Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 21, 2020, 08:46:42 am
News: 2020 Mock/Endorsements for Presidential Primaries are now open.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1028481 times)
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1400 on: July 10, 2009, 11:45:55 am »

I will gladly take Keynesian economics over supply-side theory any day of the week. Comparing the historcial performance of each, as well as the logic behind both theories, it's clear Keynes had it right and supply side is a dismal failure.
As if those were the only two choices.

There is little logic behind either approach, and their reckless positions on spending and inflation are virtually the same.
Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1401 on: July 10, 2009, 11:51:01 am »
« Edited: July 10, 2009, 11:59:07 am by DariusNJ »

Here's the Minnesota poll:

Obama 51, Pawlenty 40
Obama 56, Palin 35

Obama: 54% Approve, 39% Disapprove

Pawlenty: 44% approve, 48% disapprove

Palin: 39% favorable, 53% unfavorable


http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1402 on: July 10, 2009, 12:05:12 pm »
« Edited: July 10, 2009, 12:10:27 pm by pbrower2a »

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-up-big-on-pawlenty-palin.html

In case anyone wondered whether Pawlenty had any viability as a GOP nominee, then look at how he does in his own state, Minnesota, against Obama:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whoops! There goes another question mark!

If Pawlenty can't do well in Minnesota, then he certainly won't pick off Wisconsin, Iowa, or Michigan for the GOP in 2012, those states being most similar to Minnesota in their political cultures -- states that the GOP will need to win if something goes wrong for the GOP in the South, like poor whites finding that they have common interests with poor black people.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1403 on: July 10, 2009, 12:14:51 pm »

Obama is down to 51% in Rassy and down to  56% in the RCP average.

Don't worry, Dems, I'm sure that Obama is as invincible as you've all told us for months.

I'm not worried considering Saint Reagan was sitting at 35% in Gallup as of January 1983

Saint Reagan's won because the economy recovered in the second half of '83.  So Obama should be fine if the next election doesn't happen until 2017.
I don't see how the economy would take that long to recover when almost every group of economists has predicted the recovery to start in 2010...

The same economists who didn't see the crash coming?  The same economists who now have to admit their stimulus projections were wrong because they underestimated the recession?

No, the same economists that said that the GOP neutering of the stimulus bill would slow the recovery because Republicans underestimated the recession.

It is amazing that it took only six months for the left's argument to reach this point.

The failure of Keynesianism is evidence of the need for more Keynesianism!

Your arguments have reached the point where nothing is ever falsifiable.  If your polices fail, you can always excuse the failure by saying your policies were not sufficiently pure.  You never have to re-examine your premises or think seriously about where you went wrong, you just have to shout louder.

Supply-side economics has been tried for the last 28 years, and it has proved promising at first and troublesome later. Productivity increases have not resulted in improved living for most Americans, so its very premise has been proved false.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1404 on: July 10, 2009, 12:47:33 pm »
« Edited: July 11, 2009, 08:21:12 am by pbrower2a »

Obama comes down to earth a bit in Minnesota:





but has little to fear from a challenge from Pawlenty:



I may be excessively generous to Pawlenty, whose surname will be no less exotic in the South than "Obama" in 2012 (a huge detriment), and who is likely well known in the Dakotas (except for Rapid City, the more populated areas of the two states' media come from or feed into Minnesota).

We will have a Polish-American President someday; we missed our chance with Muskie, and Pawlenty is not the one.

Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1405 on: July 10, 2009, 05:01:23 pm »

I will gladly take Keynesian economics over supply-side theory any day of the week. Comparing the historcial performance of each, as well as the logic behind both theories, it's clear Keynes had it right and supply side is a dismal failure.

Supply side has only really been tried once and it was a huge success.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1406 on: July 10, 2009, 05:36:42 pm »

I will gladly take Keynesian economics over supply-side theory any day of the week. Comparing the historcial performance of each, as well as the logic behind both theories, it's clear Keynes had it right and supply side is a dismal failure.

