Obama's Job Approval Drops 7 Points in 3 Days

[jimnyc]

I can't imagine this bodes well for his campaign.


(CNSNews.com) - In the most precipitous decline it has seen in more than a year, President Barack Obama's job approval rating has dropped 7 points in three days, according to Gallup.

In the three-day period ending on Oct. 23, says Gallup, 53 percent said they approved of the job Obama was doing and 42 percent said they did not.

On Oct. 24, that dropped to 51 percent who said they approved and 44 percent who said they do not.

On Oct. 25, it dropped again to 48 percent who said they approved and 47 percent who said they do not.

On Oct. 26, it dropped yet again to 46 percent who said they approved and 49 percent who said they did not.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-obamas-job-approval-drops-7-points-3-days

[fj1200]

If you accept that at least some portion of the approval rating contains approval just because people like him, then I would posit that people are beginning to not just blindly liking him anymore. That is not good for him.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I can't imagine this bodes well for his campaign.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-obamas-job-approval-drops-7-points-3-days

Considering what he has done it should have been more like 27 points.

[aboutime]

This would be good news for me if I believed in Polls. But how can a job approval rate drop 7 points, when he was 7 points down anyhow?

It should be a MINUS 7 points for most of us, to be accurate.

[Voted4Reagan]

I can't imagine this bodes well for his campaign.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-obamas-job-approval-drops-7-points-3-days

Free-falling.... just like Carter in 1980

[Kathianne]

I can't imagine this bodes well for his campaign.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-obamas-job-approval-drops-7-points-3-days

Benghazi. Simple as that. If he should win, unlikely IMO, he'll be impeached over this.

[Kathianne]

If you accept that at least some portion of the approval rating contains approval just because people like him, then I would posit that people are beginning to not just blindly liking him anymore. That is not good for him.

For a couple months now, I've been shocked at the movement in folks toward Romney, while the 'approval' rating went up or stayed steady. I'd come to the conclusion that folks were ready to vote against him, but wanted to convey that he was 'likable.'

The debates and now Benghazi puts lie to the reasoning and the poll is reflecting that.

[red states rule]

This election is loking more and more like the Carter/Reagan 1980 election. It is becoming clear to more and more voters on a daily basis that Obama needs to go

There is NOTHING Obama can run on except personal attacks and that spells doom for any politican

[mundame]

Benghazi. Simple as that. If he should win, unlikely IMO, he'll be impeached over this.


Sure, must be.

But Gallup must be an outlier, because this Sunday morning the RCP favorability average is dead even: 48.3 to 48.1.

Of course, it's considered not good (never re-elected so far) if a candidate can't get above 50%. However, this candidate is black and that is a major game changer for all the reasons you all understand.

Romney's favorability average is fully two points higher than Obama's today: putting him barely over 50%.

Still, the national polls are not of interest in this race, since it's all down to the Electoral College.

It's interesting, though, as a bellwether for where the battleground states COULD go.

[mundame]

Free-falling.... just like Carter in 1980


I believe that is wishful thinking. There is no fall in either direction: this is a very close election. I am most concerned that it may get hung up again like 2000.

I don't say it couldn't make a sudden last-minute shift like Carter/Reagan, but it hasn't so far.

[jimnyc]

Sure, must be.

But Gallup must be an outlier, because this Sunday morning the RCP favorability average is dead even: 48.3 to 48.1.

Why assume Gallup has issues and not call into question the polls that favor Obama on that list? Let me ask you this - would you think a poll by Fox or MSNBC would be a better gauge? Look a little closer at the aggregate polls, eliminate those done by organizations that are clearly biased, and the picture looks a little different.

[red states rule]

I believe that is wishful thinking. There is no fall in either direction: this is a very close election. I am most concerned that it may get hung up again like 2000.

I don't say it couldn't make a sudden last-minute shift like Carter/Reagan, but it hasn't so far.

Isn't this the same election where one month ago the liberal media was "reporting" how Obama had this eletion locked up?

Liberal talking heads were wondering why the election should be held since it was clear Obama was going to win?

