The Village Idiot's favorability is now well below Bush AND Carter!

[Acebb]

Dissatisfaction with President Obama’s conduct of foreign policy has shot up among both Republicans and Democrats in the past month, even though a slim majority supports his recent decision to send military advisers to Iraq to confront the growing threat from militants there, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.


The survey suggests that most Americans back some of Mr. Obama’s approaches to the crisis in Iraq, including majority support for the possibility of drone strikes. But the poll documents an increasing lack of faith in the president and his leadership, and shows deep concern that further intervention by the United States in Iraq could lead to another long and costly involvement there.
The poll found that 58 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Mr. Obama is handling foreign policy, a jump of 10 points in the last month to the highest level since Mr. Obama took office in 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/w...ndling-of-foreign-policy-poll-finds.html?_r=0

 

[Acebb]

And yet his approval numbers are still comfortably ahead of GWB's at the end of his Presidency. When/If Obama's approval numbers consistently fall into the 20's, like GWB's were WHILE he was in Office get back to us.

Obama is the least liked living President.

 

[MantisToboggan]

So is mine, that's why I posted the actual PollS, not just a Republican Leaning Biased Poll like Gallups. And even they had GWB as low as 28% in their last poll before Obama's win.

Mantis is definitely a voice of reason. But, in this case, the numbers tell the truth, not any biased posters on either side. That's why I posted the actual numbers.

I didn't realize Gallup was considered right leaning. I thought they were a well respected polling group, which is why I used their numbers. Also, when you said "when GWB left office" how am I supposed to know you mean November of '08? He left office in January of '09. That's not semantics games, that's me taking you at your word. I honestly thought you meant left office, i.e. January of '09. I was honestly trying to post accurate numbers based on that date and I did. No bias from me. Could honestly care less what GWB or Obama's approval ratings are. Irrelevant to how I feel about either.

 

[Acebb]

Republican Leaning Biased Poll like Gallups.


What a laughable joke you are

 

[The Guesser]

At this point in his presidency, Bush was hovering in the mid 40s. The Kenyan has already hit the 30s!

Hmm, maybe you better get on the same page as Lying Ace and tell him not to talk about Bush's approval rating when he left office compared to Obama's current rating. You got to keep your lies straight.

 

[The Guesser]

I didn't realize Gallup was considered right leaning. I thought they were a well respected polling group, which is why I used their numbers. Also, when you said "when GWB left office" how am I supposed to know you mean November of '08? He left office in January of '09. That's not semantics games, that's me taking you at your word. I honestly thought you meant left office, i.e. January of '09. I was honestly trying to post accurate numbers based on that date and I did. No bias from me. Could honestly care less what GWB or Obama's approval ratings are. Irrelevant to how I feel about either.

OK, sorry about jumping down your throat. When you have a confirmed Liar and GoalPost Mover like Ace in the thread, I was trying to prevent you from playing his same game. Nate Silver exposed Gallup's Republican leaning Bias in the last election, and in fact, showed their bias in the last 2 Big Election Cycles. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House.

 

[SheriffJoe]

I've said this before, I will say it again. If you're not up to fixing the country's problems then get the fuck out.

Doers roll up their sleeves and get to work; losers blame.

I just posted this thread because I found it amusing that the guy the loony left blames for everything is now FAR MORE POPULAR than their Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure.

@)

 

[Acebb]

OK, sorry about jumping down your throat. When you have a confirmed Liar and GoalPost Mover like Ace in the thread, I was trying to prevent you from playing his same game. Nate Silver exposed Gallup's Republican leaning Bias in the last election, and in fact, showed their bias in the last 2 Big Election Cycles. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House.

Nate Silver did no such thing.

You are a pathetic liar.

 

[Acebb]

OK, sorry about jumping down your throat. When you have a confirmed Liar and GoalPost Mover like Ace in the thread

Except I didn't move any goal posts at all, you laughable dumb ass.

You went from saying "Bush left office" to posting November 2008 polls.

As we see your stupid statements are all projection.

 

[MantisToboggan]

OK, sorry about jumping down your throat. When you have a confirmed Liar and GoalPost Mover like Ace in the thread, I was trying to prevent you from playing his same game. Nate Silver exposed Gallup's Republican leaning Bias in the last election, and in fact, showed their bias in the last 2 Big Election Cycles. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

It was one of the best-known polling firms, however, that had among the worst results. In late October, Gallup consistently showed Mr. Romney ahead by about six percentage points among likely voters, far different from the average of other surveys. Gallup’s final poll of the election, which had Mr. Romney up by one point, was slightly better, but still identified the wrong winner in the election. Gallup has now had three poor elections in a row. In 2008, their polls overestimated Mr. Obama’s performance, while in 2010, they overestimated how well Republicans would do in the race for the United States House.

