AP-GfK poll: Obama approval hits 60 percent

[senseamp]

I accept that the group which responded is 46% Dem and 29% Rep.

Rounding off to whole numbers American voters identify themselves as 35% Republican and 34% Democrat.

Maybe. You are free to claim whatever numbers you want.

 

[dali71]

Maybe. You are free to claim whatever numbers you want.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe.

Within a very few points the number of voters is evenly split. The most recent poll I found was Rasmussen 5/2/11. If the organization is a concern then by all means look elsewhere, but if the poll was designed to specifically determine voter party preference there won't be much difference.

 

[senseamp]

Wow, dali, you learned to insert images. That definitely qualifies you as a statistical expert whose opinion on poll methodology means something

 

[senseamp]

Within a very few points the number of voters is evenly split.

That is your claim not to be confused with a proven fact.

The most recent poll I found was Rasmussen 5/2/11. If the organization is a concern then by all means look elsewhere, but if the poll was designed to specifically determine voter party preference there won't be much difference.

And most recent AP poll has it 46% to 29%.

 

[dali71]

Wow, dali, you learned to insert images. That definitely qualifies you as a statistical expert whose opinion on poll methodology means something

Keep on trolling, asshat :|

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is your claim not to be confused with a proven fact.


And most recent AP poll has it 46% to 29%.

Let's look at this for a moment. I quoted a recent poll which was meant to determine the breakdown of party loyalty. You are free to compare it to any other that exists for that explicit purpose.

Now the curious thing that you did is say the AP poll says the American public consists of voters which are 46% Dem and 29% Republican. The only problem is that no where does the AP say that's what it did.

I was wondering how you knew the unspoken intent of the pollsters who never once said that their sample corresponds to the larger group of voters. Do you have correspondence to that effect?

 

[senseamp]

Let's look at this for a moment. I quoted a recent poll which was meant to determine the breakdown of party loyalty. You are free to compare it to any other that exists for that explicit purpose.

Now the curious thing that you did is say the AP poll says the American public consists of voters which are 46% Dem and 29% Republican. The only problem is that no where does the AP say that's what it did.

I was wondering how you knew the unspoken intent of the pollsters who never once said that their sample corresponds to the larger group of voters. Do you have correspondence to that effect?

Huh, it polled a random sample of the American public (they never claimed it was voters, not sure where you got that from) and the results came out 46% Dem to 29% GOP. I am not sure what strawman you are trying to put up, but have at it.

 

[senseamp]

Keep on trolling, asshat :|

Let's recap the sum total of your contribution to this discussion:

Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points
Try again...

What does the update, which shows that Gallup's polls over the last 2 years have never had a split over 7 percentage points, have to do with the AP-GfK poll that you cited?

Did they lie about the poll breakdown, or are you just deflecting?

senseamp - pushing the envelope of stupidity since 2006

Too fucking stupid to see why people have a valid criticism of a poll? Typical senseamp.

So you got a link to National Review, followed by a weak attempt to make something out of it, at which point you give up, and to your credit spare us any more of your "logic", and start resorting to profane name calling and showing off your skills with the IMG tag.

 

[RedChief]

Let's recap the sum total of your contribution to this discussion:
So you got a link to National Review, followed by a weak attempt to make something out of it, at which point you give up, and to your credit spare us any more of your "logic", and start resorting to profane name calling and showing off your skills with the IMG tag.

So your grasping at anything that can prop up the sinking obama administration and resort to ad hominem attacks on the poster. Yea, Obama ordered the Bin Laden hit. GOOD. But he still had to sleep on it? Come on...it would have taken Bush 18 seconds to do the order (of course Clinton avoiding doing it outright so Obama>Clinton).

Obama gets as much credit for killing Bin Laden as Nixon gets for landing a man on the moon.

 

[RedChief]

Great image....saved for future reference....(coming from a old time MTG player at that).

 

[senseamp]

So your grasping at anything that can prop up the sinking obama administration and resort to ad hominem attacks on the poster. Yea, Obama ordered the Bin Laden hit. GOOD. But he still had to sleep on it? Come on...it would have taken Bush 18 seconds to do the order (of course Clinton avoiding doing it outright so Obama>Clinton).

Obama gets as much credit for killing Bin Laden as Nixon gets for landing a man on the moon.

It eats at you that it was Obama and not Bush who got Osama? GOOD!!!

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Huh, it polled a random sample of the American public (they never claimed it was voters, not sure where you got that from) and the results came out 46% Dem to 29% GOP. I am not sure what strawman you are trying to put up, but have at it.

