Andrew Bolt declares that Obama is becoming deeply unpopular, “like a sinking stone”:
I don’t think Barack Obama is travelling as well as you’d guess from the headlines here.
He bases that statement on the latest results from Rasmussen’s Presidential tracking poll, which has now dipped even further since Bolt took his screencap:
It’s not a pretty picture, to be sure. But it’s also another instance of Bolt cherry-picking information and using it to create an over-simplified and distorted argument that suits his (and his readers’) preconceptions. We can start by noting (not for the first time) the discrepancy between Rasmussen’s tracking poll and the Gallup Daily results:
not to mention the discrepancy with other polls as well.
There are a couple of differences in methodology behind the two graphs above that help to explain the differences:
- Rasmussen samples likely voters, whereas Gallup samples all adults. There are a couple of issues with the approach of sampling likely voters: (i) given that the next Presidential election is more than three years away, it’s arguable that predicting who is likely to vote would be an unreliable exercise, and (ii) Obama’s campaign and popularity relied to a large extent on bringing “unlikely” (eg., younger) voters to the ballot box.
- The Rasmussen graph displays only “strongly approve” and “strongly disapprove” responses. Their data, including total approve and disapprove proportions, is available here.
Some other issues to consider:
- Gallup’s breakdowns by party identification and ideology suggests that Obama’s drop in the polls mostly relats to losing the approval of Republicans/conservatives – his support with Democrats/liberals and with independents/moderates has only dropped by a few points. This means that while his overall approval may have dropped, the people whose approval he is losing are not necessarily people who voted for, or would vote for, him.
- Where I think Bolt may have a point about the Australian media coverage of Obama is that we don’t hear a lot about criticisms of Obama for perpetuating the executive power grabs initiated by the Bush administration – keeping the door open to detain “unlawful enemy combatants” without prosecution (as Bolt mentions in his update to this post), invoking state secrets to prevent courts from reviewing government decisions, etc. These issues have affected Obama’s support from the left – but (i) as noted above, this doesn’t seem to have affected approval in the polls very much, and (ii) even if it did, absent a third-party candidate it would not necessarily be a problem in terms of his re-election prospects.
There’s plenty of good polling analysis out there that can break down Obama’s performance, without sugarcoating or spinning. And then there’s Andrew Bolt’s polling analysis.
UPDATE: Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America notes that reporting of Obama’s poll performance tends to ignore the extremely poor showing Republicans make in the polls at the moment.
24 Comments
Neither poll appears to point to a job well done. And I believe there is much worse to come.
Given Bolt’s ridiculous record linking to shonky graphs and dubious sources for his climate-change-denialist “evidence”, I’m not surprised by this. The Rasmussen polls were notoriously in serious variance with all other polls throughout the last campaign. I believe one of their faults lay in their telephone polling methods: only landlines were polled, and then only to voters who voted in the previous election. Thus mobile-phone users, and the hordes of motivated new young voters were excluded. The rest is history, and it’s a measure of Bolt’s partisan blindness that he forgets the Rasmussen unreliability so easily. I could do a better job of journalism.
The joy of this situation is that Obama will easily prove him wrong by trouncing whatever Republican halfwit they eventually decide to choose as Pres.candidate.
Tob:
Do you think you need to find something in what Bolt says every day to somehow prove you don’t like him as a columnist? Quantity is not better than quality Tob. Take this silly post for instance.
There are a couple of differences in methodology behind the two graphs above that help to explain the differences:
• Rasmussen samples likely voters, whereas Gallup samples all adults.
So in a voluntary voting system which system would you think is more accurate on the whole, Tob?
Why would Gallup be more optimistic for Obama, Tob? The arrow is actually pointing the wrong way with 40% being the cutoff level that makes it hard to gain re-election if it holds there.
Is he sinking fast? He’s sure losing support.
Does it matter in terms of the elections in 3 ½ years time? Nope not one bit. However it could bring forward attractive candidates that would otherwise wait until 2016 if his negatives hold up.
We need to see how the economy performs from now until then and we also need to know who the opposing candidate will be.
That being said, Bolt’s comment is reasonably accurate and your criticism in basic nonsense.
If you look at the RealClearPolitics meta-analysis:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
As a statistician you’d actually throw the Rasmussen results out as an improbable outlier. Even more so if you look at the second table down the page.
But which numbers do our Andy pick? Oooh ‘e’s a lovely boy innee? {/sarc}
Obama is getting re-elected in 2012. What he’s currently going through is no different that what Reagan, Clinton (even Bush junior) faced when there were economic downturns/vulnerability in their first terms.
