If it's true that it's better to be hated than ignored, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought to be cheered by the latest Gallup numbers showing that Americans don't like her ... but at least know who she is. Her Republican counterpart, House Minority Leader John Boehner, is unknown to most Americans.
There is both good and bad news for the GOP, I suppose. The good news is that their campaign to demonize the Speaker is working; the bad news is that, when it comes to pushing forward a new generation of Republican leaders, they are still rather thin at the top. I mean, really, who are the leaders of the GOP right now? It's a rather small and lackluster field, that's for sure.
Elsewhere, turning to the New York Senate race, incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand may have trouble on her hands as she attempts to win outright the seat to which she was appointed after Hillary Clinton left for the State Department. Though it's very, very early in this race, Rep. Carolyn Maloney is neck-and-neck with Gillibrand in this recent Rasmussen poll, leading 33 percent to 29 percent. Still lots of undecideds, of course. This race could prove to be yet another test of Clinton family electoral pull, for Gillibrand is a Clinton protege. (She'd be wise to ignore Terry McAuliffe's fate in Virginia--although, to be fair, the Clinton brand in Virginia is not nearly what it is in the Empire State.)
Finally, checking in on President Obama, he's holding steady at around 60 percent net national approval, according to Gallup. Looking at the demographic breakdowns, there are almost no surprises, with Obama doing better among women than men, non-whites than whites, easterners than southerners, younger Americans rather than seniors, and those at the bottom of the income scale. Gallup notes that he's enjoying a healthy honeymoon period, at least as compared to recent presidents (i.e., post-Nixon). We'll have to wait to see if Obama can stack up against the pre-Nixon presidents of the post-war 20th century.
7.20.2009
Pelosi v. Boehner; Gillibrand v. Maloney; Obama v. Himself
@ 9:44 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments
Any comment on the recent Rasmussen poll that shows Obama tied with Romeny in a 2012 matchup? I think it is more Rasmussen lies, but...
Nate…
Every time you cite poll results returned by Rasmussen you lose a few adherents to this site. Rasmussen has nothing to do with polling—he is a PR machine and you are passing his crap along. Just because he has national name recognition doesn’t mean he is trustworthy. Would you rely on polling data that came from Matt Drudge?
The more credence you give to this crap, the more it will stay with us. It’s another tactic of the far right, same as their attempt to frame creationism as a scientific alternative to evolution, which thus elevates it to being worthy of discussion. Creationism is not science, and should never be a part of any discussion about evolution. Similarly Rasmussen’s polling is not polling.
If you are interested in being fair, then be fair. Being fair does not mean discussing every bit of nonsense that comes along, like Rasmussen “poll numbers” or treating it like another valid point of view. It’s not. It’s shit. You wouldn’t spread shit on bread just because it looks somewhat like peanut butter, would you? The sooner Rasmussen is sidelined by all sensible news organizations, the quicker the whole country (except the Fox watchers and Dumbaugh listeners) will be rid of them.
Nate seems to be kissing up to Rasmussen for whatever reason.
Rasmussen is showing for instance Obama unfavorables over 10% higher than everyone else consistently and nobody has the courage to challenge him.
You liberals crack me up
You failed basic reading compreehension
Nate didn't even post this
Sometime I wonder are you guys even human or justs liberal bots
P.S.
Obama is around 60% approval but his policies are less than that and on many issues the independents are at or below majority
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_072009.html
Obama is around 60% approval but his policies are less than that and on many issues the independents are at or below majority
In the cited poll, Obama's handling of the healthcare issue (for example) is approved by 49%, disapproved by 44%, and 7% have no opinion. Even if healthcare was the single most important issue for every single person polled, does this mean that 44% of the people would vote against him if the election were held again today?
No. The 'disapprove' population consists of at least two separate groups.. those who disapprove of Obama because he favors a 'progressive' solution, and those who disapprove because his solution 'isn't progressive enough'. For healthcare, the latter group may be demanding single-payer and nothing less. Despite disagreeing with Obama, they are actually farther to his left on the political scale, and therefore irrelevant to the chances of anyone challenging him.
If polling outfits would make sure to phrase their question so as to quantify all 4 'Goldilocks groups' (too much, too little, just right, and the ever-present No Opinion) , it would provide much more usable information.
