1. There has been a familiar refrain from the cons ever since Bush began his post-election slide into unpopularity: the polls are biased (Sidebar: what isn’t biased nowadays? According to the right we should be subjecting everyone who says anything to loyalty oaths). I think it’s silly when Democrats complained about the composition of the polls in 2004, but the Republicans just look desperate now with their repetitive braying about Democrats overplaying their hand simply by referencing the numbers (that and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about George Soros calling up CBS and ordering up a “cooked” poll). These polling outfits have been doing what they do for a long time, it didn’t suddenly take blogs to undo their entire statistical model (Behold! Guys with websites!). That said, even if you look at the two outlets that consistently poll on the plus side for Bush – Rasmussen at 43% (4 months after Powerline’s John Hinderaker was positive that 46% represented the beginning of an upswing for the administration) and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics at 44%. Bush’s approval is anywhere from 34% to 45% (the conservative RealClearPolitics estimates an average of 40% approval). He isn’t exactly winning any popularity contests.
2. “Approval ratings don’t matter”. This, of course, is an objective that moves round to suit the news of the day. When Bush had high approval ratings after 9/11 and had higher polling than John Kerry, it mattered a great deal and was a sign that America favored his “bold leadership”, but as the number slid down, approval ratings no longer mattered, and the fact that he’s not running in another election supposedly makes polling irrelevant. This is, of course, stupid.
The presidency of the United States is a job, and the president’s employers are us, the citizens. We decide whether they keep the job or not every four years, but inbetween it isn’t as if our opinion counts for naught. Unless you’re a mindless drone who believes in an imperial presidency, the president must always be held accountable – its a sign of good leadership. Past presidents like President Clinton and President Reagan had high approval ratings in their second terms even though they weren’t running for re-election because the majority of the people approved of the job they were doing.
The two of them couldn’t have been more dissimilar in their ideologies, but both understood who it was they worked for, and presented policies and initiatives to that end.
So no, there’s no George Bush Exception to the rule. By any measure, the president is doing a bad job.
>> Mystery Pollster debunks the latest canard from the conservative cult
>> MRC hackery on CBS poll
Tell me again about this Republican cult that mindlessly supports everything the “Dear Leader” does.
Is Bush on the downside? Sure, but leave it to the Democrats in their bubble to once again overplay their hand. By oversampling Democrats and non-voters, these polls give Dems a false sense of security and embolden them to go even leftward (impeachment, anyone)?
Polls reflect a snapshot opinion and are slaves to the group surveyed, the language of the survey and the prevailing sentiment of the moment.
I’ll say it again: tell me the opnion you want and I’ll fix the polling questions so that you get the spinnable answer you want.
Lets say you want to get Harry Reid:
Duggerby Polling question:
Should there at least be some investigation of the powerful senate minority leader’s extensive dealings with the corrupt, criminal Abramoff empire?
Headline: Public Demands probe of Reid Dealings with Criminal Empire
Easy as pie.
Polls count only insofar as how important the emotion of the moment is.
Elections count for four years.
Dugger, Think people!
Bush has been given the benefit of the doubt by most, primarily due to
the WoT, but he has been spending down that bank account and now
he is overdrawn.
As for the Dems overplaying it, turnabout is fair play. Isn’t it?
Has there been any national issue that he hasn’t overplayed when
he could? (9/11?)
Impeachment? Oh, yes, please!
Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top!
If there is anything the Democrats do well, it’s run to the left and trip on their own johnsons as they go. The farther left they run, the more they alienate the middle.
Everyone assumes that the GOP will lose seats in November on the president’s lack of a coattail.
Just like everyone assumed that like every other off-year election, the GOP would lose seats in 2002.
Oops.
Just like everyone assumed that like every other presidential election year, the undecideds would break against the incumbent in 2004.
Oops.
The Angry Left suffers from a collective and selective hearing loss. They only hear what they want. Exactly what they complain and accuse the GOP of doing – and not without merit.
But the simple fact is, if you want to change something, you better win some elections first.
In plainer terms: Physician, heal thyself.
It’s been a pretty bad time for the Dems since ‘94 – in order: lost the House, lost the White House, lost the Senate, lost the Supreme Court.
The strategery ain’t working, gang. Back to the drawing board… but if you want to set yourself back 20 more years, go ahead and work that impeachment angle.
Self-destructive politics are just about the most fun to watch.
You know, for the Democrats to “overplay” their hand, they’d have to ever play a hand. They haven’t, not for 6 years now. You guys have defined “overplaying” their hand to be something as mundane as talking about the President’s unpopularity. How dare they!!!
Oliver Willis Slaps the Whiners
Lately, there s been a lot of whining around the blogosphere about polls. Since Bush s latest nosedive, the wingnuts have been out in force, claiming that the media is out to get Bush yet again. 30% of the people in this country …
Finally, Oliver admits the Democrats don’t have a platform!!!