Supply side has only really been tried once and it was a huge success.

The time that it worked was the 1980s, when lots of young workers (late-wave Baby Boomers)  entered the workforce who learned because of severe competition in the workplace that they would be wise to be thankful just to be able to have food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, the means of getting to work (an aging used car), and protection from the elements (some tiny apartment). Supply-side economics then rode the learning curve of young workers in rapidly-growing service and retail businesses (like fast food places). It could then be imposed with little loss of personal freedom. Poverty, sure, but tycoons and executives can always exempt themselves from its hazards.

The failure of the 1929 economy was not that it was insufficiently productive by the standards of the time.

The cruder sort of Keynesian (depression) economics can fail -- when it is done too long or in inappropriate times. If it is done in a time of inflation -- as Jimmy Carter tried to do -- it leads almost entirely to inflation. When a national economy is working at its maximum of effectiveness and unable to add desirable workers, then bigger government spending can only result in squeezing the private sector.  John Milton Keynes recognized that in the 1930s.

So let's suppose that the following conditions exist:

1. Mass unemployment exists. Where unemployment reaches double digits, competent employees who can be very productive can be found easily. With huge needs, such people will (upon getting a paycheck) spend just about everything they get. They will replace their rags with new clothes. They will celebrate with restaurant meals. They will get medical and dental care that they deferred. They will start commuting and get auto repairs. Their hard-luck relatives will start leeching off them.

2. Real interest rates are near zero -- the liquidity trap. If government simply prints more money, then people will sit on it for fear that there will be no more to come. Look at the image of the Great Depression: the people who still had money were hoarding it in the expectation of later needs, rather than enjoying what remained of the bounties of capitalism.

3. People are averse to investing -- or even maintenance -- in productive activities. Net investment (investment less depreciation) went negative at times around 1930.

4. Productive capacity is grossly under-used. Industrial plants are in mothballs, retail rentals are cheap, raw materials are plentiful. 

Deficit spending that puts people back to work in construction, iron and steel, concrete, brickmaking, lumber, coal, and probably now glass industries and landscaping effectively pays for itself in income tax and sales tax receipts -- and of course reduction in "relief" payments, some of them through the multiplier effect. Some newly-employed construction worker at a dam project or bridge buys, buys, and buys. That worker's income ends up flowing through retail stores, restaurants, apartment rents, etc.

You tell me -- does this time look more like 1930 in economic direction... or 1980?  Keynesian depression economics are relevant now as they weren't in 1980. Indeed, JMK would have told government to cut government spending and raise taxes around 1980 even if it were politically uncomfortable.
 


 
Logged
Calvin and Hobbes
catmusic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 675
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1407 on: July 11, 2009, 03:39:02 am »

Obama comes down to earth a bit in Minnesota:






Lol at Nevada and Florida. Whatheck is going on?
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1408 on: July 11, 2009, 04:23:40 am »

I donít really want to turn this into an econ threadjack so I will not address all your points, but I do feel the need to correct the most egregious of your errors.

The time that it worked was the 1980s, when lots of young workers (late-wave Baby Boomers)  entered the workforce who learned because of severe competition in the workplace that they would be wise to be thankful just to be able to have food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, the means of getting to work (an aging used car), and protection from the elements (some tiny apartment). Supply-side economics then rode the learning curve of young workers in rapidly-growing service and retail businesses (like fast food places). It could then be imposed with little loss of personal freedom. Poverty, sure, but tycoons and executives can always exempt themselves from its hazards.

The 1980s were not a period where people got less but were happy to get it, which is how you seem to be portraying it.  Inflation and unemployment fell and GDP grew.  Actual economic indicators went in a positive direction at an impressive rate.

And poverty fell in the 1980s!  I donít have a clue where you would get the idea that most late wave boomers were all stuck working in fast food or that the 1980s created more poor people while shielding tycoons from onrushing social decay.  The America you describe as existing in the 1980s actually has not existed for about a century.

The failure of the 1929 economy was not that it was insufficiently productive by the standards of the time.

