Daily Presidential Tracking Poll (April 17, 2010: HUSSEIN PLUMMETS TO -17)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 04/17/10 | Rasmussen

[Recovering_Democrat]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17

[April Lexington]

Sadly... over 40% of our fellow citizens feel Obama is doing an acceptable job. THIS is the crisis, folks... They elected him. They should suffer the economic consequences...

[StopObama2012]

Did Andy Stern resign to become Chief vote-stealer? He already sort of WAS, being in charge of SEIU.

Does anyone know where that Commie is being reassigned?

[April Lexington]

I can't emphasize enough how many people I know or read online who voted for him who now say "I actually believed him when he said he wanted to be post-partisan and work with Republicans." I of course take the opportunity to say, "No, you WANTED to believe him, and deluded yourself. Anyone looking into his record knew he was full of it."

Excellent post!

[Darkwolf377]

Don't you find that to be the case? I can't tell you how many supporters of his, when I asked about his past, had NO clue as to what he was into. They hear the charges about Wright and socialism and "spreading the wealth" and, as they would a TV channel they're sailing past, they just say "Ah, they say stuff about everyone..."

Most of these fans of his never even READ his book--they just like the cover photo, and that The Correct People liked him (Oprah, usually).

A young person I work with who is a fan of Obama just finished reading both of his books, and said 'It's mostly made up, I bet"...and he STILL likes Obama!

When people think with their emotions, there simply is no way to turn them with an intellectual argument.

[April Lexington]

Keep in mind, comrade... that our Founding Fathers adopted a Constitution that gave only property owning males the right to vote. The progressive deterioration of that franchise (women, non-property owners, et al.) has allowed the ignorant and those with no skin in the game to manipulate elections. THIS is our problem. Universal suffrage has allowed some very uninformed idiots with no skin in the game to elect tyrants...

[nathanbedford]

Hawthorne:

There have been a few questions floating in the back of my mind over time that I hope you can help me with.

Of what value is Rasmussen's strongly of approve/strongly disapprove numbers except to measure intensity? If they do measure intensity only, is there a way to equate that with turnout? Do we have any historical data on actual turnout vs. Rasmussen polls to give us an indication of how the numbers in these polls might shape the general approve/disprove numbers?

Is it true that he general approve/disapprove poll numbers are more predictive of election outcomes? Does that answer vary with the kind of election, for example, are primaries, midterms more reflected by strongly/approve numbers than by general approval numbers?

You referred to exogenous factors, do we have a way of relating events to poll numbers? Do we have an understanding of lag times? Do we have a way out distinguishing between a traumatic exogenous event, such as 9/11, and the slow grinding, sandpapering process conducted by the media?

I don't expect you to have these answers at your fingertips, I hope that you can advance the discussion.

[Names Ash Housewares]

I’m sure cap and tax and amnesty will bump his numbers right up there.

[RU88]

He’s got an approval rating of 45% and 47% of Americans pay no income tax. Coincidence? I don’t think so...

The vast majority of the 25% who strongly approve of the Kenyan are professional layabouts or approaching the dregs of society i.e. SEIU members, public housing dwellers, college professors and the like. That’s why this “base” approval rating will be very hard to drop much further. These groups have too much invested to drop out of the game at this point.

[LibertyRocks]

I think you’re pretty close on those numbers...

[LibLieSlayer]

We are of like minds!

LLS

[keats5]

Much is said about how the blogosphere and FOX news has helped disseminate the conservative message. We have an additional tool, which reaches leftists in a unique new way: facebook. I love to post links to conservative videos (remember, they won’t read entire conservative articles). People often will click on a video link, even if they don’t agree with it, just out of curiosity.

I’ve been posing that FOX tool about each person’s share of the stimulus. People are shocked. I have another friend who post a video everyday. Everyday his videos just let out one more detail about the health care bill. He has quite a following now, of both liberals and conservatives.

[keats5]

I totally agree. This won’t be over until we have a peaceful transfer of power, and I’m not taking that for granted.

What if Obama tries to fix the elections, or refuses to concede? Outraged citizens would take to the streets, which will result in Marshall Law.

This is no tin foil thing, it’s just history that has been repeated over and over again. There’s a reason we all freaked when he began calling for a “civilian force as large and as well funded as the US military.”

[Hawthorn]

>> Of what value is Rasmussen’s strongly of approve/strongly disapprove numbers except to measure intensity? <<

Great question!

Rasmussen says his “Index” (SA minus SD) has been predictive of changes in overall public opinion. I take him at his word, but I have no idea as to the time lags involved. It’s something that could be studied by using standard tools of statistical modeling like multivariate regression analysis. But I’m not aware that anybody has undertaken a serious study. If I had the mathematical chops, the proper software (SPSS, etc.) and the time, I’d love to try fitting Nerlovian lags to the data — but then . . . .

