They have a 2012 poll up where Obama and the Generic Republican are tied.
It's not a surprise. Generally, generic party does better in polls than a specific candidate because voters project their ideal preferences onto that candidate.
I don't have a problem with that. I'm confident, with the polls released lately, that Obama holds a lead over the potential 2012 candidates.
What I do have a problem with is their comparisons to past president. In the article, they only compare Obama's standing to that of the Bushes. Why?
Right now, Obama's approval is 48-43 there - which is remarkably stable and pretty solid. So it's not that I think Gallup is wrong with its numbers. I just think they're wrong with their 'bottom line'.
Both Bushes, at this time in their presidency, had amazing approval ratings. In 2003, we were on the verge of going to war with Iraq and in 1991, we were just coming out of the Gulf War. George H.W. Bush held an approval rating of 90% in March of 1991
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-26-approval-ratings_x.htm">1 - roughly a year and a half before the 1992 election he lost. His son held an approval rating of 74% at the perceived 'end' of the Iraq War in April of 2003
http://people-press.org/report/182/modest-bush-approval-rating-boost-at-wars-end">2.
Those are the only two candidates Gallup compares Obama's numbers to and makes the assumption that he's lagging behind both.
Why no Clinton or Reagan?
Certainly their numbers would be more comparable to Obama's because they weren't leading the nation into a war - which generally heightens patriotism across the board.
It just seems bizarre that they would only compare him to two presidents who saw unusually high approval ratings due to the onslaught of war.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
