Simplifying the Polls : How to REALLY Beat Obama in 2012
65Cutting through the Confusion
Many of us are devoted to making sure Barack Hussein Obama ends up being a one term President, but the polls are often presented in both confusing and--to a conservative--optimistic fashion. Obama's approval plummets! Obama's numbers down! Obama's poll ratings nosedive!
Yeah. Right.
Don't get me wrong. I believe our Manchurian President, our Alinsky in Chief, definitely needs to be booted from office next year, and I believe he can be booted.
What I don't believe is that we do ourselves any favors by getting all giddy every time we hear about his latest drop in the polls. Quite frankly, if his numbers had truly gone down as fiercely and as often as has been reported these past 27 months, he couldn't get a vote from Michelle.
Which is definitely not the case.
In my hardly humble and definitely opinionated opinion, there is only one set of polling data that gives anything close to a reliable indicator as to what We the People face at this point in time. That is the set of daily trend numbers put out by Scott Rasmussen. I've kept a close eye on Obama's approval ups and downs from the day of his inauguration...and it's time I shared a bit.
See, Rasmussen does a couple of things I like. One is that the voters he canvasses are "likely voters", not just "adults" or even "registered voters". How he selects these likely folks, I've no idea--but he seems pretty sincere about his work, at least to me (for what that's worth), so....
The other thing he does is produce not one but four sets of approval-related figures:
1. Strongly approve.
2. Strongly disapprove.
3. Total approve.
4. Total disapprove.
What I've seen, following Obama's daily numbers, does not match what other pollsters are saying. I believe the others are wrong and Rasmussen is (at least probably) right. With that in mind, yes, the Vacationer in Chief did lose a whole lot of approval during his first months in office--but later, not so much.
Now, to present a simple picture you can show even to your beer-drinkingest friend, I made a graph which tracks just two of the trends (as recorded by Rasmussen) on a quarterly basis. The trends: Total approval...and Strong disapproval.
Why those? Because (a) anyone who approves of Obama even slightly on election day is not going to vote for a Republican, no matter who he or she may be, and (b) those who strongly disapprove of the man's agenda likely will vote against him--but only those people. [ An Independent who disapproves of Obama (but not strongly) may still vote for him if he disapproves of the Republican candidate as well.]
The graph:
The snapshot (no scanner at the moment, sorry) is not super-clear, so let me walk you through it.
1. The orange (lower) line tracks strong disapproval. Note how low that percentage was on the day of the President's Inauguration--just 16%. As a whole, the nation appears to have been hoping, waiting for Magic Man to do his stuff.
But it shot up (truly like a rocket) during that first ninety days of his administration and kept on rising for a while after that until January of 2010. From that point forward, strong disapproval has floated up or down, but not drastically so in either direction. In other words, it really hasn't moved a lot for the past fifteen months.
2. The total approval rating mirrors that finding, plummeting from an Inauguration Day high of 65% to the mid-forties...and then staying there.
Okay, so is there cause for optimism in this graph? Certainly. It's not that Obama and his Zombies have not tried to jack his numbers back up above that magical fifty percent line, and it's really encouraging that they've had no success whatsoever in that endeavor. It truly does appear rather obvious that millions of Americans have come awake with fire in their eyes and in their bellies. The Campaigner in Chief is definitely vulnerable.
But.
What we need in a Republican candidate for 2012 is a fire breathing dragon, be it man or woman, a campaigner seriously willing to get in Obama's (and the blamestream media's) face. We know the left will throw out 100% bald faced lies...because the truth will get them fired and because that's what they always do. We saw what happens when you toss a John McCain into the ring, a fellow who tippy-toes around the real issues and refuses to call out the opposition in any meaningful way: You get your butt kicked. Period.
With a fire-breather, though, a significant boost in that strongly disapproves group can and will happen. People who aren't sure about the Liar in Chief will be slapped upside the attention span, snap awake, and exclaim, "Lordy, what was I thinking!!" The orange line will then, on election day, be higher than the green line...and our objective of ousting the czars, their narcissistic boss, Eric you-gotta-be-kidding-me Holder, Janet the-border-is-secure Napolitano, Ken I-hate-oil Salazar, and all the rest of the leeches--will be obtained.
