You’re trying to reason with a brick wall. His response seems to be a standard MO among HotAir readers. Point out that they (or the original poster) is wrong and they ignore the issue at hand, attack you personally and run off.

Attempting to discuss statistical significance, correlation coefficients and sample size variants with you would be like attempting to discuss the limbic system with J Barfalo.
How’s that feel?

OkieDoc on April 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Instead of replying to Tom’s point, you’re just throwing ad hominem attacks out there.

Tom’s point is very simple: Ed wrote a post giving credence to a comparison of the 56% approval to past approval ratings. Tom points out that this comparison is completely bogus, and gives the correct numbers to compare which are much more favorable to Obama. He correctly concludes that this is bad-faith manipulation to achieve a political goal.

Your claims that the polls are rigged or meaningless have nothing to do with what Tom’s saying. He shows that the articles cited clearly distort the numbers, and Ed goes along with it.

Statistical significance, correlation coefficients, and sample size have nothing to do with this either. All of these polls could have incorrect statistical methodology, and Tom’s point would still stand. The numbers compared in the articles are not correct. Unless you had some statistical argument that one should adjust the 63% to 56% for the purpose of comparison with past polls. But you have no reason to make this argument at all.

Do you disagree with me that comparing Obama’s 56% number to past president’s April approval rating is a a false comparison?

The 100-days report is almost worthless in determining the value of a President.

Explains why the MSM is not having an orgasm over it.

It’s about how people manipulate the numbers. It’s about the truth.

Attempting to discuss statistical significance, correlation coefficients and sample size variants with you would be like attempting to discuss the limbic system with J Barfalo.
How’s that feel?

This is not about whether polls are “rigged” or not. And it’s not even really about the polls. It’s about how people manipulate the numbers. It’s about the truth.

Comparing the 56% number to the past April approval ratings of presidents is just flat out wrong. It’s a false comparison. Yet, no one seems to care.

Who’s been trying to paint this approval number as a sure sign of catastrophy? The whole point, which you, in fact, practically belabor yourself, is that despite press that make Obama sound like the 2nd Coming, his approval stats are not that special. Nobody needs condescending wet blanket lectures from you about keeping our noses to the issue grindstone, and not getting distracted long enough to enjoy a temporary respite from the gloom and doom.

Who’s been trying to paint this as a catastrophe?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/28/baracks-in-the-basement/print/

It’s official: Barack Obama is the second most reviled newbie president of the last forty years.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/04/28/barack_obama_already_less_popular_than_nixon_or_carter_quelle_surprise_not

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/79295.html

Now, this last link is especially egregious. This woman compares the 56% number to these past Gallup numbers:

April approval ratings in first year in office

Bush now 62%
Clinton, 1993 55
Bush, 1989 58
Reagan, 1981 67
Carter, 1977 63
Nixon, 1969 61
Sampling error: +/-3% pts

Where did she get those numbers? Well, she doesn’t say, but they are VERY similar to the numbers Gallup put on this page:

Other Elected Presidents in April of First Term:

George W. Bush

61%
(April 2001)

Bill Clinton

55%
(April 1993)

George H.W. Bush

58%
(April 1989)

Ronald Reagan

67%
(April 1981)

Jimmy Carter

64%
(April 1977)

Richard Nixon

62%
(April 1969)

John Kennedy

81%

(April 1961)

Dwight Eisenhower

74%
(April 1953)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Job-Approval.aspx

And, if you notice, Gallup gives Obama an average approval rating of 63% — and that his rating had never dropped below 59%. The 56% number is from a different poll and is the sum of his “good” and “excellent” marks from respondents. Nowhere does Gallup call this his job approval rating.

But beyond that, despite the fact that he had to hit the ground running, facing one of the largest economic crises any president has had to tackle — right out of the gate. I mean, the fact that he pushed through the largest spending bill in history in his first 100 days and he still garners high approval ratings is an accomplishment. Most presidents first days are MUCH less eventful, thus there’s less for the country to dislike about them. Obama has taken many actions, giving the country many opportunities to be turned off by him. But, so far so good.

