Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Word About Obama Polls

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 01:55 PM
Original message
A Word About Obama Polls
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/019760.php

A WORD ABOUT OBAMA POLLS.... A couple of days ago, Pollster.com's aggregate approval rating for President Obama slipped below 50% for the first time. Given the president's up-until-recently strong support, and the challenges associated with a major White House policy push when the president's numbers are moving in the wrong direction, the dip below the majority threshold raised a few eyebrows.

A few thoughts on this.

First, the Pollster.com aggregate includes some fairly dubious pollsters -- "Zogby Internet," for example, has Obama's approval rating at 42% -- all of which drag down the president's overall average. As of this afternoon, the Pollster.com aggregate has Obama at 50.9% approval, 44.5% disapproval. If we filter out suspect Internet polls and Rasmussen, Obama shifts to 52.7% approval, 41% disapproval.

Second, it's not as if Obama's numbers are in free fall. Gallup's daily tracking poll has the president's numbers up five points -- 50% to 55% -- over the last week. McClatchy has Obama at 56% approval; CNN has him at 53%; and CBS has him at 56%. The recent media buzz has been about the president's steep decline, but approval ratings in the mid-50s, in the midst of a weak economy, two wars, and blistering attacks on his signature domestic policy? That ain't bad.

And third, it's really not worth obsessing over these numbers anyway, at least not at this point. Maybe we're seeing the beginning of a new upswing for the president, or maybe his numbers will slide back down soon. Maybe there's a short-term post-Kennedy bump; maybe the base is rallying behind Obama in the face of right-wing craziness; maybe a lot of things.

The bottom line is these minor fluctuations aren't terribly important. I don't want to be a hypocrite here; I'd be lying if I said I didn't keep an eye on the numbers as they're released. But there are going to be ups and downs, which aren't nearly as significant as larger, broader trends.

If the goal is to see the president's numbers rise, policymakers should pass health care reform. Success begets success.

—Steve Benen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. The last sentence says it all.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. a couple of more words

1) Obama's polling numbers would be noteworthy if he were actually running against himself. Since he is going to run against a Republican the only significant point would be the difference between the two, which is increasing not decreasing.

2) Again it is 51state contest, and it would be hard to find a single state that is getting redder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Even the aggregate can't keep Obama down
back up to nearly 51%





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Towlie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. I've said it before: It's the Goldilocks poll fallacy.
If you ask people if they approve of a bowl of porridge, you may get lots of people who say it's too hot or lots of people who say it's too cold, but no matter what the temperature, you'll only get a few who say it's "just right". The rest do not approve.

Polls of that nature have a strong negative bias and mean very little.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnWxy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. I wonder if ANY poll asked the question: 1. Do you think it's okay for tax-payers to pay for-profit
insurance companies to cover the uninsured.

ALONG WITH: 2. Do you know the administrative costs to run MEDICARE are 4% and those for for profit insurance companies are 20%?

AND: 3. If the government pays the insurance companies to insure the uninsured, is there any reason to believe insurance costs will go up any less rapidly than they have in the last decade (insurance costs doubled in the last decade)?

AND: 4. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation if the number of people losing health insurance coverage continues at the rate it did from 2001-2004 (4.7% per yr) through 2020, then there will be a 66% increase in the number of people without health insurance coverage in 2020 as in 2010.

How lucky do you feel?

a. very lucky, screw health insurance reform.
b. Kinda lucky, I'll take my chances.
c. The way my luck goes, I'm screwed.


Information from the Kaiser Foundation:


Covering the Uninsured: – Growing Need, Strained Resources
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7429-02.pdf

Year_____Uninsured ________2004/2001
----------in millions
2004........ 45.5.............. 1.148989899
2001........ 39.6


2001-2004_______ total increase in uninsured_______ 15%_______ 1.148989899
2001-2004_______ annual rate of increase___________4.7%_______1.047382718

2004-2020_______ total increase in uninsured_______ 110%_______ 2.097425082
2004-2009_______ total increase in uninsured_______ 26%_______ 1.26045405
2009-2020_______ total increase in uninsured_______ 66%_______ 1.664023439




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-03-09 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks Steve. Finally, a voice of moderation and intelligence.
At least one reporter in D.C. isn't wee-wee'd up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC