PDA

View Full Version : Media Myth On Obama's Poll Ratings



Gayle in MD
03-25-2010, 11:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
March 17, 2010 5:34 am ET

The release of an Associated Press poll last week that showed President Obama enjoying a healthy job approval rating of 53 percent didn't generate much news beyond the wire service and produced even less commentary among the media's chattering class. Then again, neither did another piece of polling news from January, which showed Obama basking in the glow of a 56 percent job approval rating.

The cold shoulder was expected, though. Why? It's simple: the results didn't fit the script.

Adopting the polar opposite narrative from the Bush era when pundits and reporters seemed obsessed with trying to boost the president's standing, Beltway scribes today have made it plain that when it comes to Obama and polling, good news is no news.

Feeding off right-wing talking points, political journalists love to push the idea that Obama's polling numbers are in the tank and that he's fading fast. It's all part of the preferred, CW narrative that his entire presidency is slipping away. (It must now be "save[d]," according to Newsweek.)

Does the White House wish Obama's job approval rating was higher? I'm sure advisers do. Is there anything unusual in Obama's approval number, other than the fact that it nearly doubles the rating his predecessor left office with? No, not really.

Indeed, the news media's ongoing hand-wringing about Obama's polling numbers and how he's only around 50 percent (it's "tepid" and cause for "worry") is rather odd considering former President Bush served nearly his entire second term with an approval rating below 50 percent and left the presidency with an almost incomprehensibly low 22 percent approval rating.

Also note that for the majority of Bush's first year in office (i.e. up until September 11, 2001), his approval rating remained pretty much exactly where Obama's has been since late last summer: hovering around 50 percent. But do you recall a media obsession about Bush's super-soft poll numbers back during the spring and summer of 2001?

Neither do I.

More queries: Has there been any dramatic shift in President Obama's approval number since late last summer? No. (See below.) Has the press in recent months, busy echoing right-wing falsehoods, often pretended that there has been a sizable shift? Without question. (Rush Limbaugh, last month: "If Mr. Obama hasn't noticed, his approval numbers are in a free fall.")

Just take a look. From The New York Times, December 19, 2009:

After weeks of frustrating delays and falling poll numbers, Mr. Obama decided to take what he could get, declare victory and claim momentum on some of the administration's biggest priorities, even if the details did not always match the lofty vision that underlined them.

Washington Post, January 19:

On Wednesday one year will have passed since President Obama's inauguration. Much of the tidal wave of assessments has been negative: Falling poll numbers. Unfulfilled promises.

Miami Herald, January 29:

Amid declining poll numbers and political fortunes, President Barack Obama on Thursday tried to reconnect with the fickle state that helped put him in the White House and urged voters to keep the faith despite Florida's withering recession.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, February 23:

The president's falling poll numbers, ongoing backlash from Republicans, even some grumblings from Democrats. Might someone inside the White House bear most of the blame?

Los Angeles Times, March 7:

For months, Obama had been on the defensive, facing electoral setbacks, declining poll numbers, dissident Democrats and stories that highlighted the deal-making often needed to grind out legislation.

Everybody agrees that Obama's poll numbers are falling, so it must be true, right?

Wrong.

If you look at Gallup's weekly ratings for Obama, in late August 2009, he had a 50 percent approval rating. And for the most recently completed weekly tabulation from Gallup, Obama's rating stands at 48 percent. That's right, over a nearly seven-month period, the president's approval rating, as measured by Gallup, dropped exactly 2 percentage points, which obviously falls within Gallup's margin of error. That means you could accurately say that Obama's job approval rating has remained unchanged over the last six-plus months.



And it's not just Gallup that has chronicled Obama's rock-steady polling numbers. Take a look at the cumulative ratings posted daily at Real Clear Politics, which averages eight different polls (including Rasmussen's outlier tabulations) to come up with Obama's composite job approval rating.

Here are some of the data points from RCP:

•August 20, 2009: 51 percent
•September 23, 2009: 52 percent
•October 4, 2009: 52 percent
•November 4, 2009: 51 percent
•December 7, 2009: 49 percent
•January 11, 2010: 48 percent
•February 18: 48 percent
•March 3: 49 percent
And for the most recent, month-long snapshot, between February 17 and March 14, RCP pegged Obama's approval rating at 49 percent. So, much like Gallup, RCP has found that, since last August, Obama's job approval rating has basically shifted downward just a few points, or again, within the typical survey margin of error.