And Obama had about 320 Electorial votes based on the polls at that time?

Also, if the election is so close why the hell is Biden in WI, and MI?

[mundame]

Why assume Gallup has issues and not call into question the polls that favor Obama on that list? Let me ask you this - would you think a poll by Fox or MSNBC would be a better gauge? Look a little closer at the aggregate polls, eliminate those done by organizations that are clearly biased, and the picture looks a little different.


Well, because Gallup is a wild outlier this election season, and on the GOP side rather than the Dem side as it used to favor more, so it's making all the pollsters nervous! I've been reading a lot about polling. Obviously Gallup has changed its algorithms, somehow. The question is, is Gallup a true outlier and just wrong, like Zogby was when he said Kerry would win in 2004, or is everyone else wrong and Gallup right ----------- which is entirely possible, after all.

You say to eliminate polls by organizations that are clearly biased, but which are they? You can't just eliminate polls you don't like! National polling firms or university polling done by statistic departments have to be RIGHT or they are gone like Zogby. Nobody knows which are right and which are wrong before the election: only after, when analyses can be done.

My understanding from reading is that no one is eliminating ANY reputable polling company at this point because they can't know who is right, and the actual bias working is to be correct and get hired again another election season. The polling companies don't care who wins: they care if they get hired again and make money.

And polling is terribly fraught this year because no one will answer polls. I get calls labeled "Political Call" twice every single day --------- I have NEVER answered that caller. I don't take polls. Many don't. My husband says he is hearing that people are lying on phone polls and exit polls. I would refuse an exit poll, and he would too. So many people don't HAVE land lines and the pollsters aren't allowed to call cell phones, if I understand correctly. So polling could easily be wildly off, probably often is. The only solution for sampling errors (polls) is to count the population universe (the vote Nov. 6.). Aboutime was right about that, IMO.

My own fallback re this chaos of sampling is to rely, somewhat, on the RealClearPolitics rolling average. They do a simple calculation, with clear rules, include every reputable public poll, and who knows how right it is, but at least it gives trends.

[jimnyc]

Well, because Gallup is a wild outlier this election season, and on the GOP side rather than the Dem side as it used to favor more, so it's making all the pollsters nervous! I've been reading a lot about polling. Obviously Gallup has changed its algorithms, somehow. The question is, is Gallup a true outlier and just wrong, like Zogby was when he said Kerry would win in 2004, or is everyone else wrong and Gallup right ----------- which is entirely possible, after all.

You say to eliminate polls by organizations that are clearly biased, but which are they? You can't just eliminate polls you don't like!

Sounds like that's what you're doing with Gallup. And yes, you CAN eliminate polls which come from biased organizations, the ones posted here MANY times that have polled more Dems than Republicans.

[jimnyc]

And if we're going to take the RCP average to heart, let's take a peek at the electoral which counts more than the popular vote. They have a solid 201 for Obama to a solid 191 for Romney. "Likely" Obama is 41 more while "Likely" Romney is 102. That's a bigger lead than the popular vote.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

[mundame]

Sounds like that's what you're doing with Gallup. And yes, you CAN eliminate polls which come from biased organizations, the ones posted here MANY times that have polled more Dems than Republicans.

No, I'm not eliminating Gallup.

The Gallup poll is included in the RealClearPolitics lineup, as they all are, incl. the Rasmussen tracking poll, which has always slanted Republican. BUT ---- it may be right. So it has to be included.

As for polling more Dems than Reps, I don't understand that. Maybe it's something about the higher math of sampling theory, but I admit I don't know what's going on.

I'm just saying I am not interested in one poll, any one poll. I like a running average of several polls, a metapoll. I'm not interested in picking my favorite poll that says my candidate is going to win, which is what I think people mostly do. I am interested in how the race is trending, and a poll of polls does show that.

[jimnyc]

No, I'm not eliminating Gallup.

The Gallup poll is included in the RealClearPolitics lineup, as they all are, incl. the Rasmussen tracking poll, which has always slanted Republican. BUT ---- it may be right. So it has to be included.