I would argue that 2012 was poor for almost all polling groups. NBC, Pew, CNN, Politico all had Romney closer than he actually ended up. Are they all Republican biased? Sometimes polling groups are just wrong. The national average had Obama +0.7 which isn't too far from Romney +1. Well within the margin of error. I would also argue what they had in October is largely irrelevant. If the election takes place in October who knows what the results are. Hurricane Sandy happened in late October and certainly helped President Obama. I'm not saying that makes a 5-10 point difference but certainly was a game changer. Lastly, doesn't the fact that Gallup overestimated Obama in 2008 kind of hurt your claims of bias?

 

[The Guesser]

Nate Silver did no such thing.

You are a pathetic liar.

Umm, yes, in fact he did. As usual, you are Lying.

 

[SheriffJoe]

And yet his approval numbers are still comfortably ahead of GWB's at the end of his Presidency. When/If Obama's approval numbers consistently fall into the 20's, like GWB's were WHILE he was in Office get back to us.

 

[Acebb]

Lastly, doesn't the fact that Gallup overestimated Obama in 2008 kind of hurt your claims of bias?

Shush()*

It is too funny watching this idiot screech about this

 

[MantisToboggan]

Umm, yes, in fact he did. As usual, you are Lying.

Kind of silly in my opinion. Public Policy Polling is well known to lean left. 2012 was a terrible election for pollsters. Also, including 3 weeks of polling is crazy to me. Sandy was a huge event that likely helped sway quite a few undecided votes.

 

[The Guesser]

I would argue that 2012 was poor for almost all polling groups. NBC, Pew, CNN, Politico all had Romney closer than he actually ended up. Are they all Republican biased? Sometimes polling groups are just wrong. The national average had Obama +0.7 which isn't too far from Romney +1. Well within the margin of error. I would also argue what they had in October is largely irrelevant. If the election takes place in October who knows what the results are. Hurricane Sandy happened in late October and certainly helped President Obama. I'm not saying that makes a 5-10 point difference but certainly was a game changer. Lastly, doesn't the fact that Gallup overestimated Obama in 2008 kind of hurt your claims of bias?

Gallups was the worst in 2012. See my last post. They were also Republican leaning Biased in the 2010 races. Yes, in 2008, they were Democratic Biased. Perhaps they overcompensated their methods and became too Republican leaning biased subsequently? That's why I like to reference RCP, not any singular polling firm, when analyzing poll results, to reduce individual poll bias. As far as Hurricane Sandy being a game changer, I remember Vit posting lots of polling results at the time, which show that wasn't really accurate.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Gallups was the worst in 2012. See my last post. They were also Republican leaning Biased in the 2010 races. Yes, in 2008, they were Democratic Biased. Perhaps they overcompensated their methods and became too Republican leaning biased subsequently? That's why I like to reference RCP, not any singular polling firm, when analyzing poll results, to reduce individual poll bias. As far as Hurricane Sandy being a game changer, I remember Vit posting lots of polling results at the time, which show that wasn't really accurate.

I wasn't around then, so I don't know anything about that, but my argument is mainly that 2012 was a horrible year for polling. One thought, though, if Gallup was lefty biased in 2008 wouldn't those GWB numbers be lefty biased because they were from.....around election time 2008.

Honestly, though, we have probably wasted enough time arguing about what polls are biased and not. I honestly couldn't tell you with any certainty which ones are and aren't. My goal was to inject some truthful numbers from a well respected polling group and I think I did.

 

[The Guesser]

Kind of silly in my opinion. Public Policy Polling is well known to lean left. 2012 was a terrible election for pollsters. Also, including 3 weeks of polling is crazy to me. Sandy was a huge event that likely helped sway quite a few undecided votes.

Nate covers the Sandy situation here. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/

But, while the storm and the response to it may account for some of Mr. Obama’s gains, it assuredly does not reflect the whole of the story.
Mr. Obama had already been rebounding in the polls, slowly but steadily, from his lows in early October — in contrast to a common narrative in the news media that contended, without much evidence, that Mr. Romney still had the momentum in the race.
Moreover, there are any number of alternatives to explain Mr. Obama’s gains before and after the storm hit.

