Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 05, 2019, 10:12:39 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 156 157 158 159 160 [161] 162 163 164 165 166 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1022253 times)
nhmagic
azmagic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,097
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.62, S: 4.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4000 on: February 28, 2010, 01:33:37 pm »

p2, liberals always use the cell phone argument, but the fact is that in most polls, democrats outpoll their actual support/margin in elections by 3-4%.  Everyone - not just the young or hispanic has a cell phone now - a republican is just as likely as a democrat to have one.  I don't buy it.

cite?
Just for you Lief - though Im only doing it once, and then you're done getting a response from me on citation, as no other republican is asked on this board to do that other than me. 

Actual margin: 7.27
Marist 11/03 - 11/03 804 LV 4.0 52 43 Obama +9
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 11/01 - 11/03 1201 LV 2.9 54 43 Obama +11
IBD/TIPP 11/01 - 11/03 981 LV 3.2 52 44 Obama +8
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/01 - 11/02 1011 LV 3.1 51 43 Obama +8
Gallup 10/31 - 11/02 2472 LV 2.0 55 44 Obama +11
CBS News 10/31 - 11/02 714 LV -- 51 42 Obama +9
ABC News/Wash Post 10/30 - 11/02 2470 LV 2.5 53 44 Obama +9

Tester actual margin: .87
Rasmussen 11/04 - 11/04 500 LV 48% 50% Tester +2%
USA Today/Gallup 11/01 - 11/04 874 LV 41% 50% Tester +9%

Begich 1.25
Research 2000 10/28 - 10/30 600 LV 58 36 Begich +22
Rasmussen 10/28 - 10/28 500 LV 52 44 Begich +8

Udall 10.31
National Journal/FD 10/23 - 10/27 409 RV 51 36 Udall +15
Associated Press/GfK 10/22 - 10/26 626 LV 48 36 Udall +12
Rocky Mtn News/CBS4 10/21 - 10/23 500 LV 51 38 Udall +13

Shaheen 6.34
Rasmussen 10/30 - 10/30 700 LV 52 44 Shaheen +8
SurveyUSA 10/29 - 10/30 682 LV 53 40 Shaheen +13
ARG 10/28 - 10/30 600 LV 53 41 Shaheen +12

Shall I Go On?
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4001 on: February 28, 2010, 01:50:19 pm »

Alot of those polls are ridiculous to begin with.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,559
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4002 on: February 28, 2010, 02:13:47 pm »

p2, liberals always use the cell phone argument, but the fact is that in most polls, democrats outpoll their actual support/margin in elections by 3-4%.  Everyone - not just the young or hispanic has a cell phone now - a republican is just as likely as a democrat to have one.  I don't buy it.

cite?
Just for you Lief - though Im only doing it once, and then you're done getting a response from me on citation, as no other republican is asked on this board to do that other than me. 

Actual margin: 7.27
Marist 11/03 - 11/03 804 LV 4.0 52 43 Obama +9
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 11/01 - 11/03 1201 LV 2.9 54 43 Obama +11
IBD/TIPP 11/01 - 11/03 981 LV 3.2 52 44 Obama +8
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/01 - 11/02 1011 LV 3.1 51 43 Obama +8
Gallup 10/31 - 11/02 2472 LV 2.0 55 44 Obama +11
CBS News 10/31 - 11/02 714 LV -- 51 42 Obama +9
ABC News/Wash Post 10/30 - 11/02 2470 LV 2.5 53 44 Obama +9

Tester actual margin: .87
Rasmussen 11/04 - 11/04 500 LV 48% 50% Tester +2%
USA Today/Gallup 11/01 - 11/04 874 LV 41% 50% Tester +9%

Begich 1.25
Research 2000 10/28 - 10/30 600 LV 58 36 Begich +22
Rasmussen 10/28 - 10/28 500 LV 52 44 Begich +8

Udall 10.31
National Journal/FD 10/23 - 10/27 409 RV 51 36 Udall +15
Associated Press/GfK 10/22 - 10/26 626 LV 48 36 Udall +12
Rocky Mtn News/CBS4 10/21 - 10/23 500 LV 51 38 Udall +13

Shaheen 6.34
Rasmussen 10/30 - 10/30 700 LV 52 44 Shaheen +8
SurveyUSA 10/29 - 10/30 682 LV 53 40 Shaheen +13
ARG 10/28 - 10/30 600 LV 53 41 Shaheen +12

Shall I Go On?

