Washington Times digging deep

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Interesting, on MSNBC asked to grade Obama 233,000 + votes

A. 33%
B. 9%
C. 6%
D. 14%
F. 38%

ron paul also won every poll on the internet, so i'd say that's a precisely meaningless result.

 

[miketheidiot]

i was talking to a polysci prof a couple days ago and if you ignore the confederate south, obama has an 80% approval rating (that includes the plains states north of texas and mountain west). If you only look at the south, he has a 35% approval rating. Generally he took this to support the idea that the republican party become a regional party, at least temporarily, which has only been furthered by the defection of spector, and possibly by upcoming defections of snow and other moderates. Obama has a 90% approval rating in the mid-Atlantic and new england.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i was talking to a polysci prof a couple days ago and if you ignore the confederate south, obama has an 80% approval rating (that includes the plains states north of texas and mountain west). If you only look at the south, he has a 35% approval rating. Generally he took this to support the idea that the republican party become a regional party, at least temporarily, which has only been furthered by the defection of spector, and possibly by upcoming defections of snow and other moderates. Obama has a 90% approval rating in the mid-Atlantic and new england.

To be honest that somewhat surprises me. The deep south has a lot of Black Americans and I would think his numbers would be up there.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i was talking to a polysci prof a couple days ago and if you ignore the confederate south, obama has an 80% approval rating (that includes the plains states north of texas and mountain west). If you only look at the south, he has a 35% approval rating. Generally he took this to support the idea that the republican party become a regional party, at least temporarily, which has only been furthered by the defection of spector, and possibly by upcoming defections of snow and other moderates. Obama has a 90% approval rating in the mid-Atlantic and new england.

Sounds like typical college professor crap. I'd like to see where he pulled this, cause I guarantee it's nowhere near reality.

edit: Here are some state-by-state figures

http://www.surveyusa.com

Wisconsin: 56%
Washington State: 64%
Virginia: 57%
Oregon: 58%
New York: 73%
New Mexico: 63%
Missouri: 57%
Minnesota: 63%
Kentucky: 52%
Kansas: 44%
Iowa: 59%
California: 69%
Alabama: 48%

This was all that is up so far on the first 100 days. Nothing surprising, and nothing to back up any of the idiotic claims of this professor.

Does reinforce the liberal-nutjob academic stereotype though.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: jonks
Yep, focus on a few select historical numbers to spin an approval of over 60% into "the basement." It has got to be really hard for these guys to print this stuff and not laugh themselves silly when people read it and nod along saying "I knew it!"

It depends on which poll you look at. If you actually read the article you linked, you would see they are not spinning an approval of over 60% - they are spinning an approval of 56%.

Now go on and debate what poll is the correct poll, but at least get your basis of argument correct :roll:

Keep trying. His approval rating is over 60%. The op-ed performs jujitsu to get 56% and then says Obama is not doing well approval-wise. There's no need to debate which is the "correct" poll, because one gives you all the numbers, and one finds a pov and picks its own numbers to back up its pov.

A poll is a poll is a poll is a poll and can be manipulated any way. I think it's the Rasmussen polls that have him at 56% approval, and if I'm not mistaken they were very close to accurate during the last two presidential election pollings compared to the results.

One gives him one percentage, another gives a different percentage. Who cares? Obviously you do because you are trying to slam one yourself. For what reason? It is just a number. What is important is what Obama is doing. Like he says he is not interested in the 100 day mark, yet spends thousands of gallons of fuel and hundreds of thousands in tax payer dollars to fly Air Force One to Missouri to celebrate the 100 days. Why Missouri? He's campaigning to try and pick up another Senate seat in the 2010 elections. Take a wild guess why Republicans have such a low approval rating for Obama... :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: jonks
Yep, focus on a few select historical numbers to spin an approval of over 60% into "the basement." It has got to be really hard for these guys to print this stuff and not laugh themselves silly when people read it and nod along saying "I knew it!"

It depends on which poll you look at. If you actually read the article you linked, you would see they are not spinning an approval of over 60% - they are spinning an approval of 56%.

