Running on Repeal

so now gallup is always the poll to use? gallup leans left in most polls....i can just imagine what nigel would say if someone posted a rasmussen poll to substantiate their claims....

more nigel hypocrisy :clink:


No, Gallup isn't always the poll to use? Quit making shit up. Gallup had the relevant information readily available on a single chart.
 
BTW - Running on repeal may not be as "deadly" as you think...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...arch_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill

55% Favor Repeal

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

More at link.


I would add that the difference in polling results is due to two things: (1) the Gallup poll is a poll of adults whereas Rasmussen polls only "likely voters" and (2) Rasmussen's likely voter model trends Republican. On the question of whether the "Repeal It!" strategy is a good one, Rasmussen's result are probably a better indicator of its likely success than Gallup's.

Having said that, I think the reform law will only gain in popularity over time.
 
I would add that the difference in polling results is due to two things: (1) the Gallup poll is a poll of adults whereas Rasmussen polls only "likely voters" and (2) Rasmussen's likely voter model trends Republican. On the question of whether the "Repeal It!" strategy is a good one, Rasmussen's result are probably a better indicator of its likely success than Gallup's.

Having said that, I think the reform law will only gain in popularity over time.

lol....did i call it or what
 
lol....did i call it or what


It is easy to call something that Rasmussen himself admits:

First of all, we actually do have something in our daily presidential tracking poll that says that it's likely voters not adults, and we we do have a link to a page that explains something about the differences, maybe not as concisely or as articulate as I will say here...

There's a challenge to defining a likely voter. The process is a little different than in the week before an election for us than it is in two months before an election than it is in a year before an election. And to give a little history, normally if you would go do a sample of all adults, you go and interview whoever picks up the phone and you model your population sample to the population at large. When you begin to sample for likely voters you do it by asking a series of screening questions.

At this point in time, we use a fairly loose screening process, in the sense that we don't ask details about how certain you are to vote in a particular election next November. In fact, even the term "likely voters" is probably not the best term. I used to use the phrase "high propensity voters," because it was suggesting that these people who were most likely to show up in a typical mid-term election. We're not claiming this is a particular model of who will show up in 2010. When we used the phrase, "high propensity voters" -- I got a bunch of journalists who wrote back saying, "what does that mean?" I tried to explain it and they said, "oh you mean likely voters." So I finally just gave up.

Now for us [what] happens is that from this point in time, from now until Labor Day right before the election we will continue to use this model. These are people who are generally likely to show up in a mid-term election. When we get closer to the election, we add additional screens based on their interest in the election and their certainty of voting in this particular race and so the number does get more precise.

What does it mean in practical terms? Rasmussen Reports and Gallup are the only two polls out there with a daily tracking poll of the President's job approval. If you go back from January 20th on, most of the time you will see that Gallup's reported number is about three or four or five points higher than ours, because these are surveys and there is statistical noise. Sometimes the gap is bigger, sometimes its smaller. In fact there are some days when our number is a little bit higher than Gallup's. But typically, the gap between the adults and the likely voter sample is in the four or five point range.

The reason: Likely voters are less likely to include young adults, people who [as] Tom mentioned were very supportive of the President. They are less likely to include minority voters who are, again, very strongly supportive of this President. And so the gap is consistent.


http://www.pollster.com/blogs/so_whats_a_likely_voter_answer.php
 
Congress is almost always lower than the president. But Bush managed to break the trend for a short while in early 2007:

080513ApprovalsGraph3_J83y39apn.gif



http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/congress-approval-rating-ties-lowest-gallup-records.aspx

:lol:

One tiny blip from one polling source. Your hypocrisy is amazing. :)
 
One tiny blip from one polling source. Your hypocrisy is amazing. :)


Just to recap, you asserted that "Bush's numbers were always twice that of Congress," which is 100% false. I said, "No he wasn't. In fact, at times Congress was more popular than Bush," which is 100% true.

I'm not sure what you're laughing at, Chuckles.
 
Just to recap, you asserted that "Bush's numbers were always twice that of Congress," which is 100% false. I said, "No he wasn't. In fact, at times Congress was more popular than Bush," which is 100% true.

I'm not sure what you're laughing at, Chuckles.
There was more than the one time then?
 
Just to recap, you asserted that "Bush's numbers were always twice that of Congress," which is 100% false. I said, "No he wasn't. In fact, at times Congress was more popular than Bush," which is 100% true.

I'm not sure what you're laughing at, Chuckles.

Again, that was one mere blip by a single poll. Is your faith in polling that extreme? :)
 
It may not be as successful as anticipated:



And the numbers are only likely to increase from here. There simply isn't anything bad that can be said about the reforms that hasn't been said already and once people learn about the immediate benefits, I think the bill will only gain popularity.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

It's also interesting that some polls I've seen say that the majority of people want more health care reform on top of this bill.


My impression is that people were sick of the process, not the substance of health care reform. This shit went on for 18 months, Obama looked totally weak, and I suspect that people just get turned off by weakness and by dudes or gals who can't get shit done. Not to mention the left was turned off, in large measure, by how weak this bill was from a progressive view.

People dig strength, and people respect dudes and gals who can get shit done. I think Pelosi did the Yoeman's work on getting this crap done, but obama will reap whatever benefits are to be had ultimately.

As for the republicans running on repeal, let's freakin' be honest. That's just a cheap talking point that drives up cable ratings for O'Reilly and Beck. No party in any modern democratic nation that I'm aware of has ever run, and won, on a platform to take away people's healthcare. If the democrats were smart and blood thirsty- which is always open for doubt - they will campaign against republicans and point out that republicans not only voted to allow insurance companies to ban people with pre-existing conditions, but that the GOP now want to take away that benefit away from americans.

Bottom line, I think this repeal shit plays well to a teabagger cable and radio audience. But, I doubt its the way to win an election.
 
Back
Top