SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 3:07:35 PM
From: DizzyG2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
And you will be greatly disappointed to know, Kenneth...

That the TOTUS's approval as measured by Rasmussen is:

Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. The President’s overall ratings have been within a point of the 56% level every day but one over the past three weeks. Forty-three percent (43%) now disapprove.
rasmussenreports.com

LOL!

Diz-



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 3:12:30 PM
From: JakeStraw2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224750
 
The honeymoon is over, a new Zogby national poll will signal today President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.

The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 3:14:50 PM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224750
 
Poll of change: Obama’s job approval slipping to ‘50-50’
Joe Dwinell By Joe Dwinell

The honeymoon is over, according to a national poll out today as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.

The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes - one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”

Pollster John Zogby said his poll will show Americans split on the president’s performance. He said the score factors out to “about 50-50.”

The poll, released this afternoon, shows the president’s “excellent or good” job performance rating hitting 49 percent, down 3 points from a March 5 Zogby poll. Other poll highlights include:

• 50 percent rate Obama’s performance as “fair or good.”

• 1 percent are not sure about the president’s performance.

• 45 percent believe the nation is heading in the right direction, an upward trend.

• 91 percent of Democrats rate the president favorably.

• 14 percent of Republicans support his performance in office.

Some polls show Obama coasting with a 65 percent job approval, but not in Zogby’s tally.

“The numbers are going down,” Zogby told the Herald. “It’s not because of the gaffes, but a combination of high expectations and that things aren’t moving fast enough with the economy.”

Zogby said any stumbling does serve as “red-meat fodder” for administration antagonists.

As for the president’s love of the limelight, it could backfire, according to a media watcher.

“I thought he overexposed himself weeks ago,” said Tobe Berkovitz, associate dean of Boston University’s College of Communication.

“I wonder when the public will say ‘Instead of being in front of the camera, be in front of a spreadsheet.’ ”

bostonherald.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 3:25:30 PM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224750
 
LOL you are such an idiot! How could something like Obama's approval rating make me sad?

You are way too wound up in politics.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 4:06:59 PM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
Global Recession, Security Challenges Test Obama's Popularity Among World Leaders
From France to Poland, from the Czech Republic to China, nations are rebuffing President Obama and offering little wiggle room for him to negotiate economic and security policies.
By Stephen Clark
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
foxnews.com

Only nine months ago, when he addressed an estimated 200,000 people in Germany, Barack Obama was heralded as "president of the world."

But now that he's president of the United States, the world doesn't appear to be following up on its endorsement.

From France to Poland, from the Czech Republic to China, many nations are rebuffing the president and offering little wiggle room for him to negotiate economic and security policies.

Obama faces his first major international test next week when the world's largest economies meet at the G20 summit in London.

"I think as the president heads to Europe, he faces a huge public relations disaster," said Nile Gardiner, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

"Europe is increasingly turning against his massive spending plans, which most European leaders see as a destructive way to move forward for the global economy and will only add to a massive American debt burden," Gardiner told FOXNews.com.

"At the same time, there is a growing impression across Europe that the Obama administration is inept and inefficient and increasingly poorly managed."

A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed Obama's plans for the U.S. to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who lost a confidence vote in his own parliament this week and whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

That followed concerns by Poland that the U.S., as a way to appease Russia, plans to bail out of a missile defense shield the Bush administration negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic.

"Russian generals, and even the Russian president, still continues to threaten us with the deployment of medium-range missiles in our immediate vicinity," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., in Brussels on Sunday. "So we signed with the previous administration. We patiently wait for the decision of the new administration and we hope we don't regret our trust in the United States."

Most European leaders favor tighter financial regulation, while the U.S. has been pushing for larger economic stimulus plans.

"We consider that in Europe we have already invested a lot for the recovery, and that the problem is not about spending more, but putting in place a system of regulation so that the economic and financial catastrophe that the world is seeing does not reproduce itself," French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a news conference in Berlin last week with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, rebuffing U.S. calls to spend more.

"I think it's fair to say on these economic issues, there seems to be a critical divide between the U.S. and some of our friends in Europe that is going to make it more difficult for the G20 to be successful," said Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings Institution.