Given those figures, I'll ask again: Why is the press so eager to push this storyline about Obama's "falling poll numbers"? Where is the proof to back it up? And since when does a 1-3 point movement in any direction qualify as news? It's absurd.

By the way, if for some reason Obama's approval rating does significantly sag this month, or next, that won't somehow vindicate the previously erroneous coverage. Because the press has been claiming for the last several months that Obama's poll numbers have already fallen noticeable (which they have not), not that they're going to.

The media fixation on a barely there approval decline is especially bizarre when you consider how blasé the same press corps was during the Bush administration when the president often suffered gargantuan job approval declines. For instance, between December 2003 and May 2004, Bush's job approval plunged 17 points, according to Gallup. But it's hard to find much proof that the Beltway press corps was obsessed with Bush's "falling poll numbers" at the time.

But back to Obama. From September 1, 2009, to March 1, 2010, there was literally no change in Obama's approval rating. So why is the press so anxious to push the "falling poll numbers" meme? And is that why, when the White House did receive rays of good polling news during those months, the press seemed so anxious to look away?

Was it because when it comes to covering this Democratic White House, good news is no news?

At times it sure seems that way.

Back in January when The Washington Post reported on its latest political survey, the newspaper forgot to mention that Obama's job approval had gone up that month. Not a single reference to that fact was made in the article, which did set aside plenty of space to pile on the doom-and-gloom rhetoric:

A year into his presidency, President Obama faces a polarized nation and souring public assessments of his efforts to change Washington, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly half of all Americans say Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, and a narrow majority have just some or no confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country's future.

By the way, this was the Post's headline:

Poll shows growing disappointment, polarization over Obama's performance

According to the Post, there was "growing disappointment" over Obama. Yet the Post itself forgot to report that his approval rating had gone up that month.

The same was true over at CNN.com in December 2009. Writing up the results of its latest poll, CNN not only didn't think the news hook was that Obama's approval rating had gone up 6 points in just two weeks, but the CNN article didn't even reference that finding until two-thirds of the way into the piece.

And then there was the AP in November 2009. Same drill. Its polling at the time showed Obama enjoying a robust 54 percent approval rating. So where was that information buried? In the article's ninth paragraph, after the AP painted an almost comically bleak picture of the political landscape Obama faced at the time.

And again, it's not just that the press has often misstated the facts about Obama's polling numbers. It's that this is the same Beltway press corps that often treated Obama's Republican predecessor in the exact opposite way, often itching to suggest that Bush's horrendous polling numbers were on the mend and spending years denying Bush's glaring job approval ratings collapse.

For instance, in January 2006, Time magazine's Mike Allen announced that Bush had "found his voice" and that relieved White House aides "were smiling again" after a rocky 2005. Of course, within months, Bush's approval rating fell to new all-time lows.

In April of that year, Katie Couric, then with NBC News, was asking Tim Russert if the White House could "breath[e] a sigh of relief" because Bush's latest approval rating had only fallen to 36 percent. In the end, Bush's phantom rebound never materialized and he left office as the least popular president in modern American history.

And yet for most of his eight years in office, the press seemed to have a gut feeling that Americans just liked Bush. And today, their instinct tells them that Americans don't really approve of Obama.

Here's an idea: Maybe journalists should simply report what Americans tell pollsters and stop trying to concoct a storyline.
</div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/columns/201003170005

Note:

The poll numbers I quote on this site are numbers which are averaged across the board.

Rasmussen, for example, consistantly offers poll numbers which are slung far to the advantage of the right. This is a well known fact. Artical after artical, proves that when compared to other polling data, Rasmussen favors Conservitives over Democratics.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2010/02/rasmussen-and-corporate-toadies-in.html


