Powered by TypePad

« Income Inequality And Volatility | Main | The Financial Crisis »

December 15, 2010



That's depressing.


They just lost how many seats in the House and Senate? Just lost over 600 seats in State races nationwide? I think the WaPo is cooking something.


In 2012 Barry O has 35% of the votes and the NY, Mass, Calif, Md and Ill electoral votes sowed up. A nice start for him. The Indies hate him by 2-1 in Gallup/Ras -- NOT good. So in 2012 if gas is $3+/gal. and unemployment is 8%+ and the Fed operating deficit is $1TRILLION, he'll have no chance if the Repubs pick a credible opponent. God forbid there is a mass terrorist attack before then in the US, then he might as well not even bother.


PS: the Senate approve Bush tax rate extension 81-19 WITH Pres. Obama backing! On to the House for passage. Barry O's Moral?
When confronted by hostage takers....GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!!!!

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

I thought I read some where that the poll was 22% republicans and 38% democrats. Altho it could be a different poll.


I think Obama giving an indication he is capable of doing a deal has helped him. I am guessing most folks really did not see his self-minimizing press conferences.

Polls don't mean anything right now.

Dave (in MA)

"random national sample of 1,001 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones"

"Adults", not "registered voters" or "likely voters".


The WaPo just did a poll where it was clear that those they selected to ask were unaware the Republicans who were just elected don't take office until Jan 20. I think they have a special list of dummies they tap.

I thought I read yesterday at Insty that the Post's poll which showed Obama at his lowest point ever was not
published by the paper.
Was that report wrong?
Is this a different, cover up poll?


Nope, Clarice, same crappy poll. The lowest point, however, was for Obamacare.

(Another) Barbara

I thought I read some where that the poll was 22% republicans and 38% democrats. Altho it could be a different poll.

Yeah Jane, and the remainder don't vote at all, more than likely. A poll about political figures, parties and issues that's conducted with any adult answering the phone is just about useless, in my opinion. But as is rarely the case, my opinion counts in this instance because polling is the biz I was in for several decades.


Obama's polling does have a robust floor and it baffles me.

His RAS numbers have been sideways for a year now in spite of everything.

Defeating Obama in 2012 should not be taken for granted.

Jeff Shoemaker

I call Bradley Effect.

Telling a pollster you like Obama is one thing. Telling a voting machine you like Obama is something else.


I dunno, I was hoping the Bradley Effect was operative in the 2008 polling and that didn't work out so well.

However, we still have two very long years to go.

Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)

AB - How should a valid poll be conducted?

Old Lurker

Dunno huxley. 90%+ of Blacks and very high % among Jews and you have a rock solid base which should not baffle you.


Teflon Quota President. That's why it's so important for GOP leadership to clearly articulate conservative principles 24x7 all day everyday for the next two years. Oh-Oh.

"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

(Another) Barbara

AB - How should a valid poll be conducted?

You must never give me an opening like that, Jane. That's like asking squaredance (whose posts I adore!) why he/she thinks our country might be in trouble.

Yes, all adults may be affected by what happens in Washington, but opinions are important to lawmakers only on the basis of how many votes may be gained or lost by the action they take.

There are standards too numerous to cite that will be followed in a good poll, but the correct sampling plan is the first and basic foundation. You wouldn't phone teetotalers to determine whether people think gin is better than vodka, and you don't contact non-voters to learn which party's stance gains their favor. Nice to know, maybe, but to an elected official it doesn't count for much.


A poll taken in Dec. '10 is utterly and completely meaningless for an event occuring in Nov. '12. I still have to manage my poor temperament towards the fool for at least two more years.


I still maintain that Obama's recent one and a half press conferences about which so many bloggers have opined, did not play so badly for the muddle.

Danube of Thought

His latest "strongly approve" figure at Raz is 22%. Almost half of that figure is black people.

But it will still be a challenge to dislodge him, and the biggest hurdle right now is the lack of a compelling candidate--but there's a long way to go.