No one said that was the cause of the crash of í29.  In fact, my view of the crash of í29 is quite the opposite.  The economy needed to slow down in the late Ď20s because we were in a severe bubble.

The cruder sort of Keynesian (depression) economics can fail -- when it is done too long or in inappropriate times. If it is done in a time of inflation -- as Jimmy Carter tried to do -- it leads almost entirely to inflation.

The Carter years were not an anomaly.  In fact, they are quite instructive because the Keynesians said that high unemployment and high inflation in concert were impossible (Or close to impossible).  The very fact that stagflation happened at all undercuts one of the central theses of Keynesianism: That in times of high unemployment we need not worry about inflation.  The late 1970s proved once and for all that inflation is not caused by prosperity, but rather is a primarily a monetary phenomenon.

This is very useful today.  Keynesians dismiss the events of the 1970s as an anomaly.  Then they dramatically expand the monetary base while increasing government expenditures.  They then claim that there is no threat that increasing public expenditures and growing the money supply will create inflation because there isnít enough consumption to have inflation.  But the 1970s prove that you donít need an overheated economy to have inflation!  When inflation has returned by the middle of next year, the Keynesians will be very surprised but the monetarists and supply-siders will not.  The reason is that Keynesians never learned the central lessons of stagflation because those lessons were too inconvenient for them.


Look at the image of the Great Depression: the people who still had money were hoarding it in the expectation of later needs, rather than enjoying what remained of the bounties of capitalism.

Wrong.  People did not hoard that much in the Great Depression.  The money supply was shrinking when the economy was shrinking.  Once FDR went partially off the Gold Standard and the money supply was allowed to grow people did, in fact, begin consuming as the supply of money increased.  When monetary policy was conducted well, it was an effective stimulus.

Deficit spending that puts people back to work in construction, iron and steel, concrete, brickmaking, lumber, coal, and probably now glass industries and landscaping effectively pays for itself in income tax and sales tax receipts -- and of course reduction in "relief" payments, some of them through the multiplier effect. Some newly-employed construction worker at a dam project or bridge buys, buys, and buys. That worker's income ends up flowing through retail stores, restaurants, apartment rents, etc.

You make the classical economist mistake: You assume that because you can design a stimulus program that will get economic activity going then that means you must be able to actually create that stimulus program in the real world.  But you canít translate that program from the blackboard to real life.  Part of the reason for that is that politics take over and money is directed towards the politically connected and not towards things that are economically viable.  Part of the reason is that shovel ready projects arenít shovel ready.  Part of the reason is the leaky bucket problem, where money is siphoned off in administrative costs instead of being injected straight into the economy.

And part of the problem is that central planners often just make bad decisions about where to spend money, so even when the money is spent quickly and does into the economy it often still doesnít do any good.

You tell me -- does this time look more like 1930 in economic direction... or 1980?  Keynesian depression economics are relevant now as they weren't in 1980. Indeed, JMK would have told government to cut government spending and raise taxes around 1980 even if it were politically uncomfortable.   

Your question is irrelevant.  The issue is not our circumstances; it is the policies you are advocating.  Bad economic policies are bad economic policies.  Keynesianism doesnít work (And it didnít work any better in the US in the 1930s than it did in Japan in the 1990s).  It isnít a matter of it working in some circumstances and not in others; it doesnít work in any circumstances!  If you were advocating policies that would work in certain circumstances but not others, your comparison would be well taken.   But you are not.  You are advocating policies with a track record of perfect failure in all circumstances.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43,254
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1409 on: July 11, 2009, 05:24:26 am »

I will gladly take Keynesian economics over supply-side theory any day of the week. Comparing the historcial performance of each, as well as the logic behind both theories, it's clear Keynes had it right and supply side is a dismal failure.

Supply side has only really been tried once and it was a huge success.

Double sigh.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1410 on: July 11, 2009, 05:16:46 pm »

I fail to see how supply-side is really that different from Keynesian economics, at least in its 1980s incarnation.  In fact, I would argue that supply-side tactics is the only thing that has kept Keynesian-style economics from collapsing under its own weight as long as it has.