But Sawhill and other economists downplay the growing friction between Obama and Europe.

"I don't think it has much of anything to do with him," Sawhill told FOXNews.com. "I think it has to do with a disagreement about what's the best response to the global recession. And many of the European countries are uncomfortable about the pressure they [see] us bringing to bear on them to stimulate the economy as much as we have ours."

Brad Setser, a fellow in geo-economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, added that disagreements like these are inevitable.

"I would say as any government or administration starts putting concrete proposals on the table, there are bound to be differences of opinion," he said. "And the Obama administration sought correctly to encourage Europe to respond as aggressively to the downturn in Europe as the U.S. has here."

Setser added, "A little bit of disagreement is healthy because it signals that countries are seriously debating and discussing the policy measures that are needed to get out of the current downturn."

But Europe isn't the only international ally that could turn on Obama. Australia's leadership, whose longtime enthusiastic support for America had buttressed the Bush administration, is reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Australia is a crucial U.S. ally in the Afghan war, and the largest contributor of forces outside NATO. In a meeting Tuesday with Obama, Australian President Kevin Rudd sidestepped talk about Australia's plans for Afghanistan and instead concentrated on agreements over global climate change.

"But we look forward very much to partnering with the United States in dealing with this big one for the future," Rudd said. "It's going to be tough, it's going to be hard, it's going to require a lot of political leadership. But with our partners around the world, I think our governments are determined to make a difference, and not just to push this one away permanently in the 'too hard' basket. I think that's good.

"And I'd just say it's great to have America on board. It's great to have America on board on this one. And, Mr. President, to see the return of U.S. global economic leadership. We appreciate that very much, and it's going to be necessary in the difficult times which lie ahead for certain," he said.

China, meanwhile, is expressing serious reservations about owning U.S. debt. And in the latest sign of Beijing's growing assertiveness on the international stage, China's central bank has called for the creation of a new global currency as an alternative to the dollar, .

China has more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasuries and other government securities. As the U.S. government ramps up spending to stimulate the economy and assist the battered financial sector, Chinese officials have said they are worried that inflation will result, which would erode the value of their dollar holdings.

In his press conference Tuesday night, Obama said the dollar is "extraordinarily strong right now" and attributed that to investors who "consider the United States the strongest economy in the world with the most stable political system in the world."

He added that while he hasn't looked at polling from around the world, U.S. efforts are paying off globally.

"I think it's fair to say that the response that people have had to our administration and the steps that we've taken are ones that are restoring a sense of confidence and the ability of the United States to assert global leadership," the president said.

Gardiner said Obama has an opportunity to put lingering concerns about his leadership to rest at next week's summit.

"I think Obama's trip to Europe next week is going to be critically important in terms of how he is perceived as a statesman on the world stage," Gardiner said, "and this is a make-or-break trip for the new president at time when many are questioning American global leadership."

He added that Obama has to present himself as a statesman with authority and a clear sense of direction.

"At present, the White House looks rudderless and confused," Gardiner said. "He must, above all, reassure the world that the United States rejects protectionism and that the United States also is not going to be overwhelmed by a mountain of debt that is going to tie the world's only superpower down for decades."



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 4:22:02 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
Obama said job creation in America is difficult in a time of economic hardship and that the work of the future should be in more high-paying, high-skill areas like clean energy technology.

If shit was electricity this guy would be a power company



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 5:08:03 PM
From: DizzyG3 Recommendations  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224750
 
Why are you wasting our time with inferior polling data, Kenneth?

You yourself have said that the only reliable pollsters are Zogby and Rasmussen. But don't take my word for it...let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

To: DizzyG
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps

That is correct. The only reliable polls are Zogby and Rassmussen.

Message 20510677

And then there is this one:

To: redfish
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps

Only pay attention to polls which normalize for party affiliation - RASMUSSEN, Zogby, IBD/TIPP, NBC/WSJ.

Message 20584044

And this one:

To: Wayne Van Scoyoc6:19:35 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps

Yes, I believe Zogby and RASMUSSEN which both put the margin at 2 points.

Message 20653338

And this one:

To: PROLIFE
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps

RASMUSSEN and Zogby are the only 2 polls I consider reliable but when another poster posts a poll showing Bush up by a substantial margin and there is a more recent poll showing an even race,...