Now go on and debate what poll is the correct poll, but at least get your basis of argument correct :roll:

Keep trying. His approval rating is over 60%. The op-ed performs jujitsu to get 56% and then says Obama is not doing well approval-wise. There's no need to debate which is the "correct" poll, because one gives you all the numbers, and one finds a pov and picks its own numbers to back up its pov.

A poll is a poll is a poll is a poll and can be manipulated any way. I think it's the Rasmussen polls that have him at 56% approval, and if I'm not mistaken they were very close to accurate during the last two presidential election pollings compared to the results.

One gives him one percentage, another gives a different percentage. Who cares? Obviously you do because you are trying to slam one yourself. For what reason? It is just a number. What is important is what Obama is doing. Like he says he is not interested in the 100 day mark, yet spends thousands of gallons of fuel and hundreds of thousands in tax payer dollars to fly Air Force One to Missouri to celebrate the 100 days. Why Missouri? He's campaigning to try and pick up another Senate seat in the 2010 elections. Take a wild guess why Republicans have such a low approval rating for Obama... :roll:

No, he's not slamming a poll. He's slamming the editorial for dishonestly representing the results of the poll. They lied about what it said.

(oh, and Realclearpolitics.com has Obama at over 61% on average. Rasmussen is an outlier and Pew Research, who was every bit as accurate as Rasmussen on election day has Obama at 63%)

The important thing is the dishonesty of the WT editorial in their use of data, not what the data is.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i was talking to a polysci prof a couple days ago and if you ignore the confederate south, obama has an 80% approval rating (that includes the plains states north of texas and mountain west). If you only look at the south, he has a 35% approval rating. Generally he took this to support the idea that the republican party become a regional party, at least temporarily, which has only been furthered by the defection of spector, and possibly by upcoming defections of snow and other moderates. Obama has a 90% approval rating in the mid-Atlantic and new england.

Sounds like typical college professor crap. I'd like to see where he pulled this, cause I guarantee it's nowhere near reality.

edit: Here are some state-by-state figures

http://www.surveyusa.com

Wisconsin: 56%
Washington State: 64%
Virginia: 57%
Oregon: 58%
New York: 73%
New Mexico: 63%
Missouri: 57%
Minnesota: 63%
Kentucky: 52%
Kansas: 44%
Iowa: 59%
California: 69%
Alabama: 48%

This was all that is up so far on the first 100 days. Nothing surprising, and nothing to back up any of the idiotic claims of this professor.

Does reinforce the liberal-nutjob academic stereotype though.

he actually had a source and they keep tabs on various polls on a big board somewhere, not sure what the poll source was there. Anyways said professor is by no means a 'typical college professor' or 'liberal nutjob acedemic' whatever that's supposed to mean. Nice ad hominem there. surveyusa looks like a reputable site :roll:

 

[Genx87]

I think your prof is blowing smoke out his ass. I dont see how the south could pull down a national poll unless they were giving him like 20% approval ratings which seems highly suspect. Plus that is a story in of itself if a geographic location is giving a president such a low approval rating which flies in the face of the rest of the country.

Sounds to me like the professor is playing into the stereotype of the south being racists. Unless of course you can find us the information which shows all the states out of the south at much higher numbers than the national polls suggest?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
I wasn't aware that neocon is such a huge slur ....

Welcome to our fine planet.

 

[First]

I didn't know ProfJohn had his own blog. Congrats.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"

The bolded parts have to be true or false.

Which is it?

They are false according to Gallup's own numbers. The editorial seems completely unhinged from reality. It states that Obama's approval ratings in April were 56 percent by Gallup's numbers, but Gallup has NEVER recorded a result lower than 59% for Obama, rated him at 65% on the day the editorial was written, and gives him an average of 63% for his first 100 days. Furthermore, if you check Gallup's own article on where Obama falls in the scope of presidents after their first 100 days, they place him above Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, and Nixon, and below Carter, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.

