Thanks, will do.

This is President Obama's election to lose. His numbers fluctuate because of new things that the American public like/dislike at the moment as these poll numbers indicate. The GOP contenders numbers fluctuate in the opposite direction accordingly.

Gas has been rising steadily for the past 6 weeks and has arrived at a point that is not only unjustifiable, but influencing how people live. As long as the prices begin to recede and there are no other major influencing factors before the election, I can't see the President losing to any of the current GOP contenders.

Obama/Biden 2012

The only poll that matters is the one that will be taken on November 6 in the voting booth.

All the rest of it is as useful as last week's newspaper, only good to wrap the fish in.

Guy walks into a burger joint, and says "gimme a cheesyburger and fries", and the kid behind the counter says 'Hiya, Mitt!".

And remind all your friends when they start about gas prices; IF Obama could control those, don't you think gas would be 30-cents by now?

(Oh, and if they say 'yeah, but they said that BUSH controlled gas prices". To which you have to ask: OK- so....which is correct? And watch thet subject turn to Bill Ayres or Acorn or Telelprompters)

DBO:

You forgot Birth Certificate! You know the GNOP will always resort to that when all else fails.

Not to worry... Sheriff Arpaio and Donald Trump are still trying to find the Kenyan Birth Certificate. lol

Obama/Biden 2012

All these polls are tiring, day-in and day-out. Polls on top of polls based on how the person feels at that particular moment in time. It is totally ridiculous 'cause the only ones profiting are the pollsters!

Agree Feisty, the only thing that counts is the vote on 6 November 2012.

Obama/Biden 2012

"Something just ain't right with that NYT/CBS poll..."

Several things, actually, starting with the fact that the numbers severely over-sampled Republican primary voters:

"In the polling sample, Republican primary voters are 23.6% of all those polled (301 of 1009 total polled). But luckily, we don't have to look at the Times or CBS News to know what the actual turnout of GOP primary voters are as a percentage of the voting age population is, what with actual primaries
going on right now and stuff. The actual percentage of voters turning out in GOP primaries as a percentage of the voting age population? 11.5%. So the pollsters more than double the representation of GOP primary voters over what the actual voting numbers are.
This is the height of insanity. What the Times and CBS News are polling is a sample severely skewed towards extreme conservatives (people who vote in Republican primaries). Why? Because they really want to poll the Republican primaries. But you add the president's approval to this set of cooked sample, and you can create a nice stir in the media based on absolute garbage. And the rest of us are left no smarter for the clever tricks of pollsters vastly over-representing the far-right in their samples and passing it on as a legitimate national poll.

That's why it's not just the president's numbers that went down 8 percentage point (duh), but every other ultra right wing position fared better in the GOP poll, including support for requiring insurance plans covering women's contraceptives as preventive care going from a 61-31 in favor to 51-40 opposed - a full 41 point swing in favor of the wingnut position. In a month. Stop the presses!"

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/03/rigging-poll-nyt-counts-twice-actual.html

Okay, I'll be the first to admit that my source - The People's View - has a bias of their own. But even a cursory glance at the NYT/CBS numbers tells you that this one was an outlier. And as someone who's been in the surveying business for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that we should take pretty much all polls with a whole ocean full of salt.

Dumb FUX -- i don't get the Senator McCain comment. Both he and then Senator Obama could have only influenced in the Senate. So I guess the high gas prices did not cost President Obama the election in 2008 either. Have to wait and see for 2012.

This morning's New York Times had an op-ed based on that poll showing Obama down to 41% approval; a whole rant on how Obama isn't energizing voters, etc. BUT, when I looked at the actual poll numbers I saw this:

total people surveyed: 1,009

registered voters: 878

registered Republicans 268

registered Democrats 296

(296 + 268 = 564. What are the other 314 registered as? Libertarans? )

Republican primary voters: 301

Democratic primary voters: 232

To get 301 Republican primary voters, you would have to assume all the Republicans polled vote in a Republican primary, (like that's going to happen) plus 33 Independents. This looks screwy to me, as if conservatives were oversampled.