What you say is true. If I infer that these are automatically voters because the terms republican and democrat are used I am making an error of attribution. It may seem reasonable to arrive at a conclusion, yet I haven't any statement from the pollsters to that effect. I'm making a categorical statement not tied to what the pollsters actually said. Likewise the pollsters constructed this poll to make some measure of Obamas popularity, but did not say this proportion extended to the nation as a whole. If you were to do so you would by definition be making a false attribution.

And now our lesson is done.

 

[davmat787]

Will Obama have figured anything out by 2016 or will he still be blaming Bush?

Hard to say, but we know Craig234 will still be blaming Bush in 2016.

 

[sMiLeYz]

The only poll that has ever mattered is the 2012 Presidential Election...

 

[ProfJohn]

If Obama nets even a 1-2% permanent bump from this, something that's reasonably likely, it will translate into an enormous electoral advantage for him. I'm pretty confident that barring a catastrophe he's going to win anyway, but this just makes it even more likely.

That catastrophe is the economy and we are living with it everyday.

In unemployment is not lower on election day 2012 than it was on election day 2008 Obama is toast.

 

[etrigan420]

Hard to say, but we know Craig234 will still be blaming Bush in 2016.

...and the Bushies will be blaming Clinton *long* after that.

 

[davmat787]

I personally do not care for Obama, but in a way I hope he wins as that would mean the economy and unemployment would have rebounded significantly, and he gets some semblance of control on the debt and spending. He will probably win regardless, who am I kidding?

 

[ProfJohn]

29% and 46% respectively

Why don't you tell us?

In the 2010 election it was 51% Republican and 44% Democrat. That is the total combined result of all the house elections which is the closest we had to national numbers that year.

In 2008 the results were 53%D and 43%R. Which is a 10 point swing.

Considering how much of an ass kicking 2008 was and it was only a 10 point margin the idea that the Democrats now hold a 17 point margin is total lunacy.

 

[davmat787]

...and the Bushies will be blaming Clinton *long* after that.

Where do you see "Bushies" blaming Clinton to the degree that would make you think it would continue long after that, in your words?

PS: nice to see a fellow Washingtonian around here. :thumbsup:

 

[ProfJohn]

It eats at you that it was Obama and not Bush who got Osama? GOOD!!!

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

That quote is a total fabrication. Bush never said that.

 

[Craig234]

That quote is a total fabrication. Bush never said that.

No, as usual you get it wrong.

It's not a "total fabrication".

It is a false quotation. It's *partly* correct, and captures *part* of what Bush said.

He did in fact indicate that he 'wasn't that concerned' about bin Laden - he was concerned about the larger war instead. This was a big change from weeks before.

The fact that bin Laden had been 'marginalized' made him a low priority now.

He had made a big deal of bin Laden being a priority before.

My speculation: it's likely that the White House 'communication advisers' realized that they didn't want some 'x days and bin Laden isn't caught yet' type counters appearing in the media, since they had no idea where bin Laden was, and didn't want their policy measured on getting him - and had Bush change the goal of his policy.

This was more than bin Laden being 'marginalized'; his guilt had not changed, our 'long term' goal to bring him to justice had not been affected. The politics had.

So we went from 'wanted dead or alive' how he was our goal, to weeks later:

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

So, the quotations should be accurate which they were not; and the criticism of the inaccuracy should be accurate, which yours was not.

 

[Craig234]

Hard to say, but we know Craig234 will still be blaming Bush in 2016.

I will blame Bush for what was his fault, George Washington for what was his fault, Alexander the Great for what was his fault.

I note your attack is based on nothing more than 'that was a while ago', rather than being able to point out any error.

 

[senseamp]

That quote is a total fabrication. Bush never said that.

Interesting, you may be right.
He did however say: "I truly am not that concerned about him."
Regardless, he failed to kill OBL, and instead invaded Iraq. Obama did actually get OBL.

 

[Craig234]

So your grasping at anything that can prop up the sinking obama administration and resort to ad hominem attacks on the poster. Yea, Obama ordered the Bin Laden hit. GOOD. But he still had to sleep on it? Come on...it would have taken Bush 18 seconds to do the order (of course Clinton avoiding doing it outright so Obama>Clinton).

Obama gets as much credit for killing Bin Laden as Nixon gets for landing a man on the moon.

Would those 18 seconds be like the 18 seconds it took for the Bush administration to deny requested US forces in Tora Bora, leading to bin Laden's escape?

On another note, your analogy is right about the moon landing - it just doesn't apply to this situation.

Not only was the hunt for bin Laden a Bush project the way the moon landing was a JFK and LBJ project, the CIA unit hunting bin Laden was disbanded in 2005.

Bush did make efforts to get bin Laden - but those are not comparable to the leadership on the moon landing, and Obama increased those efforts.

Much less the Bush administrations large REDUCTION on bin Laden efforts pre-9/11.