If you want to see the fundamental dishonesty in this editorial, you have to check what it's being based upon. It seems to be using this poll from Gallup and then only taking the people who rate Obama's job as 'good' or 'excellent' as his approval rating, ignoring those who describe it as 'fair' in order to come up with his 56% number. Why he is using this as compared to the straight approve/disapprove numbers that Gallup provides in the same article as Obama's 'approval rating' is because those numbers are inconvenient for him.

Furthermore, his conclusion that Americans are disenchanted with Obama because he campaigned as a centrist but instead governed by the far left is also directly contradicted by the same poll he got his previous numbers, with the poll concluding:

the new poll also finds that Americans generally got what they expected in the Obama presidency.

The poll goes on to further state that 62% say he has done as they expected, but a full 24% say he has exceeded their expectations. Assuming a lack of sarcastic polling victims, that means a full 86% think Obama met or exceeded their expectations.

In short, the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup in the hopes that people aren't smart enough to read it for themselves. It's the Washington Times though, so that's not exactly a surprise. (you know how the librul media is!)

edited for quote clarity.

I don't know if the editorial is correct or not, the information isn't available.

But that's the point of my post here. You don't have the data to support your contention that "the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup" either.

We'd need to see how the approval ratings of the other Presidents mentioned were calculated. I.e., do their higher numbers only include responses that say 'good' or 'excellent'? If so, the editorial is not misleading.

It just may be that's how it's calculated (only include responses saying 'good' or 'excellent'). Look at Gallup's own wording in the poll you cite:

Those who rate Obama positively have slightly tempered views of him, with more saying his performance has been "good" rather than "excellent," 33% vs. 23%, respectively

So Gallup itself would seem to limit "positive" responses only to 'good' or excellent'.

BTW: See you bolded/underlined portion above. There is no "fair' response as you say, it is "just OK" and that doesn't sound positive to me (nor Gallup apparently).

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

I don't know if the editorial is correct or not, the information isn't available.

But that's the point of my post here. You don't have the data to support your contention that "the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup" either.

We'd need to see how the approval ratings of the other Presidents mentioned were calculated. I.e., do their higher numbers only include responses that say 'good' or 'excellent'? If so, the editorial is not misleading.

It just may be that's how it's calculated (only include responses saying 'good' or 'excellent'). Look at Gallup's own wording in the poll you cite:

Those who rate Obama positively have slightly tempered views of him, with more saying his performance has been "good" rather than "excellent," 33% vs. 23%, respectively

So Gallup itself would seem to limit "positive" responses only to 'good' or excellent'.

BTW: See you bolded/underlined portion above. There is no "fair' response as you say, it is "just OK" and that doesn't sound positive to me (nor Gallup apparently).

Fern

Wrong. Yet another time I'm baffled by your defense of something so obviously ridiculous.

The 'approval ratings' of presidents are calculated by asking if you approve of his performance or not. The question of if you consider it excellent/good/fair/whatever is a totally different question and is not the means by which approval rating is calculated by any polling firm that I am aware of. (if you are aware of one, please link it) If you actually read the poll from which Gallup combined the 'good' and 'excellent' to reach the 56% positive rating, you would also see that they specifically mention a separate metric, the approval rating in that identical poll... and that approval rating was 63%.

As for your idea that other presidential questions may have been phrased differently in the past, that's REALLY reaching for some attempt to deflect here. Gallup considers their numbers consistent enough to compare their numbers from FDR and Eisenhower to Obama's without caveat. The only way what you are saying can be accurate is if you are accusing Gallup of complete incompetence in evaluating their own polling data, as you would never compare a composite number from one question with a composite from another without specifically mentioning you were doing so. You're going to need to provide some support for such a ridiculous assertion.

You're attempting to excuse the WT's poor editorial journalism by raising the unfounded possibility that they might have evaluated past presidents by a different metric. Even if that were the case, then the WT editorial would still be grossly irresponsible, just for a different reason. (being that they were attempting to compare apples and oranges to reach their conclusion)

If you're trying to argue that the Washington Times' editorial board is incompetent, and is unable to communicate effectively with its readers by using words and phrases in their universally accepted form, we can talk about that. If you're trying to say there's no way to tell if their number is accurate or not, I call bullshit.

