Poll Shows Secretary Clinton Now More Popular Than President Obama

“Posted by: Colonel Rebel | Oct 15, 2009 6:18:17 PM”
New thread, same old right wing spam.
Now with a mad libs interactive style allowing any right wing nut to add their own details!

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.

Hillary has sat quietly and watched Obama making mistakes, one after the other. He may have intentionally sidelined her. It sometimes pays to sit it out rather than take front line. Obama must start to behave like a president and make decisions.

Clinton has been doing a good job as Secretary of state and has not been engaging on any controversial issues. Not surprising her ratings haven’t dropped.

Mr. Obama’s approval rating will have been at 30% when his term is over, at Mr. Bush’s level.

Hillary’s swings in popularity over time are truly remarkable. She’s resilient and seems to be most popular when she’s a tough-minded team player getting the job done. I like this surge in favorability better than when people eased up out of sympathy. I like and admire her very much, but… I don’t think it’s surprising at all that she’s more popular than the President right now given the constant scrutiny and criticism he’s under, the state of the economy and the fact that he’s pushing for health care reform. I admire the President for taking on some of the tough issues right out of the gate rather than kicking them down the road for the sake of approval or popularity.

Obama’s approval ratings may go lower than those of Mr Bush….don’t be surprised.
As far as a second term for Mr Obama, that is doubtful at this stage.

I really like Hillary but some of the things she criticized obama for during the primaries, she supports now. Look at a tape of some of the debates discussing talking with our enemies. She was so against that. Why will she engage the enemy now? It’s something I do not understand unless she has some sort of motive. I do admire what she did w/Turkey and Armenia as well as spreading her human rights/women’s rights message around the world. She stayed true to her base in that respect.

I can’t imagine President Hillary surrounding herself with radical freaks like Obama has.
Obama has pushed America to extremes and in a few short months deeply divided us by race, class, age.
Hillary knew all along what Obama was like.
She tried to warn us.

Breaking: Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll today shows 43% would vote to re-elect Obama today, down from 52% in April.
Approval rating now at 49%, first time below 50% since he was elected.

“In fact I will say Obama will win re-election in 2012, no matter who the GOP puts up against him.”
Very persuasive. Recall that four years ago today it was understood that the next president would be Hillary Clinton; no one knew who Barack Obama was.
And how can Obama win re-election if his party nominates Hillary?

“Breaking: Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll today shows 43% would vote to re-elect Obama today, down from 52% in April.”
Half a dozen polls have come out in the last 2 weeks and you only post Republican leaning Rasmussen and now this one.
RCP’s poll average (which includes Rasmussen and this Fox news poll) 52.6 approval 40.8 disapproval.
RCP’s average also has the Democrats with a 4.4 pt advantage in Generic Congressional Ballots.

The difference between Clinton and Obama as candidates in terms of policy was always fairly narrow, so changes in policy are not big leaps.
Besides, its hardly surprising to see a Sec of State push President’s vision for foreign policy vs her own.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 15, 2009 8:21:52 PM
*********
I’m not sure I can agree with you. Hillary was definitely more moderate than obama on many issues and that is why I, as an Independent, supported her over obama. I do see her doing a 180 on talking w/enemies. I’m wondering why she took the SOS position when her positions were so public and adamant. Also, the Honduras situation bothers me greatly. She never appeared to be one that would not respect another country’s constitution in favor of a dictator wannabe. I think obama’s policy re: Israel bothers her.
I do, however, see so much of what I admired in her in what she is doing around the world – trying to form peace relationships, brokering deals (Armenia, Ireland), talking about women’s rights. She also is pushing obama regarding Afghanistan. Have you seen her daily schedule? It is grueling and she is working very hard to earn respect, which, I don’t think she ever received from the media or extreme obama supporters. She knew she’d have to work hard and earn it. I see maybe she’s getting there.

Not from this seat, she’s not. I may not be a huge fan of Obama’s spending, but Hillary isn’t even doing any kind of meaningful job as Secretary of State.