Also, any declines in Obama's approval that are occurring (and yes there has been a material one over the past couple of weeks) are because of the economy.  Everything else is pretty much irrelevant and will be irrelevant unless it is really, really major.

There are three material points that Obama's approval has to fall through before we can say "he is in danger".  I believe that we're either touching or very close to #1 right now.  And the regression line is not looking great for now (though that's not terribly surprising)

The first is his 2008 % of vote = 53%.  It's probably slightly higher in adult poll incarnations = 55% or so.

The second is following below the 50% level, but only in adult polls.  It is very hard to get a wave to occur until the incumbent party falls below this point and with Republican's current ratings, I don't think it'll happen here.

The third is the point where disapproval is greater than approval in adult polls.  If and when Obama reaches this point - we will have a different paradigm.  We're not there yet and if it happens, it will be a while. (you have to go through the other two first, you know, and there's always support at those levels)
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1411 on: July 11, 2009, 11:09:24 pm »

I donít really want to turn this into an econ threadjack so I will not address all your points, but I do feel the need to correct the most egregious of your errors.

The time that it worked was the 1980s, when lots of young workers (late-wave Baby Boomers)  entered the workforce who learned because of severe competition in the workplace that they would be wise to be thankful just to be able to have food in their bellies, clothes on their backs, the means of getting to work (an aging used car), and protection from the elements (some tiny apartment). Supply-side economics then rode the learning curve of young workers in rapidly-growing service and retail businesses (like fast food places). It could then be imposed with little loss of personal freedom. Poverty, sure, but tycoons and executives can always exempt themselves from its hazards.

The 1980s were not a period where people got less but were happy to get it, which is how you seem to be portraying it.  Inflation and unemployment fell and GDP grew.  Actual economic indicators went in a positive direction at an impressive rate.

And poverty fell in the 1980s!  I donít have a clue where you would get the idea that most late wave boomers were all stuck working in fast food or that the 1980s created more poor people while shielding tycoons from onrushing social decay.  The America you describe as existing in the 1980s actually has not existed for about a century.

Of course the economic misery that many young workers found to their surprise (I got a college degree and I am working for the minimum wage!) generally did not last long for individuals.  Many learned something from their low-wage job, such as marketable skills more lucratively rewarded elsewhere. Many were stranded for a few months in fast food, retail sales, and cleaning work.

The failure of the 1929 economy was not that it was insufficiently productive by the standards of the time.

No one said that was the cause of the crash of í29.  In fact, my view of the crash of í29 is quite the opposite.  The economy needed to slow down in the late Ď20s because we were in a severe bubble.

The cruder sort of Keynesian (depression) economics can fail -- when it is done too long or in inappropriate times. If it is done in a time of inflation -- as Jimmy Carter tried to do -- it leads almost entirely to inflation.

The Carter years were not an anomaly.  In fact, they are quite instructive because the Keynesians said that high unemployment and high inflation in concert were impossible (Or close to impossible).  The very fact that stagflation happened at all undercuts one of the central theses of Keynesianism: That in times of high unemployment we need not worry about inflation.  The late 1970s proved once and for all that inflation is not caused by prosperity, but rather is a primarily a monetary phenomenon.

This is very useful today.  Keynesians dismiss the events of the 1970s as an anomaly.  Then they dramatically expand the monetary base while increasing government expenditures.  They then claim that there is no threat that increasing public expenditures and growing the money supply will create inflation because there isnít enough consumption to have inflation.  But the 1970s prove that you donít need an overheated economy to have inflation!  When inflation has returned by the middle of next year, the Keynesians will be very surprised but the monetarists and supply-siders will not.  The reason is that Keynesians never learned the central lessons of stagflation because those lessons were too inconvenient for them.[/quote]

Reason: once-low fuel prices skyrocketed. Until the 1970s the US produced the oil that it needed for fuel; then it became a net importer. If a major component of both productive activities and consumer costs gets more expensive, then one can have both reduced economic activity and rising prices. Few could have predicted that -- monetarists, supply-siders, or monetarists. Until 2007 the highest real cost of petroleum was to be found in the early 1980s.   

