CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
12/2-3/09; 1,041 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)
National
Favorable / Unfavorable
Sarah Palin: 46 / 46 (chart)
Joe Biden: 47 / 36
Dick Cheney: 39 / 53
John Edwards: 30 / 47
Joe Lieberman: 40 / 28
Al Gore: 52 / 42
Las Vegas Review Journal / Mason Dixon
11/30-12/2/09; 625 likely voters, 4% margin of error
300 likely Republican primary voters, 6% margin of error
300 voters in the 3rd Congressional district, 6% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(LVRJ: Governor, Health Care, Congress)
Nevada
2010 Governor: Republican Primary (trend)
39% Sandoval, 18% Gibbons, 6% Montandon
2010 Governor: General Election (trends)
48% Reid (D), 34% Gibbons (R)
49% Sandoval (R), 34% Reid (D)
38% Goodman (i), 25% Reid (D), 25% Gibbons (R)
35% Goodman (i), 32% Sandoval (R), 24% Reid (D)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Oscar Goodman: 46 / 13
Barack Obama: 44 / 43 (chart)
Brian Sandoval: 39 / 6
Rory Reid: 23 / 28
Jim Gibbons: 19 / 50 (chart)
Do you support or oppose President Obama's proposal to reform health care?
39% Support, 53% Oppose
Nevada 3rd Congressional District
2010 Congress: General Election
48% Dina Titus (D), 32% Rob Lauer (R)
Rasmussen
12/4-5/09; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
National
Suppose the Tea Party Movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the Tea Party candidate from your district?
36% Democrat, 23% Tea Party, 18% Republican
Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of the Tea Party movement?
41% Favorable, 22% Unfavorable
Some people say that Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new party is needed to represent the American people. Do you agree?
41% Yes, 45% No
My column for the week manages to combine polling, the Google 2009 Zeitgeist list, the Gallup Poll and Rasmussen. Click here to read it all.
Also, since they do not seem to have been included in the column here are the links to recreate my Google Trends searches on "polls" and "Gallup AND poll" vs "Rasmussen AND poll," plus one not included in the column.
Rasmussen
12/2/09; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
National
2010 Governor
39% Gresham Barrett (R), 33% Jim Rex (D)
36% Jim Rex (D), 35% Andre Bauer (R)
39% Henry McMaster (R), 32% Jim Rex (D)
45% Gresham Barrett (R), 23% Vincent Sheheen (D)
39% Andre Bauer (R), 29% Vincent Sheheen (D)
43% Henry McMaster (R), 26% Vincent Sheheen (D)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Barrett: 51 / 20
Bauer: 46 / 38
McMaster: 50 / 27
Rex: 36 / 37
Sheheen: 30 / 34
Lindsey Graham: 60 / 31
Jim DeMint: 63 / 25
Rasmussen
12/4-5/09; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
National
Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?
41% Strongly/Somewhat Favor, 51% Strongly/Somewhat Oppose (chart)
If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?
23% Better, 54% Worse, 16% Same
If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?
57% Up, 21% Down, 17% Same
I've been struck for some time by the similarity of circumstance between Presidents Reagan and Obama. Both replaced deeply unpopular predecessors. Both enjoyed significant gains for their party in both houses of Congress. Both faced "worst since the depression" economic circumstances. And each in his own very different ways attempted to reshape government in the early months in office.
With a bit more than 10 months of approval data on Obama, we can now make a more meaningful comparison than was possible at the first 100 days look.
The similarity of approval trajectories is striking for Reagan and Obama. Reagan started lower, but since the 3rd month of office the two have moved along quite similar paths.
Of the ten post-war presidents in the chart, Reagan and Obama currently stand as the two lowest at this point in their first term. (Clinton fell lower early, but was recovering at this point before another decline and rise.) Reagan finished as the second lowest just before his midterm in 1982, ahead of only Truman. It happens that the economy under Reagan also bottomed out in November 1982, the worst possible time for the president and his party.
(I exclude Johnson because of his entry into office after Kennedy's midterm and Ford because he took office just 3 months before the 1974 mid-term. I keep Truman because he assumed the presidency very early in Roosevelt's fourth term, effectively serving the full term.)
Whether Obama continues to look like Reagan seems to me more likely to be driven by the same force-- the economy. While health care reform and Afghanistan will surely play a role in the public's view of Obama, I think the economy remains the most crucial driver of opinion. In this the administration can hope that the upturn in GDP in the third quarter, and the small down-tick in unemployment in November, are signals that the early quarters of 2010 will see further improvements. If so, the Democrats may avoid the terrible conjunction of midterm and economic bottom that cost Republicans 26 seats in the 1982 House elections. And President Obama may not compete with Reagan to see which will be the second most unpopular president at midterm time. But there are no guarantees of this and the parallels remain quite striking.