EDIT: Oh, and to finally completely blow your idea out of the water, here's Gallup's statement on how their questions are asked.

Gallup has been conducting public opinion polls on public policy, presidential approval, approval of Congress, and key issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and gun control for many years. This gives Gallup the advantage of continuing a question in exactly the same way that it has been asked historically, which in turn provides a very precise measurement of trends. If the exact wording of a question is held constant from year to year, then substantial changes in how the American public responds to that question usually represent an underlying change in attitude.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Rasmussen
It appears that their Presidential Approval Index is based on "Strongly Approve" / "Strongly Disapprove".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Rasmussen
It appears that their Presidential Approval Index is based on "Strongly Approve" / "Strongly Disapprove".

I don't see how Rasmussen's presidential approval index has anything to do with this discussion.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Presidential Approval Rating at 100 Days

Dwight D. Eisenhower . . . . . 73%
John Kennedy . . . . . . . . . . . 83%
Richard Nixon . . . . . . . . . . . .62%
Jimmy Carter . . . . . . . . . . . .63%
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . . . . . .68%
George Bush . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%
William J. Clinton . . . . . . . . . 55%
George W. Bush. . . . . . . . . . 62%





Ooops --- Linkage

Just getting caught up on this thread. That is an interesting set of data.

According to the site, only 2 previous Presidents have seen their approval numbers drop at the 100 day mark - Carter and Clinton. Obama makes it 3. Reagan enjoyed the biggest jump at 17 points.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

I don't know if the editorial is correct or not, the information isn't available.

But that's the point of my post here. You don't have the data to support your contention that "the editorial is attempting to dishonestly manipulate polling data from Gallup" either.

We'd need to see how the approval ratings of the other Presidents mentioned were calculated. I.e., do their higher numbers only include responses that say 'good' or 'excellent'? If so, the editorial is not misleading.

It just may be that's how it's calculated (only include responses saying 'good' or 'excellent'). Look at Gallup's own wording in the poll you cite:

Those who rate Obama positively have slightly tempered views of him, with more saying his performance has been "good" rather than "excellent," 33% vs. 23%, respectively

So Gallup itself would seem to limit "positive" responses only to 'good' or excellent'.

BTW: See your bolded/underlined portion above. There is no "fair' response as you say, it is "just OK" and that doesn't sound positive to me (nor Gallup apparently).

Fern

Wrong. Yet another time I'm baffled by your defense of something so obviously ridiculous.

The 'approval ratings' of presidents are calculated by asking if you approve of his performance or not. The question of if you consider it excellent/good/fair/whatever is a totally different question and is not the means by which approval rating is calculated by any polling firm that I am aware of. (if you are aware of one, please link it) If you actually read the poll from which Gallup combined the 'good' and 'excellent' to reach the 56% positive rating, you would also see that they specifically mention a separate metric, the approval rating in that identical poll... and that approval rating was 63%.

As for your idea that other presidential questions may have been phrased differently in the past, that's REALLY reaching for some attempt to deflect here. Gallup considers their numbers consistent enough to compare their numbers from FDR and Eisenhower to Obama's without caveat. The only way what you are saying can be accurate is if you are accusing Gallup of complete incompetence in evaluating their own polling data, as you would never compare a composite number from one question with a composite from another without specifically mentioning you were doing so. You're going to need to provide some support for such a ridiculous assertion.

You're attempting to excuse the WT's poor editorial journalism by raising the unfounded possibility that they might have evaluated past presidents by a different metric. Even if that were the case, then the WT editorial would still be grossly irresponsible, just for a different reason. (being that they were attempting to compare apples and oranges to reach their conclusion)

If you're trying to argue that the Washington Times' editorial board is incompetent, and is unable to communicate effectively with its readers by using words and phrases in their universally accepted form, we can talk about that. If you're trying to say there's no way to tell if their number is accurate or not, I call bullshit.