Yes, of course. Five races out of thousands doesn't prove anything.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4003 on: February 28, 2010, 02:31:59 pm »

p2, liberals always use the cell phone argument, but the fact is that in most polls, democrats outpoll their actual support/margin in elections by 3-4%.  Everyone - not just the young or hispanic has a cell phone now - a republican is just as likely as a democrat to have one.  I don't buy it.

The landline is a past-peak technology, much like VHS tapes were about eight years ago and DVDs are now. It is not an area with potential for growth, and there are more attractive and in some ways economical alternatives that afford profits for investors. Landline phone operators are now obliged to cut costs to keep their customer base.  

The argument isn't that young Hispanics have cell phones; it is that they are more likely than other Americans to have cell phones but not landlines. They are much more liberal-leaning than the rest of America. I don't deny that Republicans have cell phones, too; it's just that people who have landline phones are now older and whiter -- and thus more Republican-leaning than those who have cell phones but not landline phones. Given a choice (and I am 54 and white) I would go all-cell, too.  

The 2008 election showed that most pollsters who had used methodology that got the 2000 and 2004 elections right got 2008 elections wrong. Electoral behavior in 2008 was different in 2008 from 2008; it is either an anomaly that will go back to Earth with close elections that the Republicans win in 2012 (including the Presidency) or that voting behavior has predictably changed to the benefit of Democrats for the next few electoral cycles. The 2006 elections showed the trend.

I try not to make extrapolations except of phenomena that offer some evidential basis. Look at it this way: if the Arizona Diamondbacks start the season 12-18 and win three blowout baseball games, then does that suggest a trend that they have suddenly become the 1927 Yankees? Hardly! But what if they win ten straight games, some close and some not-so-close? Bingo. Bad baseball teams do not win ten straight baseball games.  They might have a 7-3 stretch on occasion (six of the games in the stretch are with the Washington Nationals, and the Diamondbacks are uncharacteristically lucky in a meeting with the Phillies).

It is just as easy to claim that pollsters are missing certain voters because of their methodology as that the supposed support for Obama or for Democrats is vanishing. Example: Rasmussen typically has polls of "likely voters" in polls asking for approval of Obama. That is more conservative-leaning than "adults" or even "registered voters".  In 2008 the "likely voter" approach underestimated the Obama vote. Also, Rasmussen tends to use robo-polls on the grounds that they are more neutral because in a personal call the person asking the questions might suggest things even without knowing so, leading the polled person to make one choice over another. Many people reject robocalls because they are often canned sales pitches "We can save you hundreds on new siding/windows/groceries" or recorded political messages. I don't know how that affects things.    

The political situation of November 2012 will be considerably different from what it is now.  Most of us expect Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee, and few of us can predict who will be the Republican nominee. The electorate on the average will be born four years later than the electorate of 2008. The electorate will be just as old, but it will be less white, and it will have many new voters born between 1990 and 1994 -- and current trends expect that those age groups will be just as Democratic-leaning as those born between 1986 and 1990. There will be an active campaign complete with ads --  content yet undetermined.

As a challenger, President Obama had a strong campaign apparatus; in 2012 he will take that out of mothballs (and he might take it out of mothballs in the late summer to aid any Democratic colleagues then in trouble). That won't be enough to rescue a failed Presidency should he have a poor-to-execrable one, but it will be enough that if he is even modestly successful as President, then he will win. Not one failed to win re-election because he was "too liberal" or "too conservative". I remember what many liberals said of Ronald Reagan in 1982 and 1983 -- one term because he was too "right-wing".

Need I discuss the failures?

1. William Howard Taft. Temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency. He was perfectly fit to be a Chief Justice, though. (The next step for Barack Obama is probably either as a  Justice of the US Supreme Court, membership on the International Court of Justice,  or Secretary-General of the United Nations -- but I think after two full terms as President).

2. Herbert Hoover. Everything that could go wrong in peacetime did go wrong.  America went from bright-and-cheery when he was inaugurated to dreadful. (With Obama the time began as dreadful and ominous, rest of the story to be known by November 2012).