Anyone interested in research trends should read Jane Mount's Ten Trends for 2010 here.
The research industry, of which polling is a subset, is changing rapidly and there are a number of fast moving trends at work.
Mount's are:
In-Sourcing: Client side market research functions stretch budget by using suppliers less and internal resources more.
Global Studies: The market research industry is a prime example of how the world is shrinking. More and more projects are now multinational. Eventually our project teams will be globally dispersed to work the 24 hour global clock and to provide global analytical perspective. Parenthetically, Guam is the perfect location for Eastern US companies looking to work the 24 hour global clock with dispersed staff.
Rise MROCs: Sometimes called HOC (hosted online communities), these market reseach online communities are rapid insight generators and will put pressure on traditional focus groups. Think of them as an ongoing focus group-forum online among a company's consumer segments.
Decline of traditional focus groups: See above.
No More CYA Surveys: All too common in corporate America, the post-decision validator survey may not survive budget tightening.
The need for higher quality online panels: Online panels are a wonderful tool for surveying niche audiences, but are panelists being burned out? Panel quality is a big initiative for the industry moving forward.
Client Desire for Innovation: Will the industry take advantage of new tools?
Data Mining: I agree with Mount here, but think the real opportunity for data mining is with the client's existing datasets and purchase records.
Triangulation vs. Perfection: Mount argues that RDD is no longer the gold standard and that mixed mode research is the future. She's right about mixed mode.
Death of Survey Research: Here Mount is joking. But she does think it will be scaled back, losing ground to MROCs, qualitative, data mining etc. Long term, perhaps. But, I can't agree on that one.
Overall, an excellent take on an industry in flux, and fairly close to my thinking about where the industry is headed.
For a look at global survey data that is both fascinating and a window on things to come, I highly recommend reviewing the NEWSWEEK-Intel Global Innovation Survey of 4,800 adults in the US, China, Germany and the UK. It was conducted this fall and can be found here.
Key points:
1. The Chinese are more optimistic (twice as optimistic!) than Americans themselves about America staying ahead of the curve on innovation.
2. Where do Americans place the blame? American schools. 42% say the problem is that American schools are offering an inadequate product when it comes to math and science. This eclipses direct government support for innovation (17%), US corporate investment (16%), and current American workers lacking tech skills (11%).
This leads me to believe that at some point very soon a renewed and intense post-Sputnikesque focus on math and science education will erupt in the United States.
3. For an interesting look at what each country views as its weaknesses, a plurality of American parents feel their children will need math and computer skills to drive innovation, but Chinese parents think their children will need creative problem solving skills.
4. Finally, 53% of American parents of teenagers admit that they have difficulty helping their children with math and science homework.
Rasmussen
12/2-3/09; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
National
Overall, how would you rate President Obama's handling of the situation in Afghanistan?
16% Excellent, 21% Good, 25% Fair, 36% Poor
Do you favor or oppose the President's proposal to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan?
53% Favor, 30% Oppose
Do you favor or oppose the President's commitment to a timetable that would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 18 months?
47% Favor, 41% Oppose
Overall, do you favor or oppose President Obama's new plan for the war in Afghanistan?
37% Favor, 38% Oppose
Some people say that we need to send more troops to Afghanistan, others say we need to begin reducing the number of troops we have in Afghanistan. Which approach do you prefer?
50% Send more troops, 35% Reduce number of troops, 5% No change
In terms of U.S. national security, how important is the situation in Afghanistan?
53% Very, 30% Somewhat, 12% Not very, 3% Not at all
Was the War in Afghanistan an appropriate response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
67% Yes, 21% No
Alan I. Abramowitz is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. He is also a frequent contributer to Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball.
In his recent post, Mark Blumenthal provides an excellent discussion of some of the possible explanations for the differences between the results of Rasmussen polls and the results of other national polls regarding President Obama's approval rating. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that regardless of the explanation for these differences, whether they stem from Rasmussen's use of a likely voter sample, their use of four response options instead of the usual two, or their IVR methodology, the frequency of their polling on this question means that Rasmussen's results have a very disproportionate impact on the overall polling average on the presidential approval question. As of this writing (December 4th), the overall average for net presidential approval (approval - disapproval) on pollster.com is +0.7%. The average without Rasmussen is +7.1%. No other polling organization has nearly this large an impact on the overall average.
A similar impact is seen on the generic ballot question reflecting, again, both the divergence between Rasmussen's results and those of other polls and the frequency of Rasmussen's polling on this question. The overall average Democratic lead on pollster.com is 0.7%. However, with Rasmussen removed that lead jumps to 6.7%. Again, no other polling organization has this large an impact on the overall average.
