Poll: Obama approval rises, as does public support for gun control

[Catawba]

"President Obama’s approval rating has seen a modest jump in favorability over the last month, as the public seems to have warmed to the idea of stricter gun laws, a new survey found.

According to a Time-CNN survey released Wednesday, 55 percent said they approve of the job the president is doing, against 43 who said they disapprove. Obama’s job approval was at 52 percent in the same poll conducted in late December, a marked increase from his first term, when he generally tracked in the 40 percent range.

The public’s support for tighter gun laws nearly matches Obama’s approval rating, with 55 percent saying they support stricter measures, against 44 who said they oppose, according to the poll.

Vice President Biden, who spearheaded the president’s gun task force initiative, enjoys the best rating of all at 59 percent approval, up from 54 in December."

Read more: Poll: Obama approval rises, as does public support for gun control - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I had not expected Obama's approval rating go up by taking a strong leadership position on gun control, as controversial as it is, but I'm glad to see it and I'm more hopeful of most of the task force proposals getting enacted.
​

 

[LaMidRighter]

"President Obama’s approval rating has seen a modest jump in favorability over the last month, as the public seems to have warmed to the idea of stricter gun laws, a new survey found.

According to a Time-CNN survey released Wednesday, 55 percent said they approve of the job the president is doing, against 43 who said they disapprove. Obama’s job approval was at 52 percent in the same poll conducted in late December, a marked increase from his first term, when he generally tracked in the 40 percent range.

The public’s support for tighter gun laws nearly matches Obama’s approval rating, with 55 percent saying they support stricter measures, against 44 who said they oppose, according to the poll.

Vice President Biden, who spearheaded the president’s gun task force initiative, enjoys the best rating of all at 59 percent approval, up from 54 in December."

Read more: Poll: Obama approval rises, as does public support for gun control - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I had not expected Obama's approval rating go up by taking a strong leadership position on gun control, as controversial as it is, but I'm glad to see it and I'm more hopeful of most of the task force proposals getting enacted.
​

A Time/CNN poll. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic, this is what we call desperate.

 

[SMTA]

Bully for them!

Uninformed folks taking polls never amount to anything.

According to pollsters, except Nate Silver, Romney was going to win big!

Ho hum.

 

[Shewter]

"President Obama’s approval rating has seen a modest jump in favorability over the last month, as the public seems to have warmed to the idea of stricter gun laws, a new survey found.

According to a Time-CNN survey released Wednesday, 55 percent said they approve of the job the president is doing, against 43 who said they disapprove. Obama’s job approval was at 52 percent in the same poll conducted in late December, a marked increase from his first term, when he generally tracked in the 40 percent range.

The public’s support for tighter gun laws nearly matches Obama’s approval rating, with 55 percent saying they support stricter measures, against 44 who said they oppose, according to the poll.

Vice President Biden, who spearheaded the president’s gun task force initiative, enjoys the best rating of all at 59 percent approval, up from 54 in December."

Read more: Poll: Obama approval rises, as does public support for gun control - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I had not expected Obama's approval rating go up by taking a strong leadership position on gun control, as controversial as it is, but I'm glad to see it and I'm more hopeful of most of the task force proposals getting enacted.
​

Nice poll.. you have got to be kidding me dude.

The CNN/Time Magazine poll was conducted by ORC International Monday and Tuesday (Jan. 14-15), with 814 adults nationwide questioned by telephone.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnn-poll-majority-approve-of-obama-biden-in-advance-of-gun-control-announcement/?iref=allsearch

Let's think about this.

311,591,917 - Jul 2011
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Based on that population Census, do you REALLY believe 814 people is an accurate representation? Probably not right?

That should have read "59% of the people we decided to ask support Obama and Gun Control and whatnot."

 

[Einzige]

Bully for them!

Uninformed folks taking polls never amount to anything.

According to pollsters, except Nate Silver, Romney was going to win big!

Ho hum.

