When talking about the decline in Barack Obama's approval numbers the media usually focuses on independents, or whether he's losing his base. The biggest reason his numbers are going down right now though is not related to either of those things- it's because he's losing whatever small amount of bipartisan appeal he once had.
On our national survey in June Obama had an 82% approval rating with Democrats. Now it's 83%. He had a 46% approval rating with independents. Now it's 47%. No real change on either of those fronts. But with Republicans he's dropped from an 18% mark to just 10%. That shift is what put his approval rating below 50%- he's gone from a small amount of crossover support to a very small amount of crossover supports.
Considering that PPP is a partisan poll shop and that every other poll out there contradicts this one, I'd be wary of believing anything they say.
Obama Faces Challenge with Independents - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
CBS says he's dropped 20 points among independents in 7 months.
Demographic Notes - Barack Obama Approval Index - Rasmussen Reports
Rasmussen has him dropping over 22.
4/8: Majority Approves of Obama’s Job Performance : Home of the Marist Poll: Pebbles and Pundits
Marist also has him dropping 20.
PPP was also mind-bogglingly off the mark in their polling on NY-23:
RealClearPolitics - Election 2009 - New York 23rd District - Special Election
While other pollsters may have been off by a few points, they were off by 21.
Excuse me but isn't Rasmussen a right leaning polling company?
No, despite the best efforts of some on here to paint them as such. Rasmussen's results tend to be a couple points tilted toward the Republicans, but that's largely because they use likely voters in their polls, while other companies use registered voters. In terms of accuracy, Rasmussen is widely acknowledged as one of the best.
RealClearPolitics - Election 2009 - New York 23rd District - Special Election
Partisan pollsters have a notation indicating their affiliation.
By "likely voters"? Do they include likely voters from both sides of the aisle in all of their polling?
Excuse me but isn't Rasmussen a right leaning polling company?
When Obama's numbers are down in the GWB's numbers, I'll be concerned. The American public is fickle. I expect these numbers to flucuate wildly over the next 7 years.
When Obama's numbers are down in the GWB's numbers, I'll be concerned. The American public is fickle. I expect these numbers to flucuate wildly over the next 7 years.
Too bad for you, that PBO will be out of office in three.
Really? Who do you think the Republicans have that is going to beat him?
Huckabee :doh Jindal :doh Palin :2rofll:
All of the above. By 2012, my dog could beat PBO out of the White House.
The only hope PBO has is for the Republicans to win back enough of the Congress to make him look good.
All of the above. By 2012, my dog could beat PBO out of the White House.
Considering that PPP is a partisan poll shop and that every other poll out there contradicts this one, I'd be wary of believing anything they say.
I don't see any evidence of partisanship, WSJ ranked them highly, and the story had been on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire , those guys play it pretty straight. Anyway... as I said it was surprising, and of course no single poll should be taken alone.
The firm makes its money by serving as the pollster to an exclusively Democratic roster of clients, ranging from members of Congress to dozens of state legislative and city council candidates. And CEO Dean Debnam has given generously to North Carolina Democratic candidates — including in races where his firm has conducted independent polling.
In the heat of last year’s competitive Senate race between former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and Democrat Kay Hagan, Debnam donated $5,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He also made two $2,300 contributions to Hagan’s campaign.
Though there’s little to indicate the firm’s Democratic affiliation on its website — clients are listed, but without partisan identification — Jensen said PPP makes no secret of its politics. Either way, it’s become an emerging player in the polling industry for the frequency, newsworthiness and accuracy of its automated public polls. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that PPP was one of the most accurate pollsters in the home stretch of the 2008 presidential election.
“We’re absolutely rooting in the race. We don’t want Richard Burr to get reelected. We wanted Obama to win last fall,” said Jensen.
Jensen said PPP makes no secret of its politics. Either way, it’s become an emerging player in the polling industry for the frequency, newsworthiness and accuracy of its automated public polls. The Wall Street Journal reported last year that PPP was one of the most accurate pollsters in the home stretch of the 2008 presidential election.
Again, if If the WSJ calls them accurate, not sure it matters who the boss donates to... :shrug:
If Karl Rove happened to predict the results of the 2008 general election down to 0.5% accuracy, does that mean that you'd automatically believe him over other, nonpartisan individuals, when it came to determining the demographic breakdown of Obama's approval rating in Nov of 2009?
I'm not trying to say that PPP didn't do quite well in some past elections or that they're incapable of honest polling. I'm simply pointing out that when you have a polling company that openly admits its partisan lean, if their results contradict the unanimous results of other nonpartisan pollsters in a way that would seem to favor that company's preferred party, I would take it with a shaker of salt. Especially where it looks mathematically impossible.
It's sad that you even have to explain these things. I don't know how you stay so calm...
I don't think it's really that bad of an argument. As I was writing that post, I heard myself making the exact same arguments as Joe when I was defending Rasmussen's polling on an issue where everyone else was showing Obama's approval as being significantly higher. The two best arguments for Rasmussen in that case were that he had good results in the past and that he was unbiased. PPP has had good results as well, so all we're left with is the bias here. I think that's enough to basically ignore their results on this, but others could come to different conclusions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?