CBS’ 34% approval is not the first time the Preznit’s been there.
FOX, AP, Ipsos, WSJ, Pew, ABC, WaPo all had him at 35-39 in late Oct/Nov, when the Miers nomination shook the foundation of his right-wing base.
Guess they must have all been “oversampling” the same sample then too, right?
The loss of credibility Bush suffered with this same base last week over this Dubai Ports thing has yet to be measured. There is no Dem and Independent support left to lose; but his support with Bush-cult faithful was rock-solid in the low 80’s throughout Katrina, NSA, Libby, Plame, Iraq, nothing shook them up like Miers, and now this.
Keep screaming “Media Bias” all you want, the pattern to we the reality-based is clear. Bush is now down to his most fervent cultists again, except now even they are whispering to each other.
They have a platform, but playing your hand means actually using it. Two different things.
Because poll results can be gamed, the results of all polls are therefore suspect?
In this case, Dugger, we’re dealing with comparative results of poll questions that have been asked repeatedly over time. Whatever bias exists in the current question set also existed in last month’s question set, last year’s question set, and the question set from years past.
In other words, the questions haven’t changed, but the results have. Thus, we have an accurate reflection of a change in public opinion.
Hunh?
Where you getting that?
I can find plenty of bloggers quibbling over the validity of polling adults instead of registered voters. I can’t find anyone else making your claim that the methodology changed for this poll.
So your initial assumption is correct:
However, I see no indication that has occurred. Further, one can only speculate how the results would change. I doubt it would change by more than a few percentage points either way.
I’ll accept that analogy, but I’d alter it a bit. Polls are kind of like asking about sex as opposed to having sex. They’re not the same thing, but asking lets you know your chances of success.
Additionally, Dugger, if measures of public opinion are so meaningless, why does the Bush administration place so much importance on managing the public’s perceptions?
Obviously Mr. Rove hasn’t shared the secrets of the inner circle with you yet.
Quaker, even if the questions haven’t changed, you’ll agree the results would change if you change the population being sampled. All previous poll results used registered voters. This latest CBS poll uses Americans.
Since the pollsters haven’t been able to change public opinion, they just change their definition of the public. Ingenious, really.
Quaker,
Some polls ARE suspect, but polls per se, are not worth that much, even if legit, in that they are a non-serious, no consequences snapshot- whereas an election is all the marbles. Polls can be useful, but they are kind of like thinking about sex as opposed to having sex: good idea to not confuse the two.
And yes comparative, time staggered results from multiple polls asking the same questions definitely provide more info, but theys till have the above inherent limitations of polls (snapshots, consequences, audience etc).
Dugger
Polls reflect a snapshot opinion and are slaves to the group surveyed, the language of the survey and the prevailing sentiment of the moment.
I guess the prevailing sentiment then is that Bush is not doing so good. At lest among those surveyed, right?
Sigh.
I thought we were making progress. We’re back to “all polls can be gamed” are we?
What if you had a long series of polls in which the same questions were asked time after time? The number of people who say that Bush lied rises from 20 percent to 80 percent.
Do you think that would provide any insight into the public’s mood? Would it be predictive of Mr. Bush’s chances of success in implementing new policies? Would it concern you at all if you were a Republican member of Congress facing re-election?
The Bush administration, with all of its photo-ops, town hall meetings, and hired consultants, seems to care a great deal about public perception for some reason. These “pieces of cr*p” are the way the perceptions of the public are measured.
Quaker, They aren’t meaningless, but limited, very limited. If I were running a campaign, I would probably use them – as a means to do better in the real poll – the election. But they are IMO scarcely a subsitutute for thoughtful, independent analysis. You could show me a poll that says 99% of the responders say ‘Bush lied” and I will still think it is a piece of cr*p – other than reflecting the view points at a certain point in time of those surveyed.
duros62, You are correct and probably Bush’s political advisors are worried about those polls Maybe the RNC is concerned. But they have almost nothing to do with an analysis of say the war and whether its right, wrong or in between. We all have to actually think about that and not rely on polls to justify our thought processes – as much as it hurts.
Dugger
Sighing will put lines in your face.
Oh definitely into the public’s mood – depending on how the basic question was asked etc. In fact a fair and well done poll could quite accurately catch the public’s mood and over time would show amore mature public perspective. And it would and does concern me as a partisan Republican. But it makes zero impact on my thought processes, on my anlayses etc. Could care less about how pouplar a certain postion is or isn’t (though I might worry about what attitudes are revealed about the public).
Dugger
About Polling And Poll Numbers
Oliver comments about polls and the reaction to them. It’s rife with a good deal of sophistry and blanket accusations, so I’ll cover it piece meal.There has been a familiar refrain from the cons ever since Bush began his post-election
[...] edia figures who denounced the prior poll report on the newest results? Or as I said, see Thought #1 on Polling.
This entry was posted
[...]