What gets me is when pundits take a poll and base a whole hypothesis on what could be inaccurate numbers. Then, that hypothesis takes on a life of its own and could shape actual events.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Something just ain't right with that NYT/CBS poll...

I'm not sure about that one but this one NBC/WSJ says it all.

Explaining the "dip" in Obama approval rating: They polled more Republicans!

Note: You may notice that the February numbers are 2/12 and not 2/4, which is when the last poll was released. But given that these were the exact numbers attached when the 2/4 polls came out (and with a 2/12 label even then), I'm thinking that's a typo from the pollsters.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2012/03/explaining-dip-obama-approval-rating.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I told ya'll they are desperate and will Lie about anything . Especially when their clients (corporate masters) tell them what to say and do.

What gets me is when pundits take a poll and base a whole hypothesis on what could be inaccurate numbers. Then, that hypothesis takes on a life of its own and could shape actual events.

Yea I just like Mark Murray, right Joann ; )

Good Morning Amy.

I had to chuckle as I read your note about the disparity in the numbers of registered voters and their party affiliation. Seemed a little more than odd to me as well.

But after a few minutes I began to think that maybe there are a growing number of Libertarians out there. It is obvious that people are tired of politics as usual and many of them are throwing in the towel on the Republican party. That in my opinion is why the Tea party movement started and gained momentum. But it isn't actually a party and many former Republican supporters may be moving to the Libertarian party. Maybe in the not to distant future the Republican/Libertarian party's will have a reversal of fortune.

I polled ten women with the question: What is the difference between a corporation, a fertilized egg, and a woman, 80% responded: The republican party considers the corporation and the fertilized egg to be a person.

I dont' recall high gas prices costing John McCain the election in 2008...

No of course not. I would say it was his scary appearance, bumbling campaigning and his VP choice.

Obama/Biden 2012

The republican party considers the corporation and the fertilized egg to be a person.

Considering Romney's love of aborting corporations, you would think he would fully support Roe vs. Wade.

At various times Romney has supported Roe vs Wade, and why shouldn't elected representatives of the US government support it, it has been the law of the land for well over 35 years. They are supposed to uphold the laws of the US aren't they? It seems a lot of the requirements they are trying to pass such as the trans-vaginal wand up the woo haw is akin to obstruction of justice.

It seems a lot of the requirements they are trying to pass such as the trans-vaginal wand up the woo haw is akin to obstruction of justice.

______________________________________________________________________________

GOP = American Taliban.

Forrest--you know better than that. Marriage is only between a man and woman is the law of the land too and there are a ton of people who want to change that. At one time abortion was a state issue that was legal or illegal at the state level until the Supreme Court invented the right of privacy as being applicable to abortion. Currently, Obama's stated position is against gay marriage but that never comes up here either so I dont think thats the appropriate prism to be putting candidates through. I am personally pro choice and pro gay marriage but I understand the legitimacy of the arguments on the other side but just disagree. The problem with the progressive posters on this board that personally attack is that disagreeing with someone else's opinion is treated as the equivalent of having a low IQ or being anti (put in here your favorite cause lately its been women). This type of rhetoric prevents real solutions from being created and its the fault of both sides not just the GOP. Just like in Wisconsin or in the House of Representatives, if you are not being represented by your side in the legislative process, obstruction is the name of the game rather than letting things fall as they should or compromise and vote them out if it doesnt work. Its a pretty sad state of affairs reading the vitriol on this blog especially coming from the party that has the most representation at the moment.

Kirk you are comparing apples to oranges, a stated position or opinion is one thing, once it is law it is quite another, I have to obey the laws whether I agree with them or not. Disagreement with a law gives me no right to break or ignore it, we can argue the merits of a law, but our opinions mean nothing legally, the law is the law, it is not a matter of our opinions, or positions. We can't pick and choose which ones we will obey because we agree with them and they match our positions, and which ones we will obstruct because we don't personally agree with them. Like it or not abortion is legal, and until it is no longer legal these measures republicans are proposing are designed to put up obstructions to some body's legal right, to a lawful procedure. That is what it is, and they will tell you as much, pretty strange business for elected representatives of government to be engaged in. They should change the law if they can, but not interfere with the execution of the law as it stands. Do they first and foremost represent the US and it's laws, or do they represent a religion or a personal position?