Remember in November 2012.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (5)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful (3)
- Interesting
CommentsLoading...
Yes, I recall your comment--it was actually the trigger that got me to thinking about doing this Hub, which had been on mind for a while.
I agree with your assessment of the polls. I also agree we need a fire breathing dragon that can breathe some sense into people who refuse to see what is right in front of them.
Oh Ghostly Prognosticator of my Future One: YOUR ARE TRULY DA MAN ! DON'T BE SHY, APPROVE THIS ONE, YOU DESERVE PROPS AND THEN PROPS TO HELP PROP UP THE PROPS. You are truly our Border Agent in Chief !
Enough love, now let's get to some bloody meat here. You are 100% correct in everything you say EXCEPT the " Fire Breather Part "! While we need the Harry Potter dragon candidate, we also need one that doesn't just toss the bombs and spits ashes out of his or her nose. It has to be someone that can toss the old grenade, but with an explanation as to why he is " intellectually bombing the Chiefton of the White House Travelocity department ".
He or She has to be someone that can baste Janet ( who put's my friends house in jeopardy )Napilitornado, while doing so with common sense and reason. This person cannot speak in political mumbo jumbo. In other words a Reaganesque type of fashion when politically nuking our NEMISIS in Chief.
Well done my friend, Oh YOU HAVE TRULY HIT THE OLD NAIL SQUARELY MY FRIEND....You realize your describing THE HERMANATOR DON'T YOU ? Yes you have, you just did not know it....woot woot, your sliding into the Caniac camp.
Thumbs up, pretty, grand, special, Moby Dick and all the other check marks for you !
Ghost,
This is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. From a substantive standpoint, the "fire breathing dragon" is just what we need - a "take no prisoners" TPM conservative who will undo the damage of four years of socialism, and agree to sign draconian budget reform. The problem is, will centrists, who make up the plurality of voters, actually elect this guy? The centrists are of course mad at Obama because of the jobs recession, but they may be too afraid of what we need to do to actually fix our problems. A more likely winner over Obama would be a centrist GOP, but such an individual will not have the impetus to roll back past abuses; he'll only prevent new ones from occurring. And that isn't enough to fix our problems.
Stu
BPop: Thanks; now to get to work on--well, the next two commets.
Ken: Herman would be fine, but I see Trump, Palin, and Bachmann as ALL qualifying as well (by your description as well as my own).
Stu: I believe anyone on my short list (the 4 just stated in response to Ken) would have a real shot, both at getting elected and rolling back past abuses. The problem with both of the ladies is, of course, the media attack dogs and how loud those suckers can snarl and bark. On the other hand, if either Michelle or Sarah ends up in the klieg lights of a general Presidential election with free rein to run her own campaign, that same media is (in my opinionated opinion) going to find out that it's bitten off more than it can chew.
There's a reason Sarah Palin blew Frank Murkowski out of office in Alaska when NO ONE (except her inner circle, of course) thought she could, and there's also a reason Michelle Bachmann keeps getting reelected in the overwhelmingly liberal state of Minnesota.
As for the guys, like Ken says, if Herman Cain pulls off the nomination, he's going to be major trouble for the incumbent--Hermanator vs. Obamanation--and Trump has the fearless style and pragmatic common sense of the hardcore businessman plus virtually unlimited personal coin.
Speaking of which, I can't go through an hour online without seeing a display ad asking if I'd vote for Trump even now. Can you?
Well Done.
Does Rasmussen also supply the expected variances on their numbers? A light shading using those 'within plus or minus x percent' would make these numbers look even closer.
Having studied statistics more than I ever cared to, one of the areas we looked at was polls. Hell, they had the headlines printed that Dewey beat Truman based on polling data. WHOOPS.
Polls can be made to tell you exactly the answer that the pollster desires to hear. The other factor, obviously, is who are you asking the questions to and where are they geographically located.
The bottom line will be in November of 2012 when people enter the booth and close the curtain. Then they need to let their conscience and their wallet status be their guide.
