Posted on 08/24/2011 6:20:23 AM PDT by techno
In June 2011 Rasmussen published a poll showing in a head to head matchup with Barack Obama, Sarah Palin would best him among INDEPENDENTS 40% to 38%.
This week in the Gallup weekly summary, Gallup pegged Obama's approval with INDEPENDENTS at 35%.
Now here is living proof that the Messiah can turn water into wine.
Public policy polling yesterday released a poll yesterday showing Obama beating Palin among INDEPENDENTS 59% to 30%.
Now you all all adults. Do you see any inconsistency here?
Seems to me the two polls, providing they are legit, indicate that Independents think less of Sarah than Obama, at least at this point in the game. That can certainly change.
The first two polls confirm each other.
There is no way that Obama could jump to 60% support among INDEPENDENTS.
Remember Gallup now shows him at 35% approval with indies.
Only one way to find out. We’ll see how badly Sarah kicks obama’s ___. Points spread anyone? I would personally like to see obama and his ilk crying like a bunch of little girls. Unfortunately, little girls have more intestinal fortitude than the current bunch of politicians in office.
Polls can be factually true, BUT it all depends on ‘WHO’ (demographics) they interview/call. People may identify themselves as “Independent”, but a self-described “Independent” in Manhattan is going to be a tad different than a self-described “Independent” in Rock Hill, SC.
PPP is a democrat polling organization.
Literally. It is.
I think you meant contradict each other.
I can see the reason for your skepticism, but I think what the polls are showing is that the same people that “disapprove” of Obama, “disapprove” of Sarah in comparison to him. Essentailly, they are unhappy with Obama, but even more unhappy with Sarah.
Long before elections, poll numbers are fabricated to steer public opinion in particular directions. Pollsters work for pay just like everyone else.
As election day approaches, pollsters incrementally adjust their numbers to more closely match the coming reality. This restores their credibility for the next election cycle.
One of the simplist methods to accomplish this is adjusting the sample distributions, by demographics, geographics, affiliations, etc., to achieve the desired outcomes. A small change in sample distribution can produce a more pronounced change in the reported numbers, just as manipulating shadow puppets just a little bit can drastically change the projected shadow.
Great post. Thank you.
For most of that campaign, many Republicans feared another Goldwater debacle with a Reagan nomination. Reagan was seen as too conservative, too divisive, too extreme, etc., much the same criticisms we are hearing concerning Sarah Palin.
During the summer of 1979 (before Reagan even announced his candidacy), we were already hearing about how unelectable Reagan was and that nominating him would be a disaster. It is for that reason that the establishment got behind George HW Bush early on and almost pulled it off as Bush beat Reagan in the Iowa caucus and looked strong going into New Hampshire.
Interesting to mention at this point how differently history would have played out had the establishment GOP not elevated Bush to be in position to be Reagan's running mate. Imagine if Reagan had been able to select a running mate more in line with his political philosophy. Current GOP should take this as a note of caution before trying to force a RINO like Mitt Romney on the 2012 nominee to "balance" the ticket. If a Tea Party conservative can win the nomination, we should insist upon a Tea Party conservative being made the running mate.
So basically what I'm saying here is that a lot of people in the Republican party feared that Reagan would be a disaster as nominee. Right through the summer of 1980, polls were showing Carter with a double-digit lead and a lot of Republicans were "going wobbly" to quote Margaret Thatcher. It wasn't until the final weeks of the campaign that Reagan's campaign really started catching fire as a lot of independent voters (and even Democrats) started warming to him.
This is an important point to consider. Many independents had a NEGATIVE opinion of Ronald Reagan throughout most of the election cycle. Don't forget that candidate John Anderson broke from the Republican Party that year to run an independent campaign as an alternative to Reagan. In the early summer, I believe he was polling 20-25% of the vote! He ultimately got around 6% percent of the vote as most of his supporters broke for Reagan in the final months of the campaign.