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong.  People did not hoard that much in the Great Depression.  The money supply was shrinking when the economy was shrinking.  Once FDR went partially off the Gold Standard and the money supply was allowed to grow people did, in fact, begin consuming as the supply of money increased.  When monetary policy was conducted well, it was an effective stimulus.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You make the classical economist mistake: You assume that because you can design a stimulus program that will get economic activity going then that means you must be able to actually create that stimulus program in the real world.  But you canít translate that program from the blackboard to real life.  Part of the reason for that is that politics take over and money is directed towards the politically connected and not towards things that are economically viable.  Part of the reason is that shovel ready projects arenít shovel ready.  Part of the reason is the leaky bucket problem, where money is siphoned off in administrative costs instead of being injected straight into the economy.

And part of the problem is that central planners often just make bad decisions about where to spend money, so even when the money is spent quickly and does into the economy it often still doesnít do any good.

[/quote][/quote]

Central planning? Who is asking for central planning? Such aid as business has been getting has been thrown heavily at those culpable of the mess (banks far more than the auto industry). I'd have let the giant banks that got us into this mess fail; banking used to be a cottage industry, and it worked far better for all when it was "Bailey Savings and Loan" instead of "First International Megabank" (Citibank/Wells Fargo/Bank of America/Chase/SunTrust/PNC...) The auto industry? The Big 3 hardly misbehaved so badly, and got burned by the failure of the banking system.

The fault in 1929 as in 2007 -- the ends of corrupt booms based on enrichment of the "right people" (the wealthy, politically-connected) -- was that the people who did the work were terribly underpaid. Such wealth as the economy created tended to go into speculation -- securities in the 1920s and real estate a few years ago. Productivity gains outpaced wages, an unstable situation. Debt burgeoned, and as it outpaced wages, the economic order became a pyramid game in its last stage. Even the political orders of the Harding-Coolidge and Dubya eras were remarkably similar in their unconstrained belief in the concentration of economic power as the cornerstone of some super-prosperity that would make all questions of inequity irrelevant.

The Meltdown of 1929-1933 was the realization that all of the supposed economic gains of the Roaring 'Twenties were a sham. America receded to levels of GDP per capita not known since about 1908. We are going to see much the same as what we thought were assets are either debt that nobody can ever pay off or empty shells that sucked wealth into dubious investments. We may be back to 1950s levels of economic activity faster than we think.   

Of course we have a lack of shovel-ready projects other than repairs. Such an activity as highway construction requires engineering plans, efforts to find politically-feasible routes, and often land acquisition, both of which take time. Supertrains? They are at least as expensive as superhighways and have much the same problems.

Among the administrative costs is engineering cost. Engineering cost is an early cost.  After that comes surveying.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1412 on: July 12, 2009, 12:06:43 am »

Fix you quote boxes, please.

And the infaltion of the 1970s wasn't due only to energy prices.  It was due to a large expansion of the money supply.  We had price spikes in '73 and '79, but inflation was a problem from '68-'82.  The inflation was persistent.  Was it worse during the energy price spikes?  Yes, energy exacerbated the problem.  But it is, by itself, an incomplete explanation.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 44,619
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1413 on: July 12, 2009, 12:20:38 am »

Obama comes down to earth a bit in Minnesota:






Lol at Nevada and Florida. Whatheck is going on?

Housing bust hitting a swing state puts states to Obama by wider margins then he should have won them, especially NV. Housing continues to bust and guess what Obama hasn't solved the problem yet. Even if condiditions stay the same Obama's approvals will drop in the hardest hit areas first and it will show up in the swing states first like NV and FL. The only way the trends top is for things to improve and we are far away from that at this point.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1414 on: July 12, 2009, 01:57:10 am »

Obama comes down to earth a bit in Minnesota:






Lol at Nevada and Florida. Whatheck is going on?