EDIT: Oh, and to finally completely blow your idea out of the water, here's Gallup's statement on how their questions are asked.

Gallup has been conducting public opinion polls on public policy, presidential approval, approval of Congress, and key issues such as the death penalty, abortion, and gun control for many years. This gives Gallup the advantage of continuing a question in exactly the same way that it has been asked historically, which in turn provides a very precise measurement of trends. If the exact wording of a question is held constant from year to year, then substantial changes in how the American public responds to that question usually represent an underlying change in attitude.

The source of your bafflement is your inability to understand my post (or even your own) in any material way.

No where have I even mentioned "how questions are asked".

Reread your post I quoted, the whole gist of your argument is that responses of "just OK" (yet you insist on repeatedly describing it as "fair") should be included because you (apparently) claim that they were for past Presidents. Yet you offer no evidence that they were.

Unless and until that can be verified no assertions about the accuracy of that particular editorial can fairly be made.

I'm not defending the editorial (as I stated initially, IDK if it's right), I'm critcizing your post. You are either making an assumption about how the past presidencial approval numbers were tallied and failing to label it as such, or you are correct but fail to provide any suport. So, your analysis is flawed, or your claim is unsupported.

Cliff: you claim responses of "just OK" should be included in the approval amounts because they were in the past but provide no proof or evidence of that. It's not a matter of how questions are asked, it's quite clearly a matter of how approval ratings are calculated (which responses are included).

Re: "Wording", re-read what I wrote. The wording I quote is their description of the responses (not questions as you have mis-understood). The point is they themselves do not describe "Just OK" as a positive response. If they are as consistent as you claim this is indicative that past Presidential approval rating did NOT include the "Just OK" type responses.

Please re-read my post, you have competely failed to comprehend it, and it's quite simple and straighforward.

(I hate such long nestled posts, but in this case it seems most necessary)

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

The source of your bafflement is your inability to understand my post (or even your own) in any material way.

No where have I even mentioned "how questions are asked".

Reread your post I quoted, the whole gist of your argument is that responses of "just OK" (yet you insist on repeatedly describing it as "fair") should be included because you (apparently) claim that they were for past Presidents.
Yet you offer no evidence that they were.

Unless and until that can be verified no assertions about the accuracy of that particular editorial can fairly be made.

I'm not defending the editorial (as I stated initially, IDK if it's right), I'm critcizing your post. You are either making an assumption about how the past presidencial approval numbers were tallied and failing to label it as such, or you are correct but fail to provide any suport.

Cliff: you claim responses of "just OK" should be included in the approval amounts because they were in the past but provide no proof or evidence of that. It's not a matter of how questions are asked, it's quite clearly a matter of how approval ratings are calculated (which responses are included).

Re: "Wording", re-read what I wrote. The wording I quote is their description of the responses (not questions as you have mis-understood). The point is they themselves do not describe "Just OK" as a positive response. If they are as consistent as you claim this is indicative that past Presidential approval rating did NOT include the "Just OK" type responses.

Please re-read my post, you have competely failed to comprehend it, and it's quite simple and straighforward.

(I hate such long nestled posts, but in this case it seems most necessary)

Fern

No, I've now found the source of my bafflement, you don't understand the topic or my post. Furthermore I have already given you all the proof you need.

My post has absolutely ZERO to do with 'just OK' being included in the approval ratings. I also never claimed they were included in the past. This would be utterly impossible because it's not even a question if 'just ok' should be included in the approval ratings as it has never been a part of the question in the past or present. They are two totally different numbers and two totally different questions. You might as well have claimed that I wanted "I like chocolate ice cream" to be included in the presidential approval numbers. That's how the WT editorial comes up with the baffling conclusion that Gallup has given Obama a 56% approval rating when the lowest Gallup has ever recorded was 59%.

Since you don't appear to understand how this works, I'll be completely clear. There are many questions Gallup asks in their surveys.

One of those questions is basically 'Do you think Obama is doing an excellent/good/just OK/poor/terrible job?'. Another question they ask is something to the effect of 'Do you strongly approve/somewhat approve/somewhat disapprove/strongly disapprove of the job Obama is doing?

