Rasmussen is indeed an outlier, but it is important to note that presidential approval polls have no “market test,” unlike election polls. There is no way to determine whether they are right or wrong, in contrast to election polls that ultimately give way to elections.
As such, the pollsters have no incentive to be objective or disinterested.
Rasmussen stands above, because i) his polling methodology is uber consistent across time, ii) he samples repeatedly, so any aberrations are short-lived, and iii) whatever biases he has are washed out by trends. The last part is especially important. Let’s suppose he oversamples a particular constituency. Fine. But he does that every day. As such, the time trends are relatively free of any bias; and the trends are not in his favor.
Approval polling, I believe, also differs from election polling in several other important regards. Suppose (counterfactually) that I am a 2008 Obama voter. I may disapprove down the line on issue after issue with what he is tring to do, but I may consider it important to stay loyal for as long as I can. Even as a conservative, I regret that we show on this board such glee at his failures, because it just isn’t good for our country to have an empty suit in the White House. The US quickly becomes a laughingstock and door mat. I’m not saying that I favor any of his proposals, but I am saying that the Putins and Ahmadinjads and Bin Ladens of the world prey upon his weakness — to the detriment of everyone around the world.
I guess my bottom line point is that I think Rasmussen is likely portraying a very accurate picture; and while I won’t allow myself to get my hopes up in NJ because Dems always seem to pull these elections out ... dang, the numbers just look really, really bad from my vantage point for Corzine.
Obama would not put himself at risk in NJ if he did not think his team was a significant favorite; nor would he need to campaign there heavily if the race was a lock. My guess is that last week Obama’s advisors must have thought that there was a 70% or better chance of a Corzine victory, and that Obama could significantly increase that number.
To my way of thinking, his advisors were clearly wrong. I give Corzine maybe, maybe a 50% chance. If I were a betting man, I’d wager on Christie.
drellberg says: “Even as a conservative, I regret that we show on this board such glee at his failures, because it just isn’t good for our country to have an empty suit in the White House. The US quickly becomes a laughingstock and door mat. I’m not saying that I favor any of his proposals, but I am saying that the Putins and Ahmadinjads and Bin Ladens of the world prey upon his weakness — to the detriment of everyone around the world.”
*****
I understand and appreciate what you’re trying to say here. However, Obama is an Alinsky Marxist who is clearly out to destroy every tradition and institution that has made America great and in essence seeks to rebuild the country in his own radical image. Therefore, I view each of his failures to implement his radical agenda as a victory for liberty, capitalism, and the United States, to which I rejoice.
Now, I would love nothing more than to support Obama for standing up to our international enemies if he would ever do such a thing. Instead, he tries to make nice with them. Like you said, Obama is an empty suit, which makes him a tremendous danger to this country. Thus, a concerted effort must be made to neuter him and the damage he’s inflicting until we have a chance to throw him out at the ballot box in 2012.