Has AB gone with the “Obama is the new Carter” talking point? Or is he too smart to appear to be predicting a Republican victory at the next presidential election? (My money is on the latter. Andy can be a clever guy, despite not knowing much about US politics.)
I personally like it when Bolt and others at Ltd News cherry pick and distort the meaning of this sort of graph and polling data. It makes the true believers amongst their disciples have even larger meltdowns when they lose elections.
Bolt cherry-picks from teh interwebs and then selectively posts stuff he agrees with on his blog as evidence that he’s so so right? I find this hard to believe, comprade.
Bert:
You wouldn’t throw it out unless you knew it was comparable to the others. Apples are apples and all that.
Toaf:
Stop being an idiot. Bolt chose a perfectly reasonable poll that’s well respected in the US. The cherry picking is being done by Tob who for some retarded reason thinks he has to comment on every word from Bolt.
There’s no story here.
The real story is Guy Rundle allowed to post stories at Crikey and people actually reading them.
tee, I think you need to find out what “cherry picking” means. Is there a glossary in the back of Wingnut Trolling for Idiots?
Tee: I like you. I really like you.
I like you the exact same way I love all the freepers. I had a gas time during the last election reading freerepublic.com.
It was truly hilarious. Every poll was wrong. McCain was going to romp home, and picking Palin was an act of sheer genius.
Any poll (Zogby?) that hinted that McCain would win was hailed as proof positive that Obama was tanking, and any other poll, or aggregate, such as 538.com, or realclearpolitics.com that dared to suggest otherwise was a marxist controlled liberal media treasonous plot to destroy America.
I know you. I really do. Keep up the good work!
Toaf
I’m not a wingnut, you are. Bolt used a perfectly reasonable brand name poll. What is it with you lefties? Every time you’re confronted with reality you go all stupids by calling people names.
You posted a typically stupid comment even for you, so take the heat.
Peter:
Keep reading Free Republic if that’s how you get your kicks. I’ve never seen the site until you mentioned.
What the hell are you trying to say anyway. I can’t make head or tail of your incoherent comment.
well, we all know the one thing bolt does very well is cherry pick to suit his own political agenda. And when it comes to political insight, remember this was the guy flogging peter costello and sarah palin for all they were worth.
LOL.
tee, that’s glod, comprade: “I’m not a wingnut, you are.”
I know you are but what am I?
Are you competing for the Mount Mee Cup?
Tee: Sarcasm is lost on our wingnut friends.
Freerepublic is the ancestral home you never knew you had. Go there. They will embrace you like a long-long son.
UPDATE: Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America notes that reporting of Obama’s poll performance tends to ignore the extremely poor showing Republicans make in the polls at the moment.
reporting of Obama’s poll performance tends to ignore the extremely poor showing Republicans make in the polls at the moment.
what a surprise!
Tob, Media Matter is a blindly partisan left wing hack site. You should only go there is if you want your prejudices affirmed. Is that why you’re linking to that rotten propaganda site or is it because you don’t know where else to go?
Here’s realclearpolitics with the latest averaged numbers.
President Obama Job Approval
Approve
56.8
Disapprove
38.5
Direction of Country
RCP Average
Right Direction
43.0
Wrong Track
52.0
Generic Congressional Vote
RCP Average
Democrats
39.7
Republicans
35.0
Here’s the problem for the Democrats, tobs. The direction of the country shows that 52% of the population is disillusioned. Unfortunately the Dems own the three parts of government and this stat is really important in the US poltical scene as it is an indicator just how the public feels about things.
Here’s the other serious problem. Recently the generic polling data has been showing the GOP tracking pretty closely to the Dem(olition) party and when this gets close it usually means problems for the Dems. If the generic polling data continues to show the GOP even this close at the mid terms the GOP will gain one side of the Congress. That’s what that crappy site you linked to don’t tell you.
The more likelier voters are GOP orientated on the whole, which is why generic polls are actually quite important when combined with the satisfaction polling.
Here’s the link for realclearpolitics.com
Getting very bored of your occasionally well-spelt nonsense, tee. Where’s Andrea Harris when we need her?
Toaf:
See if you can construct a para , toaf. I bet you can’t, you wingnut.
@ toaf: Troll begins with tee. actually, nobody reads tee’s comments anymore much less responds – it’s all the same old abusive, rambling and incoherent bullshit. if you ignore an itch it might intensify but will eventually fade away.
Confess:
Practice what you preach, hypocrite. Don’t be telling Tofu to ignore my comments when you’re clearly not doing so.
Do you have any idea how much that paragraph comment hurts? Play fair.
Tofu.
No I don’t, please share with us. You’re always good for at least a short sentence before getting dizzy spells as a result of complexity.