by Mark Silva
For those who want to argue that President Barack Obama's job-approval ratings are "in a freefall,'' or that polls with 1,000-call samples aren't valid or that those "loony lefties'' at the New York Times can't tell their polls from a hole in Rasmussen's survey methods, or that Dan Rather somehow is still pulling levers at CBS - and all of this was suggested here today - consider this:
Obama's "overall job approval rating has been highly stable since mid-February, averaging 62 percent since Feb. 16, as well as in the most recent week, from March 30 through April 5,'' the Gallup Poll reports this afternoon - citing a survey of about 3,500 people over a seven-day period.
"Still enjoying a honeymoon period, Obama's approval rating has fallen only slightly from its 67 percent starting point even as he has outlined an ambitious agenda that has been controversial to some with regard to the costs to taxpayers and the proposed expansion of the federal government's role in the economy,'' Gallup's Jeff Jones notes.
Part of the public's perception of these numbers may, in fact, be a matter of partisan politics.
There is a "partisan gap'' in the way people perceive presidents - has been for some time. And, while former President George W. Bush "set new standards'' in that polarization of opinion, Gallup suggests, Obama's divide is coming pretty close.
There is a marked and growing distinction between what Democrats and Republicans think of the president. Obama started with a 41 percent job-approval rating among Republicans -- and it was 27 percent in the past week's survey. His approval among Democrats and independents has been "highly stable'' -- 90 percent among Democrats, 60 percent among independents.
"Partisan gaps in presidential job approval are nothing new,'' Jones reports. "Gallup has consistently observed Democratic-Republican differences in ratings of the president since it began measuring job approval ratings in the 1940s. But for many recent presidents, the gap has far exceeded the historical norm.
"For the seven presidents from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter, the median or typical partisan gap in presidential approval rating was 35 points. That began to change during Ronald Reagan's presidency, as he ushered in a new era of conservative policies that did not sit well with most Democrats. Consequently, during his tenure in office, the median party gap in approval ratings was 53 points.''
George H.W. Bush's ratings were less polarized, with a median 37-point party gap. But Bill Clinton's "policies and -- perhaps more importantly -- his personal behavior were problematic for most Republicans, and during his presidency, the typical party gap in approval ratings was 55 points.''
George W. Bush "set new standards for political polarization,'' Gallup notes, reporting a median 64-point difference between Republicans' and Democrats' ratings of him.
So far, the party gap for Obama has run at 61 points, Jones reports, and "this puts him much more in line with the recent Bush record than with earlier presidents.''
The latest numbers come from a survey of 3,559 adults interviewed March 30-April 5 and carry a possible margin of error of just 2 percentage points.
And Dan Rather had nothing to do with it.
Comments
These poll results are remarkably different than the swagged up CBS/NYT poll on Obama's approval, no?
Are you going to acknowledge that the CBS/NYT poll was indeed biased?
I eagerly await your response Mr. Silva.
Posted by: Chris | April 7, 2009 5:39 PM
By contrast, Republican fortunes have dropped in the first weeks of the Obama presidency; just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked."
President Obama can't force Repubs to come to the table in a civilized and intelligent fashion, he can only invite them to. If they want to remain in the political wilderness that's their problem.
The only vocal Republicans lately are the goofballs who advocate violence and tinfoil hats (Glenn Beck, Mullah Limbaugh, Hannity, Bill-O etc) and they are doing nothing nut gradually driving away all but the very hardcore nutjob Republicans (Terry, John D, Bruce).
Posted by: DrainYou | April 7, 2009 5:55 PM
The CBS-Times poll put Obama's job approval at two thirds. That is not, in polls with three and two percentage point margins of error, respectively, significantly different from 62 percent in this poll.
Posted by: Mark Silva | April 7, 2009 6:31 PM
"Honey, I Shrunk The Party" !
Scentless Apprentice
The Republican base has shrunk to almost nothing, the ones who have peeled away were relative moderates while the people who remain in their Rethug party are much more conservative and partisan. Take that into consideration when looking at that 54% disapproval by Republicans. All that's left of the tired old corrupt Rethug party are the extreme right-wing lunatic fringers...
Posted by: Scentless Apprentice | April 7, 2009 7:23 PM
It's going to take one more beating in 2010 for die hard right wingers to realize they've hit rock bottom. The big comeback they're hoping for is a fantasy. George W. and Dick ruined the Republican party for years to come.
Posted by: nerdoff | April 8, 2009 8:19 AM
The Republicans deserve another big defeat in 2010 and it is coming. Lets get 'bug eyes' McConnell and the Marlboro man Boehner thrown out of office to start. The GOP and the Bush administration are the reason we in the crisis we are in today.
Posted by: Doug R. | April 8, 2009 9:31 AM
Lets get 'bug eyes' McConnell and the Marlboro man Boehner thrown out of office to start.
Posted by: Doug R. | April 8, 2009 9:31 AM
====
No way, I say keep'em right where they are, the Democratic Party has never had better allies then those tools.
Posted by: A.Political | April 8, 2009 2:54 PM
repuglitards are a cancer on America
decency is the cure
Posted by: freepatriot | April 8, 2009 3:21 PM
The CBS-Times poll put Obama's job approval at two thirds. That is not, in polls with three and two percentage point margins of error, respectively, significantly different from 62 percent in this poll.
Posted by: Mark Silva | April 7, 2009 6:31 PM
Mr. Silva, please understand the meaning of "margin of error." It emphatically does NOT mean that the true value is equally likely to be found anywhere within the margin of error. It's generally taken as the 95 per cent confidence interval for the true value measured by the poll, considering only the mathematical analysis of the data, not any non-statistical considerations such as poorly worded questions. The value given, such as 61 per cent in the approval ratings above, is the most likely value of the truth, from the poll results. The truth being found at either the upper or lower bound of the margin of error is approximately 85 per cent less likely than at the central value given.
Thus, for the CBS poll and the Gallup poll to actually be measuring the same truth ("not . . . significantly different" as you say) requires one to be at the upper bound (highly unlikely) and the other to be at the lower bound (highly unlikely). For both to occur together is highly, highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, the meaning of margins of error is not widely understood by the public; the casual use of the term by the media ("statistical dead heat" comes to mind) is probably largely to blame.
Posted by: DaveB | April 8, 2009 5:54 PM