The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread

[Rowan]

R2k/DailyKos released their weekly update today. They poll a lot of stuff, it's pretty interesting, you should check it out: http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends

Obama Approval:
Favorable: 69% (+1)
Unfavorable: 26% (+1)
Don't know: 5% (-2)

Pelosi is also the only Congressional leader with net favorables (43-39).

Compare those Pelosi numbers to the ones produced by Rasmussen(35-58), and you obviously see that these polls for Kos have an overwhelming Democratic bias.

[Rowan]

1) Favorable vs. Approval; it's different

2) Rasmussen seems to be an approval outlier, compared to nearly every other polling firm

Number 2 is pretty much false. They have Obama at 59% while FOX has him at 60% and Gallup at 63%. The ones in the upper 60's are the true outliers(CNN, KOS).

[Rowan]

They've pretty consistently had his disapprovals about 10% higher than everyone else (except Insider Advantage and Zogby Internet): http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

Well they probably push people more. The others have high numbers of "not sure" which is not really believable that a person could not have an opinion about the President of the United States.

[Rowan]

Doesn't Rasmussen count "fair" as disapprove?

That makes a considerable difference and is annoying and inane.

Here's the question they ask: "Do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job President Obama is doing?"

The first two add up to your approval number and the second two are the disapproval.

[Rowan]

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

[Rowan]

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.

[Rowan]

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.

That doesn't stop his approval rating polls from being some serious outliers. Toss out the 2 biggest outliers (Rasmussen and CNN), and it's clear that his approval rating is in the 60s.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

Those polls are outdated.

[Rowan]

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.

That doesn't stop his approval rating polls from being some serious outliers. Toss out the 2 biggest outliers (Rasmussen and CNN), and it's clear that his approval rating is in the 60s.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

Those polls are outdated.

Hardly. The 3 most recent from there:
CNN 2/18-19 67%
Fox 2/17-18 60%
AP 2/12-17 67%

Also, Research 2000 2/16-19 69%

Rasmussen polls Likely Voters, meaning he uses a realistic voter breakdown. The others just pick random people off the streets.

[Rowan]

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?

[Rowan]

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?

When you're determining who is a good pollster, ignoring state polling in favor of the final national result is a bad idea.  It's essentially taking one poll and ignoring dozens of others that use a similar methodology.

Either way, an LV screen right now does very little.  The only criteria that can be employed, is past electoral participation.  I'd much prefer RV for now.  Adult does tend to have a Democratic bias.

But you're still doing that annoying mode of analysis you did last time you were here.  You do realize that you were, how to say this, completely wrong?

Apparently I haven't. And the only RV poll out there right now is FOX and that is at 60%.

[Rowan]

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?

When you're determining who is a good pollster, ignoring state polling in favor of the final national result is a bad idea.  It's essentially taking one poll and ignoring dozens of others that use a similar methodology.

Either way, an LV screen right now does very little.  The only criteria that can be employed, is past electoral participation.  I'd much prefer RV for now.  Adult does tend to have a Democratic bias.

But you're still doing that annoying mode of analysis you did last time you were here.  You do realize that you were, how to say this, completely wrong?

Apparently I haven't. And the only RV poll out there right now is FOX and that is at 60%.

It's equally unnecessary to just disregard adult polls, though.  If you ask an average group of adults, "are you registered to vote?," many will lie in the affirmative.  Therefore, the % RV is not really hugely lower than the % adult.  It does not account for a nine-point swing like that.

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.

[Rowan]

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.

1. "Are known to"?  Is this a feeling, or do you have 2008 analytical numbers?  It may be true, but I doubt you know why other than because you want it to be.

2. You're known to have a sharp implicit conservative bias, but yet you never ever ever ever account for that.  You account for other biases rigorously, but only in order to support your own.  What the hell is up with that?

1. In some states they did, but since they never released the crosstabs its hard to tell.
2. I am a moderate.

[Rowan]

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.

1. "Are known to"?  Is this a feeling, or do you have 2008 analytical numbers?  It may be true, but I doubt you know why other than because you want it to be.

2. You're known to have a sharp implicit conservative bias, but yet you never ever ever ever account for that.  You account for other biases rigorously, but only in order to support your own.  What the hell is up with that?

1. In some states they did, but since they never released the crosstabs its hard to tell.

Why would the crosstabs be relevant to the topline?  We're not adjusting for crosstabs with these polls, either.

2. I am a moderate.

I don't care if you're a full-fledged communist.  Your "adjustment" techniques render a sharp pro-Republican bias to your analysis.  Your political affiliation does not make the analysis any less bad.

They are relevant because if they oversampled Democrats and just happened to get lucky with the topline, that doesn't make them a good pollster.

[Rowan]

They are relevant because if they oversampled Democrats and just happened to get lucky with the topline, that doesn't make them a good pollster.

That's a fair point.  However, in the past you've used that just to claim that Democrats are oversampled, and it turned out you were wrong.

Which brings me to the half of my post you clearly ignored, and I eagerly await an answer to.  This is your chance to admit analytical fault, correct for your errors, and redeem yourself -- the scientific way!

Or, keep living in fantasyland and I'll keep annoying you like this.  What's your choice on this one?

I'll admit that in 2008 there was an ahistorical party ID jump towards the Democrats that I did not expect. To go from a tie in party ID to D+8 was something that I found hard to believe. I was basing my analysis off of history, and it turned out to be wrong. Life goes on.