According to Rasmussen, Republicans currently enjoy a 7 point lead on the generic ballot question among likely voters. Democracy Corps, the only other polling organization currently using a likely voter sample, gives Democrats a 2 point lead on this question. To underscore the significance of this difference, an analysis of the relationship between popular vote share and seat share in the House of Representatives indicates that a 7 point Republican margin of victory in the national popular vote next November would result in a GOP pickup of 62 seats in the House, giving them a majority of 239 to 196 over the Democrats in the new Congress. This would represent an even more dramatic shift in power than the 1994 midterm election that brought Republicans back to power in Congress. In contrast, a 2 point Democratic margin in the national popular vote would be expected to produce a GOP pickup of only 24 seats, leaving Democrats with a comfortable 234 to 201 seat majority.
One of the biggest problems in trying to compare Rasmussen's results with those of most other polls is that Rasmussen is almost alone in using a likely voter sample to measure both presidential approval and the generic ballot. Moreover, Rasmussen has been less than totally open about their method of identifying likely voters at this early stage of the 2010 campaign, making any evaluation of their results even more difficult. However, there is one question on which a more direct comparison of Rasmussen's results with those of other national polls is possible--party identification. Although the way Rasmussen asks the party identification question is somewhat different, reflecting its IVR methodology, Rasmussen's party identification results, like almost all other national polls, are based on a sample of adult citizens. Despite this fact, in recent months Rasmussen's results have diverged rather dramatically from those of most other national polls by showing a substantially smaller Democratic advantage in party identification. For example, for the month of November, Rasmussen reported a Democratic advantage of only 3 percentage points compared with an average for all other national polls of almost 11 percentage points.
Rasmussen's party identification results have only a small impact on the overall average on this question because they only report party identification once a month. However,
Rasmussen's disproportionately Republican adult sample does raise questions about many of their other results, including those using likely voter samples, because the likely voters are a subsample of the initial adult sample. If Rasmussen is starting off with a disproportionately Republican sample of adult citizens, then their likely voter sample is almost certain to also include a disproportionate share of Republican identifiers. Of course, there is no way of knowing for certain whether Rasmussen's results are more or less accurate than those of other polling organizations. All we can say with some confidence is that their results are different and that this difference is not just attributable to their use of a likely voter sample.
CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
12/2-3/09; 1,041 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN release)
National
Obama Job Approval
48% Approve, 50% Disapprove (chart)
Do you disapprove because you think his policies and actions since he became
president have been too liberal, or because you think his policies and actions have not been liberal enough?
48% Approve (From previous question)
40% Disapprove, too liberal
8% Disapprove, not liberal enough
2% Disapprove, unsure on question 2
Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan?
46% Favor, 51% Oppose
Regardless of how you feel about the war in general, do you favor or oppose President Obama's plan to send about 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in an attempt to stabilize the situation there?
62% Favor, 36% Oppose
President Obama also announced that he plans to start removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. Thinking specifically about that policy and not about Obama's decision to announce it at this time, do you favor or oppose Obama's plan to start removing troops from Afghanistan in 2011?
66% Favor, 32% Oppose
And regardless of how you feel about the plan to start removing troops in 2011, do you think it was a good idea or a bad idea for Obama to announce that policy at this time?
39% Good idea, 59% Bad idea
And just your best guess -- do you think conditions in Afghanistan will or will not be good enough in the summer of 2011 for the U.S. to start removing troops?
33% Conditions will be good enough, 61% Conditions will not be good enough
Whose policies do you blame for the problems that the U.S. is currently facing in Afghanistan -- the policies of George W. Bush or the policies of Barack Obama?
64% Bush, 17% Obama, 18% Both/Neither
And if the current situation facing the U.S. in Afghanistan does not improve by the summer of 2011, whose policies would you blame for that -- the policies of George W. Bush, or the policies of Barack Obama?
