politicker NJ


Note his approval rating is higher than obamas.

So he goes from one of the highest approval rating to the lowest in a year. Seems like Calling the man Jimmy the second, is too nice.

Seriously though, what say you about this revealation regarding the high hopes of Obama dimminishing by the minute here?

As I said Rev, nothing but hypocrisy. Poll ratings seem to be good for your goose... not that great for the gander. :shrug:
 
no I'd rather not deal with someone who resorts to blatantly lying about me. I've tried to explain it to you, you'd rather make **** up me taking issue with the results, rather than address the skewed polling group.


Call it what you want brother, the reality is, you resorted to dishonesty here, because I don't think polls are usually very accurate given that they can be manipulated to ones favor.

I have not lied nor made up anything Rev. Nice try, but the ad hom's won't save you.
 
smiley-face-popcorn.gif
 
I have not lied nor made up anything Rev. Nice try, but the ad hom's won't save you.


Either you lied, or you have more serious issue.


So to you a responsible polling agency is one that throws out results until they get the ones they want? Your only complaint so far is with the results of the poll, not at all with the methodology, and you continue to ignore the comments in your very own source that explain why the results could be what they are.



This is a lie. either that or I overestimated you.
 
Back
Top Bottom