It defies belief how badly that website rollout has been.
**
No kidding! On top of that, the GOP policy has been a negative-sum game. They’ve managed to hurt the Dems, but they’ve hurt themselves as much or more in the process, and they were less popular than the Dems to begin with.
Plus, as of today, conservative talk radio has launched into fairly sexist attacks on Snowe , and even Collins. Savage dubbed Snowe “Jezebel,” playing a portion of a song by the same title, while James Quinn played “Stupid Girl” by Garbage and made a smart alec crack tying it to Senator Snowe. Limbaugh mentioned the new castrati in reference to Snowe, and made some crack about women. And Eric Erickson of the, cough, lovely Red State site insinuated that Snowe was the evil White Witch of Narnia, or some such.
I would have to imagine that would turn some people off.
**
The difference between Clinton and Obama as candidates in terms of policy was always fairly narrow, so changes in policy are not big leaps.
**
Very true. They had to work at carving out very fine differences and making them seem like a bigger deal than they were in many cases.
**

“I’m not sure I can agree with you. Hillary was definitely more moderate than obama on many issues and that is why I, as an Independent, supported her over obama.”
ROFLMAO!
Back to pretending you’re an independent who supported Hillary and not a righjt wingers who parrots what FoxNews said?
I actually was a Hillary supporter and one of the difficulties in arguing policy with people supporting Obama is there was very little difference.
The talking to enemies thing?
Superficial debate sparring.
Healthcare? Hillary was actually to the left of Obama demanding mandates but otherwise their plans were nearly identical (same wth Edwards)
Same policy on taxes, the environment, education etc.
With their policies very similar and their experience levels similar, the election came down to how they fought and life story.
Obama ultimately won.
What made it hard for Hillary is the liberals in the party did not trust the Clintons.
So they gravitated to Edwards message of fighting for the poor and to Obama as a new face.
When Edwards wobbled, many jumped ship to Obama and that is how you have him holding even on Super Tuesday then going onto a string of wins.

Hillary is tough and not a thin-skinned crybaby like Obama.
She would not have been intimidated by Fox News or anyone.
Obama is getting rolled by everyone.
Loved but not respected or feared.

“Hillary is tough and not a thin-skinned crybaby like Obama
She would not have been intimidated by Fox News or anyone.”
The right wing delusion continues….
I love Hillary but the right wing excoriated her for showing a trace of emotion and a crack in her voice (no actual tears or crying mind you).
To pretend they would not be blasting her is a fantasy as much as it would be to pretend that she would not hit back at FoxNews as Obama is doing.

“Your tape is stuck in a loop. You keep repeating the same things over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over & over again.”
When the Ashley Todd story proved a hoax, you were asked to stop spreading it.
When you continued to do so I told you I would never let you forget it.
You continued to do so even after she was arrested.
You can always post under one of your other names.

“You’re funny, Ryan. Hillary won the primaries and the popular vote. Go ahead – go count the votes of all the states.”
Obama won pledged delegates (those tied to primaries and caucuses) 1766 to 1639.
He won superdelegates.
He also won the popular vote unless you count Michigan without giving Obama a significant share of the Uncommitted vote. Michigan and Florida of course saw depressed turnouts compared to other Democratic primaries because the party was adamant that they did not count.
And while those delegations were eventually seated at the convention there were only considered for that purpose when the nomination was settled.
The only way Hillary wins the popular vote is if you count FL and MI while not counting any votes for Obama in MI (when “not declared: received 40% of the vote)
See I was actually a Hillary supporter until June 08 when I realized it was over and the fighting needed to stop.

Just putting this out there – could be fake but interesting…Ryan et al, please feel free to debunk..
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Obama all set for US Senate
US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

“Good for you! But the final popular vote count was:
17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9%”
The final popular vote count was
Obama: 17,535,458 48.1%
Clinton: 17,493,836 48.0%
Your vote total includes Michigan when every Democrat except for Dodd (who had dropped out by then) Kucinich (who was only on the ballot because of a paperwork screwup), Gravel and Hillary had dropped out.
It also includes estimates for caucuses which is a little dicey.
Even then “uncommitted” received 40% of the vote (which again was depressed because most Democrats knew it meant little).
In fact you can see the turnout difference in MI and FL when FL had an important property tax amendment on the ballot.
Of course that ignores that we nominate based on delegates and not popular vote.