54% Obama, 34% Bush, 12% Both/Neither
Public Policy Polling (D)
11/30-12/2/09; 571 likely voters, 4.1% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)
Delaware
Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov. Markell: 40 / 31 (chart)
Sen. Carper: 44 / 31 (chart)
Sen. Kaufman: 24 / 22 (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Dems in Congress: 42 / 46
Reps in Congress: 24 / 57
Las Vegas Review Journal / Mason Dixon
11/30-12/2/09; 625 likely voters, 4% margin of error
300 likely Republican primary voters, 6% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(LVRJ: story, results)
Nevada
2010 Senate: Republican Primary (trends)
Sue Lowden 25%, Danny Tarkanian 24%, Sharron Angle 13%, Bill Parson 1%, Robin Titus 1%,
Mike Wiley 1%, John Chachas 1% Mark Amodei 1%, Chuck Kozak 0%
2010 Senate: General Election
Tarkanian 48%, Reid 42% (chart)
Lowden 51%, Reid 41% (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Harry Reid: 38 / 49 (chart)
Sue Lowden: 33 / 13
Danny Tarkanian: 32 / 12
DailyKos.com (D)/ Research 2000
11/30-12/3/09; 2,400 adults, 2% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)
National
Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 52 / 41 (chart)
Nancy Pelosi: 41 / 50
Harry Reid: 30 / 59
Mitch McConnell: 16 / 67
John Boehner: 14 / 65
Democratic Party: 42 / 53
Republican Party: 25 / 65
State of the Country
39% Right Direction, 58% Wrong Track (chart)
Rasmussen
12/2/09; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
South Carolina
Job Approval Disapproval
Gov. Sanford: 43 / 56
Should Mark Sanford resign as Governor?
41% Yes, 42% No
If Sanford does not resign, should he be impeached and removed from office?
36% Yes, 49% No
Is Mark Sanford more ethical than most politicians, less ethical than most politicians, or about as ethical as most politicians?
12% More ethical, 26% Less ethical, 54% About as ethical
Favorable / Unfavorable
Jenny Sanford: 64 / 21
USA Today / Gallup
12/2/09; 1,005 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(USA Today article, Gallup release)
National
As you may know, President Obama has decided to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 30,000 while also setting a timetable that calls for the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops from that country in 2011. In general, do you favor or oppose the plan?
51% Favor, 40% Oppose
What is your view of sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan -- do you think that number is too high, about right, or too low?
36% Too high, 18% Too low, 38% About right
Which comes closest to your view about setting a timetable for beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2011?
21% Agree with timetable
26% Should start withdrawing troops sooner
46% Too soon to set a timetable
By 51%-40%, those surveyed say they favor the plan Obama outlined. On specific elements, however, there is little consensus:• Thirty-eight percent call the decision to deploy 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan "about the right number." Nearly as many, 36%, say that is too many additional troops, and 18% say it's too few.
• Just one in five agree with the timetable to begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011. Nearly half, 46%, say it's too soon to set a timetable, and one in four say troops should begin coming home before then.
An overwhelming majority worry that the costs of the war will make it more difficult to deal with problems closer to home. By nearly 3-1, 73%-26%, those surveyed say they are worried about that. A third describe themselves as "very worried."
It's a change long overdue, but as some of you may have noticed this morning, the "analysis" posts on our blog now feature topic tags (such as the "Pollster.com" tag on this entry below my name above this paragraph). Other posts will feature a list of the topics they discuss. Click to tag link to see a list of previous posts on that subject.
Since this entry's tag is not particularly interesting, you might want to clicking try a few of these: likely voters, automated polls, cell phones. We have also "back-tagged" all of the analytical blog posts I have written, and most of those from other authors, going back to through all of 2008. Hopefully, these topic tags will make it easier to find what you're looking for on Pollster.com
Please note that we have not yet applied tags to any of the "poll update" posts. The main reason is to avoid forcing someone interested in analysis pieces on a particular pollster (Rasmussen, for example) to have to through a very long list of poll updates to find what they're looking for.
As with any such change, this one may introduce some bugs we need to iron out. If you stumble on any, please don't hesitate to email us and describe the problem. And a big "thank you" to Emily whose hard work made the new feature possible.
DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
11/30-12/2/09; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)
Arkansas
Favorable / Unfavorable
Blanche Lincoln: 41 / 50
Bill Halter: 36 / 25
Gilbert Baker: 31 / 25
Curtis Coleman: 29 / 24
Tom Cox: 28 / 23
Kim Hendren: 30 / 24
Mike Beebe: 64 / 24
Mark Pryor: 48 / 38
Barack Obama: 42 / 55
2010 Senate: General Election
42% Lincoln (D), 41% Baker (R)
44% Lincoln (D), 39% Coleman (R)
45% Lincoln (D), 31% Cox (R)
46% Lincoln (D), 30% Hendren (R)
42% Baker (R), 34% Halter (D)
40% Coleman (R), 35% Halter (D)
36% Halter (D), 32% Cox (R)
36% Halter (D), 31% Hendren (R)
2010 Senate: Democratic Primary
42% Lincoln, 26% Halter
Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?