3. Gerald Ford. Got to the Presidency through the back door, having never been elected to any office other than representative. Ford had no idea of how to campaign beyond a Congressional district until too late, and he lost to a weak challenger.  No analogy here.

4. Jimmy Carter.  The weak challenger to Gerald Ford. He accomplished little as President because he was always an outsider who tried to bring Atlanta ways to Washington.  He lost to someone who exuded confidence in his own abilities and presented himself as more moderate than his early reputation.

Obama was and remains very much a political insider, and his political skills look more like those of Ronald Reagan. He has not tried to impose Chicago political ways upon Washington. Carter doesn't look like much of a comparison to Obama.

5. George H. W. Bush. A successor to a successful President, he achieved about everything he wanted to achieve during his Presidency but failed to offer a coherent vision of what he would do in a second term -- nothing but platitudes. This, I think, is now the most likely model for a failure of President Obama to be re-elected.  

Remember -- incumbent Presidents running for re-election since 1900, inclusive, have won 13 of 18 elections in which they ran. At this stage of the political calendar, random chance says more than almost anything else. Incumbency has its advantages for a candidate. There will be economic vicissitudes; there will be wars and threats of war elsewhere. Any prediction of the future requires some vagueness. But that said, the best prediction now is that President Obama has roughly a 72.2% chance of being re-elected. Divide 13 by 18, and such is the result.

Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,854


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4004 on: February 28, 2010, 10:52:20 pm »

p2, liberals always use the cell phone argument, but the fact is that in most polls, democrats outpoll their actual support/margin in elections by 3-4%.  Everyone - not just the young or hispanic has a cell phone now - a republican is just as likely as a democrat to have one.  I don't buy it.

The political situation of November 2012 will be considerably different from what it is now.  Most of us expect Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee, and few of us can predict who will be the Republican nominee. The electorate on the average will be born four years later than the electorate of 2008. The electorate will be just as old, but it will be less white, and it will have many new voters born between 1990 and 1994 -- and current trends expect that those age groups will be just as Democratic-leaning as those born between 1986 and 1990. There will be an active campaign complete with ads --  content yet undetermined.

As a challenger, President Obama had a strong campaign apparatus; in 2012 he will take that out of mothballs (and he might take it out of mothballs in the late summer to aid any Democratic colleagues then in trouble). That won't be enough to rescue a failed Presidency should he have a poor-to-execrable one, but it will be enough that if he is even modestly successful as President, then he will win. Not one failed to win re-election because he was "too liberal" or "too conservative". I remember what many liberals said of Ronald Reagan in 1982 and 1983 -- one term because he was too "right-wing".

Need I discuss the failures?

1. William Howard Taft. Temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency. He was perfectly fit to be a Chief Justice, though. (The next step for Barack Obama is probably either as a  Justice of the US Supreme Court, membership on the International Court of Justice,  or Secretary-General of the United Nations -- but I think after two full terms as President).

2. Herbert Hoover. Everything that could go wrong in peacetime did go wrong.  America went from bright-and-cheery when he was inaugurated to dreadful. (With Obama the time began as dreadful and ominous, rest of the story to be known by November 2012).

3. Gerald Ford. Got to the Presidency through the back door, having never been elected to any office other than representative. Ford had no idea of how to campaign beyond a Congressional district until too late, and he lost to a weak challenger.  No analogy here.

4. Jimmy Carter.  The weak challenger to Gerald Ford. He accomplished little as President because he was always an outsider who tried to bring Atlanta ways to Washington.  He lost to someone who exuded confidence in his own abilities and presented himself as more moderate than his early reputation.

Obama was and remains very much a political insider, and his political skills look more like those of Ronald Reagan. He has not tried to impose Chicago political ways upon Washington. Carter doesn't look like much of a comparison to Obama.

5. George H. W. Bush. A successor to a successful President, he achieved about everything he wanted to achieve during his Presidency but failed to offer a coherent vision of what he would do in a second term -- nothing but platitudes. This, I think, is now the most likely model for a failure of President Obama to be re-elected.  



If Obama had the political skills that Reagan had, he would have passed healthcare last summer.  Obama not getting healthcare is equivalent to Reagan not getting his big tax cuts in 1981. 
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4005 on: February 28, 2010, 11:35:07 pm »



4. Jimmy Carter.  The weak challenger to Gerald Ford. He accomplished little as President because he was always an outsider who tried to bring Atlanta ways to Washington.  He lost to someone who exuded confidence in his own abilities and presented himself as more moderate than his early reputation.