“The DNC stole the election from her with the help of the fake Republican governor of FL and Edwards/obama “opting out” of the MI primary.”
Jenny | Oct 15, 2009 9:19:29 PM
Clinton controlled the DNC rules board as the heir apparent at the time the FL and MI sanctions were enacted. Obama won because his tacticians could do math and understood the caucus system while Clinton’s were all big picture ad men.

“Yes, I’m a PUMA, Birther, Tea Partier, support Hillary and Sarah Palin but at least I’m not a socialist like you.”
ROFLMAO!
I would say something Hillary’s economic and healthcare plans were identical to the “socialist” Obama but I realize that your support of Hillary suffers from an obvious lack of sincerity.
Its so funny to see right wingers trying revive PUMA.

“Obama’s approval rating is above 50% and has 3 more years ahead of him.”
Wrong. He’s at 48% among likely voters. And 39% of likely voters strongly disapprove of him, while only 32% strongly approve.
Whether he can be re-elected, or even re-nominated, depends on so many factors that it’s silly even to speculate at this point. Among other things, it depends on Iran, Afghanistan, 10% unemployment, the imploding dollar, and recklessly irresponsible deficits, each of which seems to be beyond his competence.

I would say something Hillary’s economic and healthcare plans were identical to the “socialist” Obama but I realize that your support of Hillary suffers from an obvious lack of sincerity.
Its so funny to see right wingers trying revive PUMA.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 15, 2009 9:50:01 PM
**********
And Ryan, seriously, after supporting Hillary – and everything you saw obama do to her, how can you possibly support obama and his thugs? You could join PUMA if you wish – they haven’t gone away and they haven’t forgotten what obama did to them.

It’s unfortunate that so many children in our country are so uneducated when it comes to Presidential Election Results in our recent history.
Obama Won 28 States in 2008.
The last time someone was elected President winning that few number of states was Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Carter and Obama.
Two men who had zero experience when they ran.
Two men who had a 5 minute career.
Two men who fell backwards into a void to become President.
Two men who promised everything and only delivered misery.
The question regarding 2012 is not:
Will Obama lose in 2012? it’s
How much will Obama lose by in 2012?

“Whether he can be re-elected, or even re-nominated, depends on so many factors that it’s silly even to speculate at this point”
ROFLMAO!
See how fascist speculates that an incumbent President would not be nominated for re-election even as he chastises that its impossible to say he would be?
Could you name a time when an sitting President has sought re-election for President only top be denied the nomination of his own party?

The Hill:
“Alarms are being rung about just how many African-Americans will vote without President Barack Obama on the ballot, and the New Jersey and Virginia governors’ races in three weeks will provide the first major test since the 2008 election.
” A recent Washington Post survey estimated the black turnout in Virginia’s governor’s race at 12 percent, which would be about a 40 percent drop from last year’s general election. Other polling has shown both its and New Jersey’s black population unmoved about the off-year election.
“The question at this point isn’t so much whether black voters will turn out at 2008 levels, but how big the drop will be — and then, whether it carries into the 2010 midterms.
“Tom Jensen, a spokesman for the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, has been among the most outspoken. He said the high number of Democrats with districts that are significantly black means such a turnout shift could be disastrous for Democrats.
“’If what looks like is going to happen in Virginia plays out on a national level, I do think Democrats will lose the House,’ Jensen said.”

I’m with you all way, Jenny!

Rasmussen had Obama ahead of McCain for all of 2008 by 5 to 7 points.
The best McCain did in the Rasmussen poll was McCain +3 after the convention.
Rasmussen called the 2008 election within tenths of percentage points.
He is the most accurate and least volatile pollster because he polls LIKELY VOTERS while others poll either REGISTERED VOTERS or NATIONAL ADULTS.
Most polls conducted today that show Obama doing better are polls of National adults. This is the LEAST accurate and most volatile sample. The sample is usually only 85% registered voters, meaning 15% polled are not even registered to vote. Since 65% turnout is a max best case scenario, that means only 55% of people polled in this type of survey are actual likely voters.
Rasmussen is correct.
Obama’s Job Approval is lingering between 47% and 50% among likely voters.
As unemployment continues to rise, expect his Job Approval to continue to fall and the prospects of any re-election to fade.