"How accurate is Rasmussen polls on HC reform?" | MySpace Forums12 posts - 6 authors - Last post: Mar 16
"How accurate is Rasmussen polls on HC reform?" MySpace Forum. ... Their numbers always favor conservative/right wing positions/candidates. ...
forums.myspace.com/t/4749821.aspx?fuseaction=forums... - Cached
Get more discussion results
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Is Rasmussen Reports Biased?I'm not saying that Rasmussen's question wording is always biased. ... question wording, nine times out of ten it favors the conservative argument. ...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/is-rasmussen-reports-biased.html - Cached
Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaDo you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and ... Do you agree or disagree with the following statement... it's always better to ... MSNBC does not use Rasmussen polls. Conversely, conservative media frequently ... [17] Right Wing News.com; ^ Rasmussem Reports, [18]Dec 15, 2005 ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports - Cached - Similar
Conservative Media Grabs On To New Rasmussen Health Care Poll ...Mar 3, 2009 ... I noted below that Rasmussen Reports seemed to present its new poll on health care in a way designed to maximize pick-up by the conservative ...
theplumline.whorunsgov.com/.../conservative-media-grabs-on-to-new-rasmussen-health-care-poll/ - Cached - Similar
Poll: Voters Reject Health Care Mandate Without Public Option ...Dec 18, 2009 ... Rasmussen polls always lean toward the conservative right-wing opinion. ... The most recent Gallup shows 46% in favor, 48% against this ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../poll-health-care-reform-w_n_396990.html - Cached
Rasmussen, the Only Poll that Matters « The Washington IndependentFeb 18, 2009 ... Before the stimulus debate began, Rasmussen asked voters whether they'd favor stimulus plans that .... Rasmussen skews his "issue" polls to the conservative slant. ... When I watch them on TV and see right past their motives...as do most. ... Being accurate is always having to say you're sorry. ...
washingtonindependent.com/.../rasmussen-the-only-poll-that-matters - Cached - Similar
Links on "Rasmussen Reports" | Facebookright there with you Jim. Bryan B. that is the worst mistake to make. ... Rasmussen polls may not always be terribly precise - UNLESS it is an election poll. .... I've also shown that tort reform, which I favor, won't yield the quantity of savings .... He usually seems to be on the conservative side more anyway. ...
http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=86959124863&share_id... - Cached
Matthew Yglesias » Scott Rasmussen's Conservative-Friendly ...Feb 24, 2009 ... The Rasmussen poll on any given political issue is always an outlier. ... Yesterday it was “do you favor raising taxes on people making more ...
yglesias.thinkprogress.org/.../scott_rasmussens_conservative_friendly_question_wo rding.php - Cached - Similar
Rasmussen Poll: Large Majority of Americans Oppose Govt Health CareAug 12, 2009 ... Eight of 10 Americans say they favor a public health insurance option ... The Rasmussen polls have always been on the conservative end of the ... who care the slightest thing about what's right: (1) for Christians, ...
http://www.dakotavoice.com/.../rasmussen-poll-large-majority-of-americans-oppose-govt-health-care/ - Cached - Similar


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
-by Doug Kahn

Pollster.com is hawking charts that obfuscate the actual results of most of the reputable pollsters that are supposedly contained in them. Is obfuscate the right word for it? Let’s see: obfuscate, blur, shade, cloud, confuse, conceal, mask, cover up. Maybe dilute is better. Water down, thin out, adulterate, doctor. That’s the word I want. Doctor.

They display the actual polls and their percentages in a list, and then doctor them on the way into the charts. The math they use allows an individual pollster to supply results that substantially change, and even reverse, the results reported by other pollsters. Pollster.com is giving Rasmussen control over the national conversation on politics, with the help of credulous news people and political bloggers who display these charts on their web sites. I’m not going to name names. You know who you are.

Journalists in print and online reproduce the charts as though they were news, as though they represented reality, the truth. They don’t. One pollster can use Pollster.com to change Obama favorables into unfavorables, or a Democratic advantage on the House generic ballot into a Republican advantage.

A political poll doesn’t ask every eligible voter how they’re going to vote, they ask a sampling of voters. If you were to take a poll of 500 randomly selected voters, and do that 100 times, you’d get different results every time, but the results that are closer to reality will cluster around one number. Imagine a curve that looks like a bell; the top of the bell is the most frequent result, the presumed truth of the matter. By chance, some of the polls will be way off; those results are the tails, the bottom left and right edges of the bell, the ‘outliers.’ It should seem obvious that when you poll more people you get more reliable results. A common standard: you poll enough voters to make sure that if you did 100 polls, only 5 of them would be further than 6 percentage points away from reality.

Let’s look at the 2010 National Congressional generic ballot. Rasmussen is a prolific pollster. Since January 1, 2010 Rasmussen has reported polling 21,000 people, versus 18,786 for every other pollster combined. The reason you’d want to aggregate all the polls is to be more accurate by examining the responses of as many voters as possible. Polling is expensive, so polling numbers are hard to come by, especially in local races. Even if you simply add the results and average them, Rasmussen ends up being the overwhelming influence on the final result.

But that’s not the way these charts are created; the math that Pollster.com uses gives Rasmussen an even bigger advantage. They use a statistical method called regression analysis, the purpose of which is to make the trend line more closely match the reality of the situation, reduce the influence of random variations.