Gallup calculates 'Presidential Approval Ratings' by the second question, and it always has. Furthermore as I showed you in that other quote they have made a deliberate effort to keep the question identical over the years in order to provide historically relevant comparisons.

The Washington Times editorial is taking the 'excellent/good' results from the first question, and apply them to the 'approval ratings' numbers from the second in order to reach its conclusion. I am aware of no polling firm that uses the first question as a metric for approval ratings, and most importantly in this case I am certain that Gallup does not.

Is that more clear?

EDIT: I'm not the only one to call them out on this either, the internet is now covered with people trashing the Times' number fiddling.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm not defending the editorial (as I stated initially, IDK if it's right)

The editorial characterizes Obama's numbers as "in the basement." With a common sense awareness of current events, the news, your general impression of the mood of the country, and every poll taken for the last 3 months, you don't know if that's an accurate characterization?

From someone with whom I have little common ground, a piece of advice:

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Arguing that Obama's polling numbers are somehow "low" is absurd

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm not defending the editorial (as I stated initially, IDK if it's right)

The editorial characterizes Obama's numbers as "in the basement." With a common sense awareness of current events, the news, your general impression of the mood of the country, and every poll taken for the last 3 months, you don't know if that's an accurate characterization?

From someone with whom I have little common ground, a piece of advice:

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Arguing that Obama's polling numbers are somehow "low" is absurd

I should have saved myself a good bit of time and just written this.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm not defending the editorial (as I stated initially, IDK if it's right)

The editorial characterizes Obama's numbers as "in the basement." With a common sense awareness of current events, the news, your general impression of the mood of the country, and every poll taken for the last 3 months, you don't know if that's an accurate characterization?

From someone with whom I have little common ground, a piece of advice:

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Arguing that Obama's polling numbers are somehow "low" is absurd

While I would not characterize his rating as in the basement (I think GWB taught us what "in the basement" is), I do think it of note if the article's basic contention is correct - namely that (insert metric, whether 'approve/disapprove' or "good + excellent') is lagging that of all recent Presidents except Clinton.

No matter which poll is used (as long as the comparison to the other Presidents is based on the same poll), or that the author used the wrong term (a semantical point for grammer nazis's), the author's observation about that being overlooked by the MSM is valid.

I also do not see any reason why an 'approval/disapprove' type poll should be considered superior or any more relevent than an "excellent/good/Just OK/ poor/terrible" type poll either.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
I'm not defending the editorial (as I stated initially, IDK if it's right)

The editorial characterizes Obama's numbers as "in the basement." With a common sense awareness of current events, the news, your general impression of the mood of the country, and every poll taken for the last 3 months, you don't know if that's an accurate characterization?

From someone with whom I have little common ground, a piece of advice:

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Arguing that Obama's polling numbers are somehow "low" is absurd

While I would not characterize his rating as in the basement (I think GWB taught us what "in the basement" is), I do think it of note if the article's basic contention is correct - namely that (insert metric, whether 'approve/disapprove' or "good + excellent') is lagging that of all recent Presidents except Clinton.

No matter which poll is used (as long as the comparison to the other Presidents is based on the same poll), or that the author used the wrong term (a semantical point for grammer nazis's), the author's observation about that being overlooked by the MSM is valid.

I also do not see any reason why an 'approval/disapprove' type poll should be considered superior or any more relevent than an "excellent/good/Just OK/ poor/terrible" type poll either.

Fern

No Fern, it's not valid. That's the whole point, and it's not being a grammar Nazi at all. The editorial is comparing numbers from one question with numbers from another, and it's incredibly dishonest.

If you actually use Gallup's approval data (you know, the thing the article claims to be using) Obama ends up right in the middle. I linked it before, and I will do it again. That's the real data. If you don't want to use averages, but use Obama's actual 100th day polling number he does even better at 65%.