Uh, no.

A. Nave Silver is a poll aggregator, not a pollster himself. All of his data was derived from the polls. Consequentially,
B. The sum of all of the polls in the 2012 election cycle never showed that Romney was going to win. Ever.

Polling isn't an exact science, but it's closer to being a 'science' than any other of the myriad 'political sciences'.
I buy it.

 

[Einzige]

Based on that population Census, do you REALLY believe 814 people is an accurate representation? Probably not right?

PPP, the most accurate pollster of the last election cycle, averaged 750 responses in any given polling round.

Seriously, poll skepticism is ****ing retarded, and I have no idea why populists peddle it other than to make themselves feel better. I thought you people learned your lesson when Unskewed Polls went down in flames.

 

[Shewter]

Uh, no.

A. Nave Silver is a poll aggregator, not a pollster himself. All of his data was derived from the polls. Consequentially,
B. The sum of all of the polls in the 2012 election cycle never showed that Romney was going to win. Ever.

Polling isn't an exact science, but it's closer to being a 'science' than any other of the myriad 'political sciences'.
I buy it.

You buy a poll for a country with over 300 million people using 814 people without disclosing the method of determination for contact?

 

[Einzige]

You buy a poll for a country with over 300 million people using 814 people without disclosing the method of determination for contact?

Absolutely. CNN/Time were within half a point of the Margin of Error in their final pre-election poll in 2012.

Polling isn't a bunch of people sitting around in a room jacking each other off.

 

[Shewter]

PPP, the most accurate pollster of the last election cycle, averaged 750 responses in any given polling round.

Seriously, poll skepticism is ****ing retarded, and I have no idea why populists peddle it other than to make themselves feel better. I thought you people learned your lesson when Unskewed Polls went down in flames.

Would you like to give sources? It's possible that those polls divulged enough information about their process to make them credible. This one, did not.

 

[Einzige]

Would you like to give sources? It's possible that those polls divulged enough information about their process to make them credible. This one, did not.

I don't have the sources. Someone over on Dave Leip's Atlas Forum posted that during the election cycle; it's a factoid I remember (and I trust the quality of the political commentary on the Atlas a lot more than I do the generic, uninformed populist bitching here).

The CNN/Time poll was trustworthy enough for Nate Silver to include it in his aggregate. Spuriously questioning the poll size, when most polls include fewer than a thousand responses, is retarded.

 

[Shewter]

I don't have the sources. Someone over on Dave Leip's Atlas Forum posted that during the election cycle; it's a factoid I remember (and I trust the quality of the political commentary on the Atlas a lot more than I do the generic, uninformed populist bitching here).

Trust what you want. Polls are easily dishonest and misleading. Saying you called 814 people so these statistics represent the nation with a 3-5% margin of error means nothing. Divulging how you contacted the people that answered the polls is pretty important.

P.S. By no means am I doubting this place or that place's track record. What I am saying is that without explanation of the polling process used we don't know **** about the polls validity.

 

[Einzige]

Trust what you want. Polls are easily dishonest and misleading. Saying you called 814 people so these statistics represent the nation with a 3-5% margin of error means nothing. Divulging how you contacted the people that answered the polls is pretty important.

The polls in the last Presidential election were literally within a single percentage point of the final result.

Seriously. Acting like polling is some mysterious, arcane dark art practiced by those eeeeevil ivory tower 'lites to lead the Common Man astray is dumb as goose****. It's a predictable, utterly pedestrian and pretty transparent process.

 

[Catawba]

A Time/CNN poll. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic, this is what we call desperate.

I believe that is what Karl Rove, formerly of Fox News, said of the polls that showed Obama was ahead during the campaign. Sure will miss old Karl Rove!

 

[Shewter]

The polls in the last Presidential election were literally within a single percentage point of the final result.