Forrest, not sure its worth getting into a legal argument on abortion because I would have to take a side that I disagree with the underlying concept. However, abortion is not a law. It was considered a constitutional right under the concept of the right of privacy. As such, there is not a federal law that provides a clear legal standard as to what or how far that right to privacy extends. So the attempts by the GOP and yes my guess its based on a personal or religious position are to test those limits. For example, many pro choice people would say a late term abortion in the 9th month is not protected under the right to privacy and many would say that minors under a certain age should have a parents consent as thats not a protected right of privacy. So the feds left it to the states to determine those laws.

This constitutional concept is similar to the right to bear arms and how far down that slippery slope states are able to restrict that right. So you obviously would be totally against democrats or progressives passing laws in states or cities that put a restriction on a persons ability to own a gun because under your theory its a lawful right and they should change the law but not interfere with the execution of the law as it stands? Its really the exact same concept. Many gun owners like myself feel that the constitutionally protected right doesnt extent to reasonable legislatively passed laws intended to limit gun ownership to felons, mentally disturbed or concealment or use near schools etc. I know the NRA feels that its a slipperly slope that once you start down the laws that restrict eventually they will eliminate all gun ownership. Sounds familiar doesnt it just like the pro choice people who feel that any restrictions on abortion as crazy as to either extreme you or I may think is a slipperly slope that will eventually lead to banning abortion. So I disagree with you on this one because I think it is an unfortunate by product to our representative system in which if you are in the minority representation you suffer under the laws that are passed until you are able to either overturn them or challenge them constitutionally.

Nice response Kirk, I wish I could continue, but I have to leave to keep an appointment, catch you later maybe.

Sounds good happy to engate

Yeah, the discussion in the comment section was more intelligent, more thorough AND more interesting than anything in the article. And not just you guys, Kirk and Forrest. Scroll up and look at the discussion of the polling methodology. The article itself is little more than, "polls are all over the place, ain't that weird?" What's weird is that I had to read the comment section to find out any useful information about WHY.

People don't go to school for journalism anymore. Copy editors are getting laid off. The 4th estate is falling apart.

james-1937467 -

You're right, it does keep a lot of folks employed. But what people should remember is that while the people designing the polls and determining the sample universe and analyzing the results are all highly educated professionals, most of those doing the actual interviewing are not. Having worked in market research for over 40 years - starting on the phones and including a couple of brief but memorable stints in political polling myself - I can attest to the fact that while many interviewers are very conscientious about their jobs, many more are under-educated and under-trained, start at just over minimum wage, and are often paid bonuses based on production (i.e. number of interviews completed) rather than on their quality or accuracy. They are also stuck following a rigidly designed questionnaire that often does not allow for responses like "Don't know", "Other", or an open-ended opinion, so they are often forced to lead or coax the respondents into picking one black-or-white response that doesn't necessarily reflect their actual thinking. And finally, they're only human, and just as prone to subjectively interpreting a response as the rest of us are. In a way, it's amazing that any poll ever even comes close to predicting actual results. They don't build in that "margin of error" for nothing.

JoAnne:

They don't build in that "margin of error" for nothing.

The margin of error given for polls is purely mathematical. It's based on sample size and assumes that all the measurements (poll question responses) are perfect. The kind of human error you've pointed out is in addition to the built-in statistical error. Human errors and biases can't be calculated, but they may explain some of the poll outliers.

Where's the resident poll dancer? A poll of little more than 1,000 people doesn't mean anything.

The Afghan military in attendance were also disarmed. What's your point?

