What the media fails to report when talking about Obama's approval ratings.

They are often using daily tracking polls. Each day, Gallup and Rasmussen release their polls that either show Obama up or down. The media runs with it and suggests this is proof positive the American people are losing faith in the Obama presidency.

However, it's not fair to look at it at the daily level. Up until the 2008 election, there was no thing as a daily tracking poll on the president's approval ratings. Bush was the first and that only happened once Gallup and Rasmussen decided to run daily tracking polls for the Democratic/Republican primaries. Prior to that, most approval polls were released monthly and sometimes bi-weekly.

But not daily.

It's not daily because daily has too much statistical noise. Obama could get high marks on a Friday and their sample size on a Sunday might show only 30% approve of the job he's doing. It isn't as sound as monthly polls because of that very reason.

I mean, the news we're hearing today is that Pres. Obama's approval has declined across the board. No one likes him. Gallup shows him down or even in one daily tracking poll and it's something that will dominate the news discussion for that day.

But it will prove to be a blip and a day later, he'll be up again and no one will say anything.

Even DUers believe Pres. Obama is at his least popular right now than at any point in his presidency. Would it shock you if I told you Pres. Obama's approval rating today, February 6th, is almost exactly the same as it was back on September 6th?

I bet many would not believe it. Why should you believe it? The media and even Gallup itself tells us the President isn't as popular anymore and is going through the worst stretch of his presidency.

But is he really?

What if Gallup never did daily tracking polls? What if they did - but kept the results hidden and only published monthly tracking polls?

Why don't they? What is gained by daily tracking polls outside of the fact it brings more traffic to their website? They're not any better than monthly polls and certainly aren't as controlled, so they could show dramatic swings over the course of a week. A monthly poll, though, has roughly 31 days to grab a sample from. It takes out the statistical noise of one day and provides a better idea of true trends - not small blips.

To prove this, I want to look at the Gallup tracking poll and instead of doing daily results, break it down by month. Since today is Feb. 6th, we'll start there and compare Obama's approval in each sixth day of every month leading back to last February.

I think you'll be surprised by the results.

February 6th, 2010: +50, -43
January 6th, 2010: +42, -41
December 6th, 2009: +50, -44
November 6th, 2009: +53, -41
October 6th, 2009: +53, -40
September 6th, 2009: +51, -42
August 6th, 2009: +55, -38
July 6th, 2009: +58, -35
June 6th, 2009: +61, -34
May 6th, 2009: +66, -28
April 6th, 2009: +61, -28
March 6th, 2009: +62, -26
February 6th, 2009: +65, -20

Notice something?

I mentioned Obama's approval rating today isn't much different than in September. And it isn't. 50-43 now and 51-42 then. A difference of -2. That's it. Well within the MOE. Pres. Obama is about as popular as he was in September. But the media doesn't report that. No, they report he's the least popular he's ever been.

Not true. January saw his worst month of his presidency. And even then, he still had a net approval rating of +1.

But look at this list a bit more and you'll see, even counting January, that Pres. Obama's approval ratings have been pretty damn consistent since September. Hell, even in August the difference wasn't extreme.

So what happened?

Well Feb-May was the honeymoon. Obama had just taken office, passed his stimulus package and was on cruise control. Then summer came and generally presidents see a bump in approval during the summer months because Americans turn off politics and go on vacation or just lounge around the house or the beach or the pool. Congress is also on recess, so there isn't nearly as much divisive bickering like we see during the months they're actually 'working'.

By August, things began to change a bit. The tea baggers began taking over town halls and the healthcare debate was really getting under way. A divisive topic! Not a surprise his approval rating began to slip. Generally, when a President takes on a tough issue, his ratings drop. It happens to every single president in American history. And God knows healthcare is a hot potato issue as we've seen throughout the last few months.

I mean, prior to the healthcare debate and after the stimulus debate, the biggest controversy facing Pres. Obama was his speech at Notre Dame. He had a rather stable transition early on and once the debate on healthcare took off, things rapidly changed.

Which takes us to September. That's when the lines were drawn. Republicans/Democrats/Independents. Since that month, Pres. Obama's approval has been at 50-53% for five out of the last six months. A half-year. For a half-year, his approval ratings haven't differed outside of the MOE.

Yet the media tells us he's tanking. The media tells us he's faltering badly and that his approval is crashing.

Well how can it crash if it's so very similar to where it was six months ago?

It defies logic. Unfortunately, so many people buy into this. And they buy into it because compares his polling data to where it was a few months ago. Only where it was a day or week ago.

Well when you're dieting, you break it down by month. You might lose a pound one day and gain it back the next. If you dieted like we read approval polls, no one would ever lose weight because they'd give up after the first week.

The polls are no different. Don't buy into the hype. Pres. Obama's approval isn't great. It's good. And it's been good since September of 2009.

is that Obama's approval rating has consistently been much higher than that of any Republican in national office or Congressional Republicans in general.

From the way the media spins it, you'd think that more people support the teabaggers than the President, when the reverse is true.

on Morning Shmoe, a couple of Wingnuts were talking about his ratings as being "not great" or words to that effect, and one liberal chimed in "Well, that's funny..because with ten point Unemployment his approval is now higher now than Ronald Reagan's was at the end of his first year".

..I think they went to a commercial break at that point:eyes:

They generally use the Gallup poll. But they pick and choose what numbers to report.

Like Monday Obama could be 50-43 and maybe by Wednesday he'll be 45-45. They'll report that 45-45 number as proof he's slipping in the polls.

But when it goes back up, and it always has gone back up, the become very quiet.

with a grain of salt. It is my opinion that no other President has been as scrutinized for every little thing as Obama. It must be the media age we live in.

Bush was under it toward the end of his presidency. But by that point he was already such a failure it didn't matter.

Clinton only had to deal with talk radio and the beginnings of cable news. CNN was big. MSNBC was okay and FOX News had really just started during his presidency.

Now it's talk radio, the internet, cable news and regular news. The internet has changed things dramatically, too.

I mean, go look at Gore's 2000 presidential website:

http://webarchives.loc.gov/collections/lcwa0007/20000810200437/http://algore2000.com

So much has changed in just ten years. Even blogging five years ago wasn't at the level it is today. In 2004, blogging was just starting out. Now it dominates.

Big newspapers. Don't forget to include them in your list.

Also, Jimmy Carter had to deal with even less than Clinton, by your logic, then why was his approval much lower?

lines it does not do your approval rating all that good no matter how little control you had over it. That is all my parents ever talk about from that time. I was just born so I don't remember it but it made a huge impact on them.

I never said it directly ties to lack of support. But it does play a role in sowing the seeds of hate. It isn't a coincidence Carter, prior to Obama, was the last Democratic president to win a majority of the vote. Clinton didn't do it in either 1992 or 1996. Gore didn't do it in 2000 (though he won a plurality) and Kerry didn't do it in 2004.

Carter's fall was a mix of policy and the climate of the day. As stated, the oil crisis and high unemployment played a big role in his downfall.

These issues aren't mutually exclusive.

when I went to college, 1994 to 98. We have come a long way but we also get so caught up in the minute to minute stuff and overlook the big picture.
I wonder what some former Presidents would think about living in this age of constant media scrutiny.

K&R

It's like looking at the stock market from day to day, VERY BAD for decision making!
But if you look at TRENDS. . .much more accurate!

But then he got a major boost in popularity after Nine Eleven.

So if the media would just consider the fact that Obama did not have to have Rahm plan a major catastrophic event in order for his popularity to soar, I would say that the treatment would be fair.

How this is a "liberal" based media, I couldn't tell ya.