Seriously. Acting like polling is some mysterious, arcane dark art practiced by those eeeeevil ivory tower 'lites to lead the Common Man astray is dumb as goose****. It's a predictable, utterly pedestrian and pretty transparent process.

That's fine. Until their process IS transparent, I cannot accept the numbers. It's no different than me calling nothing but folks in conservative counties across the nation and making my case that XX% of Americans oppose all gun control methods or (insert partisanship assumption here)

I can say it was "nationwide" and there will be some conflicting answers.. but I'm going to get the majority statistic that I'm looking for.

To blindly trust a poll because you've seen success in the past is just plain jackassery.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I believe that is what Karl Rove, formerly of Fox News, said of the polls that showed Obama was ahead during the campaign. Sure will miss old Karl Rove!

Right, like I give a **** what a Republican strategist says. :roll: Seriously, you've got nothing of substance on this subject, even your information is partisan crap.

 

[LaMidRighter]

That's fine. Until their process IS transparent, I cannot accept the numbers. It's no different than me calling nothing but folks in conservative counties across the nation and making my case that XX% of Americans oppose all gun control methods or (insert partisanship assumption here)

To blindly trust a poll because you've seen success in the past is just plain jackassery.

At least a parrot can learn new material. These partisans do nothing but recycle 100 year old garbage.

 

[Einzige]

To blindly trust a poll because you've seen success in the past is just plain jackassery.

No, it's called "adhering to the dictates of the scientific method that our sources of information be verifiable and repeatable". The CNN/Time poll has been accurate in the past, and consequentially I have little reason to doubt this poll.

 

[Einzige]

At least a parrot can learn new material. These partisans do nothing but recycle 100 year old garbage.

Weren't you an 'Unskewed Pollster'? I distinctly remember you posting to the effect that Romney was going to win because the polls were oversampling Democrats.

 

[Catawba]

Right, like I give a **** what a Republican strategist says. :roll: Seriously, you've got nothing of substance on this subject, even your information is partisan crap.

Which results do you doubt? The presidents approval rating, or the percentage that supports the task force proposals?

 

[Shewter]

No, it's called "adhering to the dictates of the scientific method that our sources of information be verifiable and repeatable". The CNN/Time poll has been accurate in the past, and consequentially I have little reason to doubt this poll.

You are still trusting a poll that says nothing of its method other than "telephone contact". You cannot honestly say that the poll is "adhering to the dictates of the scientific method that our sources of information be verifiable and repeatable."

 

[Shewter]

Which results do you doubt? The presidents approval rating, or the percentage that supports the task force proposals?

Both until I am able to view the method used to gather the statistics. "We called people" doesn't suffice.

 

[Einzige]

You are still trusting a poll that says nothing of its method other than "telephone contact". You cannot honestly say that the poll is "adhering to the dictates of the scientific method that our sources of information be verifiable and repeatable."

All those other accurate polls out of CNN/Time also said "telephone contact".

Simply because you don't want this to be true doesn't make it false.

 

[Catawba]

Both until I am able to view the method used to gather the statistics. "We called people" doesn't suffice.

Post a poll that you consider "legit" that is counter to the results of this poll.

 

[Einzige]

ABC News has Obama at 53-43 approved, within the Margin of Error of the CNN/Time poll:

January 2013 Post-ABC poll - Obama, Congress and spending cuts - The Washington Post

Today's Gallup has Obama at 54/41 approved, which is materially identical to a 55/43 approval rating.

Gallup.Com Politics News

It's all lies, I tells ya! Lies, damn lies, and nonsense! My gut tells me he's way less unpopular than that! [/sarcasm]

 

[Shewter]

All those other accurate polls out of CNN/Time also said "telephone contact".

Simply because you don't want this to be true doesn't make it false.

Yeah, has nothing to do with me "not wanting it to be true." and everything with me not trusting any statistics with no backing from EITHER side of this debate right now.

Verifiable numbers can be rock solid, there's nothing you can do to argue them. Numbers without explanation are nothing more than numbers.