Newsweek poll Obama approval numbers up and dems close enthusiasm gap

[craigmatic]

Despite doom-saying about Democrats’ chances in the midterms, the latest NEWSWEEK poll (full results) shows that they remain in a close race with Republicans 12 days before Election Day, while the president’s approval ratings have climbed sharply. The poll finds that 48 percent of registered voters would be more likely to vote for Democrats, compared to 42 percent who lean Republican (those numbers are similar to those in the last NEWSWEEK poll, which found Democrats favored 48 percent to 43 percent). President Obama’s approval ratings have jumped substantially, crossing the magic halfway threshold to 54 percent, up from 48 percent in late September, while the portion of respondents who disapprove of the president dropped to 40 percent, the lowest disapproval rating in a NEWSWEEK poll since February 2010.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/poll-obama-approval-jumps-dems-more-fired-up.html

This makes me feel better about our chances in November.

[Phx_Dem]

1. 54 percent approval? Think we'll hear anything about it from the assholes on cable?

Yeah, me neither.

:-(

[Thrill]

2. Not a chance

[craigmatic]

3. Nope the lazy media has their narrative and they're just going to stick with it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. CNN headline story while in the gym this evening: "Category 4 for Democrats"!!!! n/t

[FBaggins]

47. The reason that made the news is that it was Peter Hart that said it.

A well-regarded democratic pollster and political consultant who has worked over 70 statewide elections and currently teaches at Berkley.

At this stage of the game, political consultants are supposed to sound like Pelosi. Cautiously optomistic.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. But they weren't optimistic; they were declaring that the Democrats are losing BIG! n/t

[Imajika]

4. Newsweek's pollster must be doing things a lot differently...

...than the rest.

54% approval? No one has the President even close to that.

According to this poll, it looks to me like we shouldn't be losing seats in November at all - we should be winning seats.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Oh my damn! The next sound you hear will be that of Hannity's head exploding.

:rofl:






:kick:

[Arugula Latte]

6. Quick! Someone get a media suicide watch going!

[RBInMaine]

7. Gee, AP would disagree. But then again, PISS ON AP !

[jenmito]

8. Olbermann just mentioned it to Larry Scanlon, Political Director of AFSCME, who wasn't suprised! n/t

[DrToast]

9. 48-45 Democrats ahead in LIKELY voters

I hope that turns out to be true.

[FBaggins]

15. Kinda sorta "likely" (edited)

Polling firms have somewhat different methods of determining whether someone is likely to vote. From the report, it appears that all they do is ask "are you sure that you're registered at your current address?" - and that moves you from "registered" to "likely".

Which explains why LVs make up such an incredibly large proportion of their sample (about 90% when most pollsters are closer to 60% or less).

IOW... it's really somewhere between a "registered voter" and a "really registered voter" model.

Which means that the poll is actually quite close to most of the other polling... much of which shows a Democratic lead among RVs.

On edit - I'm now not certain that this is true. The same question appeared in their earlier polls, but then there were additional questions to identify "certain" voters. Whatever their LV model is, however, it seems to produce far more LVs than the normal model.

[tritsofme]

10. This poll had Dems at +16 before election day 2006

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/house/us/generic_congressional_ballot-22.html

And now shows Democrats at +3.

Sometimes the headline number isn't the whole story.

[Imajika]

11. Yeah, but who was doing Newsweek's polling then?

That could have changed.

Now they are using someone called Princeton Survey Research.

[Politics_Guy25]

12. 54% approval rocks-my god

That is a stellar number. Go Obama! Yes we can!

[FBaggins]

13. Princeton Survey Research Associates was their pollster both years. n/t

[Imajika]

16. Interesting...

Well, I assume they are a solid polling outfit with a good track record then.

These numbers are astonishingly good. I have to wonder why they don't even remotely track with numbers from anyone else at all.

If these polling results are correct, we should have absolutely no problem holding seats in CA, WA, PA, WI. In fact, with these numbers we should be poised to possibly pickup seats in places like Kentucky and Missouri.