Obama was and remains very much a political insider, and his political skills look more like those of Ronald Reagan. He has not tried to impose Chicago political ways upon Washington. Carter doesn't look like much of a comparison to Obama.



Jimmy Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission, who had strong DC connections and populated the Executive Branch with old LBJ supporters.  Further, he ran one of the best Democratic campaigns in decades in 1976.
Logged
PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,045
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4006 on: March 01, 2010, 12:34:37 am »



4. Jimmy Carter.  The weak challenger to Gerald Ford. He accomplished little as President because he was always an outsider who tried to bring Atlanta ways to Washington.  He lost to someone who exuded confidence in his own abilities and presented himself as more moderate than his early reputation.

Obama was and remains very much a political insider, and his political skills look more like those of Ronald Reagan. He has not tried to impose Chicago political ways upon Washington. Carter doesn't look like much of a comparison to Obama.



Jimmy Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission, who had strong DC connections and populated the Executive Branch with old LBJ supporters.  Further, he ran one of the best Democratic campaigns in decades in 1976.

Yet he still refused to play by Congress' rules, which is part of the reason he had so much trouble with his agenda.
Logged
21st Century Independent
Full Member
***
Posts: 120


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4007 on: March 01, 2010, 03:24:30 am »

It will be interesting what the lingering effect will be of the passage of the healthcare bill in 2012. If the economy is still in the gutter by then, healthcare will be an issue that will be tagged by republicans as one of the reasons why the economy is still bad. If the economy is good, healthcare will be then an issue to play out in 2016.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4008 on: March 01, 2010, 09:59:05 am »



Rasmussen Obama (National)

Approve 47%

Disapprove 52%

Obama's "strongly approve" number is 25%, +3; "strongly disapprove is at 38, -4.


Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4009 on: March 01, 2010, 10:00:25 am »



4. Jimmy Carter.  The weak challenger to Gerald Ford. He accomplished little as President because he was always an outsider who tried to bring Atlanta ways to Washington.  He lost to someone who exuded confidence in his own abilities and presented himself as more moderate than his early reputation.

Obama was and remains very much a political insider, and his political skills look more like those of Ronald Reagan. He has not tried to impose Chicago political ways upon Washington. Carter doesn't look like much of a comparison to Obama.



Jimmy Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission, who had strong DC connections and populated the Executive Branch with old LBJ supporters.  Further, he ran one of the best Democratic campaigns in decades in 1976.

Yet he still refused to play by Congress' rules, which is part of the reason he had so much trouble with his agenda.

Don't confuse bad political decisions with being an outsider.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4010 on: March 01, 2010, 12:12:31 pm »



4. Jimmy Carter.  The weak challenger to Gerald Ford. He accomplished little as President because he was always an outsider who tried to bring Atlanta ways to Washington.  He lost to someone who exuded confidence in his own abilities and presented himself as more moderate than his early reputation.

Obama was and remains very much a political insider, and his political skills look more like those of Ronald Reagan. He has not tried to impose Chicago political ways upon Washington. Carter doesn't look like much of a comparison to Obama.



Jimmy Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission, who had strong DC connections and populated the Executive Branch with old LBJ supporters.  Further, he ran one of the best Democratic campaigns in decades in 1976.

Yet he still refused to play by Congress' rules, which is part of the reason he had so much trouble with his agenda.

Don't confuse bad political decisions with being an outsider.

Failure to adapt to political realities is itself a bad political decision. Ronald Reagan did not make that mistake.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,942
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4011 on: March 01, 2010, 01:40:01 pm »

Kansas (Rasmussen)Sad

42% Approve
58% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Kansas was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, February 24, 2010. 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_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/kansas/toplines/toplines_kansas_february_24_2010
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,509
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4012 on: March 01, 2010, 01:51:01 pm »
« Edited: March 01, 2010, 02:01:44 pm by pbrower2a »

Kansas update. For a state that is about the 45th state that Obama would win in 2012, not bad for Obama. The state would go to Obama against a nutty opponent, but that is about it. Still a February poll, of course.

