Obama's Economic Approval Just 36 Percent

[American]

Link

In another indication of the difficulty President Obama's reelection campaign faces, only 36 percent of likely voters grade the administration's handling of the economy at good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

In a national survey of 1,000 likely voters January 31-February 1, a whopping 62 percent grade the president at fair to poor, with poor collecting the largest number: 45 percent.

Still, Democratic officials say that they see a positive trend built on slightly better unemployment and housing numbers that could end up helping Obama in his reelection.

"We just need six more months," said a top Democratic official.

Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.

 

[justabubba]

Link



Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.

and still, he is a lock for re-election
don't think that even a video of him engaged in a crack smoking homosexual threesome would alter that reality

 

[Deuce]

Those bastards, hoping for improving unemployment and housing numbers...

 

[roughdraft274]

Link


Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.

You called this an "economic approval rating" but in reality it's only people that think he is doing "good" or above. You are automatically assuming that those that rated him as doing "fair" are on the negative side. I'd say that you have to either leave them as a neutral or put them on the positive side. If I'm disgruntled about something I would never rate it as "fair". Fair to me means "could have done better but not bad".

Plus this is Rasmussen. They've been known recently for incredibly inaccurate polls.

 

[OpportunityCost]

and still, he is a lock for re-election
don't think that even a video of him engaged in a crack smoking homosexual threesome would alter that reality

Yeah there sure are a lot of stupid democrat voters.

Want a sarcasm tag?

Those bastards, hoping for improving unemployment and housing numbers...

You dont hope for them and you damn sure dont fudge economic indicators to make the economy look better for someone's re-election. This is firmly under the part of the problem category.

 

[Gill]

You called this an "economic approval rating" but in reality it's only people that think he is doing "good" or above. You are automatically assuming that those that rated him as doing "fair" are on the negative side. I'd say that you have to either leave them as a neutral or put them on the positive side. If I'm disgruntled about something I would never rate it as "fair". Fair to me means "could have done better but not bad".

Plus this is Rasmussen. They've been known recently for incredibly inaccurate polls.

Rasmussen has also been known recently for incredibly ACCURATE polls.

Florida Primary:

Rasmussen: Romney 44% / Gingrich 28%
Actual: Romney 46% / Gingrich 32%

 

[Fishstyx]

Plus this is Rasmussen. They've been known recently for incredibly inaccurate polls.

What? Rasmussen has had the most accurate polling for the last decade. Is he spot on everytime, no but hes been the closest.

 

[roughdraft274]

What? Rasmussen has had the most accurate polling for the last decade. Is he spot on everytime, no but hes been the closest.

No, he has not, lol. He has had a few cycles where he did good. In the last cycle they were the worst polling firm out there. This is well explained by Nate Silver, one of the best in the biz as far as reading polls and crunching numbers goes...

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

I ain't saying this means that all of their polls are BS, but it does lead me to take their polls with a large grain of salt.

Rasmussen has also been known recently for incredibly ACCURATE polls.

Florida Primary:

Rasmussen: Romney 44% / Gingrich 28%
Actual: Romney 46% / Gingrich 32%

Rasmussen is well known for it's republican bias, they might be able to be more accurate on polls concerning only Republicans, but on polls including Democrats, especially Obama, they have been far off.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

Also, most of my post was regarding the following:

You called this an "economic approval rating" but in reality it's only people that think he is doing "good" or above. You are automatically assuming that those that rated him as doing "fair" are on the negative side. I'd say that you have to either leave them as a neutral or put them on the positive side. If I'm disgruntled about something I would never rate it as "fair". Fair to me means "could have done better but not bad".

I'd love to hear someone respond to that criticism of taking these numbers out of context.

 

[Gill]

No, he has not, lol. He has had a few cycles where he did good. In the last cycle they were the worst polling firm out there. This is well explained by Nate Silver, one of the best in the biz as far as reading polls and crunching numbers goes...





Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

I ain't saying this means that all of their polls are BS, but it does lead me to take their polls with a large grain of salt.



Rasmussen is well known for it's republican bias, they might be able to be more accurate on polls concerning only Republicans, but on polls including Democrats, especially Obama, they have been far off.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com



Also, most of my post was regarding the following:


I'd love to hear someone respond to that criticism of taking these numbers out of context.

Total horse manure..... Rasmussen is only called biased by liberal hacks. They have no ties to the Republican party and don't provide polling for any party. They are totally independent.

But I did get a giggle that the NY Times would actually dare to call someone else biased.

 

[Kreton]

Link


Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.

Our economic situation is a result of poor government. Not a poor president.