53% Favor, 41% Oppose
Harvard / Knowledge Networks
11/4-16/09; 2,087 18-29 year olds, 2.2% margin of error
Mode: internet
(Harvard: release, toplines)
National
Obama Job Approval / Disapproval
58% Approve, 39% Disapprove
Health Care: 44 / 52
Federal Budget Deficit: 38 / 58
Afghanistan: 41 / 55
Economy: 44 / 52
Iran: 42 / 53
Job Approval / Disapproval
Dems in Congress: 48 / 49
Reps in Congress: 35 / 62
Among those who did anything to support Barack Obama in addition to voting:
Thinking ahead, how likely is it that you will engage in similar activities in 2012 for Barack Obama?
85% Very/Somewhat, 13% Not very/Not at all
Which comes closer to your opinion about what Congress and the President should do regarding health care reform this year?
48% They should continue trying to pass a major reform of the health care system
30% They should stop trying to pass a major reform this year and instead work on passing a more limited version
22% They should leave health care reform for another time
Now I'd like to ask you about some of the specific proposals being considered to address health care. Would you favor or oppose:
Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help for those who can't afford it:
60% Favor, 37% Oppose
A government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans:
57% Favor, 39% Oppose
Requiring insurance companies to sell health coverage to people, even if they have pre-existing medical conditions:
76% Favor, 20% Oppose
Requiring employers to pay into a government health care fund if they do not provide health insurance to their employees:
63% Favor, 33% Oppose
Raising taxes on families with incomes of more than $350,000 as a way to pay for changes to the health care system:
59% Favor, 37% Oppose
Limits on the amount of money that patients can collect in medical malpractice lawsuits.
57% Favor, 39% Oppose
Would you favor or oppose a decision by President Obama to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan?
31% Favor, 66% Oppose
Public Policy Polling (D)
11/30-12/2/09; 571 likely voters, 4.1% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)
Delaware
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 53 / 41 (chart)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Beau Biden: 43 / 35
Mike Castle: 55 / 28
2010 Senate
45% Castle, 39% Biden (chart)
Do you support or oppose the health care bill passed in the House of Representatives a few weeks ago?
43% Support, 46% Oppose
Rasmussen
12/1/09; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Arkansas
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 34 / 65
Gov. Beebe: 70 / 28
2010 Senate
Kim Hendren (R) 46%, Blanche Lincoln (D) 39%
Gilbert Baker (R) 47%, Blanche Lincoln (D) 41%
Curtis Coleman (R) 44%, Blanche Lincoln (D) 40%
Tom Cox (R) 43%, Blanche Lincoln (D) 40%
Favorable / Unfavorable
Hendern: 41 / 19
Lincoln: 43 / 52
Baker: 40 / 19
Coleman: 37 / 22
Cox: 41 / 19
Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?
32% Somewhat/Strongly favor, 64% Somewhat/Strongly oppose
Pew Research Center
10/28-11/8/09; 2,000 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
10/2-11/16/09; 642 members for the Council on Feoreign Relations
Mode: Internet and Live telephone interviews
(Pew: release, methodology)
National
The general public and members of the Council on Foreign Relations are apprehensive and uncertain about America's place in the world. Growing numbers in both groups see the United States playing a less important role globally, while acknowledging the increasing stature of China. And the general public, which is in a decidedly inward-looking frame of mind when it comes to global affairs, is less supportive of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan than are CFR members.In polling conducted before President Obama's decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, both groups expressed pessimism about prospects for long-term stability in Afghanistan. Fewer than half of the public (46%) and CFR members (41%) say it is very or somewhat likely that Afghanistan will be able to withstand the threat posed by the Taliban. While half of the CFR members (50%) favor increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan, just 32% of the public agrees.
In the midst of two wars abroad and a sour economy at home, there has been a sharp rise in isolationist sentiment among the public. For the first time in more than 40 years of polling, a plurality (49%) says the United States should "mind its own business internationally" and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.
A CBS News/Vanity Fair poll finds only 26% of Americans say they can "confidently explain what exactly the public option is to someone who didn't know" (via PoliticalWire).
Mark Murray and Jeanne Cummings report on a Peter Hart focus group on Obama.
Steve Singiser finds Democrats suffering a big enthusiasm gap; Kos, Chris Good, Eric Kleefeld, Steve Benen, Josh Marshall, and Joe Gandelman add more; Singiser digs deeper.
Jennifer Agiesta posts tag clouds on how Republicans, Democrats and independents assess the Republican party.
Frank Newport explains weighted and unweighted N sizes.
Tom Jensen finds Republicans leading among independents in six statewide 2010 races, but thinks Harry Reid's position may not be as bad as it looks.
David Hill thinks healthcare is the deeply personal sort of issue that could be realigning.
Mark Mellman considers passing health care reform a matter of political survival for Democrats.
Alex Gage says Americans want incremental health reform.
Nicholas Thompson sees challenges for Obama in the USA Today/Gallup poll.