Message 20576892

And this one:

To: Kenneth V. McNutt
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps

I only post the reliable polls - RASMUSSEN and Zogby.

Message 20571063

And finally this one:
To: steve harris
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps

Those guys don't know how to poll. Watch RASMUSSEN and Zogby. Those are the only reliable polls.

Message 20571063

From your very own mouth, Kenneth...the only reliable pollsters are Rasmussen and Zogby. Ironically, Zogby has the Teleprompter in Chief's approval rating at 50% and Rasmussen has it at 56%.

You are such a DNC parrot...Bawk! LOL

Diz-



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (62020)3/26/2009 5:21:55 PM
From: TideGlider3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
Why do you quote Gallup when the aren't reliable at all. The are your words right here!

Message 20549159

To: MKTBUZZ who started this subject 9/21/2004 11:13:05 AM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps Read Replies (1) of 768856

Why You Should Ignore The GALLUP Poll This Morning - And Maybe Other GALLUP Polls As Well
This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable GALLUP Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters. The same GALLUP Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that GALLUP gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?

Because the GALLUP Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked GALLUP, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:

Likely Voter Sample Party IDs Ð Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

Total Sample: 767
GOP: 305 (40%)
Dem: 253 (33%)
Ind: 208 (28%)

Registered Voter Sample Party IDs Ð Same Poll
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

Total Sample: 1022
GOP: 381 (38%)
Dem: 336 (33%)
Ind: 298 (30%)

In both polls, GALLUP oversamples greatly for the GOP, and undersamples for the Democrats. Worse yet, GALLUP just confirmed for me that this is the same sampling methodology they have been using this whole election season, for all their national and state polls. GALLUP says that "This (the breakdown between Reeps and Dems) was not a constant. It can differ slightly between surveys" in response to my latest email. Slightly? Does that mean that in all of these national and state polls we have seen from GALLUP that they have "slightly" varied between 36%-40% GOP and 32%-36% Democrat? I already know from an email I got from GALLUP earlier in the week that in their suspicious Wisconsin and Minnesota polls they seemingly oversampled for the GOP and undersampled for the Dems. For example in Wisconsin, in which they show Bush now with a healthy lead, GALLUP used a sample comprised of 38% GOP and 32% Democratic likely voters. In Minnesota where GALLUP shows Bush gaining a small lead, their sample reflects a composition of 36% GOP and 34% Democrat likely voters. How realistic is either breakdown in those states on Election Day?

According to John Zogby himself:

If we look at the three last Presidential elections, the spread was 34% Democrats, 34% Republicans and 33% Independents (in 1992 with Ross Perot in the race); 39% Democrats, 34% Republicans, and 27% Independents in 1996; and 39% Democrats, 35% Republicans and 26% Independents in 2000.

So the Democrats have been 39% of the voting populace in both 1996 and 2000, and the GOP has not been higher than 35% in either of those elections. Yet GALLUP trumpets a poll that used a sample that shows a GOP bias of 40% amongst likely voters and 38% amongst registered voters, with a Democratic portion of the sample down to levels they havenÕt been at since a strong three-way race in 1992?

Folks, unless Karl Rove can discourage the Democratic base into staying home in droves and gets the GOP to come out of the woodwork, there is no way in hell that these or any other GALLUP Poll are to be taken seriously.

How likely is it that the Democrats will suffer a seven-point difference against the GOP this November or that the GOP will ever hit 40%?

Not very likely.

The real problem here is that GALLUP is spreading a false impression of this race. Through its 1992 partnership with two international media outlets (CNN and USA Today), GALLUP is telling voters and other media by using badly-sampled polls that the GOP and its candidates are more popular than they really are. Given that GallupÕs CEO is a GOP donor, this should not be a surprise. But it does require us to remind the media, like Susan Page of USA Today, who wrote the lead story on the poll in the morning paper, and other members of the media who cite this poll today, that it is based on a faulty sample composition of 40% GOP and 33% Democrats.

Steve Soto :: 10:46 AM :: Comments (118) :: TrackBack (40)
Other blogs commenting on this post