The frequency of Rasmussen’s reported results gives their figures a heavy influence on the charts. Pollster.com gives Rasmussen, an extreme outlier, an extra advantage just by the way the statistics are done. A regression analysis gives the more frequent pollster more control over the curve. That makes sense, but only because to use regression analysis in an honest way, you have to presume that all the results are comparable (in polling, that all the pollsters ask the same question) and that they’re all honestly reported figures.

Here’s the current 2010 National Congressional generic ballot chart, with a Republican advantage of 43.6% to 43%.


You can reduce the advantage Rasmussen gets by using tools that Pollster.com gives you to customize the charts, for instance by increasing the ‘sensitivity’ of the trend line to more recent polls. There have been 25 polls in 2010, and six of them are from Rasmussen. Increasing the sensitivity gives the other 19 polls more influence. Here’s the same chart giving the non-Rasmussen pollsters more weight: a Democratic advantage, 44.7% to 42.8%. This is a swing of 2.5%.


Here’s the chart the way I always look at Pollster.com trends, with the sensitivity on high and Rasmussen removed. Democratic advantage, 46.6% to 42%.


You can set the sensitivity on high and use the tools to remove other pollsters from the mix, and I’ve done that with this chart and with the national charts measuring Obama job approval and Obama favorability rating. Removing Rasmussen produces a swing of up to 5%. You can’t produce anything more than a 1% swing removing any other pollster.

All through the year after Obama’s election, Pollster.com reported Rasmussen’s ‘Obama favorability’ as wildly divergent from all other pollsters. Mark Blumenthal, who runs the site, had inserted Rasmussen’s ‘Obama job approval’ numbers (which are always more negative than favorable ratings). After repeated complaints and objections that the Rasmussen results had to be wrong, he removed all of these numbers without telling anyone. His September 29, 2009 public explanation was buried on the site in a ‘P.S.’ to a complaint from someone else about an impossible Rasmussen result from Iowa. It made no logical sense, I don’t think:

“We discovered over the last few days that what we believed to be a weekly update of Barack Obama's favorable rating on RasmussenReports.com had been changed at some point to a weekly job approval rating, even though the labels still read favorable and unfavorable rather than approve and disapprove up until about a week ago. As such, we have removed the non-favorable ratings from our national Barack Obama favorable rating chart.”

That contradicts reality: for a year he reported numbers of respondents in the supposed Rasmussen favorability polls that were different from the numbers in the Rasmussen approval polls. How does that correspond to the explanation that it was a labeling error?

The Pollster.com charts, which understated Obama’s favorable rating advantage by almost 10%, were viewed hundreds of thousands of times on numerous political web sites. Arguably, it affected the fate of Democratic proposals in Congress.

Here’s something that needs an explanation. If you take the Obama favorability chart and restrict the date range to the 12 months between 11/20/08 and 11/20/09, you get a list that includes no Rasmussen results and a chart that corresponds:


But when you use the customization tool to ‘remove’ the already absent Rasmussen, the chart numbers move! The ghost of Rasmussen past apparently influences the other numbers.

</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">Not one of the people I know in Washington Journalism and Reporting, nor in the political arena, pays any attention at all to Rasmussen.

Consistantly, averaged polling numbers, reveal a right leaning effect, in the Rasmussen polling data.... </span>

pooltchr
03-25-2010, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Note:

The poll numbers I quote on this site are numbers which are averaged across the board.

</div></div>

Did you ever take a statistics class in college? (Did you even go to college, I have no idea)
You can not average averages.

Steve

eg8r
03-25-2010, 11:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Consistantly, averaged polling numbers, reveal a right leaning effect, in the Rasmussen polling data.... </div></div>This is because the US citizens generally lean to the right on most subjects.

eg8r

LWW
03-25-2010, 12:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #000066">Not one of the people I know in Washington Journalism and Reporting, nor in the political arena, pays any attention at all to Rasmussen.

Consistantly, averaged polling numbers, reveal a right leaning effect, in the Rasmussen polling data.... </span> </div></div>

That certainly explains why they can call the actual final results better than anyone in the business.

LWW

LWW
03-25-2010, 12:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Note:

The poll numbers I quote on this site are numbers which are averaged across the board.

</div></div>

Did you ever take a statistics class in college? (Did you even go to college, I have no idea)
You can not average averages.

Steve </div></div>

With doublethink and blackwhite ... all things become possible.

If the party says 2+2=5, then it does.

LWW