Way OT,
Anyone else get the Brooks athletic shoe ad in the left hand margin with the guy that looks like Tyrone Power in the turban?
It is Tyrone Power and it's from one creepy movie called Nightmare Alley. Very memorable and kind of sordid movie with some great acting.

(Another) Barbara

I still maintain that Obama's recent one and a half press conferences about which so many bloggers have opined, did not play so badly for the muddle.

I think you're right, and just wait until the press and the Dems start calling the results of today's vote "the Obama tax cuts."

Republicans have again been suckered.


Crappy methodology, WaPo, Bradley effect.

L!ink U!nder N!ame.

Open software Christmas trinkets @ the LUN.


Could I cross examine the poll?


That poll has been cooked so badly it has scorchmarks

Dave (in MA)

L!ink U!nder N!ame, what does "LUN" mean?



Old Lurker: Blacks are ~12.5% and Jews are 2.2% of the US population. That's a good base but still leaves about 85% of Americans in neither category.

Obama's RAS approval has been pretty steady in the mid-40s for a year now, even though Obama has had little good news and numerous setbacks.


It is that time of year again. No, not Christmas, or the new calendar year, but time once again to complete my "Annual Report on Possible Research Misconduct."

Of course that means we have to have policies and procedures in place to handle allegations of research misconduct (we do!). Along with a lactation policy, but that's not germane here.

If we do not provide this report in a timely manner, all funding from DHHS will be revoked. This includes NIH.

Now the two-and-a-half of us all perform our research duties with the integrity expected by the Office of Research Integrity, the agency requesting the report.

The Siamese? Well, he's a but shifty. I may have to interrogate him. That must be why he uncharacteristically has abrogated his usual spot here in the lab, and is instead sleeping in the house today. What's he hiding?

Old Lurker

Your math is fine, huxley.

OK. Let's throw in Teachers and non-military Government Employees (F,S&L).

Now are we at the irreducable 22%?


Did they conduct that report at Penn State, where Michael Mann, hangs out, Dr. J.


Unions. His approval is hanging on because of government employee unions (including teachers). Add the bosses at UAW and other non govt unions. Most of the rank and file of the non govt unions are not amused.

Rob Crawford

Most of the rank and file of the non govt unions are not amused unemployed.



Penn State has to do the same. I'd bet that Mann receives no money from NIH -- I'd think it is DOE. They probably have the same sort of thing though.

What they are trying to protect is the putative whistleblower who finds evidence of research misconduct. That's fine I suppose -- larger organizations need it.

I've run across a Prof who took equipment and reagents from the lab to make methamphetamine at home, and then transport is across state lines. Nice guy; had an office in the corridor opposite mine. He's now in Australia.

Then there was the Prof who managed call girls from his office. Then there was the Prof who re-roofed her house from grant monies.

But the Mann thing does point out how silly all of these sorts of policies and procedures can be.


You are treating him like a Glow Worm.


His poll numbers mean nothing because he has a floor that no other President ever had.

The only number that does matter is 53%, his totals in the 2008 election. With incredible wind at his back, an unpopular 2 term president, favorable media coverage, economic meltdown, unheard of financial advantage, a Republican opponent that didnt excite the base, he only received 53% . That is his ceiling. 46% voted against him because they were either Republicans or Indy's that didnt trust the hopey changey thing. Can anyone give a reason that after first 2 years, any of these people will be convinced to vote for him?

He can go to the center all he wants, he cant undo obamacare and the failed stimulus. Therefore the next election will be fought over the 7% in the middle.

The issue is not the economy. It can grow at 4% the next two years but unlike 1984 ad 1996 people see dark clouds on the horizon. And frankly, he is not suited to change it. Also there was no President Gore, who as a candidate ran on Clinton's economy.