As for polling more Dems than Reps, I don't understand that. Maybe it's something about the higher math of sampling theory, but I admit I don't know what's going on.

I'm just saying I am not interested in one poll, any one poll. I like a running average of several polls, a metapoll. I'm not interested in picking my favorite poll that says my candidate is going to win, which is what I think people mostly do. I am interested in how the race is trending, and a poll of polls does show that.

PROVE it. The ones we discount here are where their own figures show they asked more democrats, and not just a few, but a HUGE amount. Take away Pew Research, ARG, ABC, CBS and a few others who distorted their polls and you may see a different aggregate total. But I'd be curious to see your proof of how Rasmussen slants things, when polling data from both them and Gallup are always publicly available.

[Kathianne]

No, I'm not eliminating Gallup.

The Gallup poll is included in the RealClearPolitics lineup, as they all are, incl. the Rasmussen tracking poll, which has always slanted Republican. BUT ---- it may be right. So it has to be included.

As for polling more Dems than Reps, I don't understand that. Maybe it's something about the higher math of sampling theory, but I admit I don't know what's going on.

I'm just saying I am not interested in one poll, any one poll. I like a running average of several polls, a metapoll. I'm not interested in picking my favorite poll that says my candidate is going to win, which is what I think people mostly do. I am interested in how the race is trending, and a poll of polls does show that.

I don't know where you are getting your 'people mostly do,' it's not here. Sure folks will put up a poll link when their candidate looks extraordinarily strong, but that's mostly to irritate. I'm certain with your deep knowledge of polls, you know most here are using RCP in general political convo.

[Kathianne]

No, I'm not eliminating Gallup.

The Gallup poll is included in the RealClearPolitics lineup, as they all are, incl. the Rasmussen tracking poll, which has always slanted Republican. BUT ---- it may be right. So it has to be included.

As for polling more Dems than Reps, I don't understand that. Maybe it's something about the higher math of sampling theory, but I admit I don't know what's going on.

I'm just saying I am not interested in one poll, any one poll. I like a running average of several polls, a metapoll. I'm not interested in picking my favorite poll that says my candidate is going to win, which is what I think people mostly do. I am interested in how the race is trending, and a poll of polls does show that.

The over sampling has to do with their core base for stats. The dishonest pollsters are using 2008 data start, ignoring 2010, though there is more evidence of further change in the numbers from 2008, when Obama was the blank slate. You do understand the difference, right?

[jimnyc]

Historically, it's been said that Gallup leans left, and they have the largest lead towards Romney. With the data available I never saw a reason to believe that one either.

[mundame]

And if we're going to take the RCP average to heart, let's take a peek at the electoral which counts more than the popular vote. They have a solid 201 for Obama to a solid 191 for Romney. "Likely" Obama is 41 more while "Likely" Romney is 102. That's a bigger lead than the popular vote.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html


However, the no-toss-up-states electoral count has been going against Romney for days. It's now 290 Obama to 248 Romney.

That's the worst it's been for days -- I've been keeping daily track. The best was several days ago when Romney had 266 during his surge, but it IS going the other way now in the electoral college count as battleground states shift back and forth. I don't know what is going on here, but I suspect the surge is over for now.

[jimnyc]

However, the no-toss-up-states electoral count has been going against Romney for days. It's now 290 Obama to 248 Romney.

That's the worst it's been for days -- I've been keeping daily track. The best was several days ago when Romney had 266 during his surge, but it IS going the other way now in the electoral college count as battleground states shift back and forth. I don't know what is going on here, but I suspect the surge is over for now.

What I just posted, and you quoted is TODAY'S projections as per polling data.

[mundame]

PROVE it. The ones we discount here are where their own figures show they asked more democrats, and not just a few, but a HUGE amount. Take away Pew Research, ARG, ABC, CBS and a few others who distorted their polls and you may see a different aggregate total. But I'd be curious to see your proof of how Rasmussen slants things, when polling data from both them and Gallup are always publicly available.

How can I prove stuff like that, Jimmy? I don't have the math for all that and besides, neither do the polling people, or they'd all be reporting the same numbers.