The Frog
KEN @ STU, GHOST> STU you are 143% correct in every word you said. I still do not think Trump runs. Cannot give either of you a good reason why, I just do not think he does. My two principle reasons are this, not that their accurate, just my gut. 1. He doesn't want to have to disclose all his worth or lack there of. I truly think this is a big, big issue. 2. He is not the sort of personality that could handle defeat if he misses the nomination on the Elephant side of the ticket. If he is not 1000% sure he can win the nomination, I do not think he runs.
I also agree that the right goes with whoever is not Obama, but Stu is correct in saying that whoever the Elephants put up has to be able to attract the center. Ghost we discussed this. This is why I keep going to back to Cain, because he is not a bomb thrower like Michelle My Belle and Sarah ( everybodies favorite Moose and Trout specialist ). While I love Sarah and Michelle, they are unelectable because whether we want to admit or not, the press crucifies them and takes them out.
I am back to Herman for a couple of major ( YES, I SAID MAJOR REASONS ).....1. The press will lay off because they fear being labeled racist. 2. NO, that's right NO, skeletons in closet. 3. Super successful in business and Obama has zero traction in the economy department when Cain attacks his horrible economic policies. 4. The very fact he picks off part of Obama's base from the minority section. 5. Cain will appeal to the centrist as he is speaks common sense and explains himself very effectively with zero political doublespeak....
O.K.,,,,now tell me again why he is not the perfect choice to deafeat Obama ? All of the above are very real issues for any candidate....
Hi Ghost,
I doubt Trump has the political creds to become president, and Palin doesn't have the experience yet. Don't know anything about Cain so I can't comment on him.
My favorites are Bachmann, DeMint, and Ron Paul.
TPaw would be great from a fiscal point of view, as he saved MN twice from financial collapse without raising the FIT. But he has yet to articulate any platform other than "I'm good with numbers."
Pence would be wonderful, but I think he's going to retire.
Other possibilities would be Andy Napolitano, Bobby Jindal, Jan Brewer, and Chris Christie, but I'm not sure they have the national stature yet to win the primary.
Stu
Ken,
I'll have to learn more about Cain. I really know nothing about him.
Stu
Jim: Rasmussen most likely does have those "shadings", but I've never looked for them. You're right about how close that could make things, of course.
Frog: Absolutely. I do like Rasmussen's work for the fact that it (to my mind, anyway) pretty clearly pinpoints where we need to focus to help that happen.
Ken: All I can say about Cain is that he doesn't do a thing for me personally, like he does for you. I see him as a VERY viable candidate IF he wins the nomination and I will have NO problem supporting him without reservation down to the wire...but he doesn't light my fire. I don't disagree with anything he has to say, not one word, but I wouldn't cross the street to listen to him speak, either. I do pay attention now when I happen to catch him on the radio or TV, of course.
NOT saying I'm RIGHT on this one, not by a long shot, and I sure as Hell won't complain about being wrong if (or as you would say, when) Herman flat-out catches fire.
My own gut weighs in dead opposite to yours on Trump, and I believe he cares deeply enough about the nation to pay the price he'll have to pay (in exposure, etc.) when he runs.
As for Sarah and Michelle, again we agree to disagree--1,000%--on whether or not one of them can beat Obama. I believe either woman can take out the media; you don't.
Hey, just so we don't end up with a freaking Romney or Huckabee.
Sorry. Didn't mean to make anybody barf....
Stu: If Trump does do it, I doubt his lack of having been in "classic" politics will hurt him a bit. But we'll see.
Love Bachmann, love DeMint, appreciate Ron Paul but doubt he'll get much farther than he has in the past.
Don't like TPaw; something about him I instinctively distrust. Haven't put a finger on it yet.
Jan Brewer, no. She's in her 70's, and she crumpled horribly in the only debate during her gubernatorial campaign. In the Presidential campaign kitchen, she simply can't take the heat.
The others...yeah, pretty much what you said.
Cain's worth learning about, despite my being less enthusiastic than Ken. And it WOULD crack me up if McCain couldn't do it but in the end Cain did.
I too follow Rasmussen daily, and Obama's are remarkably stable after their initial plunge. His approval index has been in the negative teens for months.
But some of that disapproval comes from the far-left base, and we have to remember that while Obama may not be making them happy, they will certainly vote for Obama over any Republican, so we have a real fight in store.