[Rowan]

So you think that you used the information available to the best of your abilities?

Probably not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I am going to try to make things seem better for my candidate than they might appear to be, everyone does that to some degree. But at no point after mid-September, did I ever believe McCain actually had a shot to win.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to phone a friend first.

[Rowan]

Probably not.

...

Of course I am going to try to make things seem better for my candidate than they might appear to be, everyone does that to some degree. But at no point after mid-September, did I ever believe McCain actually had a shot to win.

It's a natural human tendency to overestimate evidence to fit a precept.  Most people over-adjust toward what they want to be true.  Some people over-adjust toward pessimism, because then they're always pleasantly surprised.  Others (studly others with I-WA avatars) attempt to compensate artificially for this, by observing their biases and trying to create "weighted" auto-corrections.  And others use different methods of correction.  Corrections like these aren't perfect (or even close!), but they tend to be closer to reality than what our minds initially tell us.

Outright "try[ing] to make things seem better for my candidate than they might appear to be" is even worse than just working on those precepts.  It's, like, bad ESPN football analysis.  "Everyone" does not do that.  And, what's the point?  I guess, if the point of political analysis for you is to find creative ways to prove that what you want to happen, will happen, that's an option.  But, even ifyour goal is creative thinking, the resulting info is totally poisoned.  You could make it more useful.  As it is, the product of your analysis has nothing to with actuality.  It's useless.

I'm not advocating the way I (over)compensate, but knowing you have a bias and encouraging yourself to propagate it, is even worse than pretending that it doesn't exist.  Which is bad enough.  Things will inevitably end up not corresponding with reality.  If you're going in with the intent of making them correspond with reality as little as possible (that is, "make things seem better than they might appear to be"), why even bother advancing your theories?

So, if you're going for something other than realism...well, mazel tov with getting people interested in that.  Otherwise, I ask again:  What the hell?

Thanks for the lecture. If my goal in life was to please you then I might care, but since it's not, I will continue to be optimistic about my candidates chances, even if that is somehow unacceptable to you.

[Rowan]

That wasn't a lecture, that was a question with paragraphs!  A question with paragraphs!

I'm not asking you to be likable.  I'm just saying there are more private places to masturbate than Internet forums

Metaphorically speaking.

Isn't that the whole point of forums? So people can masturbate together? Metaphorically speaking of course.

[Rowan]

2/23/09:

Rasmussen 58%/40%
Gallup 62%/25%

[Rowan]

We now discover how much hidden damage happened under our 43rd President.  The banking failures demonstrate the folly of Dubya's demagoguery of "every family owning a home" despite low incomes. The job losses demonstrate the tendency of entities once known as manufacturers becoming importers instead.

Uhh, I think you are confusing presidents. That was Clinton.

[Rowan]

Rasmussen Obama Approval 2/24/09:

Overall 59.5%/39.2%

GOP: 32.5%/66.8%
DEM: 86.1%/11.9%
INDY: 51.2%/47.8%

MEN: 51.6%/47.6%
WOMEN: 66.3%/31.9%

WHITE: 56.1%/43.2%
BLACK: 85.7%/8.8%
OTHER: 55.9%/43.4%

[Rowan]

Obama Surge !

Rasmussen - Tuesday - 03/03/2009:

60% Approve (+2)
39% Disapprove (-2)

Add a few points to the Approval column simply because it's Rasmussen(R).

Right. Because so many polls have him higher than 60%. I guess you want to add a few to the NBC/WSJ poll too. What about the Cook Political Report? Why not even Gallup while you're at it? Give me a break dude. Obama is at 60%.

[Rowan]

Diaego/Hotline Poll

67% Approve


Outlier?

[Rowan]

Diaego/Hotline Poll

67% Approve


Outlier?

Maybe by a point or two.

That's about right I think. 65-70% Approve, 30-35% Disapprove (if the undecideds are properly allocated as well) - with Rasmussen the outlier.

Also, the latest Fox News Poll (the newest, conducted March 3-4 among 900 RV):

63% Approve (+3)
26% Disapprove (nc)

What do you think the nation's economy needs more of right now -- the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?

Obama: 49%
Reagan: 40%

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030509_Poll.pdf

What about Gallup at 62%? Cook Political at 57%? NBC/WSJ at 60%? I think its more in the 60-63% range, rather than 65%-70%.

[Rowan]

Diaego/Hotline Poll

67% Approve


Outlier?

Maybe by a point or two.

That's about right I think. 65-70% Approve, 30-35% Disapprove (if the undecideds are properly allocated as well) - with Rasmussen the outlier.

Also, the latest Fox News Poll (the newest, conducted March 3-4 among 900 RV):

63% Approve (+3)
26% Disapprove (nc)

What do you think the nation's economy needs more of right now -- the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?

Obama: 49%
Reagan: 40%

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/030509_Poll.pdf

What about Gallup at 62%? Cook Political at 57%? NBC/WSJ at 60%? I think its more in the 60-63% range, rather than 65%-70%.

Those polls have all 10-25% Undecideds. In fact, no poll besides Rasmussen has ever shown Obama's disapproval higher than 29%. If you allocate the Undecides by 6/4 for Obama, you are approaching 70% Approval.

You can't just allocate undecideds like that. In fact, if they aren't willing to say they approve of Obama, I'm willing to bet they are more likely to disapprove of him.

[Rowan]

National (Newsweek):

Approve 58%
Disapprove 26%
Undecided 16%

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188005