Of course liberals hate Rasmussen for whatever reason, though he has been the most accurate pollster for the past 3 elections haha.
* Mitt Romney 45%
* Barack Obama 45%
* Barack Obama 48%
* Sarah Palin 42%
Three Way Matchup
* Barack Obama 44%
* Mitt Romney 33%
* Sarah Palin 16%
So pretty much Obama beats Palin and would beat Romney-Palin in a 3 way matchup. It is no surprise Romney is tied with Obama. He is the ONLY Republican that can beat Obama.
Would you care to prove how Rasmussen is "the most accurate pollster for the past 3 elections"?
Okay, first off Tom has used Rasmussen as an example of the fact that Gillibrand is in a competetive race in the NY primary. The other polls he has used in the article are all Gallup. So I wouldn't get on his back too much for that.
I wonder how well known Gingrich was in July 1993, or Pelosi herself in July 2003. I don't think Boehner needs to sweat too much. I also wonder how bad Pelosi's current figures are, historically. Are Speakers ever that popular? How does the Speaker's popularity translate to votes in previous elections?
As for New York, Gillibrand hasn't got huge name recognition, and I tend to think that is what is partly being measured in these very early polls. No sweat, yet at least. Incidentally what would it say for President Hillary Clinton and all of her proteges failing so quickly? Certainly wouldn't be good karma.
Finally, I think Obama's approval ratings are holding up remarkably well. (Whatever PK comes and posts on here!) ytownmetz figures are interesting to an extent, though they are Ras numbers, so maybe take 2% off all conservatives polls numbers to get a more accurate picture. I think its true that Romney is among a very small group of GOPers from this distance who have much chance at all in 2012, from this distance at least. I do get the feeling that there is a reluctance for the GOP to go for another experienced, relatively centrist, relatively old white male in 2012 though. I wouldn't be surprised to find the GOP trying to find a more right wing, younger, non white old male type candidate coming out of the pack in the meantime, be it Palin or someone else.
I don't think it's accurate to portray the NY Senate primary as a reflection of Clinton influence or to assume that the Clintons are backing Gillibrand. Bill Clinton recently hosted a fundraiser for Carolyn Maloney. He was careful to stipulate that his hosting the fundraiser didn't constitute an endorsement, but it might look like an endorsement to a casual observer. Maloney was a Hillary supporter, so Bill hosted the fundraiser to reward her for past loyalty. Regardless, it certainly doesn't look like the Clintons are determined to beat Maloney. When you're challenging an incumbent senator, having the former president host a fundraiser for you is nice bit of help.
Be happy to Juvanya!
The "accuracy" of polling is only judged on the last day of the election, when the vote happens. Prior to that vote Ras is ALWAYS strongly republican biased, and they as they are in the rest of the cycle (like now). This means that Rasmussen's bias every day but the last week before an election is absolutley intentional bias which makes it unforgiveable.
Here is a chart to support this supposition (Ras always showed a smaller Obama lead than most, and then dropped further, only to come back near the end):
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_fluctuating_convergence_my.php
But they may not be the only pollster "gaming" the system for client advantage:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/more_on_the_convergence_myster.php
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pollster_accuracy_and_the_nati.php
Mitt Romney is your best candidate? You've got to be kidding me. Mitt Romney is a slice of plain whitebread, maybe with a glass of water on the side for dippin'.
Okay, so he's better than Sarah Palin. I'll give you that.
Thanks for researching the Bradford.
For those of us that were glued to the poll numbers from spring on this discrepancy was blatantly obvious.
Hurther info on "house effect5s" which may be intentioanl or unintentional, depending on your level of paranoia about the pollster:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/house-effects-in-da-house.html
Note that Rasmussen in THE MOST REPUBLICAN BIASED POLLSTER IN EXISTENCE:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollsters_affect_poll_resu.php
To the bozo quoting that rasmussen polling 2012,Ras must really be bored wasting time polling an election that won`t happen for over 3 years.
Obama will either win in a landslide or lose in one depending on how the world is in 3 years, polling this now is absurd.
Basically the republicans are where they were last november mid 40`s, no great change.
I hope like hell Palin runs 3rd party, Obama would probably win all 50 states, maybe she could take Alaska. I find it hard to take RAs seriously, his polls always have a 5-10 point GOP slant in non election years. I think the only time he poll legitimate is in presidential years.