Kansas (Rasmussen)Sad

42% Approve
58% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Kansas was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, February 24, 2010. 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_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/kansas/toplines/toplines_kansas_february_24_2010

Least likely electoral votes to go to Obama:

NE-03 (1), UT, WY, ID, AL, OK. KS, NE-at large (2)

Somehow, Rasmussen tracking polls that suggested a 45-54  or even 47-52 split in nationwide approval don't fit Kansas.  The cellular-landline phone split is a wash.




Key:


<40% with Disapproval Higher: 40% Orange (50% if 60% or higher disapproval)
40-44% with Disapproval Higher: 50% Yellow  
45-49% with Disapproval Higher: 30% Yellow
<50% with Approval Equal: 10% Yellow (really white)

<50%  Approval greater: 30% Green
50-55%: 40% Green
56-60%: 60% Green
>60%: 80% Green


Months:

A -  January     G -  July
B -  February   H -  August
C -  March        I -  September
D -  April          J  -  October
E -  May           K -  November
F -   June         L -   December

S - suspect poll (examples for such a qualification: strange crosstabs, likely inversion of the report (for inversions, only for polls above 55% or below 45%...  let's say Vermont 35% approval or Oklahoma 65% approval), and more than 10% undecided. Anyone who suggests that a poll is suspect must explain why it is suspect.

Z- no recent poll (maximum 180 days) before December 1, 2009 except Montana (November 2009), which rarely gets polled.

.....

How can Pennsylvania (solid  Obama Obama win in 2008), Ohio  (bare Obama win), Georgia (bare loss), and Kansas (one of Obama's most blatant losses in 2008) now be in the same category for approval?
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,942
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4013 on: March 01, 2010, 01:55:00 pm »

We`ll also get new OK Rasmussen numbers in 1 hour ...
Logged
DariusNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4014 on: March 01, 2010, 04:02:17 pm »

We`ll also get new OK Rasmussen numbers in 1 hour ...

Oh boy, not looking forward to this...
Logged
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,275


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4015 on: March 01, 2010, 05:01:43 pm »

We`ll also get new OK Rasmussen numbers in 1 hour ...

Oh boy, not looking forward to this...

You aren't looking forward to hearing the verdict from Real America?
Logged
ConservativeIllini
Full Member
***
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4016 on: March 01, 2010, 06:20:25 pm »

Oklahoma

38% Approve
62% Disapprove

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/oklahoma/election_2010_oklahoma_senate
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,116
Bangladesh


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4017 on: March 01, 2010, 08:46:06 pm »

Why is the page so wide.
Logged
Dr. RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,720
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: 4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4018 on: March 01, 2010, 09:01:47 pm »


An improvement over his actual vote total, for what it's worth...
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4019 on: March 01, 2010, 11:12:34 pm »


An improvement over his actual vote total, for what it's worth...

Yeah, that's kind of interesting.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,942
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4020 on: March 02, 2010, 02:07:34 pm »

Rhode Island (Rasmussen)Sad

62% Approve
37% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Rhode Island was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, February 25, 2010. 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_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/rhode_island/toplines/toplines_rhode_island_governor_february_25_2010
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,942
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4021 on: March 02, 2010, 02:10:31 pm »

Arkansas (Rasmussen)Sad

38% Approve
60% Disapprove

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Arkansas was conducted by Rasmussen Reports March 1, 2010. 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_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arkansas/toplines/toplines_arkansas_senate_march_1_2010
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,942
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4022 on: March 02, 2010, 02:14:41 pm »

Georgia (PPP)Sad

43% Approve
54% Disapprove

PPP surveyed 596 Georgia voters from February 26th to 28th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.0%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_GA_302.pdf
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,942
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4023 on: March 02, 2010, 02:16:44 pm »

Pennsylvania (Quinnipiac)Sad

49% Approve
46% Disapprove

From February 22 - 28, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,452 Pennsylvania voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. The survey includes 649 Democrats, with a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1428
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,942
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4024 on: March 02, 2010, 02:21:26 pm »

Georgia (InsiderAdvantage)Sad

41% Approve
55% Disapprove

Both the Obama and Perdue surveys included 1,184 registered voters and were weighted for age, race, gender, and political affiliation. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.7%.

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/story.aspx?sid=1286
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 156 157 158 159 160 [161] 162 163 164 165 166 ... 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