That’s the headline on the N.Y. Times’s home page.
Of course, headlines don’t always reflect the actual article, but here’s how the article starts:
WASHINGTON — At a time of deepening political disaffection and intensified distress about the economy, President Obama enjoys an edge over Republicans in the battle for public support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
This seemed like an interesting and somewhat contrarian conclusion, so I decided to look at the polling questions. It turns out that if you look at the actual poll, the results say no such thing. What the poll does tell you is that Obama is more popular than Congressional Republicans. On the other hand, Obama is more popular than Congressional Democrats, too. Obama is not going to be running against Congressional Republicans. Congressional Republicans are going to be running against Congressional Democrats, and Obama is going to be running in 2.5 years against a Republican who almost certainly won’t come from the ranks of Congressional Republicans.
The poll also shows that the public blames the Bush Administration more than it blames the Obama Administration for the nation’s economic troubles. But the poll also shows that nearly as many Americans identify as Republicans than as Democrats, and that the percentage of people who prefer a smaller government with fewer services has increased substantially since Obama took office, to a 56-34 majority. That’s hardly good news for Obama and his agenda, especially given that the poll surveyed everyone, not just likely voters, and likely voters lean Republican compared to the general public.
The poll, more generally, neither shows that Obama is doomed to political oblivion, nor that he has a clear “edge over [the] GOP.” It would have been interesting if the poll had asked voters whether they preferred Obama in a series of head to head matches with GOP figures like Palin, Romney, and McCain. If Obama had won such head to head matchups handily, the poll would show a real edge over the GOP. But the way the actual poll was reported reflects either wishful thinking, or an overzealous desire to “make news.”
UPDATE: A reader points to a very pertinent Gallup Poll from early February (but apparently just released) that asked registered voters (again, not likely voters, who track more Republican) whether, if the election were held today, they would vote for Obama or “the Republican candidate.” The results were Obama 44, Republican 42, with a margin of error of 4. And Gallup has Obama with a higher approval rating that does the Times, and most other polls. Right around when the Times was proclaiming Obama’s non-existent “edge,” the pro-Obama Huffington Post reported the Gallup poll with the headline “DANGER AHEAD: Obama Virtually Tied With GOP in 2012 Poll.”
rpt says:
Well, it is unreasonable or irrational to attribute responsibility to the person who was president for 8 of the last 9 years, who took office with a surplus, and created the deficit with unfunded wars, government programs and tax cuts for “my base”?
RE the preference for smaller government with fewer services, I’ll believe that when the respondents can actually identify the services they want cut. Poll answers are easy, like R’s who love getting their pictures taken with giant stimulus checks and Richard Shelby’s crusade against non-Alabamian earmarks.
February 11, 2010, 10:23 pmBorris says:
Of course they prefer Obama anything else would be an act of “straight up” racism
February 11, 2010, 10:30 pmmls says:
Who are the 8 percent that believe Members of Congress generally deserve to be re-elected? There can’t be that many in their immediate families.
February 11, 2010, 10:32 pmLN says:
Since Members of Congress are almost always re-elected, most voters’ “dissatisfaction” with Congress is bullshit.
February 11, 2010, 10:35 pmrequired says:
sorry for the snark and being OT but the best part of the poll though has to be the results of question #99 (page 27).
question 53 (the one the NYT converts to being support for repeal of the filibuster) is just plain wrong. Senate procedure calls for a simple majority to pass most legislation. I am trying to decide if the pollsters deliberately framed the question wrong to mislead or not.
February 11, 2010, 10:47 pmchiMaxx says:
Except that that’s exactly what the results say. This is not a poll about who the voters are planning to vote for this Fall or in Fall 2012. It’s a poll about who currently in power is more popular now, who the country trusts to lead more right now, and whose agenda is more popular. The desire for a more limited government you find is more than balanced by the strong desire to do away with the filibuster. Also notable is that after jobs (27%) and the economy (25%) the most important issue facing the country is health care (13%).
Of course, this may all be representative of the gap between counterintuitive to David Bernstein and counterintuitive in the real world.
Actually, it does show him having a clear edge over the GOP…right now. Criticizing an article that reports the most recent results of a long-term tracking poll based on the questions that were actually asked rather than some other crop of questions that you happen to think might be more personally interesting to you at this particular moment is like being annoyed that your weatherman turns out to be a poor movie reviewer.
February 11, 2010, 10:47 pmbyomtov says:
It would have been interesting if the poll had asked voters whether they preferred Obama in a series of head to head matches with GOP figures like Palin, Romney, and McCain.