Rasmussen has been known for years as leaning Republican: that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, and their innovative daily tracking method is respected. Now, it's respected: I can remember a few years ago when they were regularly called "Rasmussen The Wrong."

I can't disqualify the major polling firms you suggest just because they find results you don't like. Nobody else is throwing out major polls; they combine and recombine with each other and are all widely reported. I don't believe any single one of them, but I am interested in an average of their results.

[Robert A Whit]

I don't know where you are getting your 'people mostly do,' it's not here. Sure folks will put up a poll link when their candidate looks extraordinarily strong, but that's mostly to irritate. I'm certain with your deep knowledge of polls, you know most here are using RCP in general political convo.

I suppose one sort of poll is how many cars do you see with stickers for the potus? How about signs on front yards?

In my area, though I know the state will end up going Obama, I see no Obama signs up anywhere.

They may vote for him but it seems not with any enthusium.

We have a super low figure for blacks. We do have a large population of Asians including Chinese and Indians.

Those kids reflect well on our school test averages.

[mundame]

The over sampling has to do with their core base for stats. The dishonest pollsters are using 2008 data start, ignoring 2010, though there is more evidence of further change in the numbers from 2008, when Obama was the blank slate. You do understand the difference, right?


Not me.

I only understand that the polling companies are struggling with a lot of headwinds.

I do believe that their bias is to be right so they will be rehired and make money. Zogby, who was badly wrong, is gone with the wind. So I don't mistrust them as a whole: I just don't trust any given one to have "The Truth" and I sure don't want to pick and choose based on political bias.

Averages of polls -- metapolls -- are very popular on a number of sites for this reason.

[mundame]

I suppose one sort of poll is how many cars do you see with stickers for the potus? How about signs on front yards?

In my area, though I know the state will end up going Obama, I see no Obama signs up anywhere.





!!! Migod, you are right! Now that you mention it, there are NO signs of any kind up, and it's only a few days from the election!

Darn, I don't know why I didn't notice that before. There used to be a lot of Ron Paul signs up in my county, but they all came down and there are NO Obama or Romney signs up.

I knew this was a sick, sick, sick election with a lot of people fed up. I think you just made an important observation about the lack of signs.

[Kathianne]

How can I prove stuff like that, Jimmy? I don't have the math for all that and besides, neither do the polling people, or they'd all be reporting the same numbers.

Rasmussen has been known for years as leaning Republican: that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, and their innovative daily tracking method is respected. Now, it's respected: I can remember a few years ago when they were regularly called "Rasmussen The Wrong."

I can't disqualify the major polling firms you suggest just because they find results you don't like. Nobody else is throwing out major polls; they combine and recombine with each other and are all widely reported. I don't believe any single one of them, but I am interested in an average of their results.

Rasmussen has been accused of 'leaning right,' there's nothing in their polling to demonstrate that though. They nearly hit the percentage for Obama in 2008 and did the same with the Democratic disaster of 2010. That's successful polling, not a leaning.

BTW you seem the only one arguing that RCP isn't accepted by nearly everyone here and also in most media articles.

[mundame]

What I just posted, and you quoted is TODAY'S projections as per polling data.


Correct.

[jimnyc]

How can I prove stuff like that, Jimmy? I don't have the math for all that and besides, neither do the polling people, or they'd all be reporting the same numbers.

Rasmussen has been known for years as leaning Republican: that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, and their innovative daily tracking method is respected. Now, it's respected: I can remember a few years ago when they were regularly called "Rasmussen The Wrong."

I can't disqualify the major polling firms you suggest just because they find results you don't like. Nobody else is throwing out major polls; they combine and recombine with each other and are all widely reported. I don't believe any single one of them, but I am interested in an average of their results.

How can one of them be accused of leaning in one direction without proof? Again, the ones we point out have polled anywhere from 20-40% more Democrats than republicans. I think anyone would agree that such polls will end up skewed a bit when you ask so many more of one party. But claiming a polling group leans in one direction without offering a single bit of proof doesn't make sense. And if you don't want to discount the ones I listed, who ADMIT IN THEIR POLLING DATA that they asked so many more Democrats, that's your right.