Obama/Biden 2012

UAW:

Obama is on a roll. The economy is coming back - with better job creation figures than W. ever had. And Obama is ending Afghanistan in accords with essentially what the Joint Chiefs want. As it becomes clear how much the people of Afghanistan dislike us, we perhaps should get out sooner than is now scheduled. It was the neoconservatives that convinced many that the Iraquis and the Afghanis would someday love our forms of capitalism and democracy. However, three hundred years of history begged to differ. They will never love us. We should get out. We're getting out - just not soon enough for me. Nation building will never work in a country that doesn't want to live in the 20th Century, much less the 21st.

Good luck with Mittens. It looks like your kind can't embrace him. Go with your heart - go with Santorum. Maybe he can take us back a century or two.

"Afghan guards in the room, along with other foreign troops, were also unarmed during Panetta's address. A defense official told reporters there was no heightened threat, but that the order to disarm was done to be "consistent" so that Americans troops wouldn't be the only ones carrying weapons. The request
reportedly did not come from Panetta or his team.

The order for the Marines to put down their weapons came from Major Gen. Mark Gurganus, according to a press pool report. Gurganus said that since the Afghan soldiers were unarmed, he did not want them treated differently, but said it was not because of the shooting this weekend. "You've got one of the most important people in the world in the room," he said. "This is not a big deal."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/us-marines-afghanistan-told-disarm-defense-secretary-panetta/story?id=15917672

UAW....Obviously you have no military experience and like most RWNJ's, have jumped to conclusions.

Good luck with Mittens. It looks like your kind can't embrace him. Go with your heart - go with Santorum.

UAW would never support Mitts or Santorum. His life ends the day he can't wake up and bash a president.

Here are the latest polls to use as references. If UAW can find a poll he likes, he's welcome to it. Even the conservative Rassmussen Poll shows President Obama ahead by a slim margin, but Reuters, Bloomberg, and Pew clearly show Obama ahead by a wide margin. Santorum is a weak contender for the office of president, but he would make an absolutely hilarious candidate, nonetheless!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

This will be an interesting election for sure. In 2008 the liberal media was basically an Obama "Hope and Change" infomercial. In 2010 the country voted that the kind of change Obama was talking about was the wrong path for America. No doubt had we had a presidential election in 2010 we would already have a better leader in the White House. Over whelming voters wanted a better direction in 2010. Liberals hair was set on fire at the notion Republicans would say "NO" to Obama's ridiculous policies and spending.

It will be far more difficult for the liberal media to get Obama re-elected now that we've seen his policy of expanding government entitlements. Remember 90% of America works and always will, 90% pay thier mortgages on time and always will. Thankfully most Americans know right from wrong and won't fall for "the tax someone else and send that money to me mentality" that Obama is counting on to get re-elected.

The polls say you're wrong, UAW. Furthermore, your sadsack wannabe candidates and the GOP's favorite attack dog, Rush Limbaugh, are doing a fine job of alienating voter blocs such as women, minorities, union workers, seniors, and moderates. The Republican Party is a party of exclusion, not inclusion, and that is not a recipe for winning elections. Read 'em and weep.

I'm not sure Sailcat. Some times being honest with tax payers and their responsibilities works better than promising them gobs of someone elses money. It certainly worked for Republicans in 2010.....

Seriously if the outcome of an election is going to determine your lot in life your probably destined to a life of poverty. Would everyone agree with that?

Well, W. did more to put people on unemployment than anybody since the Great Depression. From October of 2008 through March of 2009, he gave us about three million unemployed.

Beyond D, The crash was due to the mortgage crisis. It wasn't Bush's idea to let the qualifications for mortgages get so lax that anyone with a pulse qualified. That was a Liberal Democrats idea. Bush tried to reform it in 2003. Google "Barney Frank's Dice Roll". We really need politicians who believe in personal accountability to make America a great nation...

"It wasn't Bush's idea to let the qualifications for mortgages get so lax that anyone with a pulse qualified."

Yes, it was. Bush famously deregulated the banking industry and financial institution until they were virtually unaccountable for the crazed loans they wrote and the bad investments they made. The stage was set for a financial crisis of epic proportions and Bush directed the play.