If memory serves there was an actual head-to-head match with McCain about fifteen months ago. I seem to remember hearing something about it. And wasn’t Palin involved somehow? And wasn’t there some sort of earlier Romney-McCain contest that McCain won?
Transitivity of preferences, anyone?
February 11, 2010, 10:48 pmbadlaw says:
This is just more proof of the media’s left-wing bias. What’s the point of this arbitrary story that “proves” something we already know? The narrative conservatives are interested in involves Obama’s plummeting approval ratings and the likely gains the Republicans will make in Congress this year. We know Obama is still more popular than most people in Washington.
February 11, 2010, 10:52 pmJake says:
“Obama is not going to be running against Congressional Republicans.”
Actually, in a very real sense, he is. Just like Clinton did in ’96, by portraying them as obstructionists who want to take the country back to the Gilded Age (or at least the pre-New Deal era).
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983003,00.html
And I don’t think there’s any doubt that Congressional Republicans are running against him.
February 11, 2010, 10:58 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Hmmm.
Obama vs. McCain. Didn’t we already do that one? I’m sure we did that one.
Obama vs. Palin. He took the whole GOP house on at once, and beat them. She’s not going to do as well as they did.
Obama vs. Romney. There’s at least some uncertainty there. But I’m from Massachusetts with plenty of Romney experience; tend to give Obama the edge.
Obama vs. Elizabeth Warren. Primary fight. That’s the race I want to see. Palin v. Warren would be a blast.
Who in the Republican party would stand a chance against Warren? She’d get progressives, mainstream Dems, Hillary Dems, blue collars and Reagan Dems, quite a few moderates, suburban Republican women, Hispanics by default, LGBTs, probably some Tea Party types.
Warren would probably be a stronger candidate than Obama, especially if he keeps up with the Custer impersonation.
February 11, 2010, 11:07 pmShelbyC says:
And nothing changes in fifteen months, right?
February 11, 2010, 11:19 pmrpt says:
Borris Badenov.
February 11, 2010, 11:21 pmG. May says:
I think this poll is a bit closer to what Prof. Bernstein was looking for:
Gallup Poll – Obama v Republican Candidate
February 11, 2010, 11:34 pmG. May says:
And I’d like to thank you, pmk, for revealing the fact that you’re a dick instead of offering anything useful. PhD here I come!
February 11, 2010, 11:45 pmyankee says:
No news here. The trends here are quite consistent: Congress always has lower approval ratings than the President, who always has lower approval ratings than the Supreme Court. All three go up and down with the state of the economy. The fact that the President is more popular than the opposition party in Congress is not news.
It would be interesting to see the current numbers compared to historical figures though. Is Obama’s edge over the Congressional opposition greater or lower than historical averages?
As for this:
I think this is an odd criticism since the poll was an attempt to gague the opinion of the public, not to predict the outcome of the vote in November. It’s like criticizing a cookie sheet for not being a skillet.
February 11, 2010, 11:47 pmBrian G. says:
Are you suggesting the headline is fake but accurate?
February 12, 2010, 12:26 amorca says:
It would have been interesting if the poll had asked voters whether they preferred Obama in a series of head to head matches with GOP figures like Palin..
A recent poll shows 71% of Americans think Palin is unqualified to be president. Oh, please Republicans…nominate her.
February 12, 2010, 12:42 amshilpa6 says:
That would be have an interesting stuff. thanks for that
Serious and Catastrophic Injury Claims.Work injuries Lawyer Temecula
February 12, 2010, 12:59 amJohn Skookum says:
That poll is quite far outside the other polls that generally show her with a 45% or so approval rating.
February 12, 2010, 2:40 am“Poll Finds Edge for Obama Over G.O.P. Among the Public” | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] the original post: “Poll Finds Edge for Obama Over G.O.P. Among the Public” [...]
February 12, 2010, 2:56 amorca says:
The new Washington Post/ABC poll puts Sarah’s % Favorable at a lowly 37%.
http://tinyurl.com/yfwdbls
February 12, 2010, 3:13 amDavid Bernstein says:
???? Only if you think, counter-factually, that most Americans are paying enough attention to understand that the filibuster is standing in the way of various Democratic initiatives, especially on health care. The question was asked as an abstract matter.
February 12, 2010, 3:41 amSteve says:
Approval of what?
February 12, 2010, 4:28 amRicardo says:
These were two separate polls done around the same time late last year.
The CNN telephone survey shows that 28% of Americans think she is qualified to be President.