Housing bust hitting a swing state puts states to Obama by wider margins then he should have won them, especially NV. Housing continues to bust and guess what Obama hasn't solved the problem yet. Even if condiditions stay the same Obama's approvals will drop in the hardest hit areas first and it will show up in the swing states first like NV and FL. The only way the trends top is for things to improve and we are far away from that at this point.

The other side of the coin is that Obama seems to be doing surprisingly well in the Plains states and the  Southeast (FL and NC excepted) -- in places in which he was absolutely crushed in the election. It could be that the more agrarian states have been hurt less, and that there was no corrupt housing boom in places like Tennessee and Arkansas. 

I figure that the recent Lyceum poll in Texas is an outlier, but if Texas is nearly-even, then that suggests big trouble for the GOP. It is consistent with an even-approval rating in Kansas at the least. It could be that the states that voted decisively for McCain were in better economic shape than the others, and that good times favor the incumbent Party and bad times the other.

I see no quick fix to the housing devaluation. Major reforms of the banking industry, including quite possibly the break-up of the giant banking trusts, must take place before there can be any new big lending.  Even the prosecution of culpable people will do more to sate transitory anger than to solve the mess.   
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,037
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1415 on: July 13, 2009, 02:25:56 pm »

Interesting similarity:





In the first half of May, even Rasmussen had Obama at about 58-40 approval.

Does the increase in positive feelings about the state of the nation also lift Obama's approvals ?
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,037
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1416 on: July 14, 2009, 12:13:50 am »

CBS News:

57% Approve
32% Disapprove

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 944 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 9-12, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_071309.pdf
Logged
Farage
Elvis Republican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 419
Cape Verde


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1417 on: July 14, 2009, 01:32:45 am »

CBS News:

57% Approve
32% Disapprove

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 944 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 9-12, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_071309.pdf

CBS, washington polls  and NBC polls are always hack even Fox polls are pro democrats in the rates don't trust that sh**t ...
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,037
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1418 on: July 14, 2009, 01:43:19 am »

CBS News:

57% Approve
32% Disapprove

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 944 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 9-12, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_071309.pdf

CBS, washington polls  and NBC polls are always hack even Fox polls are pro democrats in the rates don't trust that sh**t ...

The poll is not really different than what Gallup showed between July 9-12 ...
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43,254
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1419 on: July 14, 2009, 03:14:56 am »

CBS News:

57% Approve
32% Disapprove

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 944 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 9-12, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_071309.pdf

CBS, washington polls  and NBC polls are always hack even Fox polls are pro democrats in the rates don't trust that sh**t ...

YARRGHH!
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1420 on: July 14, 2009, 05:58:11 am »

I'm just disappointed how they weight their polls by party ID the way they do. They actually found 27% of people identifying as Republicans, but they weighted it down to 23%.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,037
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1421 on: July 14, 2009, 02:30:14 pm »

New Jersey (Quinnipiac University)Sad

Registered Voters

61% Approve
33% Disapprove

Likely Voters

60% Approve
34% Disapprove

From July 8 - 12, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,514 New Jersey likely voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1348
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1422 on: July 14, 2009, 03:07:07 pm »

CBS News:

57% Approve
32% Disapprove

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 944 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 9-12, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_071309.pdf

Isn't 11% a bit high for undecided/not sure on a presidential job approval poll?
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43,254
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1423 on: July 15, 2009, 02:59:38 am »

CBS News:

57% Approve
32% Disapprove

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 944 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 9-12, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_Obama_071309.pdf

Isn't 11% a bit high for undecided/not sure on a presidential job approval poll?

CBS is just pretty bad in general, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to this poll. They are also known for their always high amount of undecideds.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,037
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1424 on: July 15, 2009, 01:10:50 pm »

Virginia (Rasmussen)Sad

51% Approve
48% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Virginia was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 14, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2009/virginia/toplines/toplines_virginia_governor_election_july_14_2009
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC