Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2019, 07:47:28 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1015896 times)
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,443
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: February 21, 2009, 11:12:52 am »
« edited: February 21, 2009, 02:00:18 pm by pbrower2a »


Biggest ones left: Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, and Colorado.   

Maybe sooner or later we'll get a Georgia poll by Strategic Vision and an Arizona poll by BRC or KAET, but I think it's unlikely that we'll see a poll from the other states, allthough there's a slight chance that Selzer may poll Michigan for the Detroit Free Press.

Selzer is really good; it got Indiana and Missouri right in 2008. Strategic Vision has a GOP bias, so I would have to give it a grain of salt as I gave PPP with its Democratic bias... 

Heck, Montana would be interesting because it was a swing state.
Approval ratings just came in for Georgia, a swing state into which Obama put much effort until September (when the GOP gave a scare):



... and now Georgia, until now the most populous state for which an approval rating wasn't yet posted. Georgia might be equal in electoral votes to Michigan in 2012, though, as people who have a chance to leave "Michigrim" get to do so.

It looks as the GOP has its work cut out for itself if it is to achieve anything in the 2012 election. Note that Obama barely won Florida, and his approval rating in Florida approaches 70%. Right now it seems that any Republican who had to challenge Obama today for the Presidency would be the new Alf Landon... with apologies to Landon in case the personalities aren't the same.

Mercifully for the GOP, the election isn't being held today. 
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 #126 on: February 21, 2009, 07:42:25 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,375
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: February 21, 2009, 07:45:48 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

I give him one month before he gets impeached.
Wink
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,591


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: February 21, 2009, 07:46:05 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.
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 #129 on: February 21, 2009, 07:49:16 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,591


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: February 21, 2009, 07:52:47 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.

That doesn't stop his approval rating polls from being some serious outliers. Toss out the 2 biggest outliers (Rasmussen and CNN), and it's clear that his approval rating is in the 60s.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm
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 #131 on: February 21, 2009, 07:56:05 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.

That doesn't stop his approval rating polls from being some serious outliers. Toss out the 2 biggest outliers (Rasmussen and CNN), and it's clear that his approval rating is in the 60s.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

Those polls are outdated.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 46,591


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: February 21, 2009, 07:58:29 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.

That doesn't stop his approval rating polls from being some serious outliers. Toss out the 2 biggest outliers (Rasmussen and CNN), and it's clear that his approval rating is in the 60s.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

Those polls are outdated.

Hardly. The 3 most recent from there:
CNN 2/18-19 67%
Fox 2/17-18 60%
AP 2/12-17 67%

Also, Research 2000 2/16-19 69%
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 #133 on: February 21, 2009, 08:02:47 pm »

I still don't understand the euphoria about Obama's approval ratings.  It's called a honeymoon you morons.  And Obama's approval rating has gone consistently down.  There is nothing to celebrate here.  Call me back at the end of the year.

In fact, his approval is tanking in the Rasmussen poll, down to 57% today.

What a joke. Even Fox has 60%.

Yeah, call the most accurate pollster in 2008 a joke. See what there gets you.

That doesn't stop his approval rating polls from being some serious outliers. Toss out the 2 biggest outliers (Rasmussen and CNN), and it's clear that his approval rating is in the 60s.
http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

Those polls are outdated.

Hardly. The 3 most recent from there:
CNN 2/18-19 67%
Fox 2/17-18 60%
AP 2/12-17 67%

Also, Research 2000 2/16-19 69%


Rasmussen polls Likely Voters, meaning he uses a realistic voter breakdown. The others just pick random people off the streets.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,591
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: February 21, 2009, 08:13:46 pm »

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.
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 #135 on: February 21, 2009, 08:16:30 pm »

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: February 21, 2009, 09:01:03 pm »

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?

When you're determining who is a good pollster, ignoring state polling in favor of the final national result is a bad idea.  It's essentially taking one poll and ignoring dozens of others that use a similar methodology.

Either way, an LV screen right now does very little.  The only criteria that can be employed, is past electoral participation.  I'd much prefer RV for now.  Adult does tend to have a Democratic bias.

But you're still doing that annoying mode of analysis you did last time you were here.  You do realize that you were, how to say this, completely wrong?
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 #137 on: February 21, 2009, 09:04:21 pm »

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?

When you're determining who is a good pollster, ignoring state polling in favor of the final national result is a bad idea.  It's essentially taking one poll and ignoring dozens of others that use a similar methodology.

Either way, an LV screen right now does very little.  The only criteria that can be employed, is past electoral participation.  I'd much prefer RV for now.  Adult does tend to have a Democratic bias.

But you're still doing that annoying mode of analysis you did last time you were here.  You do realize that you were, how to say this, completely wrong?

Apparently I haven't. And the only RV poll out there right now is FOX and that is at 60%.
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: February 21, 2009, 09:11:56 pm »

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?

When you're determining who is a good pollster, ignoring state polling in favor of the final national result is a bad idea.  It's essentially taking one poll and ignoring dozens of others that use a similar methodology.

Either way, an LV screen right now does very little.  The only criteria that can be employed, is past electoral participation.  I'd much prefer RV for now.  Adult does tend to have a Democratic bias.

But you're still doing that annoying mode of analysis you did last time you were here.  You do realize that you were, how to say this, completely wrong?

Apparently I haven't. And the only RV poll out there right now is FOX and that is at 60%.

It's equally unnecessary to just disregard adult polls, though.  If you ask an average group of adults, "are you registered to vote?," many will lie in the affirmative.  Therefore, the % RV is not really hugely lower than the % adult.  It does not account for a nine-point swing like that.
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 #139 on: February 21, 2009, 09:14:53 pm »

Likely voters for what? The election is 4 years away.

And Rasmussen was far from the most accurate pollster in 2008. They were pretty mediocre overall, and had a bit of a Republican bias.

On the national poll they were essentially dead on. They had 52-46, the final was 53-46. I'd call that pretty damn accurate. Did I say they got the states right?

When you're determining who is a good pollster, ignoring state polling in favor of the final national result is a bad idea.  It's essentially taking one poll and ignoring dozens of others that use a similar methodology.

Either way, an LV screen right now does very little.  The only criteria that can be employed, is past electoral participation.  I'd much prefer RV for now.  Adult does tend to have a Democratic bias.

But you're still doing that annoying mode of analysis you did last time you were here.  You do realize that you were, how to say this, completely wrong?

Apparently I haven't. And the only RV poll out there right now is FOX and that is at 60%.

It's equally unnecessary to just disregard adult polls, though.  If you ask an average group of adults, "are you registered to vote?," many will lie in the affirmative.  Therefore, the % RV is not really hugely lower than the % adult.  It does not account for a nine-point swing like that.

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: February 21, 2009, 09:18:03 pm »

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.

1. "Are known to"?  Is this a feeling, or do you have 2008 analytical numbers?  It may be true, but I doubt you know why other than because you want it to be.

2. You're known to have a sharp implicit conservative bias, but yet you never ever ever ever account for that.  You account for other biases rigorously, but only in order to support your own.  What the hell is up with that?
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 #141 on: February 21, 2009, 09:23:26 pm »

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.

1. "Are known to"?  Is this a feeling, or do you have 2008 analytical numbers?  It may be true, but I doubt you know why other than because you want it to be.

2. You're known to have a sharp implicit conservative bias, but yet you never ever ever ever account for that.  You account for other biases rigorously, but only in order to support your own.  What the hell is up with that?

1. In some states they did, but since they never released the crosstabs its hard to tell.
2. I am a moderate.
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: February 21, 2009, 09:27:19 pm »

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.

1. "Are known to"?  Is this a feeling, or do you have 2008 analytical numbers?  It may be true, but I doubt you know why other than because you want it to be.

2. You're known to have a sharp implicit conservative bias, but yet you never ever ever ever account for that.  You account for other biases rigorously, but only in order to support your own.  What the hell is up with that?

1. In some states they did, but since they never released the crosstabs its hard to tell.

Why would the crosstabs be relevant to the topline?  We're not adjusting for crosstabs with these polls, either.


I don't care if you're a full-fledged communist.  Your "adjustment" techniques render a sharp pro-Republican bias to your analysis.  Your political affiliation does not make the analysis any less bad.
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 #143 on: February 21, 2009, 09:29:25 pm »

You also have to take into account the quality of the pollster. CNN and R2K are known to have a liberal bias.

1. "Are known to"?  Is this a feeling, or do you have 2008 analytical numbers?  It may be true, but I doubt you know why other than because you want it to be.

2. You're known to have a sharp implicit conservative bias, but yet you never ever ever ever account for that.  You account for other biases rigorously, but only in order to support your own.  What the hell is up with that?

1. In some states they did, but since they never released the crosstabs its hard to tell.

Why would the crosstabs be relevant to the topline?  We're not adjusting for crosstabs with these polls, either.


I don't care if you're a full-fledged communist.  Your "adjustment" techniques render a sharp pro-Republican bias to your analysis.  Your political affiliation does not make the analysis any less bad.

They are relevant because if they oversampled Democrats and just happened to get lucky with the topline, that doesn't make them a good pollster.
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: February 21, 2009, 09:36:32 pm »

They are relevant because if they oversampled Democrats and just happened to get lucky with the topline, that doesn't make them a good pollster.

That's a fair point.  However, in the past you've used that just to claim that Democrats are oversampled, and it turned out you were wrong.

Which brings me to the half of my post you clearly ignored, and I eagerly await an answer to.  This is your chance to admit analytical fault, correct for your errors, and redeem yourself -- the scientific way!

Or, keep living in fantasyland and I'll keep annoying you like this.  What's your choice on this one?
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 #145 on: February 21, 2009, 09:41:36 pm »

They are relevant because if they oversampled Democrats and just happened to get lucky with the topline, that doesn't make them a good pollster.

That's a fair point.  However, in the past you've used that just to claim that Democrats are oversampled, and it turned out you were wrong.

Which brings me to the half of my post you clearly ignored, and I eagerly await an answer to.  This is your chance to admit analytical fault, correct for your errors, and redeem yourself -- the scientific way!

Or, keep living in fantasyland and I'll keep annoying you like this.  What's your choice on this one?

I'll admit that in 2008 there was an ahistorical party ID jump towards the Democrats that I did not expect. To go from a tie in party ID to D+8 was something that I found hard to believe. I was basing my analysis off of history, and it turned out to be wrong. Life goes on.
Logged
Alcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,912
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: February 21, 2009, 09:42:52 pm »

So you think that you used the information available to the best of your abilities?

And you think that you are not any more zealous in adjusting for things that favor Republicans, than Democrats?

That's your final answer?
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 #147 on: February 21, 2009, 09:49:17 pm »

So you think that you used the information available to the best of your abilities?

Probably not.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I am going to try to make things seem better for my candidate than they might appear to be, everyone does that to some degree. But at no point after mid-September, did I ever believe McCain actually had a shot to win.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to phone a friend first.


Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,173


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: February 21, 2009, 10:31:01 pm »

I find it really funny when anyone thinks Alcon is being a hack for either side.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: February 21, 2009, 10:37:10 pm »

I find it really funny when anyone thinks Alcon is being a hack for either side.

Well, I sort of agree. He plays both sides so frequently that he can't be established as a hack for just one side.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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