The Gallup telephone survey simply prompts people by asking them whether they have a favorable or unfavorable view of somebody “in the news.” Palin’s name is one of several names listed and this was right after the release of her book. Her favorability rating was 44% compared to Obama’s at 56%. Palin 2012 indeed.
The discrepancy is explained entirely by the fact that there are many people who view Palin favorably but think she is unqualified to be President. Half of the CNN respondents thought Joe Biden and Mitt Romney were qualified while about two-thirds thought Hillary Clinton was qualified. There’s no mystery here.
February 12, 2010, 4:50 amA. Zarkov says:
Congress as a whole almost always gets a lower approval rating than the president. I don’t think it’s meaningful to compare an individual against a collection of individuals, as the latter is an abstraction compared to the former. The fact that incumbents tend to get elected does not prove that the voters really do like Congress, but lie to pollsters. Obviously they like their own Congressman, but not the whole of Congress. I should think this is obvious, but evidently not to some people.
Let’s look at that poll for Obama versus a generic Republican. Gallup polled 1,025 by phone. Obama got 44% or 451 votes. The unspecified GOP candidate got 42% or 430 votes. The other 144 votes went to “no opinion” or “other.” We can turn these numbers into a win probability. Obama would win with a probability of 75%. Just because 44%-42%= 2% is near the margin of error, does not mean we can’t do a win prediction. The winner only needs to exceed his opponent. Of course the poll must otherwise be accurate.
Even though he wins, this poll bodes ill for Obama. He has the name recognition and that counts for a lot. A generic candidate should do much worse. This poll also applies to registered voters and not likely voters.
Obama’s basic problem is his falling approval because of high unemployment. It’s not likely unemployment will turn around by November 2010, but it should by 2012. His blame Bush strategy does not seem to be working regardless of its merits. The voters want less unemployment, and they will punish Obama if they don’t get that.
February 12, 2010, 8:15 amWidmerpool says:
Stay the course, Mr. President–the NYT can’t be wrong. You’re still more popular than those dastardly Republicans. All you have left to do is ram through that pesky Healthcare legislation via reconciliation and it will be smooth sailing for the Dems come November. Oh, happy, hopey, changey days are here again!
February 12, 2010, 8:18 amegd says:
No, it’s not unreasonable or irrational, if you are willing to ignore the disastrous actions taken by the current administration to deepen the recession. Really, is it better to blame the party who was in control of the White House for 8 of the last 17 years, or to blame the party that has has control for 9 of the last 17 years?
Or should we blame the party that controlled congress for 12 of the last 16 years, or the party that controlled Congress for the last 4 years?
Interesting. Republicans are called all sorts of nasty names for suggesting that Obama is unqualified to be President. Does this mean the Democrats are engaging in acts of “straight up” sexism?
Unintentional hilarity, especially given question 100.
February 12, 2010, 8:38 amSteve says:
If only DB had noticed the endless procession of right-wing blogs, pundits, and syndicated columnists who attempted to defend Bush’s miserable approval ratings by arguing that Congress’ ratings were even lower, perhaps we could have disposed of this fallacious argument much sooner. Oh well, that’s how it goes.
February 12, 2010, 10:01 amGo Vols says:
Zarkov is exactly right regarding unemployment numbers. Pundits routinely ignore the degree to which structural factors such as the economy shape election results, instead focusing on who said what, and whether McCain rolled his eyes, and whether someone hurt David Broder’s feelings.
Perhaps this is too obvious to bear saying, but a “generic” candidate poll matchup isn’t worth much. I agree that such polls show genunine danger signs for Obama, but polling a generic candidate basically allows the respondent to construct some idealized Republican that supports their main policy positions or ideology. The actual human beings that will run against Obama, however, will have warts, will piss off various segments of the party, will say dumb things, etc. There’s still quite a bit of time left, of course, but looking at the Republican bench, I’m not seeing anyone who I think can beat Obama, assuming unemployment is not still 10% in 2012. Indeed, of the actual polls which ask for head to head match-ups with real people, I believe Obama has won every one to date, though not always as comfortably as he might like.
February 12, 2010, 10:13 amDavid Bernstein says:
Go Vols, that’s one way of looking at it. The other is that the generic matchup overstates Obama’s chances, because the Republicans are so unpopular now, which means a “Generic Republican” inherits this unpopularity, whereas whoever the real candidate will be will be more judged on his own merits. I have no idea which understanding is correct.