Liberl-defender -
As discussed here, at Pollster, and at other poling sites, Ras is a great pollster, but with a very strong bias. Even DailyKOS goes off on Ras at regular intervals.
Scottie Rasmussen is supposedly a crazed evangelical, who likely is a Palin supporter.
I always like to post with facts, when possible.
Thanks Joel-
I did always like Bozo on WGN.
Rasmussen is also a favorite of Fox and the crazed right, I am sure it is only coincidental and not based on his extrme bias:
http://washingtonindependent.com/30539/rasmussen-the-only-poll-that-matters
I have a serious question about Rasmussen. I've noticed, they're still using a likely voter model for their approval numbers... what are the odds that Obama's lower approval rating has to do with lower interest from young/minority voters, or some other screening method that's excluding a big chunk of Obama support. Is there any data that can sort out the difference.
Pragmatus,
Why do you even come here if you disrespect Nate's judgment so much? According to Nate's pollster rankings (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/pollster-ratings-updated.html), Rasmussen is the 4th highest weighted poll. Nate has built a ton of his observations from Rasmussen polls.
Nate has explained numerous times (with facts) why he believes that. I somehow doubt that he (or anyone else on this site) is going to be convinced that is error by your asinine ravings.
Nate (the commenter, not the blog owner)-
It is likely even worse than that - Rasmussen uses a skewed likely voter model AND generally corrects for party affiliation, thus his pols are skewed twice as jhis party affiliation is generally repub skewed. I cannot find him reporting party affiliation numbers recently, but his site is so poor as to be almost worthless for historical purposes.
"According to Nate's pollster rankings (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/pollster-ratings-updated.html), Rasmussen is the 4th highest weighted poll. Nate has built a ton of his observations from Rasmussen polls."
Of course he has. Rasmussen polls are accurate, they are simply biased five points towards the Republicans. They're very useful for a system like Nate's, which assigns house effects to the polls and adjusts them accordingly. He just subtracts a certain amount of points from Rasmussen.
Using that fact, however, to imply that Rasmussen is somehow not clearly tilting his polls is incorrect. Indeed, Nate's "house effect" is simply proof that Rasmussen's polls ARE tilted. They are consistently way over towards the Republicans.
Funny also that on the same day that Rasmussen releases its 2012 polling, PPP releases its own numbers:
Obama 50%, Gingrich 42%
Obama 48%, Huckabee 42%
Obama 51%, Palin 43%
Obama 49%, Romney 40%
You know, with such dramatic differences in the results, you'd almost have to conclude that polling for the 2012 presidential race this far out is meaningless.
Peter said...
Funny also that on the same day that Rasmussen releases its 2012 polling, PPP releases its own numbers:
Obama 50%, Gingrich 42%
Obama 48%, Huckabee 42%
Obama 51%, Palin 43%
Obama 49%, Romney 40%
You know, with such dramatic differences in the results, you'd almost have to conclude that polling for the 2012 presidential race this far out is meaningless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Using this post as a barometer, nothing else, in addressing all the other nonsense in this thread!
First, yada, yada, yada, yes indeed it's fun for "some" to talk about an event which will occur 3 1/2 years from now. A venture in futility, but fun nonetheless, eh knowing that the 2006 mid-terms turned on the Mark Foley scandal a wk before the election.
Yes Virginia, a wk in politics can be an eternity. Just ask the Reps Oct. 2006, I digress ...
As I mentioned previously, Reagan's job approval at the end of 1982: 42% and he began 1983 w/a 35% job approval but, but, but beat Mondale ie Carter lite 59% to 41% in 1984.
Some would say the lingering Carter effect to be sure, but one has to wonder how long the lingering cheney/bush effect will last, eh
The Hoover effect lasted (20) years, but WWII went into that equation. The Carter effect lasted (12) years, but add Perot into that equation. The cheney/bush effect hmm if Iraq implodes, cheney/bush get the blame, if Iraq improves ?, if the economy continues to flounder ? etc. etc.
So many variables go into an individual equation ie the opponent and yes, it's fun to speculate 3 1/2 years out, eh until a gay Rep pervert from FL who likes little boys gets flung into the equation !@#$%^&*
'nuf said!
Yea, some fool Whig er Rep has to run against Obama, who will have the power of incumbency, the $$$ advantage etc. etc. over whomever the Party of No!!! nominates.