Finally, 6 electoral votes have switched from deep blue to deep red states which is a 12 vote difference. African American voters who are the reason for the floor in his poll numbers are also tapped out as a voting bloc for 2012.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vnjagvet

I think there is a large group of adults who are generally unaware of his agenda who want very much to see BO succeed because of his persona. He is charismatic in the minds of many who bought his schtick, and of some who didn't, but wish that his schtick revealed his real motives and believe and hope (against ample evidence to the contrary) that he really is intelligent and well-intended. To those in this category, as long as he maintains his image, he will be successful and probably reelected in spite of his incompetence. There are a lot of people out there who voted for him, still like him and want him to succeed.

With the MSM constantly reinforcing the schtick, ISTM that it is encouraging that he isn't getting more support from "adults" like those polled.

I wish it were not so, but It will be hard for us to turn it around in 2 years absent a complete meltdown by him.

Cecil Turner

I guess the difference between these numbers and Rasmussen's is that here they're polling adults, and Rasmussen polls voters. If so, the surge in support doesn't appear to be all that helpful.

Melinda Romanoff


Have you completed your annual sexual harassment review as well?

That gem is part of SarBox and full compliance can be achieved through agreeing, once again, to stop beating your wife, or opening the "boom-boom" room. I personally can't remember which because my ears are ringing from getting boxed and the spouse keeps showing me some keyring, as if I know what that unlocks around here.

What day is it?

OSHA Wednesday?


Re: meltdown, I don't think it will happen in public.



Fortunately I'm exempt from SarBox, and so far I've had to file no paperwork for an annual sexual harassment review. The requirement for one may still arrive in my inbox, though.

Danube of Thought

The WaPo figure of 49% is almost an outlier. Bloomberg has him at 47; everyone else has him at 45 except McClatchy at 42. (RCP polls)

Ralph L

Can anyone give a reason that after first 2 years, any of these people will be convinced to vote for him?
Althouse recently said she voted against Carter in '76 but for him in '80, so normally sensible people can do very silly things.

Why would anyone would admit that in public?

Rick Ballard

"Can anyone give a reason that after first 2 years, any of these people will be convinced to vote for him?"


If his opponent is KenDoll Romney, there is a more than fair possibility that a sufficient number will sit it out rather than support another oligarch and thereby give the Kendonesian the win. I don't disagree with your analysis at all but the Republicans are quite capable of nominating another politically spineless nonentity such as McCain (who might win today but would lose in '12).

There is no denying Obama's current putrescence and no reason to believe that he has any ability to improve but there is likewise no reason to believe that the Republican Party oligarchs will cheerfully give up their remaining power and good reason to believe that the populist wing will have to force their hand quite harshly in order to get them to budge.


Althouse recently said she voted against Carter in '76 but for him in '80

She was probably convinced that Reagan would start a nuclear war -- a common fear among liberals at the time.


I thought that was Goldwater.
Let's hope everyone dumb enough to still like The Won is out of work


"And I believe that Ronald Reagan will make this country what it once was -- an arctic region, covered with ice." - Steve Martin

Uncle BigBad

"She was probably convinced that Reagan would start a nuclear war -- a common fear among liberals at the time."

And not just liberals. I believed it, because I got all my news at the time from the New York Times. However, I reasoned that I would rather be blown up than reelect Jimmy Carter, so I voted for Reagan.

I didn't become a Reaganite when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers; I became one when he didn't rehire them.


"I think it was the wrong decision."

Obama said those words in response to which of this week's news stories?
A) Chavez announced his intent to rule Venezuela by decree
B) Wikileaks released thousands of diplomatic cables exposing (admittedly pedestrian) secret American communication
C) The World Cup was awarded to Qatar instead of the US

Somebody should ask the President what he's thinking. Where is Bill Clinton, anyway?


C... duh.

It was on that most important of news stations that the One spends all of his time watching for really critical developments that require his expertise.


What's a Turporducken?



Jane (sit on the couch or save your country)


I'm gonna read that tweet on the radio today. It's hysterical.


The positive number for Obama on virtually every question in the poll, except the federal deficit, is 43%. I'm thinking they had 43% SEIU members in the polling group (or at least 38%, since that's the number who approved of his handling of the federal deficit). What a joke!

The comments to this entry are closed.