Sail, Come on liberals need to accept some responsibilty thier role in ruining America. In 2003 when George Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie. Liberals said "NO"... Liberal policies always turn out bad even for the unqualified borrower.

"These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing. "I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."

—Representative Barney Frank, September 25, 2003

UAW:

Sail, Come on liberals need to accept some responsibilty thier role in ruining America. In 2003 when George Bush tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

Fanny and Freddie bear some of the blame. They engaged in some of the same high-risk gambles that other financial institutions did. But they were not the instigators. When will conservatives admit the share of the blame THEY must bear for the catastrophe that occurred on Bush's watch? (Not that Bush watched much other than baseball games in the Oval Office).

UAW is pointing at the mouse for the condition of the house, not the out-of-control elephant. This sort of shameless hypocrisy is typical of teabaggers, though.

Don't know how to break it to you UAW but the fault goes all the way back to Regan! Don't keel over - I said the name - Regan.

Reagan? Wow that's a long time. How much do you figure conservatives owe liberals for what ever we havent been providing for you to date?

An apology, for starters.

Southern Republicans are racists! And the lefties run with these polls as fact.

^ Unfortunately every poll i've seen seems to reflect this.

-> They claim inter-racial marriage should be illegal.

-> They claim the President is lying about being a Christian.

^ I'm sorry, but there isn't any way to make this look "good".

It is good to look under the hood on many of these polls.

Yes! Southern Republican'ts ARE racists!

Again, more ravings from the lunatic Bob in Vagina with nothing to back it up!

The mere FACT that 52% of Mississippi voters believe the President is a Muslim kind of shoots your theory to @!$%# now don't it?

C'mon now, Bob....you don't actually believe that there are any polls that are accurate, do you? All of them present numbers that are skewed towards the candidate of the polltakers' liking. Numbers are thrown out, the spin doctors do their thing, and voila....it is presented as fact that some candidate is rising in popularity nationwide.

Polls are VERY effective at doing one thing and one thing only, and that's disenfranchising voters! The closer these polls are presented to the election date, the more clearcut the "projected" winner is. What happened between this poll and the previous ones? Did people change who they planned on voting for?? Hell no, they didn't! They are believing these mostly biased polls, and if their candidate seems to be on the losing end, more and more voters become resigned to the fact that their candidate will lose, so they choose not to go vote. That's why these polls need to go away, or at least not taken too seriously by voters in the general election.

Same kind of phenomenon happens on election night, when the East Coast results start pouring in, and projected winners for these states are announced BEFORE the polls on the West Coast are even closed! People who wait until the very last minute to vote on the West Coast are swayed by these projections, and they believe their votes are wasted.....so they don't vote.

Everybody who can vote, should vote!! I actually work with a VERY right-wing-leaning young man who believes that votes taken in large metropolitan areas (LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, DC, etc.) should not be given the same weight as those taken in suburban and rural areas. He believes if "one person, one vote" remains in effect, there will most likely be no chance that a social conservative candidate will win a national election. I believe this is the sole reason behind the conservatives' push to make it MUCH harder to acquire the needed voter identification required to be able to vote. They hope the poor, the infirmed, and even those who work 8-12 hours every day with no time to go retrieve these documents needed for voter ID will be the ones who won't be able to cast their votes in November. The conservatives know, with Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum being their candidate, that keeping liberal voters at home is the only way they can win.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

It is good to look under the hood on many of these polls.

Yes! Southern Republican'ts ARE racists!

Again, more ravings from the lunatic Bob in Vagina with nothing to back it up!

The mere FACT that 52% of Mississippi voters believe the President is a Muslim kind of shoots your theory to @!$%# now don't it?

What in the world does Obummer's religion have to do with his skin color???

Please tell us you ARE NOT that much of a moron!

DumbFux

Feisty - in all fairness, since I was born and grew up in the South, there are just as many racists in the North. But, they all do have one thing in common - they're all Republicans. I am proud to say North Carolina voted for Obama. However, NC is a pretty smart state. Good schools and well educated, high income people live there.

like your post and think your analysis is spot on. If the economy continues to improve dont think its a issue but with a tight election look out