Also, I’m stunned that Ed or anyone else will repeat this comparison as if it’s a valid one. It’s not. This is a prime example of someone twisting facts to fit their political agenda. It’s propaganda that all too many of you lap up.

Unlike Bush, who almost seemed allergic to engagement with the press, Obama has made a point of pushing for that engagement,

Okay, not to defend Bush, but did you wonder why Bush avoided the press?

He should’ve manned up and called more press conferences anyway, but it’s not a big surprise that he didn’t.

“Rather than trying to paint a solid-majority personal approval rating as a catastrophe, conservatives should focus on the issues instead. “

Good grief, Ed!

Who’s been trying to paint this approval number as a sure sign of catastrophy? The whole point, which you, in fact, practically belabor yourself, is that despite press that make Obama sound like the 2nd Coming, his approval stats are not that special. Nobody needs condescending wet blanket lectures from you about keeping our noses to the issue grindstone, and not getting distracted long enough to enjoy a temporary respite from the gloom and doom.

Sheesh.

Tom_Shipley on April 28, 2009 at 6:03 PM

My point was not the truth or falsity of the premise, it was the fact that a negative-toned article came out in a London paper.

A “PASS” for getting your children a pooch.

But a “FAIL” for getting Juggo C a Venezuelen lap dog.

Again, this is based off a false premise.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/04/28/barack_obama_already_less_popular_than_nixon_or_carter_quelle_surprise_not

Is Obama’s approval lower than Nixon and Carter?

My take on Barry Soetoro:

A “FAIL” for not following protocol, and acting presidential.

A “FAIL” the humility, arrogant test. You’re Arrogant.

A “FAIL” in economics for following the FDR failed 1930s.

A “FAIL” for the largest multi-trillion dollar, social engineering deficit in history.

A “FAIL” for rubber stamping an unread, pork laden, stimulus package.

A “PASS” for continuing the war in Afghanistan.

A “FAIL” for classifying our returning veterans as terrorists.

A “FAIL” for apologizing for, and bad mouthing America overseas.

A “FAIL” for not firing Napolitano for her anti-American DHS paper.

A “FAIL” for cutting the military budget.

A “FAIL” for releasing CIA secrets during war.

A “FAIL” for releasing classified info, and paralyzing the CIA.

A “FAIL” for even considering prosecuting Bush’s legal advisers.

A “PASS” for stupidity/setting yourself up to being prosecuted after you leave office.

A “PASS” for getting your children a pooch.

A “FAIL” for not closing down the Mexican border, over the swine flu.

And a most important grade of all:

A “FAIL” for still not proving you’re a legal, Constitutional, Article II president.

By the way, I’m sure we’ll see a follow-up post railing on the Washington Times for their horrible reporting and anti-Obama bias.

tneloms on April 28, 2009 at 5:31 PM

LOL, and the paper is also owned by Reverend Moon.

Give that up, kid, it’s so 9/10.

Gallup never called the 56% number his approval rating. It’s the sum of his “good” and “excellent” responses.

Tom_Shipley on April 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Thanks for figuring that out, Tom. Horrible job reporting by the Washington Times, and weird that Ed didn’t even check gallup.com, which shows a 63% approval rating, before talking about this.

By the way, I’m sure we’ll see a follow-up post railing on the Washington Times for their horrible reporting and anti-Obama bias.

maverick muse on April 28, 2009 at 5:00 PM

The administration has not hardened the border. They are screening people and asking them if they are sick. Does that sound like a winning approach to you? How about you provide a source that outlines all the protections “they” are putting in place?

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

Where’s this 56% coming from?

As I understand, practically all of the so called polls over-count democrats than republicans.

gary on April 28, 2009 at 4:54 PM

The most recent al-AP “100 Day” poll in fact sampled twice as many Democrats as Republicans. C-BS and the ABC/WaPo have also been busted for altering their samples to get the results they desire.

In the first 100 days, W, despite the contentious FLA results, still had the perception of being a “uniter”, at least until the Dems went all-smear, all-the-time when they decided that working with W. gave Republicans credibility, and they would rather put their lust for power ahead of the country.