Exactly, Will. I'd like to think it was going to be easier than that, but I'm not one to stick my head in the sand, so....
This is awesome! Now I can visualize how it can happen with a real fighter to oppose Obama :). So glad you posted this.
It actually hit me the same way when I first put those two graph lines together.
Ghost,
McCain and Palin had every chance of winning the 2008 election. The problem was that they not only became antagonistic with their campaign team, but even let it show. As a result, Obama/Biden came accross as much more polished and "presidential" looking.
McCain allowed his sinking poll numbers during the general election to make him look frightened during the debates. The message the public got was "this guy can't handle pressure." This made his poll numbers tank further, making him act even more afraid, in a never ending cycle. A good relationship with his campaign team would have gotten him the coaching he needed, but to a large degree he wrote his team off and "went solo."
Palin did the the same thing. While she exhibited no fear in the debates, she hurt herself badly by publicly criticizing her own team, winking incessantly to the audience, and bragging about her $120,000 dress from Alaska just because her campaign team told her not to wear it because it would make her appear snobbish (which to some people I suspect it did). She appeared more like a revolutionary actress than a VPOTUS candidate. She too needed coaching from her campaign team, but she wrote them off just as McCain did.
Stu
Stu: Sounds like at least in part we saw completely different campaigns in 2008. I do agree they had a chance to win (I'm not sure about "every chance") and blew it, but I'm on another planet for the rest of it.
What I saw as McCain's mistakes were:
1. Refusing to call out Obama on much of anything.
2. Running back to Washington to "reach across the aisle" during the "money crisis", after which his numbers tanked immediately.
On Sarah's part, she never HAD a "$120,000 dress from Alaska"--and her campaign team bought the entire wardrobe the media screamed about, a wardrobe that she did NOT keep after the campaign was over. Nor did she write off her campaign team or publicly contest with them that I ever saw in any TV appearance I was able to catch, though what you saw in Vermont was quite possibly different from what aired in Colorado (and we had no Fox News then). It is possible that she joked about that dress AFTER the firestorm hit in an attempt to point out how ridiculous it was to think she'd do something like that (go on a shopping spree--which is not her at all); that would sound like the Sarah I know.
I absolutely disagree that she acted inappropriately but rather believe (fervently, I must add) that the problem was her willingness to GO ALONG with her campaign team, to NOT talk about key issues that she knew SHOULD have been talked about.
However, I will say this: Whether your image or mine or somewhere in between is the most accurate "take" on how things went down in 2008, McCain/Palin STILL came within 6% of Obama overall on Election Day. And if We the People can't do 7% better than THAT in 2012, no matter who gets the nomination in the end, then shame on us.
McCain was a horrible candidate. He refused to confront Obama on his sizable 'radical associations' baggage, claiming it wouldn't be proper. And of course, the 'neutral' media openly supported Obama and drooled all over him.
Despite all that, McCain still came close to winning, which tells me that a good candidate can beat Obama, especially with his now low approvals.
Hi Ghost,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I saw very clear signs that McCain/Palin were at odds with their campaign team, and Obama/Biden were listening to their organization. I think this, more than any other factor, is why the GOP lost.
Stu
Will: Agreed.
Stu: Agreeing to disagree can be a good thing. I seriously doubt the Cheyenne, Lakota, and Arapaho warriors were all best buddies at the Battle of the Greasy Grass, but they WERE staunch allies. Custer, on the other hand, pretty well wrote the book on insubordination when he deliberately chose to attack the Indian camp without waiting for either Terry or Crook AND after refusing use of the Gatling guns.
And we know how THAT turned out.
Not that I'm saying you and I and Will compare to Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Gall, but still...:)
![How Has President Obama Done In His Last Three Years So Far? (Hub Poll: 50%-Pass, 38%-Fail) 3-9-12 [39*-42]](http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4465029_50.jpg "How Has President Obama Done In His Last Three Years So Far? (Hub Poll: 50%-Pass, 38%-Fail) 3-9-12 [39*-42]")
David Warren Level 2 Commenter 13 months ago
Great hub! I must have been going in the right direction. If you recall my comment about being inspired to catch up with political homework earlier, after spending four or five hours browsing www.rasmussenreports.com/ was the most reliable source,in my opinion.