 

[roughdraft274]

Total horse manure..... Rasmussen is only called biased by liberal hacks. They have no ties to the Republican party and don't provide polling for any party. They are totally independent.

But I did get a giggle that the NY Times would actually dare to call someone else biased.

1. I presented you with an article that is well written, and well researched. It was written by one of the best in the biz. Also, this guy is well known for his predictions and polling averages that has better accuracy than any one particular poll.

The accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 0.9%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.

Nate Silver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Your response, rather than read the article, is to simply attack the source. I have given multiple instances as to why I distrust Rasmussen and multiple reasons as to why their polling averages have become unreliable. You ignored my well reasoned points and came back with a completely ridiculous "well that's the new york times!" Without any actual comment on the article.


If you want to give me a reason as to why Nate Silver is wrong on this subject, and it would be easy to do if you are right because he explains and documents everything very clearly in the article, then go for it and prove me wrong, but you're refusal to add anything thoughtful to the discussion almost seems like you said to yourself "wow, he actually knows what he's talking about, i should just acuse him of being wrong because he posted a piece from a newspaper I don't like and be done with it rather than actually put any effort forth to educate myself."

If my assessment is wrong please prove it by telling me how Nate Silver is incorrect in his assessment or where you disagree with the points he makes. Right now it's a well written, well documented article with many examples and averages included along with the reasoning (the shortcuts Rasmussen has put in place in recent years that lead to unreliable polls) against your opinion that you didn't back up with any kind of reasoning or facts that they are "incredibly accurate".

 

[Gill]

I have given multiple instances as to why I distrust Rasmussen and multiple reasons as to why their polling averages have become unreliable.

I'll take the real numbers to determine who is reliable and who is not...........

Speaking of the 2008 Presidential race.........

Final Rasmussen 2008 Presidential Poll results:

Rasmussen: Obama 52% / McCain 46%
Actual Results: Obama 53% / McCain 46%

Nuff said.........

 

[AdamT]

I'll take the real numbers to determine who is reliable and who is not...........

Speaking of the 2008 Presidential race.........

Final Rasmussen 2008 Presidential Poll results:

Rasmussen: Obama 52% / McCain 46%
Actual Results: Obama 53% / McCain 46%

Nuff said.........

Yeah, everyone is pretty accurate in the FINAL poll when all the data is in. But Rasmussen was way off for most of the election cycle, consistently erring in favor of Republicans.

 

[justabubba]

Yeah there sure are a lot of stupid democrat voters.

no doubt
only ones dumber are the republican voters ... especially those following bachman, palin, gingrich, trump, romney, perry

Want a sarcasm tag?

no thanks. my statement is quite real:

and still, he [Obama] is a lock for re-election
don't think that even a video of him engaged in a crack smoking homosexual threesome would alter that reality

if you doubt what i say, tell me what you would wager - what you would be willing to lose when Obama is re-elected

You dont hope for them and you damn sure dont fudge economic indicators to make the economy look better for someone's re-election. This is firmly under the part of the problem category.

 

[Gill]

Yeah, everyone is pretty accurate in the FINAL poll when all the data is in. But Rasmussen was way off for most of the election cycle, consistently erring in favor of Republicans.

Yeah, right !!

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

http://www.politisite.com/2010/08/06/poll-accuracy-in-the-2008-presidential-election-rasmussen-pew/

Is Gallup your favorite polling company ??? The folks down at number 17 ??

 

[roughdraft274]

I'll take the real numbers to determine who is reliable and who is not...........

Speaking of the 2008 Presidential race.........

Final Rasmussen 2008 Presidential Poll results:

Rasmussen: Obama 52% / McCain 46%
Actual Results: Obama 53% / McCain 46%

Nuff said.........

Pure genius, lol.

Of course, if a company conducts 110 polls in the final week of an election and gets one pretty much dead on, that means they are always incredibly accurate, lol.

Well how about we reverse this, if I can find one that they got wrong then we can assume they are always wrong, right?

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Of course we could go by averages, like everyone else in the entire civilized world does, but that would prove you wrong, so I'm gonna be nice here and let you keep on believing that they are incredibly accurate even though, on average, they were way off base, displayed a statistically significant Republican bias in their polls and use shortcuts when conducting polls that decrease their accuracy.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Obama is doomed....unless the Republicans do something stupid like nominating Romney.

Romney will be hurt by DNC ads about the Bain Capital layoffs.

Romney will be hurt by the DNC ads about "not caring about the poor."

Romney will be hurt by ads showing that he is a flip-flopper.

Romney will not be supported by true conservatives. True conservatives will stay home or vote third party. True conservatives are strongly opposed to RomneyCare.