EDIT: Here's the link for another Gallup analysis I am unable to find a single analysis of Gallup's numbers by Gallup that does anything other than completely contradict everything that editorial says.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
No Fern, it's not valid. That's the whole point, and it's not being a grammar Nazi at all. The editorial is comparing numbers from one question with numbers from another, and it's incredibly dishonest.

If you actually use Gallup's approval data (you know, the thing the article claims to be using) Obama ends up right in the middle. I linked it before, and I will do it again. That's the real data. If you don't want to use averages, but use Obama's actual 100th day polling number he does even better at 65%.

I really didn't get that you were originally saying the article is using one set of polls for all the past Presidents, and a different poll for Obama's numbers and then comparing the two as if they were all the same. It's obvious from previous posts I can't agree with that methodology.

I would however like to see if that is indeed the case. I do not have info on which polls those numbers for the past Presidents were drawn from and so cannot determine if they are mixing poll numbers to mislead.

You seem convinced that they are (mixing poll numbers), is this your assumption based on the phraseology?. Did they not conduct 'excellent/good/just OK/poor/terrible' polls for those past Presidents? (If they didn't then it's obviously an 'apples to oranges' comparison.)

If someone has confirmed that the past Presidents' poll number cited were from the approve/disapprove' type poll that would suffice as I highly doubt the results for the two types of polls would be identical.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
No Fern, it's not valid. That's the whole point, and it's not being a grammar Nazi at all. The editorial is comparing numbers from one question with numbers from another, and it's incredibly dishonest.

If you actually use Gallup's approval data (you know, the thing the article claims to be using) Obama ends up right in the middle. I linked it before, and I will do it again. That's the real data. If you don't want to use averages, but use Obama's actual 100th day polling number he does even better at 65%.

I really didn't get that you were originally saying the article is using one set of polls for all the past Presidents, and a different poll for Obama's numbers and then comparing the two as if they were all the same. It's obvious from previous posts I can't agree with that methodology.

I would however like to see if that is indeed the case. I do not have info on which polls those numbers for the past Presidents were drawn from and so cannot determine if they are mixing poll numbers to mislead.

You seem convinced that they are (mixing poll numbers), is this your assumption based on the phraseology?. Did they not conduct 'excellent/good/just OK/poor/terrible' polls for those past Presidents? (If they didn't then it's obviously an 'apples to oranges' comparison.)

If someone has confirmed that the past Presidents' poll number cited were from the approve/disapprove' type poll that would suffice as I highly doubt the results for the two types of polls would be identical.

Fern

Here is a copy from CNN of the April, 2001 poll that the editorial cites.

Tell me that's not apples to oranges, and tell me that's not dishonest.

 

[Fern]

From your link:

April approval ratings in first year in office

Bush now 62%
Clinton, 1993 55
Bush, 1989 58
Reagan, 1981 67
Carter, 1977 63
Nixon, 1969 61

If those are the numers cited in the article, yeah - that's apples to oranges and I'll agree it's rubbish.

(I prepared a post earlier asking for someone to post the OP's article for me - just realized I never hit 'reply'. I have an older PC with an older browser version that I can't update and that site gives a warning and causes my PC to lockup; then I gotta reboot. I'm not hitting that link anymore.)

IIRC, the Clinton number is what the author cited; I remember the article saying Obama was 'just one tick ahead of Clinton" (or something close to that). I'll assume the other numbers above are what he used as well.

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: OCguy
You are quoting the opinion sections of the editorial that you posted.

If you can attack the actual facts, then I would go that route....


"President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton"


The bolded parts have to be true or false.


Which is it?

Liberals don't deal with facts. They deal with what they feel! They will not address the factual data. Instead, they will go off on personal attacks, insults and all sorts of red herrings. Anything to avoid actually addressing the facts.

As the FACTS show, despite what liberals and their media overlords state, Obama's approval ratings are...average at best. In fact, his disapproval ratings are historic highs.

But no, here comes the flame train...choo choo!

:roll:

You're a broken record dude. Don't you have some teabagging to do?

I'm sorry, but that is over the line and shouldn't be acceptable.

Since when did making gay insults become acceptable??