This week's dumbest Obama polling question
December 10, 2009 9:05 am ET by Eric Boehlert
It comes courtesy of Public Polling Policy, last seen making headlines when, just days before Election Day, it announced that conservative Doug Hoffman boasted a "commanding" 17 point lead in the NY-23 special election last month. (Hoffman promptly lost.)
With its latest, PPP, which conducts automated, computerized surveys (i.e. push button phone replies only), the polling firm claims it has a shocker:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor.
First of all, if Obama wins his re-election in 2012 and he wins the popular vote 50% vs. 44% against his GOP challenger, that will be considered to be a landslide. A six-point win in a two-man nationwide race is enormous. (It's not that far off from what Obama trounced McCain last year; 53% vs. 46%.) Just sayin'.
Secondly, and more importantly, does it really make sense to take somebody's who's out of public life and no longer has a single political responsibility and who hasn't commented on, let alone taken a stance on, current events in nearly 12 months, and pit him with against the man sitting in the Oval Office and who's forced to make all sorts of unpopular decision on a weekly basis? Of course it doesn't make sense.
Why, other than headline trolling, would PPP poll about somebody who will never run for office again? Why is PPP asking people about a fictitious candidate? And if that's the route it wants to take, why doesn't PPP ask people if they'd prefer if Ronald Reagan were president, or Teddy Roosevelt? Or Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise for that matter. They're in the public arena today about as much as Bush is, which is to say no at all.
Meanwhile, I love the hilarious headline Politico's Ben Smith put on his PPP item; "Bush closes the gap." If that's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek joke, than I give Smith credit because he sees the absurdity of treating Bush as a candidate; as somebody who's trying to close "the gap." But if the headline's meant to be serious, than I'm laughing at Smith, because whole Bush vs. Obama premise is almost too dumb for words because one guy no longer has to make a single difficult decision (except maybe select a golf partner), while the other one has to make tough, controversial choices pretty much on a weekly basis and be held up for relentless critiques. But gee, we're supposed to be surprised by the polling results?
UPDATED: And congratulations PPP, you also scored the second dumbest Obama polling question of the week [emphasis added]:
Do you support the impeachment of President Obama for his actions in office so far? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If you're not sure, press 3.
They learned how to do it under Clinton; the second time will be a breeze. They'll effectively hogtie the Obama administration for the following two years, and nothing will get done. Then, in 2012, the Democrats will be so weak and demoralized that the Back Room GOP King-makers will install another puppet in the white house... and I think I know who they have in mind.
"Do you support the impeachment of President Obama for his actions in office so far? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If you're not sure, press 3."
from Wikipedia
Somebody wanna figure this one out?
PPP uses survey techniques that are similar to what Rasmussen uses, and those techniques reach more conservatives (people who still have landlines, who stay home more days and nights to answer their phones, who don't have/use caller ID to screen calls, and who are willing to answer automated surveys) than they do liberals.
The firm's clients aren't exclusively Democrats, and questions that screen for bias on the part of the respondents are always appropriate.
Jedi, whaddaya mean "already" ? I saw calls for Obama's impeachment after the election but before the inauguration. I even asked the obvious question ( on what grounds ?) of a few people back then, and it's clear a lot of wingnuts think impeachment just means " we don't like the new president and want him fired!".
Good LORD!!!
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/12/09/back-to-the-30%e2%80%99s-national-socialist-and-republican-discourse-part-1/
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/12/10/back-to-the-30%e2%80%99s-national-socialist-and-republican-discourse-part-2/
I think what you fail to see is that a lot of America (30% by guess) doesn't have a problem with that, and actually is probably going "H3ll Yeah!".
What really scares me is that the rabid 30% may be able to convince another 21%, who aren't really paying attention, that electing an imbecile like Simple Sarah would be a good idea.
More than fair of you to give the benefit of the doubt, Cap., but I wouldn't bet on it. Experience has made it clear to me that people who aren't racist generally aren't the ones who jump in to cry "Race Card !" any time the right wing's racism is mentioned.
So I spent that thanksgiving semi arguing with him, I got him to say that he wished women didn't have the right to vote, wished we "shipped the blacks back to Africa" years ago and the only way to fix the country is revolution.
Plus, the gamer community needs to come out and reclaim their rightful use of "teabagging", ha!
Many of us are exposed to racists in our own families and understand exactly why rtwmd1230 made the comment about skin color.
We see it and hear it every day of our lives.
Exactly. That's why the Republicans, as a group, are not distancing themselves from the Birther nutbags. That is the basis on which they plan to impeach him.
We all know it has no merit, but a Republican controlled Congress can eat up months upon months forcing him to prove his citizenship.
not being darth dick.
...If Public Polling Policy ever calls you again, you'll leave a flaming mound of horse manure in our driveway: press 4.
For Senator Clinton to have a spouse that made a lot of money is understandable. Ex-Presidents have lots and lots of chances to make lots and lots of money. Active Presidents and Vice-Presidents aren't supposed to be raking in bucks from the private sector. They're supposed to be living on their salaries.
Just as with the example given above, comparing ex-President and retired from the limelight Bush with the active President Obama, the comparison is utterly ludicrous.
This week's dumbest Obama polling question
Even though I assume it is implied it should still have the proviso "so far this week".
A six-point win in a two-man nationwide race is enormous.
This should be "two person race", mainly because Simply Sarah is currently leading the pack in the "I want to be President" race.
Also, we have to remember that in the current world, 50% +1 is a landslide, if you are a Republican. If you are a Democrat it needs to be something like 59% + 34% + 12% to even be considered a "close race".
I'm thinking that the real value of this poll is as a measure of the number of the % of completely clueless, misinformed people in America.
And that would be anyone who answered anything other than "3" which is the option closest to, "WTF?!"
"No" is better than "Yes" but is STILL an invalid answer, since THERE ARE NO IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AT THE MOMENT.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Do you support NICEGUY EDDIE for PRESIDENT?
If yes: CLICK HERE
If no: CLICK HERE ANYWAY!
For there to be an impeachment proceeding, there has to be a legitimate, legal ground for complaint. Even our resident neocon nutcases can't come up with one.