Let's recap, shall we: 3 1/2 years = an eternity in politics as the Whig's continue to implode ie Sanford, Ensign, Palin, Jindal, Boehner, Cantor, Bachmann, Coleman, Macaca Allen, Stevens, Perry, Nancy fo fo fo "there are (2) Virginia's" Pfotenhauer etc. etc. ie the Keystone cops.
and yes Virginia, there are no Reagan's on the horizon in the Whig er Rep er Party of No!!!
take care, blessings
p.s. underestimate Obama at one's own peril, he was (30) pts. behind in Iowa and beat the "Clinton machine" and yes, McCain was the Reps best choice having crushed Mittens in the primary and yet a young, relatively inexperienced bi-racial candidate crushed the clueless war hero after (8) years of cheney/bush!
and so it goes ...
All this hate on Rasmussen... claiming they only have to be correct the right day, and they have such a bias...
If I recall right, their numbers were very stable the last 40 days of the 2008 presidential election. Add to that the fact they they have been ranked by 3rd parties as the most accurate pollster in the 2008 elections- I'm going to advise you all to put your liberal biases aside and accept that they are a very good polling firm, even if they consistently aren't telling you the results you want.
A serious question:
Rasmussen uses a 'likely voter' model to determine whose opinion to put into his polls.
For the 2012 Presidential poll, how does he determine which or what percent of people aged 14, 15, 16 and 17 right now who will be old enough to vote in 2012? Those who were born on or before November 6, 1994 will be eligible to register and vote. After all, it is the youngest voting age population that is most likely to vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
And for that same 2012 Presidential poll, how many of those older than, say 80, is Rasmussen figuring will either die, or otherwise not able to vote? After all, it is the eldest voting age population that is most likely to vote for the GOOPer Party candidate.
This far out, by not including at least some consideration of the not yet eligible but will be by November 6, 2012 voter preference, the pollster is introducing a GOOPer bias into their polling. And I would suspect that Ras is one of the worst on this issue.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Zack…
I don’t know how much good it will do to try and educate you, but I’m willing to try.
When Rasmussen (or any pollster) produces a result that is in direct conflict with reality, it is reasonable to assume that they are not really measuring public opinion but trying to influence public opinion. Every pollster knows about herd instinct (Fox News does too, and builds its entire “news” system around it) so if a poll appears that suddenly shows a popular figure losing support dramatically, a certain portion of the electorate will automatically change their opinions for fear that a trend has started that threatens to leave them behind. (This is the same impetus that stampeded everybody into buying SUVs—because everybody else had one.)
So it’s not a matter of whether Nate takes Rasmussen seriously, or implements a formula for correctly removing his bias, it’s that Rasmussen’s misinformation has gone abroad in the first place. He is a propagandist, not a pollster.
As I have stated here before, a poll’s usefulness is solely how closely its results hew to reality. If a polling outfit consistently returns results that no one else is uncovering, it’s safe to say they have a separate agenda quite apart from measuring public opinion. The results from all such organizations should be ignored, or treated for what they are—PR for a particular candidate or cause.
Maloney may have lost the race earlier today:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/20/maloney-apologizes-for-using-n-word/
All I know is that in 3.5 years there will also be more people of age to vote, most of whom, unless the republicans offer up some pretty radical change themselves, are probably not going to be voting (R) and that cannot even be factored in yet. If we are at all in better shape, and if the repubs keep playing keystone cops as far as leaders go, Obama will have to do something pretty awful to lose. Not that it can't be close because some people are terrified of anything that seems progressive in anyway (never mind the fact that Obama is still more moderate than progressive, at least so far), but they are going to have to pull quite a rabbit out of their hat and pronto.
This author uses incorrect grammar.
"Thinking about these underlying factors is what drove John and I to write the book. "
キャッシング
インプラント
ダンボール
水 通販
幼児教室
電話占い
A片下載|成人影片下載|免費A片下載|日本A片|情色A片|免費A片|成人影城|成人電影|線上A片|A片免費看
米蘭情趣用品|情趣用品|情趣|飛機杯|自慰套|充氣娃娃|AV女優.按摩棒|跳蛋|潤滑液|角色扮演|情趣內衣|自慰器|穿戴蝴蝶|變頻跳蛋|無線跳蛋|電動按摩棒|情趣按摩棒|
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment