Is there anything the dinosaur media won't stoop to get Obama elected? Apparently not.
The latest AP/GFK Roper poll shows Barack Obama with a 60% approval rating, more than half of Americans now saying he deserves to be re-elected and his approval on the economy shooting past the 50% mark - even with 9% unemployment and growing and gas prices flirting with the $5 per gallon mark in some locales.
This is being touted as an 'I shot Osama' bounce, something the president himself is milking for all it's worth in his re-election stump speech.
But a funny thing happens when you actually look at the poll's mechanics. Surprise, surprise, you can't find them in the AP story, not even a link. But a trip to GFK Roper's site reveals exactly how dirty and disreputable this poll is.
It's a telephone survey with a 4.5 margin of error. Guess what the breakdown of Democrats, Republicans and Independents surveyed was?
Would you believe 46% Democrats, 29% Republicans and only 4% Independents? That's a 17 point gap - and remember, Obama only got elected in 2008 with a six point margin!
Also, AP assigned most of the leaners to the parties, and it appears that they were fairly liberal in doing so. Take out the leaners and assign the Independents properly and the under sampling of Republicans and Independents gets even more ridiculous - 35% Democrat, 18% Republican and 27% Independents...plus 20% who 'don't know'.
Gosh, why bother with half measures? If you're really going to cook a poll this blatantly, sample 70% Democrats and only 9% Republicans and you ought to be able to get Obama an 80% approval rating!
Let's recap this in real terms, without the spin. In a poll with a 4.5% error margin that sampled almost twice as many Democrats as Republicans, the best Obama can do is 60%.
I wouldn't exactly call those numbers to celebrate.
Once upon a time, back when they actually had some ethics, the AP was looked on as a legitimate news source.
3 comments:
elected in 2008 with a six point margin!
now don't go jumping to any conclusions ff.
remember two things, the electoral college elects the president, and this president is a metropolitan president.
i.e., all he has to do is win NYC, LA, chicago, detroit, pittsburgh, philly, st. louis, etc., etc., you know, the bastions of marxism in this country.
just look at a 2010 election map of the house of representatives and you'll see.
hussein wins the cities and he's in.
actually i'd say these numbers sound about right. remember this is 2010 we're talking about and not 1980. also please don't forget to take into consideration that americans are dumber than a sack of hair. and don't forget john edwards two americas either.
i checked rasmussen yesterday and they have hussein at 50% JAR.
this is all good and fine to do the mental juggling and other exercises, but the electoral vote has already been certified for 2012. the results being locked away along with hussein's long form b/c.
i forget, did i mention that americans are dumber than a sack of hair?
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.
Thanks, Anonymous. I think Obama could carry the cities mentioned above (and he certainly will carry L.A., N.Y. and Chicago)and still lose the election.Different cities have a different impact on who takes the state and thus the electoral votes, and much depends on turnout.
In Illinois, as an example, Mark Kirk did not carry Chicago, but he got enough votes from the suburbs and from downstate to win the senate race.
Same in Pennsylvania, where Toomey, an outright conservative did not carry Philadelphia but got enough votes in the suburbs and in the other, traditionally Republican counties to win the senate seat in a state-wide race.
Regards,
Rob Miller
Post a Comment