February 12, 2010, 10:19 amMCM says:
Except that the Republicans will have to run an actual candidate in 2012, and one with positive name recognition will be hard to find.
February 12, 2010, 10:36 amG. May says:
Seventeen posts before it became a Palin bashing thread. Color me shocked.
Someone is off their game.
February 12, 2010, 10:43 amSyd Henderson says:
Since it’s a post about the popularity of the president and mentions he should be compared to his possible opponents, talking about how his possible opponents are perceived is hardly bashing.
February 12, 2010, 11:02 amG. May says:
As if rational opinions regarding SP are par for the course on this blog. However, I may have been too quick to assume there were displays of PDS here. Your point is duly noted.
Comment withdrawn.
February 12, 2010, 11:15 amorca says:
Funny that just citing Sarah Palin’s current poll numbers is considered “bashing” her.
I can assure you, Sarah Palin is every Democrat’s third favorite Republican, after Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
Run, Sarah, Run!
February 12, 2010, 11:59 amG. May says:
Looks like someone else has a hair trigger. Since I admitted my mistake orca and withdrew my comment, allow me to suggest you attempt to do the anatomically impossible to yourself.
February 12, 2010, 12:05 pmorca says:
Nope, someone just responds to the responses to their comments in order without first checking to see if it has been withdrawn or not below…
February 12, 2010, 12:16 pmbyomtov says:
ShelbyC,
Lots of things change. McCain has let his inner right-winger out in order to compete with Hayworth, for example. I don’t think that makes him a stronger national candidate than he was before.
Romney has undoubtedly changed many times, and will again. Whio knows who he’ll be by 2012?
February 12, 2010, 12:31 pmA. Zarkov says:
According to the NYT,
I should think the pollsters would have gotten a lot of hang ups because cell phone owners pay for air time. There is a potential for a bias here as more motivated and angry voters would be more willing to pay to be part of the poll.
February 12, 2010, 12:56 pmButternut says:
Poll numbers at this point dont mean squat for the mid terms, much less the Alaskan Sled Dog Times centerfold.
February 12, 2010, 1:17 pmG. May says:
In other words – hair trigger. My recommendation to you still stands.
Oddly enough, it only took 6 posts after my withdrawal for the Palin Bashing to begin.
February 12, 2010, 1:56 pmButternut says:
Speaking of a hair trigger. I am not bashing Ms. Palin, though am thinking about therapy to treat my political wet dreams.
February 12, 2010, 2:01 pmorca says:
I prefer to think of it as being orderly…
February 12, 2010, 2:31 pmgeokstr says:
It’s a psychological disorder where a personality shifts radically rightward, whose symptoms only manifest hexennially. The most severe symptoms generally only last approx 6-9 months, so it is not considered to be either life- or career-threatening. Since nearly all of the members of a certain highly incestual organization seem to be afflicted, it is considered distinctly possible that it is either communicable or environmentally induced by factors yet unknown.
It is not nearly as serious as a similar form of this psychosis that manifests biennially, and also seems to confined to members of another closely related organization.
There are a number of drugs undergoing clinical trials to attempt to control this condition. Some act by inhibiting the right side of the brain to prevent the rightward shift from occuring, while others attack the parts of the brain that control the speech patterns that are affected so that they can be more consistent with the actual leftleaning personality, allowing the individual to therefore function relatively normally without having to lie through their teeth.
The most severe form of this disorder remains those personalities which are stuck in farleft mode without hope of escape. This condition is considered untreatable and their loved ones should begin making the inevitable but necessary arrangements.
February 12, 2010, 10:50 pmthinkstrategically says:
Question 14: Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable or not favorable?
1/15/09: Favorable – 60%, Unfavorable – 9%
2/10/10: Favorable – 39%, Unfavorable – 34%
Surprisingly, that didn’t make the story.
February 13, 2010, 1:30 amthinkstrategically says:
Also, the unemployment rate of those survey participants (using the traditional method of calculating unemployment) is 18%. Shouldn’t that have rung a bell?
February 13, 2010, 1:37 amgeokstr says:
Absolutely. It is necessary and proper, when
rationalizingspinningreporting unfavorable opinion surveys of Obama to calculate the unemployment rate of the respondents using the traditional (i.e., true) methods, because it’s all Bush’s fault.However, at exactly the same moment in time, it is also perfectly justifiable when reporting the wondrous state of the economic recovery under the marvelous policies of Obama, to use the more modern and enlightened (i.e., phony) rate of unemployment, because that’s all Obama’s doing.
Orwell, meet the MSM.
February 13, 2010, 11:00 am