You're entitled to YOUR facts. Whether they're true or not is a different story. If you can't, or won't supply the data you have, then its immaterial to the argument. You obviously don't have access to the data I have. That's why I was being gracious in supplying as much hard data from Gallup as possible. This article thread references current Gallup poll results. Lets stick with apples to apples. Okay. So far, all I've seen is your own opinion.
>>>>>FYI: Gallup provides very little FREE analytical/historical information at their website. You must either pay for additional information or get the information elsewhere, e.g., The Roper Center.
I'm well aware of how Gallup operates. FYI: Gallup is a pay site. Very little is free. You can't access hardly any of their historic data unless you pay. Gallup is the oldest and for most pros/experts in the field, one of the most respected of all polling outfits.
>>>>That said, let's get back to my original point: At this point in the respective presidencies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush43, Reagan had the lowest average JA rating.
I know what your original point was all about. To make Bush43 look better during this downturn in his Presidency. I have no problem with that. You have every right to defend Bush43. What you don't have a right to do, is to defend the Bush record at the expense of the Reagan Presidencial record and legacy. We all know Bush43 was way up there at one point. But since then, he's come crashing down to earth. Overall average JA ratings aren't that relevent, because they don't take into account the spikes that occur from time to time in a presidency. By using the annual JA ratings you can at least boil the argument down to a more managable timeframe.
>>>>It's what a president DOES with his time in office that counts, not the JA ratings he earns during his tenure.
I've been involved in GOP politics since 1968 and appreciate all the aspects of intelligent debate within the political arena of ideas. And polling data is part of that debate. While JA numbers aren't critically important once a POTUS leaves office, all CURRENT polling data is HIGHLY relevent to the current occupant of the WH. Especially in a second term. How else can he plan his legacy and retirement.
>>>>> .... today, Gallup is 'owned' by CNN/USAToday and definitely reflects the Democrat leanings of its media bosses.
According to Gallup, that relationship is a partnership. Maybe CNN/USAToday do own a piece of the action. So what. Besides, when Gallup and everyone else had Bush43 way up in the polls, I didn't hear anyone complaining. You've got to take the good with the bad. Right now, PresBush is feeling the heat. In fact, he's been feeling the heat for a while, and that is expressed in his overall poor JA numbers. Charlie Cook says, take a known Democrt pollster JA numbersa nd add 5% to them. Sounds as good as anything to me.
I like Scott Rasmussen's approach to polling, but is he better then other pollsters? Fox News polls are in line with what you call, the left leaning pollster organizations. Sometimes you've got to cut through the fog and accept reality.
Hope you had a great Valentine's Day . . . I certainly did!
FINAL COMMENTS (we've beaten this 'horse' to death):
MY PREVIOUS POST: "For my initial comments, I relied on information provided to me by a colleague/friend. Now that I'm looking at the 'raw' data myself (from Gallup and other pollsters), I can see that Reagan's JA ratings slipped below 50% approximately 4 - 4 1/2 years of his 8 year presidency (depending upon which data/pollster is referenced)."
FINAL COMMENT: I obtained this information (via a colleague) from a proprietary website: The Roper Center. If you want to check my (colleague's) facts, you will need to pay the proscribed fee. [FYI: The Roper Center catalogues MANY pollsters, not just Gallup.]
MY PREVIOUS POST: GALLUP is a much different polling organization today than it was in the 1980s. In the 1980s, Gallup was an INDEPENDENT pollster with definite GOP leanings; today, Gallup is 'owned' by CNN/USAToday and definitely reflects the Democrat leanings of its media bosses. In 1980, Gallup surveyed between 1,500 and 3,000 respondents per polling period with a 60%+ response rate; today, Gallup barely manages to survey 1,000 respondents per polling period with a response rate below 30% (and Gallup has the HIGHEST response rate of all the MSM pollsters). And we haven't even addressed the behavior of conservatives vs liberals relative to their willingness to participate in polls nor have we discussed the influence of new technologies. I could go on and on . . . but I won't -- time for me to get back to work!"
FINAL COMMENT: 'nuf said! [FYI: Gallup and Opinion Dynamics were the only two MAJOR polling organizations that completely BLEW their 2004 election predictions -- both organizations predicted a substantial Kerry victory!]
By the way, Opinion Dynamics continues to do the polling for FoxNews. So, no, I don't respect or trust the polling results heralded by FoxNews!! In fact, NONE of the MSM pollsters are currently using valid sampling procedures, even Rasmussen oversamples Democrats by 3-5 points [NOTE: At least Rasmussen uses a consistent, representative weighting procedure.]
The only national pollster to produce DEAD ON results year over year (as verified by tangible election outcomes) is Ed Goeas of the Battleground Poll! [NOTE: Mason Dixon does an excellent job with state polling!]
The rest of these pollsters are generating their current results for 2 reasons only: 1.) to satisfy the leftist objectives of their MSM bosses, and 2.) to embarrass the President/demoralize Republicans (the logical extension of reason #1)!
BOTTOMLINE (again, back to my original point):
At this point in the respective presidencies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush43, Reagan had the lowest average JA rating. In fact, at the end of their respective 8 year terms, Clinton still had a higher average JA rating than Reagan. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THIS? DOES ANYONE CARE?!
It's what a president DOES with his time in office that counts, not the JA ratings he earns during his tenure.
[NOTE: Unlike those who regularly use Reagan 'rhetoric' (vs actual behavior) to disparage GWB, I cited Reagan's stats not to denigrate him (Reagan), but to provide much needed PERSPECTIVE for those who believe that GWB is the first contemporary president to experience below 50% JA ratings in the face of 24/7 criticism from the leftwing media establishment!]
Now, I'm off to have a GREAT day . . . I hope you experience the same!