 

[Grendel]

The public isn't happy with the President's handling of the economy, but they trust him more than they trust Republicans.

 "Who do you trust more to make the right decisions about the nation's economy: the Republicans in Congress or Barack Obama?"
 
  	  	Republicans
               in Congress 	Obama 	Both (vol.) 	Neither	Unsure
  	            	% 	          %           	%      	%                %
  	
1/12-17/12     	40      	44                	1           	9                	6

 "Who do you trust more to make the right decisions about the federal budget deficit: the Republicans in Congress or Barack Obama?"
 
            	  	Republicans
                    in Congress 	Obama 	Both (vol.) 	Neither	Unsure
  	            	%                	%      	%      	%      	%
  	
1/12-17/12         	42            	43      	1           	9 	          5

  "Who do you trust to do a better job [see below]: Obama or the Republicans in Congress?"   Options rotated
 
  	          	Obama 	Republicans 	Both (vol.) 	Neither (vol.) 	Unsure
  	          	% 	            %         	%             	%             	%
 
 "Handling the economy"
  	
1/12-15/12	        43 	        41             	1                 	12 	3
12/15-18/11        	44             	40 	             1                 	13 	2

Obama Administration

Plus, you're completely overlooking the fact that a *lot* of people who aren't happy about the President's handling of the economy are liberals who are pissed that he hasn't done enough to help the poor, punish wall street crooks, and improve the tax code -- particularly cap gains. And, since the Republicans are going to run a wall street vulture as their candidate, that's not likely to get any better for the GOP, especially if the economy improves before November (which, of course, the Republicans will do everything they can to prevent.)

 

[upsideguy]

and still, he is a lock for re-election
don't think that even a video of him engaged in a crack smoking homosexual threesome would alter that reality

That probably wouldn't do it, but a picture of him standing next to Donald Trump as Donald endorsed him probably would be the end.

 

[Gill]

Pure genius, lol.

Of course, if a company conducts 110 polls in the final week of an election and gets one pretty much dead on, that means they are always incredibly accurate, lol.

Well how about we reverse this, if I can find one that they got wrong then we can assume they are always wrong, right?

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com


Of course we could go by averages, like everyone else in the entire civilized world does, but that would prove you wrong, so I'm gonna be nice here and let you keep on believing that they are incredibly accurate even though, on average, they were way off base, displayed a statistically significant Republican bias in their polls and use shortcuts when conducting polls that decrease their accuracy.

Posting the same link over and over does not make it more believable. Especially from a dinosaur media source like the NY Times that is not only going broke, but has publicly admitted that they have a liberal bias.

 

[roughdraft274]

Posting the same link over and over does not make it more believable. Especially from a dinosaur media source like the NY Times that is not only going broke, but has publicly admitted that they have a liberal bias.

If you have a problem with any of the data then let me know but you look childish just sitting there and whining that it can't be accurate because it's published by the new york times. They did miss a poll by 40 points. Their bias was greater, in terms of averages and statistics, than anyone else, and their numbers were further off, on average. These are facts. Listen to them if you want to learn, ignore them if you like your head in the sand. It's really that simple.

 

[Gill]

If you have a problem with any of the data then let me know but you look childish just sitting there and whining that it can't be accurate because it's published by the new york times. They did miss a poll by 40 points. Their bias was greater, in terms of averages and statistics, than anyone else, and their numbers were further off, on average. These are facts. Listen to them if you want to learn, ignore them if you like your head in the sand. It's really that simple.

You are the one ignoring factual evidence I've presented, while at the same time posting editorials from the NY Times as some sort of proof.

Here's some facts for you:

FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[9] The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[10] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[11][12][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[13] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[14]

In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)".[15] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing Rasmussen's by 10 points.[16] Rasmussen's second poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[roughdraft274]

You are the one ignoring factual evidence I've presented, while at the same time posting editorials from the NY Times as some sort of proof.

Here's some facts for you:


Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not worth my time anymore, lol. You wouldn't understand it anyways, lol.

 

[Gill]

It's not worth my time anymore, lol. You wouldn't understand it anyways, lol.

That's ok. All you had to say was "I give" and no one would think less of you.

 

[roughdraft274]

That's ok. All you had to say was "I give" and no one would think less of you.

Not even close buddy. I just don't see the point in arguing with someone that doesn't understand averages and statistics.

Hell I told you that they were incredibly inaccurate during the 2010 elections and showed you the shortcuts that they're using that lead to unreliable polls and you try to prove me wrong by showing me that they did a good job in 2004, lol.