This poll even has Democrats ahead in likely voters? Pretty amazing.

[Beetwasher]

18. Yup, Seem There Must Be Some SERIOUS Differences In The "Likely Voter" Screens, Huh?

Make you wonder.

[FBaggins]

19. Makes you wonder what exactly?

Whether Newsweek knows what they're doing and every other polling firm does not?

But yes, there appears to be a serious difference in their LV modeling. Roughly 90% of their RV sample made it through the screen... when Gallup (for instance) doesn't usually get above 60%.

And in the real world we know that it's somewhere between 40-50%.

[Beetwasher]

20. Makes Me Wonder What Those Differences Are. Why Are You So Incurious?

Do you think you already have all the answers?

Your "real world" is obvious to everyone. It's a world where you say what's "real" despite all evidence to the contrary.

Have a Scooby snack Scrappy! Woof! And keep doing everything you can to deny Dems MOJO! :rofl:

[FBaggins]

24. One positive possibility

if you're grasping at straws... they polled quite a few cell phone users.

[Beetwasher]

27. Thanks For The Info, Scrappy! Gee, Not Like Polling Cell Phones Would Make ANY Difference

Nahh. Not important in Scrappy's "reality". :rofl:

[FBaggins]

30. THAT big a difference?

Please.

Let's make it simple enough that even you will understand.

In a normal mid-term election... 40% of registered voters actually vote. We're hoping that the number will be much higher this year and it might get as high as 50%. Most polling firms' LV screen gets their sample down pretty close to that.

Newsweek hit 90%. That would mean that every single cell phone user (and then some) they polled was a democrat (and certain to vote) if that's what accounts for the difference.

You're really going to look at half a dozen polls from reputable polling firms and compare it to ONE poll from a company that doesn't do much political polling... and say THIS is the one that is getting it right?

And they :rofl: at anyone who finds that unlikely?

Your ability to entertain knows no bounds.

[Beetwasher]

31. That Plus Differences In Likely Voter Screens, Duh

Obviously they use very different methodologies, and Gallup's has been suspect for some time.

[ProSense]

21. So this is a bad poll and the others were good? n/t

[FBaggins]

22. Which "bad" and "good" are we talking about?

If it's "good" as in "good news" - of course not. This would be pretty good news if there was reason to believe that it was accurate.

But it would take a massive lapse (well beyong Dewey Defeats Truman) for all of those other firms (most of which have a better reputation) to have been so far off.

[Beetwasher]

23. Did They Poll Cell Phones?

Newsweek did.

[FBaggins]

25. Some did and some didn't.

I guess that was a "yes" on straws.

You really think that cell phone only voters are 30% more likely to vote democratic?

If it were that big... don't you think it would have had an impact on polling 2,4,6 years ago? Or did you just get your first cell phone?

[Beetwasher]

28. Really? Which One's Did?

Let's see proof.

[FBaggins]

33. Gallup. Pew. NYTimes. ABC/WAPost. Heard of any of them?

Pretty much, the ones that don't are the ones that can't (the automated pollsters aren't allowed to call cell phones, so PPP and Rasmussen are out).

From Gallup:

"Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each daily sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday."

Survey USA has done some. I don't know whether their national polling does.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportUC.aspx?g=e60896b9-ddf1-4e3d-b72d-b616f1dc9ee1
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3abeab43-380a-42cd-9f2a-6f35e089a6e2

From HuffingtonPost

The impact such a bias may have on this year's pre-election polls depends in part on the polls involved. At the national level, many organizations now routinely sample and call both landline and mobile phones. These include, in addition to the Pew Center, ABC News/Washington Post, AP/GfK, CBS News/New York Times, Gallup (both their daily tracking and the surveys in partnership with USA Today), Kaiser Family Foundation, McClatchy/Marist University, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and Newsweek.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/pew-research-cell-phone-p_n_761760.html

[Beetwasher]

34. Good Job Scrappy! Then We've Narrowed It Down To Differences In Likely Voter Screens

Which would be the most likely culprit for our huge discrepancies. Or are you saying Newsweek Polls are just plain garbage?