“See how fascist speculates that an incumbent President would not be nominated for re-election even as he chastises that its impossible to say he would be?
“Could you name a time when an sitting President has sought re-election for President only top be denied the nomination of his own party?”
I neither speculated nor chastised.
I can name two times in my lifetime when a sitting president declined even to seek his party’s nomination because he knew either that he would not get it or that he would be humiliated in the general election (Truman and LBJ). Others have faced primary challenges within their own party (e.g. LBJ, Nixon, Carter). This is why I maintain that it is not possible to speculate sensibly about what will happen in 2012. No need to feel chastised; I’m simply reciting the facts.

A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and Rasmussen’s final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%.
That’s why the professional rely most heavily on Rasmussen.

Ryan C.
You don’t have your facts straight. I’m a lifelong Democrat who voted for Obama who took great comfort in the Rasmussen polling during 2008.
When Gallup had McCain +10 after the convention. I went to Rasmussen who had McCain +1, +2, +3 and then slowly back down -5, -6.
Rasmussen is the best pollster out there and you should stop whining like Republicans did in 2006 and 2008. They whined about polls. Called them “inaccurate” and “biased”. These hard core fanatics clinged to their last hopes on the backs of really awful pollsters.
We should absorb the reality rather than ignore it. Ignoring reality is how we lose elections in a landslide.
Obama is at 48% among likely voters. Deal with it so you can improve on it rather than clinging to a fantasy 56% among feckless nonvoters.

“You don’t have your facts straight. I’m a lifelong Democrat who voted for Obama who took great comfort in the Rasmussen polling during 2008.”
This is what your reduced to fascist?
Pretending you’re a lifelong Democrat?
Kind of pathetic.
“Rasmussen is the best pollster out there and you should stop whining like Republicans did in 2006 and 2008. They whined about polls. Called them “inaccurate” and “biased”. These hard core fanatics clinged to their last hopes on the backs of really awful pollsters.”
ROFLMAO!

Fordham has provided this list of polls and their accuracy compared to the real election. As expected, the polls overestimated Democratic support, but only by 1.37 percent. 23 polls overestimated Obama’s strength, only 4 polls overestimated McCain’s. Rasmussen and Pew got the election spot on!
The List
1(T). Rasmussen (11/1-3)
1(T). Pew (10/29-11/1)
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)
6(T). Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)
6(T). ARG (10/25-27)
8(T). CNN (10/30-11/1)
8(T). Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweek (10/22-23)
Note that McClatchy/Ipsos actually placed 8th.
Ryan C has attributed some other poster’s remarks to me.

“Posted by: julieterra | Oct 15, 2009 10:36:10 PM”
Thanks for the tidbit….

More on Rasmussen fudging the numbers…
Anyone else struck by the weirdness that he ALWAYS has exactly 1500 people in his sample?

First, note that when Rasmussen publishes a poll, it does not disappear–it remains a matter of public record, as to those of all other pollsters.
The careful reader here will have noticed by now that not a single word has been uttered that is critical of any published Rasmussen results as compared with actual electoral outcomes. What we see are simply personal insults and ad hominem attacks by those who do not like the results that they see.
Small-minded folks throughout history have reacted angrily toward the messenger who brings them news that they do not like.
This sends me off to bed grinning from ear to ear.

“Ipsos/McClatchy only conducted polls of LIKELY VOTERS in 2008 and were IN-LINE with Rasmussen when they did so.”
Wrong.
Like every other pollster, they switched to likely voter models in October.
“Since Rasmussen is a FULL-TIME professional pollster, he invests a lot more time, revenue and methodology in off-year election cycles to poll likely voters.
It is cheaper to poll just “NATIONAL ADULTS”.
Rasmussen robocalls, the cost to him is minimal.
Also he ends up with exactly 1500 people in his sample everytime which is quite odd.
When a pollster needs to write articles explaining why his numbers are so different from everyone else’s and links to a study that literally fudges the numbers, that pollster has a reputation problem.