So my conclusion is that it is very premature to be writing off Sarah Palin right now due to her negative ratings. Remember that her negatives are being driven by the left-wing media who have a hate for her that can only be imagined. Should Palin get into the campaign (as I'm sure she will), those negatives will start to drop as people begin to see her for what she really is, as opposed to what the left-wing media would like us to think about her.
Think about this too. If Palin was really and truly un-electable and not a threat to Obama in 2012, then wouldn't the left-wing media want her to be the nominee? The fact is that the left-wing media is scared to death of Palin and what she is capable of should she secure the nomination and go head-to-head with Obama next fall. So they are engaged in an all-out effort to convince us that she has no business even getting into this race.
We cannot allow the left-wing media choose who our nominee is going to be. We saw where this got us last go around with John McCain. If you remember, the left-wing media were in love with John McCain right up to the time that he secured the nomination. Then the love affair came to an abrupt end and we all know how that story ended.
It makes no sense to me.
For an incumbent, it might be different in that what (s)he is doing has some form of impact or other effect right now -- to that end, it is actually worth noting Obama's approval/disapproval numbers in key groups. Yes, a campaign in earnest will shift these numbers around, but his poor standing with independents should be taken as a bad sign for Obama's re-election chances.
Looking at Palin specifically, her low approvals likely come primarily that the first thing most people think of when her name is mentioned is the Tina Fey parody, or some other caricature along those same lines. Will it reflect how those same people will respond to candidate Sarah Palin? Likely not.
I've been saying for months that Palin's biggest challenge to winning the White House isn't Obama, or Romney, or Perry, or fill in any of the other names out there. No, her real obstacle is "Sarah Palin" the media myth vs. Sarah Palin, the real person. If she successfully overcomes her own doppelganger, she'll win the nomination and the Presidency.
Well, it could very well be a manipulation of internals and so my caveat of “given the polls are legit.” What I am contending is that the polls do not necessarily indicate a swing in any way, the polls show that those polled dislike obama but, in comparison to obama, dislike Sarah even more.
We should not make that mistake again. We may lose the general election with a Tea Party conservative but we will SURELY lose, and lose big, should we nominate another RINO that is palatable to liberals because in the end, the liberals are going to vote Democratic no matter what.
So let's make sure we nominate a candidate who is going to serve OUR interests. We should not care one bit about how the liberals feel about our nominee. In fact, the more they hate our nominee, the better chance we have to win.
what’s below are numbers Rass. got a bout a year ago. To me I haven’t see or read anything that would change them as Rass. seems to indicate now.
Whose views are closer to your own? Palin/Obama
Overall: 52/40
Male: 55/37
Female: 48/43
White: 58/35
Black: 5/87
GOP: 84/9
DEM: 14/81
INDY: 59/27
Conservative: 80/12
Moderate: 28/61
Liberal: 14/85
Or these:
“.....76% of Republicans and 52% of unaffiliated voters now hold a favorable opinion of Palin.”
“...Unaffiliated voters by a 41% to 36% margin see Palin as good for the GOP.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2592751/posts?q=1&;page=1 ————————
So many variables for manipulation. There’s a reason that campaigns have pollsters doing their own internal work and that all pollsters are identified, at least within the industry, with a D or an R.
How are the questions asked? What leading questions are asked before the gotcha result question they’re looking for? And, maybe most importantly, where and in what parts of the country are the respondents queried? There’s a world of difference between an ‘independent’ in Manhattan and an independent in Montgomery, AL.
Let’s not miss the obvious—the polls just don’t square with each other. They can’t all be legit.
The polls don’t tell us anything about what independents think, because the numbers show us they can’t all be accurate and we can’t know which if any are accurate.
Either the first two are accurate and the third is way off, or vice versa, or they’re all inaccurate.
But polling standards should not vary significantly among major polling firms. If they do, it calls into question the validity of the entire polling industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.