Why is Gallup's methodology correct, but Newsweek's isn't?

Here's a Scooby Snack for the great Googling job, Scrappy!

[FBaggins]

38. We've "narrowed it down" to exactly what I started with?

How interesting.

Yes... their poll looks far more like a RV poll (where we often lead slightly), and the percentage of respondents who they included comes close to matching that.

Why is Gallup's methodology correct, but Newsweek's isn't?

I don't think that Gallup US correct (at least I hope they aren't). But wouldn't you be happier with a LV screen that actually comes up with a number of LV that at least comes CLOSE to the number of voters that we know are actually likely to vote?

But as much as you would like to limit it to them... Gallup isn't the only one with results that rubbish this poll.

We can't guess why Newsweek's methodology is off from the rest because they haven't (AFAIK) released it... we just know that it is.

So the question isn't why would we assume that Gallup is right and Newsweek is wrong... but why would we assume that every major polling firm is wrong and Newsweek (and Bloomberg) are correct? It could] happen... it would be great if it did happen... but why (apart from wishful thinking) would we assume that it DID happen?

[Beetwasher]

39. No, Scrappy, YOU DO Assume Gallup Is Right And Newsweek Is Wrong, Because You ALWAYS Assume Dems

Don't have any momentum. Despite contradictory evidence. There are plenty of polls that back up the Democratic momentum, despite the specific numbers, they show trajectory, you just choose not to look at them.

But have a Scooby Snack anyway! Woof! :rofl:

[FBaggins]

42. Welcome to bizarro world friends.

In reality, you always assume that we have momentum... regardless of contrary evidence.

You know... most people get past the "if my eyes are covered then nobody else can see it either" between nine months and a year old. When do you plan on catching up?

There are plenty of polls that back up the Democratic momentum, despite the specific numbers, they show trajectory, you just choose not to look at them.



"Trajectory"

[Beetwasher]

43. You're So Cute, Scrappy!

Now you're all about the generic? Never mind all the statewide races that have narrowed. Those are meaningless now, because Scrappy can't except the fact that the Dems are narrowing pretty much every race they were supposed to totally lose because they were so far behind in August. :rofl:

Poor poor Scrappy, can't stand it that Dems may not do so horrible.

[FBaggins]

45. All?

Or just the 4-5 we said over a month ago that Democrats needed to focus on?

Glad to see that's showing some results... but it's naive in the extreme to think that's a national trend that reaches into the House races and state legislatures. The vast bulk of the recent polling (yes, in specific races as well) says that's not true.

When you made your "shot their wad" prediction (end of August?), there were about 65-70 competitive democratic House seats and four more than were considered gone already. Now there are 91 and 6.

The most recent race rating changes by Cook.

•WISCONSIN | Senate: Toss Up to Lean Republican (10/21/10)
•MISSOURI | Senate: Toss Up to Lean Republican (10/21/10)
•CONNECTICUT | Senate: Toss Up to Lean Democrat (10/21/10)
•MASSACHUSETTS | District 10: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•KANSAS | District 3: Lean Republican to Likely Republican (10/20/10)
•ILLINOIS | District 10: Toss Up to Lean Democrat (10/20/10)
•FLORIDA | District 12: Likely Republican to Lean Republican (10/20/10)
•ARIZONA | District 3: Likely Republican to Lean Republican (10/20/10)
•TENNESSEE | District 4: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•PENNSYLVANIA | District 4: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (10/20/10)
•OHIO | District 6: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•NEW YORK | District 22: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (10/20/10)
•NEW YORK | District 20: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•NEW HAMPSHIRE | District 1: Toss Up to Lean Republican (10/20/10)
•MISSISSIPPI | District 4: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•MISSOURI | District 4: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•MISSOURI | District 3: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (10/20/10)
•MINNESOTA | District 8: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (10/20/10)
•IOWA | District 2: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (10/20/10)
•IOWA | District 1: Likely Democrat to Lean Democrat (10/20/10)
•INDIANA | District 2: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•FLORIDA | District 22: Lean Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•ARIZONA | District 7: Likely Democrat to Toss Up (10/20/10)
•ALABAMA | Governor: Lean Republican to Likely Republican (10/14/10)
•SOUTH CAROLINA | Governor: Likely Republican to Lean Republican (10/14/10)

[Beetwasher]

46. LOL! There's NO MOMENTUM!!!! Who Ate My Scooby Snacks??!!!

I didn't say "all the state races showed Dems narrowing". I said "Never mind all the statewide race that have narrowed."