“Small-minded folks throughout history have reacted angrily toward the messenger who brings them news that they do not like.”
Good point.
I guess Rasmussen knows where his bread is buttered and does not what to lose the steady cash coming in from the right wing.

“That would appear “weird” only to those who are too stupid to understand that he always polls exactly five hundred people per night. (3X500=1500–exactly)”
Exactly my point
Exactly 500 people, every single night.
I guess the easy round numbers make them easier to cook.

This is for the benefit of the slow reading group:
“It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.”

“And now they are polling adults. Perhaps they’ll switch back to likely voters next October, and they might even finish eighth best again.”
Except they finished first.
That is if you rely on the actual election results vs a the bogus study that rounds down Obama’s total while rounding up McCain’s.
Ipsos/McClatchy final poll: 53 to 46 for Obama.
2008 election result: 53 to 46 for Obama.
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.

“Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters–is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.”
Imagine being so dense as to be unable to comprehend the notion of ceasing each night’s polling when the 500th likely voter has responded.
Must be some kind of conspiracy out there…

“Now Rasmussen has Obama floundering at 48%”
______________________________________
You obviously don’t have any concept of the word ‘floundering’.
When Bush was at 30% he was floundering.

“likely voters”
How open to interpretation is that? It seems pretty statistically flexible to me.

“Imagine being so dense as to be unable to comprehend the notion of ceasing each night’s polling when the 500th likely voter has responded.”
Interesting that he is able to determine likely voter status and stop exactly at 500…every single night.
Now I could see going for a target of 500 but to hit exactly 500 every single time strikes me a bit strange.

“This according to the right-wing MSNBC:
“Young voters not essential to Obama triumph”
Considering that he won by the margin he did, perhaps not.
But young people were a larger demographic than seniors (65+) in 2008.

Colonel Rebel writes:
As Andersen relates, after four futile years of trying to finish the contracted book, a “hopelessly blocked” Obama delivered his family’s “oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes” to Ayers for a major overhaul.
————————–
Though this story is entirely based on an anonymous source.

“Interesting that he is able to determine likely voter status and stop exactly at 500…every single night.
“Now I could see going for a target of 500 but to hit exactly 500 every single time strikes me a bit strange.”
Why is it interesting? The Likely Voter screen takes place before the substantive questions are posed. When the 500th Likely Voter has responded, the poll is shut down for the night.
Perhaps the fact that it strikes you as strange sheds a little light on why Rasmussen is the nation’s most accurate pollster and you are scratching your head in wonderment over trivially simple matters.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics:
*“Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.”

“Rasmussen is the nation’s most accurate
pollstter.
The data from the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections prove it. Those who have contrary data should come forward with it. Those who do not, of course, will LOL. And sit in brute ignorance of such matters as anti-trust exemptions.

On November 6th of last year, Rasmussen said: “The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 46%. We are pleased to report that those figures precisely matched the actual election returns.”
We all know that Obama won with 53% of the popular vote. Rasmussen’s 52% did not “precisely” match the actual election returns.
Now Rasmussen says: “In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%.”
Fascist Hyena, you know perfectly well that the so-called Fordham Study was a simple list compiled just hours after the 2008 election and was based on an incorrect “estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin.” You yourself have copied and pasted that exact quote before. And yet we all know now that Obama won by 7.28 points – 52.93% to 45.65%.
How could the Fordham assistant professor’s list be accurate when his ESTIMATE was more than a full point off from the actual results? How could the professor say that Rasmussen’s final tracking poll of 52% to 46% was “perfectly in agreement with the actual election result” when Obama won 53 to 46? Why do you post this bogus Fordham list, time after time, month after month, when it’s been pointed out to you repeatedly that the numbers do not jive with reality?