Morley Winograd and Michael Hais find Millennials increasingly restive on the economy (via Soltis).
Tom Schaller plots state unemployment by Obama's 2008 margin.
Karl Rove examines polls on 2010 Senate races.
Jasmine Beach-Ferrara shares lessons from the "No on 1" campaign in Maine.
Chris Bowers and Nate Silver debate whether electoral trouble for Democrats is good news for progressives.
Andrew Gelman and JunkCharts share thoughts on "climategate."
Rachel Dodes warns of methodological shortcomings in holiday sales forecasts.
An automated pollster discloses the number of telephone numbers dialed and times of dialing (via Lundry).
The American Revolution Center surveys Americans and finds poor knowledge of the American Revolution (via Miller).
Alabama loves electronic bingo!
Marist
11/16-17/09; 805 registered voters, 3.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Marist release)
New York
Do you favor or oppose legalizing same-sex marriage in New York State?
51% Favor, 42% Oppose
Will President Obama's speech last night, announcing that he will send another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan now and start withdrawing American forces by July 201, turn public opinion in his favor? We will know better in a week or two, after Americans absorb the news and the usual suspects conduct another round of polls, but the short term prospects look bleak.
The Washington Post's Dan Balz shares the assessment of Duke political scientist Peter Feaver, who analyzed public opinion on the Iraq War for the Bush White House:
[Feaver] said that as Obama begins his effort to sell the new strategy, he is in a far stronger position politically than Bush was when he announced the surge policy in January 2007. But Feaver said mixed signals during the decision-making process forced Obama "to do a sharp pivot back" toward escalation, complicating his task of rallying public opinion.
NBC's Chuck Todd also points out this morning that "most Commanders-in-Chief get at least a temporary boost in the polls after delivering a major primetime address on matters of war and peace." I'm not sure if that is true. As John Sides argued in September, presidential addresses rarely move their approval ratings, and Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for the Bush campaign in 2004, reminds us today that Bush "gave speech after speech when Iraq was going south, and they had no lasting effect." But what Todd is probably thinking about are speeches like the one Bush gave immediately after September 11, 2001, when he rallied the nation behind the "war on terror," or speeches made by both Bushes during the run-ups toward their respective Iraq Wars. The 9/11 attacks and the impending Iraq wars served to increase their popularity.
The difference in those cases is that the political leadership of both parties rallied in support of both presidents. Today, as Todd explains, "no one is happy." Democrats are expressing opposition to the troop increase, Republicans are speaking out against Obama's deadline for withdrawal.
More important, the public has been shifting sharply against the Afghan War and toward disapproval of Obama's handling of it. Surveys conducted in November show approval of Obama's handling of the War declining below 40%, significantly lower than his overall approval rating and lower, as Gallup reports, than for any other issue they tested. Gallup shows a 21 percentage point decline in Obama's Afghanistan approval since July. The recent CBS News survey shows Obama's approval on this issue down six points since September and down twenty points since April (via Sussman).
One reason why Obama's Afghanistan numbers are lower is that many Democrats do not approve. His Afghanistan approval rating among Democrats has fallen to just 57% on the CBS News survey and 54% on the USA Today/Gallup poll. Meanwhile, the CBS News survey tells us that as of mid November, only 17% of Democrats wanted to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, 21% want to keep the number as it is now and 48% want to decrease the number of troops. A recent Gallup poll yielded very similar results. So his approval rating among Democrats on this issue could fall further.
What all these results tell us is that the most likely impact of last night's speech will be downward pressure on Obama's overall job approval rating if only because of a phenomenon political scientists call "priming." All the stories on the Afghanistan speech will prime the importance of an issue that is an Obama weakness, so for the next few days, expect Obama's overall approval rating to fall slightly, even if the speech helps bump his Afghanistan approval numbers up a few points.
But say what you will about this president and his Afghanistan policy, even Obama understands that the policies he announced last night are likely to create a negative response. "I am painfully clear that this is politically unpopular," Obama reportedly told group of political columnists yesterday. "Not only is this not popular, but it's least popular in my own party. But that's not how I make decisions." He continued (via Ambinder): "If I were basing my decisions on polls, then the banking system might have collapsed and you probably wouldn't have GM or Chrysler, and it's not clear that the economy would be growing again."
For further reading: CBS pollster Sarah Dutton compares American's attitudes on Afghanistan in 2009 with their views on Iraq in 2007. ABC News pollster Gary Langer reviews the risks for Obama in Afghanistan, the prices paid by previous wartime presidents and opinions on the case that Obama is making on the threat from terrorism. Gallup's Frank Newport summarizes public opinion on the Afghanistan War.