There's a significant semantic difference between those two sentences. I think a bright pup like you can figure out the difference. When you do, there's a Scooby Snack in it for ya!

[FBaggins]

48. So how many is "all"?

Does it count races that have narrowed in the other direction? This IS the part of the political season where races TEND to narrow after all.

As I said... the races that are showing the most promise (PA, IL, WV, FL Gov, maybe NV) are some of the ones that we said Democrats needed to focus on in their "triage" attempts. Should we be surprised that this has had an effect?

There's a massive difference between saving the races that can be saved... and some sort of national momentum raising chances all across the board. That could still happen in the race's final week (it has before), but there is little evidence of it at this point.

[Beetwasher]

49. LOL! THERE'S NO MOMENTUM!!!!

Yes, Scrappy, you keep telling yourself that. Maybe you can create you're own little reality again, you know, one in which there's no way Murkowski is going write in. :rofl:

[FBaggins]

50. Surreal.

Strange... while all the facts point to you not having the first clue what you're talking about... I find myself hoping that I have to eat a bunch of Corvus Brachyrhynchos on November 3rd. :)

Have a good evening.

[Beetwasher]

52. Hey Everyone! Scrappy Doo Says NO MOMENTUM!

Despite all evidence to the contrary!

[FBaggins]

53. I suppose it would be a waste of time...

To ask you to actually provide some of that evidence?

[Beetwasher]

54. Scrappy, You're So Adorable! Using Puppy Power! To Deny Dem Momentum!

You see, the Dems narrowing the gap and/or pulling ahead in all those races (PA, WV, LA, WI, NV, CO etc.) is NOT momentum to Scrappy! It's something else, but definitely NOT momentum! :rofl:

[FBaggins]

55. A simple "Yes, it would be a waste of time" would have sufficed.

You see, the Dems narrowing the gap and/or pulling ahead in all those races (PA, WV, LA, WI, NV, CO etc.) is NOT momentum

So national momentum is not measured by nationwide tracking figures or overall rating changes nationwide... but by six races?

Can you tell me how many statewide races are being run this year? In a no momentum environment, wouldn't you expect a handful to move one way and a handful to move the other? Of course you would... at least a sane person would.

But let's take a look anyway.

PA - Definite improvement.

WV - No such evidence exists. Some polls show movement one way... some the other, but the race is essentially unchanged.

LA - You're kidding, right? Fifteen straight polls (including PPP) showing a consistent gap around 12 points... but the Melancon campaign claims that their internal poll shows constant tightening... and THAT's your third-listed evidence of national momentum?

WI - More evidence that this is your first time observing politics. You can ignore any number of bad polls and a SINGLE poll from a virtually unknown polling firm that looks more favorable is suddenly the story of the campaign? You're not even going to wait for ONE of the existing polls to tighten before it becomes your 4th-highest example of momentum?

NV - Now you're starting to scare me. These are your best examples of good news? You missed that the most recent polls were moving in the other direction (including the Mason Dixon poll)? Let me guess... they're all caught up in your blind spot?

CO - Same story. A month's worth of polls showing a small gap... then one decent poll from PPP... then right back to polls showing a small gap in the other direction (ending with an Ipsos poll with our guy trailing by three). And all you can see is the PPP poll, right? Conveniently ignoring the previous two PPP polls showing that even their "good" poll was movement in the wrong direction?


Let's take a look at a few more, shall we?

WA - Murray is pretty likely to win, but she was six or eight points up a week or ten days ago and now she's up by two in the three most recent polls. Applying your standard above, is that "narrowing the gap" evidence of momentum?