>> If they do measure intensity only, is there a way to equate that with turnout? <<

Another great question! If the RNC and the DNC are smart enough, each ought to have their own bevy of highly trained statisticians working on just that matter.

In fact, I seem to recall Karl Rove mentioned in his recent book that he had hired conservative professors of political science to do sophisticated statistical work for him. The relationship of intensity to turnout is just the sort of thing such researchers ought (IMO) to study. But if the parties or any political consultants ever sponsor such work, I think they would try to keep their results confidential.

>> Do we have any historical data on actual turnout vs. Rasmussen polls to give us an indication of how the numbers in these polls might shape the general approve/disprove numbers? <<

The data certainly do exist. If I were a professor of political science, I’d probably have several of my Ph. D. candidates writing dissertations using precisely the data in question!

>> Is it true that the general approve/disapprove poll numbers are more predictive of election outcomes? <<

I don’t see how it would ever be realistic to say the “general” numbers are more predictive than the “strongly” numbers. They both are important. And it’s not at all difficult to build statistical models that incorporate both. But then the question becomes: Which weights should one assign to the two components?

In the very simple statistical model I’ve built to assess the effects of intensity, I’ve simply made what I think are reasonable assumptions, for example, that Rasmussen’s “strongly” voters on both sides would turn out at 85% and his “somewhat” voters would turn out at 60%. But I’ve done a good bit of sensitivity analysis, to investigate the effects of varying these assumptions. Interestingly, what I’ve found is that when you vary the assumed turnout numbers over ranges of about ten per cent, the final “victory margin” usually stays within one per cent.

>> Does that answer vary with the kind of election, for example, are primaries, midterms more reflected by strongly/approve numbers than by general approval numbers? <<

I’ll bet the outcomes of primaries are a lot more sensitive
to the “intensity” measures than are the general elections. But then the question becomes, How much? The only way to know would be to do careful historical analysis. And again, it’s an area of research that ought to attract the interest of statistically-minded researchers in academic political science — as well as the interest of politicians and political consultants!

>> You referred to exogenous factors, do we have a way of relating events to poll numbers? <<

If you were doing something like a multivariate regression analysis to explain the relationship of “intensity” to electoral outcomes, then you’d probably try to isolate the effects of exogenous events by using a techique like dummy variables. So yes, there is a way to handle exogenous events. But there will never be a “general rule” as to how important any particular exogenous event will be. Every case will be different.

>> Do we have an understanding of lag times? <<

An excellent topic for a major research paper!

>> Do we have a way out distinguishing between a traumatic exogenous event, such as 9/11, and the slow grinding, sandpapering process conducted by the media? <<

I think it wouldn’t be difficult for a clever model builder to construct a reasonable set of equations that account for the differential effects you’ve posited. That conceptual step would probably be the easy part. But then would come the difficulty of fitting historical data to the model by deriving correlation coefficients, investigating alternative model formulations, doing statistical confidence tests on the various coefficients, and (finally!) testing the resulting models against independent data that weren’t used for deriving the models’ parameters.

At that final stage, the models derived might be useful — or they might be useless. The real-world utility of such analytical techniques just isn’t the sort of thing that can be predicted with confidence, at least not until there has been a lengthy process of trial-and-error revision.

In any event, thanks for a very thoughtful set of questions. You give us much to ponder. And I’m glad to discuss further!

[OKSooner]

Don’t you mean “martial” law?

[Touch Not the Cat]

.
White van.

Binoculars.

[riri]

Looks like you we are in the 70 percent probability with -15 for today.

[nathanbedford]

Just the other day I was considering the difficulty of fitting historical data to the model by deriving correlation coefficients, investigating alternative model formulations, doing statistical confidence tests on the various coefficients, and (finally!) testing the resulting models against independent data that weren’t used for deriving the models’ parameters.

But then I thought, It’s something that could be studied by using standard tools of statistical modeling like multivariate regression analysis

So, it occurred to me that If I had the mathematical chops, the proper software (SPSS, etc.) and the time, I’d love to try fitting Nerlovian lags to the data

But then I thought, my life ain't got no purpose, my life ain't got no direction, if I think about it too much it gives me an erection. So I said, reaching for the gin, "oh, bother, what Hawthorn said!"

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Rats learned long ago that identity politics trumps everything else. That's what you were seeing there. From the beginning of the history of civiliation (and even before) it's been true. Call it human nature.

That's one reason why McCain et. al. are so wrong about Hispanic immigration. They will vote as a block as well...and the Rats are already there, demonizing conservatives as greedy rich "bosses" and ready with a hand-out to show that they are their true friends.

[Hawthorn]

You write very well!

[Hawthorn]

Probably will be in the same neighborhood tomorrow morning, then tick upward on Tuesday.

But of course, I’d love to see a downward tick on Tuesday!