Mr. Obama was adjudicated the winner of the second and third presidential debates in surveys of voters who watched them.
The past month has brought a series of encouraging economic news, including strong jobs reports in October and last Friday.
The bounce in the polls that Mr. Romney received after the Denver debate may have been destined to fade in part, as polling bounces often do following political events like national conventions.
Democrats have an edge in early voting based on states that provide hard data about which party’s voters have turned out to cast ballots. Some voters who were originally rejected by the likely voter models that surveys apply may now be included if they say that they have already voted.
Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have been running lots of advertisements, which could have some effect, especially in the swing states.
Mr. Obama’s voter-targeting operation may in fact be stronger than Mr. Romney’s and may have begun to show up in the polls.
Mr. Obama’s approval rating is at 49 or 50 percent in many surveys, a threshold that would ordinarily predict a narrow re-election for an incumbent.
Some elections “break” toward one or another candidate at the end as undecided voters tune in and begin to evaluate their decision.
​

Each of these hypotheses could merit its own article. But the point is that the causes for Mr. Obama’s gain in the polls are overdetermined, meaning that there are lot of variables that might have contributed to the one result.
If I had told you in January that Mr. Obama’s approval rating would have risen close to 50 percent by November, and that the unemployment rate would have dropped below 8 percent, you likely would have inferred that Mr. Obama was a favorite for re-election, with or without a hurricane and what was judged to be a strong response to it.
This is not to dismiss the effects of the hurricane entirely. But the fact that Mr. Obama’s rebound in the polls has been slow and steady, rather than sudden, would lend weight to some of these other ideas, even if they make for less dramatic narratives.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Mantis, thanks for being the voice of reason around here.

I try, man. I have biases just like everyone else but I attempt to be fair, unlike a lot of posters down here.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Nate covers the Sandy situation here. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/

But, while the storm and the response to it may account for some of Mr. Obama’s gains, it assuredly does not reflect the whole of the story.
Mr. Obama had already been rebounding in the polls, slowly but steadily, from his lows in early October — in contrast to a common narrative in the news media that contended, without much evidence, that Mr. Romney still had the momentum in the race.
Moreover, there are any number of alternatives to explain Mr. Obama’s gains before and after the storm hit.

Mr. Obama was adjudicated the winner of the second and third presidential debates in surveys of voters who watched them.
The past month has brought a series of encouraging economic news, including strong jobs reports in October and last Friday.
The bounce in the polls that Mr. Romney received after the Denver debate may have been destined to fade in part, as polling bounces often do following political events like national conventions.
Democrats have an edge in early voting based on states that provide hard data about which party’s voters have turned out to cast ballots. Some voters who were originally rejected by the likely voter models that surveys apply may now be included if they say that they have already voted.
Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have been running lots of advertisements, which could have some effect, especially in the swing states.
Mr. Obama’s voter-targeting operation may in fact be stronger than Mr. Romney’s and may have begun to show up in the polls.
Mr. Obama’s approval rating is at 49 or 50 percent in many surveys, a threshold that would ordinarily predict a narrow re-election for an incumbent.
Some elections “break” toward one or another candidate at the end as undecided voters tune in and begin to evaluate their decision.
​

Each of these hypotheses could merit its own article. But the point is that the causes for Mr. Obama’s gain in the polls are overdetermined, meaning that there are lot of variables that might have contributed to the one result.
If I had told you in January that Mr. Obama’s approval rating would have risen close to 50 percent by November, and that the unemployment rate would have dropped below 8 percent, you likely would have inferred that Mr. Obama was a favorite for re-election, with or without a hurricane and what was judged to be a strong response to it.
This is not to dismiss the effects of the hurricane entirely. But the fact that Mr. Obama’s rebound in the polls has been slow and steady, rather than sudden, would lend weight to some of these other ideas, even if they make for less dramatic narratives.

Interesting read. Interesting how Nate Silver is now the Oracle on all things polling. Quite the rise to prominence.

 

[The Guesser]

I wasn't around then, so I don't know anything about that, but my argument is mainly that 2012 was a horrible year for polling. One thought, though, if Gallup was lefty biased in 2008 wouldn't those GWB numbers be lefty biased because they were from.....around election time 2008.

Honestly, though, we have probably wasted enough time arguing about what polls are biased and not. I honestly couldn't tell you with any certainty which ones are and aren't. My goal was to inject some truthful numbers from a well respected polling group and I think I did.

That's why I don't put much weight in any individual polling firm, and like to rely on RCP's consensus and Silver's analysis.