OH - was tied or slightly leaning D 3-4 months ago, but the gap has steadily widened into the 20s against us. Is this simply evidence that the republicans played that one state well... or that they have national momentum?

HI (Gov) - Months of polls showing a solid double-digit lead for Abercrombie... but three polls this month say it's a two-point race. Which is it? A local variation or a national trend?

IL (Gov) - Quinn was ahead slightly at the end of September. Now he trails by about five. Which is it?


We can play this game all day... but national momentum would be reflected in overall statistics... not in cherry-picked races.

[Beetwasher]

57. Conversely You Can Just Admit The Dems Have Momentum Instead Of Relying on Puppy POWER!

Nahh, You stick with yr puppy power denialism, it's so cute!

[ProSense]

26. "This would be pretty good news if there was reason to believe that it was accurate."

Why do you believe it's inaccurate?

Gallup polling was recently called into question.

[FBaggins]

35. Why?

Because every other poll disagrees with them.


These aren't within the MOE of each other. If there was one poll at R+10 and one at D+3... you wouldn't know (statistically speaking) which one was within the MOE of the "real" number and which one was a statistical outlier. But when you have half a dozen polls in a row say R+7 give or take three points... then you know that a D+3 is the statistical outlier. You don't ignore it... but you certainly don't accept it as the new definition of the race.

Keep in mind... we're just talking statistics here. There could be a structural error that has nothing to do with sample variation that could make all of them wrong and this one right... but Newsweek isn't exactly the gold standard of polling KWIM? Not when compared to Gallup,Ipsos,Pew, etc. They've done thousands upon thousands of pollitical polls and Newsweek (PSRA) does maybe a dozen a cycle. Princeton isn't even really a political polling firm.

[ProSense]

36. NBC/WSJ

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll

However, there are glimmers of hope for Democrats in the poll. For starters, President Barack Obama's numbers have improved slightly. His job-approval rating among registered voters stands at 47 percent, up one point from last month and three points from August.

Same direction, positive.

"Because every other poll disagrees with them" is not scientific, nor does it prove you have any knowledge of the internal working of each poll.

[Beetwasher]

37. As Far As I'm Concerned Enough Of The Polls Show The Same TRAJECTORY

Which is more important than the actual numbers to some degree since at this point it's not possible to really determine the "fudge factor" involved.

Of course, the big exception to the trajectory is Gallup. Surprise. Not.

[FBaggins]

40. How can you say that with a straight face?

How can you pretend that all the polls are moving in the right direction except for Gallup when the polls are there for everyone to look at?

Pew just gave us the worst number of the cycle (I think ever). Reuters turned in the worse of the cycle. I'm not sure that I've ever seen Zogby this bad (though I'm not a big fan since he went virtual). Same for CBS. CNN is essentially unchanged.

Heck... even this Newsweek poll is worse than the last one they ran (D+5 among RV and D+8 among "definite" voters)

That TPM tracking of all polls sure doesn't show a tightening.

Heck... Gallup is just about the only one showing things getting better... so you couldn't ever get that right.

[Beetwasher]

41. Aww, Poor Scrappy, Can't Stand It That Dems May Not Do As Badly As Gallup Says!

Here, have a Scooby Snack, maybe that'll make you feel better!

[beaglelover]

29. They included cellphones

They included people with cellphones, not just land lines. Most of the other polls only call land lines. This is a very good sign for the democrats!

[FBaggins]

44. That's a common error.

Most of the major national firms include cell phones in their sample.

But the ones that don't also provide the largest number of polls (Rasmussen, PPP, etc). I don't think Survey USA does for national races.

[Kind of Blue]

14. Fantastic! I knew as soon as our president got

out there, the mood and the numbers would change. Wish there were two of him, one always schooling people about what's going on!
KnR

[impik]

32. Of course. He is awesome.

[Aramchek]

56. this poll shows a Repuke enthusiasm gap. Imagine that.

[AtomicKitten]

58. Those figures are tough to ignore but I'm sure the MSM will give it their best shot. nt