Deseret News / KSL-TV / Dan Jones & Associates
11/19-23/09; 408 adults, 4.9% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Deseret News: 2010 Sen, Obama)
Utah
U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett has seved 18 years in office. Bennett is running for re-election next year. Do you believe Bennett should eb re-elected, or is it time to give someone new a chance to serve?
27% Re-elect Bennet, 58% Give someone new a chance, 7% Depends on who runs
2010 Senate
31% Bob Bennett (R), 14% Sam Granato (D), 5% Cherilyn Eagar (R), 4% Tim Bridgewater (R), 4% Fred Lampropoulos (R), 3% Mike Lee (R), 1% James Russell Williams III (R)
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 38 / 60
Congress: 27 / 70
USA Today / Gallup
11/20-22/09; 1,017 adults, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Gallup release)
National
Obama Job Approval / Disapproval
Energy Policy: 49 / 35
Terrorism: 45 / 47
Global Warming: 44 / 36
The Economy: 44 / 53 (chart)
Health Care: 40 / 53 (chart)
Creating Jobs: 40 / 55
The situation in Afghanistan: 35 / 55
USA Network / Hart Research Associates (D) / Public Opinion Strategies (R)
10/30-11/4/09; 1,614 adults, 2.8% margin of error
Mode: Internet & Live telephone interviews
(USA Network: press release, toplines, racial/ethnic group crosstabs)
National
USA Network Release:
"With the country on the verge of becoming a minority majority population by 2050, the survey shows Americans have mixed feelings about the population's increasing diversity. Only 25% see America's diversity as a clear-cut strength and advantage. Merely five percent say that race relations are no longer a problem in the USA. Overall, Americans, across party lines, think that gays and lesbians and Muslims experience prejudice most frequently; followed by immigrants.
According to the poll, there is plenty of blame to go around for the lack of unity in the country. Americans blame both Republicans and Democrats in Congress for doing more to divide the country than unite it, and four in ten people say that elected officials spend too little time addressing prejudice and intolerance. A majority of Americans (55%) see President Obama as a figure of unity rather than divisiveness. Parents are clearly viewed at the people best able to reduce prejudice, discrimination and intolerance, but they are also seen as falling down on the job."
Hardly a week goes in which I do not receive at least one email like the following:
Although I really appreciate you continually adding this "outlier" poll for your aggregated data, I do wonder why Rasmussen polling numbers are ALWAYS significantly lower and different than every other poll when measuring the President's job approval rating (with the exception of Zogby's internet poll)? How do Rasmussen pollsters explain this phenomenon and, more importantly, what is your explanation for this statistically significant ongoing discrepancy between Rasmussen and pretty much every other poll out there?
We have addressed variants of this question many times, but since this questions is easily the most frequently asked via email, it is probably worth trying to summarize what we've learned in one place.
Let me start with this reader's premise. Are Rasmussen's job approval ratings of President Obama typically lower than "every other poll?" The chart that follows, produced by our colleague Charles Franklin, shows the relative "house effects" for organizations that routinely release national polls based on the approval percentage. Rasmussen's Obama job approval ratings (third from the bottom) do tend to be lower than most other polls, but they are not the lowest.
Before reviewing the reasons for the difference, I want to emphasize something the chart does not tell us. The line that corresponds with the zero value is NOT a measure of "truth" or an indicator of accuracy. The numeric value plotted on the chart represents the average distance from an adjusted version of our standard trend line (it sets the median house effect to zero, producing a line that is usually within a percentage point of our standard trend line). Since that trend line is essentially the average of the results from all pollsters, the numbers represent deviations from average. Calculate house effects using a different set of pollsters, and the zero line would likely shift.
A related point: Readers tend to notice the Rasmussen house effect because their daily tracking polls represent a large percentage of the points plotted on our job approval chart. For the daily tracking polls released by Rasmussen and Gallup Daily, we plot the value of every non-overlapping release (every third day). As of last week, Gallup Daily and Rasmussen represent almost half (49%) of the points plotted on our charts (each organization claims 24% each). As such, their polls do tend to have greater influence on our trend line than other organizations that poll less often (see more discussion by Charles Franklin, Mike McDonald and me on the consequences of the greater influence of the daily trackers).
So why are the Rasmussen results different? Here are the three possible answers:
1) LIkely voters - Of the twenty or so pollsters that routinely report national presidential job approval ratings, only Rasmussen, Zogby and Democracy Corps routinely report results for a population of "likely voters." Of the pollsters in the chart above, PPP, Quinnipiac University, Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and Diageo/Hotline report results for the population of registered voters. All the rest sample all adults. Not surprisingly, most of the organizations near the bottom the house effect chart -- those showing lower than average job approval percentages for Obama -- report on either likely or registered voters, not adults.