[jimnyc]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37343-Media-still-at-it-ABC-quot-poll-quot-finds-Obama-ahead-49-46-after-asking-35-more-Dems!
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37263-ARG-quot-poll-quot-finds-Romney-ahead-48-47-IN-OHIO-after-asking-27-more-Dems-than-Repubs
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?37261-Aptly-named-Pew-quot-poll-quot-finds-Romney-ahead-49-45-after-asking-15-more-Dems-than-Rs

Anyone not discounting such polls only WANTS the skewed results.

[Kathianne]

Discussion of signage is interesting. I sit in a pretty conservative county, in the midst of a very blue state. 40 years ago, DuPage was close to 90% Republican, not so anymore. I'd say in the high 60's. There's 'battles' on signs. An Obama/Biden goes up, 6 for Romney/Ryan go up. There are few yards though without a Roskam For Congress sign, regardless of Obama or Romney. Same with local offices, there are a mix of Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian.

Real politics are local.

[mundame]

BTW you seem the only one arguing that RCP isn't accepted by nearly everyone here and also in most media articles.

I don't know what everyone here accepts or doesn't accept.

Jimmy said Gallup showed a fully 7% loss of favorable opinion on Obama, and I said that the RCP rolling average of that measure shows Obama and Romney dead even, and that I prefer the RCP average to the wildly outlying Gallup measure, which is not like any of the other polls.

If people want to accept a poll that says Romney is winning hugely and Obama losing catastrophically when all the polls average a very close race, hey, enjoy. I can certainly see how you all would prefer to believe a poll that says your guy is winning.

[jimnyc]

I don't know what everyone here accepts or doesn't accept.

Jimmy said Gallup showed a fully 7% loss of favorable opinion on Obama, and I said that the RCP rolling average of that measure shows Obama and Romney dead even, and that I prefer the RCP average to the wildly outlying Gallup measure, which is not like any of the other polls.

If people want to accept a poll that says Romney is winning hugely and Obama losing catastrophically when all the polls average a very close race, hey, enjoy. I can certainly see how you all would prefer to believe a poll that says your guy is winning.

And you prefer to discount a poll with NO PROOF while we discount polls WITH THEIR OWN PROOF. No one is discounting legit polls showing a closer race or in O's favor, but you won't even address the others which are FACT, similar to refusing to post the GOP platform in the other thread where you "exaggerated".

[Kathianne]

I don't know what everyone here accepts or doesn't accept.

Jimmy said Gallup showed a fully 7% loss of favorable opinion on Obama, and I said that the RCP rolling average of that measure shows Obama and Romney dead even, and that I prefer the RCP average to the wildly outlying Gallup measure, which is not like any of the other polls.

If people want to accept a poll that says Romney is winning hugely and Obama losing catastrophically when all the polls average a very close race, hey, enjoy. I can certainly see how you all would prefer to believe a poll that says your guy is winning.

I guess because you really don't read what others are posting, you make pronouncements. I find little though to back up your own opinion of your opinions.

[mundame]

I guess because you really don't read what others are posting, you make pronouncements. I find little though to back up your own opinion of your opinions.


I have to say, that second sentence is rather mysterious. Would you like to expand on these ideas?

[Kathianne]

I have to say, that second sentence is rather mysterious. Would you like to expand on these ideas?

Not really, it's obvious.

[mundame]

OOOOoooooooooooooooooo....................... :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

And you prefer to discount a poll with NO PROOF while we discount polls WITH THEIR OWN PROOF. No one is discounting legit polls showing a closer race or in O's favor, but you won't even address the others which are FACT, similar to refusing to post the GOP platform in the other thread where you "exaggerated".

You have to remember Jim, Mundame HATES Romeny simply because of his religion. So no matter what facts you present she will ignore and dismiss them

She is like the white southern racists in the 1960's who opposed the Civil Rights Act and getting blacks registered to vote. Logic and reason are enemies and truth is a menace