I don’t understand the basis for these polls.
How on earth can someone in his/her right senses be comparing the President’s role with that of the Secretary of States?
I should think that it is the President that is on the driver’s seat. When things go well, he gets the praise and when things go bad, he gets the blame.
I believe that the People that commisioned these polls were only be smart by half.
There is actually no basis for comparison except someone somewhere is trying to create friction between President Obama and Secretary Clinton. Or someone is trying to paint President Obama in bad light.

was ‘balloon boy’ more popular than Clinton & Obama yesterday….. inquiring minds want to know..
and, where have you gone Octomom, … how quickly we abandon our media ‘heroes’….

Nephron wrote: “I could never vote for someone who could claim that she was named after a person who became famous 5 years after she was born.It is a stupid lie-stupid because it is so easily proven false.It reflects an underlying contempt for the intelligence of the average American; perhaps that contempt is justifiable but I don’t like to see it.”
That reminds me of when the Alaskan legislative report was released, finding Sarah Palin guilty of an ethics violation. Palin told the media, “Well, I’m very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing – any hint of any kind of unethical activity there.” Although not the sharpest pushpin in the corkboard herself, Palin must think Americans are utter morons.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 28% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11.

Thursday, October 15, 2009
Rasmussen Reports has declared Arianna Huffington the “left-wing doyenne.” No survey could be found to support this conclusion so it is likely the personal opinion of Scott Rasmussen or one of his staffers.
In a similar vein, Republicans and Republican leaners named Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich co-doyens of the Republican Party. A Gallup survey released in June asked that demographic group to name the “main person who speaks for the Republican Party today.” Rush and Newt were tied at the top of the list.

And the WSJ has an interesting article posted today about how tea party activists are complicating the GOP comeback strategy. Keep it up!!

And for the record, Reid misspoke – the CBO predicts savings of $54 billion OVER 10 YEARS.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 16, 2009 9:50:25 AM
*********
Reid Misspoke and Andrea Dunn was just kidding. Yeah, we believe it. Keep it up.

“The Russian leadership, hardly believing its luck, needs no interpreter to understand that when the Obama team clownishly rushes in bearing gifts and “reset” buttons, there is nothing ulterior, diabolical, clever or even serious behind it. It is amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity. In short, the very stuff of Nobels.”
No offense, Numeros, but I have no idea what the post you are referring to said. The Fordham study and Rasmussen’s record speak for themselves.

Obama was voted into office based upon his intentions (certainly not his experience); however, people will judge him based upon his actions…the polls are beginning to demonstrate this…It has been nearly a year and no amount of cheer leading nor rude remarks directed toward opposing opinion, from the left, as the liberal left do not pay the bills of the unemployed, will help the people who put so much faith in his campaign promises to make the Country a better place for THEM to live and work is going to help Obama PEOPLE LOOK TOWARD THEIR OWN LIVES FOR RESULTS…Face it, thus far his policies have not bare fruit…This Country was not build on good intentions…

Hey, Cliton, I don’t agree with you and Obama have kept on blaming on Bush’s. BECAUSE THE RESULT SAYS THAT OBAMA AND YOUR TEAM HAVE YIELD 6 TIMES MUCH MORE VICTIMS OF AMERICAN TROOPS UNTIL DEATH THAN BUSH’S TIME.
You are talking about exactly what Obama ‘s plan for the war called “‘unrealistic’ in its dealings with the war in Afghanistan”.

“As Juan Cole might say…”
Would that be the same Juan Cole who attributed the 9/11 attacks to the “jenin Massacre,” which in fact occurred seven months after 9/11?

“How on God’s green earth do you square those square those figures?”
By pointing out the larger errors made by all the other published polls.

“How on God’s green earth do you square those square those figures?”
By pointing out the larger errors made by all the other published polls.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 16, 2009 1:53:52 PM
Again, I’ll keep it very, very simple for you, Fascist Hyena.
Obama won 53% to 46%.
CNN/Opinion Research had it 53% to 46%. Kindly point out the error.
Ipsos/McClatchy had it 53% to 46%. Kindly point out the error.
Reminder: Rasmussen had it 52% to 46%.

“Posted by: Numeros | Oct 16, 2009 2:14:45 PM”
A fellow poll dork…excellent.

“A fellow poll dork…excellent.”
:-)
I’ve got to hand it to you guys for making the effort in trying to nail him down on this poll thing for like the last three days. He reminds me of George on Seinfeld stubbornly maintaining that, no it’s the ‘Moops’.

“I was taking another look at the final poll results from Pollster that the Fordham guy used in his list. Another mistake was that he used an older poll for ARG (10/25-27). Their final poll was conducted 11/1-3 and had Obama winning by 6 points, 53% to 45%. So Rasmussen is actually in a 3-way tie for second with Pew and ARG!”
Good lord…ARG had probably the worst primary season too.

“The Democratic group (DSCC) raised $10.2 million in the latest quarter. During the same time, the NRSC raised $8.6 million. And at the quarter’s end, the DSCC had $10.3 million cash on hand to the NRSC’s $5.2 million.”

I’m sure the president doesn’t care!
The president is worried about whether
he is more popular than his buddies,
Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and
Ahmajinedad.
Those who disagree ought to check out
his “power grab” since the
inauguration. He fits right in!

“Fiffty-three minus forty-five equals six in the goofball universe, but not elsewhere.”
Except Numeros corrected his mistake.
“Correction, make that ARG spread 8 points, not 6. But it still remains a 3-way tie.”
You on other hand repeat lies.
Worse than that you repeat things you know for a fact are lies.
“I believe I’ll continue to rely on the numbers used in the professional Fordham study, but thanks for your futile efforts.”
Here’s how “professional” the study was; he did not wait until the final vote tallies before doing his analysis.
In the professor’s “analysis” he rounded up McCain’s total from 45.6 to 46% and rounded down Obama’s total from 52.9% to 52%.
In the real world that is called fudging the numbers.
In the right wing world its a hallmark of excellence.
The lesson as always? Right wingers lie.

In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%.
This, together with his leading the pack in 2008, is why Rasmussen is known as the most accurate. No one can challenge him over those two election cycles.

“What about the national polls? Professor Costas Panagopoulos, a professor at Fordham, analyzed poll estimates from 23 different organizations to see which polls were most accurate.”
Citing the same bogus study via a new source does not suddenly make it true.
It just shows how much of a liar you really are.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That figure has stayed in a very narrow range between 47% and 52% every day for six weeks. Fifty-one percent (51%) now disapprove.
I know it’s very depressing news for the goofballs. The clever few are trying to figure out what to do about it. The vast majority, as always, are attacking the messenger.

I agree that Rasmussen’s final poll was the most accurate, and with the professional analysis that says so. Until I see a contrary professional critique, I decline to swat ever fly offered up by unreliable amateurs.
I don’t recall ever cutting and pasting a headline from Hot Air, but since I frequently agree with some of their astute analysis, it is possible, and it is entirely possible that I will do so in the future.
If that happens, try not to be afraid to respond on the merits.
Presidential Approval index today: minus eleven.

Fascist Hyena wrote: “I agree that Rasmussen’s final poll was the most accurate, and with the professional analysis that says so.”
On November 06, 2008, Rasmussen said “The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 46%. We are pleased to report that those figures precisely matched the actual election returns.”
Now he says, “In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%.”
Only one outcome can be correct. So which is it, Fascist Hyena? Did Obama win with 52% or 53%? You can’t have it both ways.

“Only one outcome can be correct. So which is it, Fascist Hyena? Did Obama win with 52% or 53%? You can’t have it both ways.”
I do not intend to have it both ways. His initial computation, like all others immediately following the election, was based on the ballots counted to that point, and all of his numbers are rounded. I believe that when all the dust had settled the count was 52.9% to 45.7%. What is it about this that troubles you?
You seem to be obsessed with trivia while assiduously ignoring the undeniable fact that Rasmussen beat Gallup and the major media polls all hollow. For that reason alone, as a loyal goofball you should be very concerned about what Rasmussen is telling you about today’s electorate. If you choose not to be concerned, that is just ducky with me.

“America will prove once again that they are not a racist nation when they vote him out of office in 2012 for being an incompetent ideologue.”
___________________________________
The American people just voted out ‘an incompetent ideologue” – Republican George Bush.
The American people are not stupid enough to return to the Republicans and the great damage they did to the country.
Keep the Republicans OUT of office in 2010 and 2012.

So Democrats are what… Sexist OR Racist!?! I’m confused. Who am I supposed to scapegoat after reading this poll. The rabid feminist or the rabid racist? Any ideas??? Or maybe I shouldn’t be a Democrat at all… Ahh, so much easier, now I can get on with my life and care about things that actually MATTER!!!

“The Pplitico exposes the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Democrats”
___________________________________
Nonsense. Being willing to work with big business (Obama) is very different from being in the pocket of big business (Bush).

“You figured out what is and isn’t a prediction, or has that one still got you stumped?”
_____________________________________
Yeah sure, I could figure out how much Obama would win by if I waited until all the ballots were counted too. Genius.

“His initial computation, like all others immediately following the election, was based on the ballots counted to that point, and all of his numbers are rounded.”
Exactly. Scott Rasmussen was counting unhatched chickens. On November 5th, most polling pundits were going on initial tallies like those reported by Nate Silver: 52.4 to 46.3 – a 6.1-point margin for Obama. That coincides very closely with the 6.15 margin used in the November 5th Fordham study. The top four positions on the Fordham list all went to the pollsters who had Obama winning by a 6-point margin.
And the initial 52.4 – 46.3 tally rounds to 52-46. That’s why Rasmussen and Pew, with their 52-46 final polls, were tied for first place on the Fordham list. The report stated “Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result.” The professor, like Scott Rasmussen, was also counting unhatched chickens.
”I believe that when all the dust had settled the count was 52.9% to 45.7%.”
You got it, pal; 52.93% – 45.65% to be exact. That’s a 7.28 margin that rounds to 53% – 46%. So when the dust settled, the most accurate pollsters were those who had Obama with a 7-point lead. At 53% – 46%, CNN/Opinion Research and Ipsos/McClatchy’s final polls both nailed it and came out on top.

“As I say, until I see a professional refutation of the Fordham study’s conclusions, I will rely on them.”
You admit that Obama won by 7 points, 53% to 46%, but won’t admit that CNN/Opinion Research and Ipsos/McClatchy nailed it 53% to 46%. But you call other people goofballs?
And you go right on pretending that the Fordham list is valid.
And a 52-46 6-point win (Rasmussen) is more accurate.
And a 52-46 6-point win (Pew) is more accurate.
And a 51-45 6-point win (YouGov/Polimetrix) is more accurate.
And a 50-44 6-point win (Harris Interactive) is more accurate.
And a 49-44 5-point win (GWU) is more accurate.
And a 50-45 5-point win (Diageo/Hotline) is more accurate.
And a 50-45 5-point win (ARG*) is more accurate.
*The professor used data from the wrong polling date. ARG’s final poll was actually 53-45

Another quick note about the infamous Fordham list: the professor used data from the wrong polling date for Harris too. Their final poll was actually conducted 10/30-11/3, not 10/20-27 and had Obama winning 52%-44%.

Young people will vote Democrat as long as they are ignorant of the real world.
As more young people try to find employment and fail to garner that employment in Obama’s America, the good feelings of 2008 will fade and the harsh reality will set in.
When Obama was elected, unemployment was 6.8%.
Employers have been firing people ever since.
When Obama took office it was 7.2%.
As Obama’s policies have taken hold, unemployment has skyrocketed to 9.8% even though he promised unemployment would not go above 8.0% if they passed the ‘stimulus’.
It is so bad that in the third quarter the economy likely grew at around 3%, but during the same three month period 800,000 Americans lost their jobs and another 1,200,000 Americans left the job market altogether placing them among the 17% unemployed or underemployed.
When economic growth still leads to job loses, that proves that businesses see no incentive to risking any more profits in an Obama era.
Obama received 53% of the vote in a nation that had an unemployment rate below 7.0%.
In 2012, if that rate is no where near 7.2%, young people no longer be chanting ‘Yes We Can’, they’ll be chanting ‘What We Do?’ as they help vote him out of office.

its easy to get a better approval rating than Obama when you don’t do anything. The person who does anything is her husband. I think she is being a bit overshadowed by him