Why does that matter? As Scott Rasmussen explained two weeks ago, likely voters are less likely to include young adults and minority voters who are more supportive of President Obama.
2) Different Question - Rasmussen also asks a different job approval question. Most pollsters offer just two answer categories: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?" Rasmussen's question prompts for four: "How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President... do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he's been doing?"
Scott Rasmussen has long asserted that the additional "somewhat" approve or disapprove options coax some respondents to provide an answer that might otherwise end up in the "don't know" category. In an experiment conducted last week and released yesterday, Rasmussen provides support for that argument. They administered three separate surveys of 800 "likely voters, each involving a different version of the Obama job approval rating: (1) the traditional two category, approve or disapprove choice, (2) the standard Rasmussen four-category version and (3) a variant used by Zogby and Harris, that asks if the president is doing an excellent, good, fair or poor job. The table below collapses the results into two categories; excellent and good combine to represent "approve," fair and poor combine to represent "disapprove."
The 4-category Rasmussen version shows a smaller "don't know" (1% vs. 4%) and a much bigger disapprove percentage (52% vs 46%) compared to the standard 2-category question. The approve percentage is only three points lower on the Rasmussen version (47%) than the traditional question (50%). As Rasmussen writes, the differences are "consistent with years of observations that Rasmussen Reports polling consistently shows a higher level of disapproval for the President than other polls" (make of this what you will, but three years ago, Rasmussen argued that the four category format explained a bigger "approve" percentage for President Bush).
We can see that Rasmussen does in fact report a consistently higher disapproval percentage for President Obama by examining Charles Franklin's chart of house effects for the disappprove category. Here the distinction between Rasmussen, Harris and Zogby -- the three pollsters that ask something other than the traditional two-category approval question -- is more pronounced.
The Rasmussen experiment shows an even bigger discrepancy between the approve percentage on the two-category questions (50%) and the much lower percentage obtained by combining excellent and good (38%). This result is similar to what Chicago Tribune pollster Nick Panagakis found on a similar experiment conducted many years ago (as described in a post last year).
Variation in the don't know category also helps explain the house effects for many of the other pollsters. The table below shows average job approval ratings for President Obama by each pollster over the course of 2009 (through November 19). It shows that smaller don't know percentages tend to translate into larger disapproval percentages. With live interviewers and similar questions, the differences are usually explained by variations in interviewer procedures and training. Interviewers that push harder for an answer when the respondent is initially uncertain obtain results with smaller percentages in the don't know column.
3) The Automated Methodology - Much of the speculation about the differences involving Rasmussen and other automated pollsters centers on the automated mode itself (often referred to by the acronym IVR, for interactive voice response). Tom Jensen of PPP, a firm that also interviews with an automated method, offered one such theory earlier this year:
[P]eople are just more willing to say they don't like a politician to us than they are to a live interviewer because they don't feel any social pressure to be nice. That's resulted in us, Rasmussen, and Survey USA showing poorer approval numbers than most for a variety of politicians.
Other commentators offer a different theory, neatly summarized recently by John Sides, who speculates that since automated polls "generate lower response rates" than those using live interviewers, automated poll samples may "[skew] towards the kind of politically engaged citizens who are more likely to think and act as partisan[s] or ideologues," even after weighting to correct demographic imbalances.
A lack of data makes evaluating this theory very difficult. Few pollsters routinely release response rate data (and even then, technical differences in how those rates are computed makes comparisons across modes challenging). And, as far as I know, no one has attempted a randomized controlled experiment to test Jensen's "social pressure" theory applied to job approval ratings.
But that said, it is intriguing that the bottom five pollsters on Franklin's chart of estimated house effects on the approval rating all collect their data using surveys administered without live interviewers: Rasmussen and PPP use the automated telephone methodology and Harris, Zogby and You/Gov Polimetrix survey over the Internet (using non-probability panel samples). Of course, with the exception of YouGov/Polimetrix, these firms also either interview likely or registered voters, use a different question than other pollsters, or both.
As such, it is next to impossible to disentangle these three competing explanations for why the Rasmussen polls produce a lower than average job approval score for President Obama, although we can make the strongest case for the first two.
P.S.: For further reading, we have posted on the differences between Rasmussen and other pollsters in slightly different contexts here, here and here and on my old MysteryPollster blog here, here and here. Also be sure to read Scott Rasmussen's answer last week to my question about how they select likely voters. Finally, Charles Franklin posted side-by-side charts showing the Obama job approval house effects for each pollster last week; he has posted similar house effect charts on house effects on the 2008 horse race polls here, here, here and here.
Advertisement
Advertisement
