Bush Approvals on the rebound

[dazzleman]

As expected.  Not even Bush could stay in the lower 40's for too long.

I remember when Jimmy Carter's approval rating was 22%.  I think that's the worst in recorded history.  It can get a lot worse than the low 40s under the right circumstances.

[dazzleman]

I keep forgetting that polls are only worth a darn if Bush is at or below 40.

Yes, if he's below 40, they're unassailable.  If he's over 40, they're garbage.  Glad to see you've got it down.

[dazzleman]

I keep forgetting that polls are only worth a darn if Bush is at or below 40.

Yes, if he's below 40, they're unassailable.  If he's over 40, they're garbage.  Glad to see you've got it down.

Check out the Gallup polls from OH, PA, and FL from right before the election and get back to me.

why don't you just tell me your conclusion

[dazzleman]

I keep forgetting that polls are only worth a darn if Bush is at or below 40.

Yes, if he's below 40, they're unassailable.  If he's over 40, they're garbage.  Glad to see you've got it down.

Check out the Gallup polls from OH, PA, and FL from right before the election and get back to me.

why don't you just tell me your conclusion

Florida: Kerry +3
Ohio: Kerry +4
Pennsylvania: Bush +4

That's outside the MOE on all 3, and they got all 3 wrong. The odds of that are 2.5%^3 = about 0.001625%

I see.  Lots of people messed up on polling in the 2004 election.  I think caller ID has made accurate polling much more difficult.  People screen their calls much more than before now, and it is much more difficult for a non-friend to get through to a person.  This has to have an impact on the randomness of the polls, since having to rely on those who are willing to take calls from strangers, or unable to screen calls, probably skews the polls in unpredictable ways.

[dazzleman]

The point is they messed up all 3 of the big battleground states, being outside of the 95% confidence level on all of them, and those weren't the only ones they screwed up. They had Bush +8 in Wisconsin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html

I understand.  I'm telling you why I don't trust polls in general at this point, or at least take them with a grain of salt.

Still, a public opinion poll is a lot more accurate than a pre-election poll because it doesn't have to predict turnout.  Anybody can say they approve or disapprove, but an election poll has to guess who will actually turn out.  My guess is that inaccurate assumptions on the turnout of various political/demographic groups had a lot to do with some polls not predicting the election results correctly in key states.

[dazzleman]

So they leaned away from Bush in the 2 most important battlegrounds?

I see.

What is a reliable poster then?

Gallup was outside of the MOE, and had the wrong person up in all of the 3 most important states.

SUSA and Mason Dixon seemed to do much better. Hell, even those clowns at Rasmussen did much better. Scanning through those polls.

FL: All pretty close
OH: All very close
PA: All very close
WI Mason-Dixon close
IA: SUSA, Mason-Dixon within MOE
MN: Rasmussen sort of close
MI: SUSA, Rasmussen somewhat close
MO: SUSA, Mason-Dixon fairly close
NM: Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon too pro-Bush, but within MOE
NV: SUSA and Rasmussen too pro-Bush, but within MOE

Those pollsters were in the MOE 21 out of 21 times, which is better than chance. They may have used weighting to help here. Only the SUSA NV poll was borderline.

You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.....

[dazzleman]

As expected.  Not even Bush could stay in the lower 40's for too long.

I remember when Jimmy Carter's approval rating was 22%.  I think that's the worst in recorded history.  It can get a lot worse than the low 40s under the right circumstances.

If I have said it once....

Truman left office with a 19% approval rating.

Wow.  I knew Truman was unpopular at the end of his term, but I didn't realize just how unpopular.