Pew poll puts Obama approval at 50/41

posted at 11:35 am on March 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I’ll give Pew this much credit — they did a better job of sampling in their latest poll than Reuters.  That’s a bit like saying  that Scary Movie 4 was a better film than Battlefield Earth, however.  Pew finds that Barack Obama’s job approval has bounced back up to 50/41, but it took a sample that underrepresented Republican voters to get there:

Mitt Romney has retaken a significant lead nationally in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, even as he has fallen further behind Barack Obama in a general election matchup. Moreover, Obama’s own job approval rating has reached 50% for the first time since last May, shortly after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 7-11 among 1,503 adults, including 1,188 registered voters and 538 Republican and Republican-leaning voters, finds that Romney leads Rick Santorum, 33% to 24%, in the GOP nomination contest. A month ago, the two men were in a virtual tie (28% Romney, 30% Santorum).

That sounds like it sampled Republicans fairly, but we’ll come back to that in a moment.  Pew found that Obama leads Romney 54/32 and Santorum 57/39, which is way outside the RCP average gap for Romney as well as Santorum.  Pew also says that Obama’s standing has improved markedly, despite recent polling indicating otherwise:

The poll includes other positive signs for Obama, as well some potential vulnerabilities. For the first time since last May, significantly more approve (50%) than disapprove (41%) of his overall job performance. That is little changed from a month ago (47% approve, 43% disapprove), but in January 44% approved of the way Obama is handling his job as president, while 48% disapproved.

Obama’s approval rating for handling the economy also has improved over the past several months. Currently, 43% approve of his handling of the economy, while 53% disapprove. In November, 35% gave him positive marks on the economy and 58% disapproved.

How did Pew manage to find this?  Scroll down to page 38 to get to the sample composition.  The overall sample totaled 1503 adults, of which 27.4% were Republicans, and 34.5% were Democrats.  Among the 1188 registered voters, the sample has a D/R/I of 37/30/30.  The 2008 exit polls showed a D/R/I of 39/32/29, and the 2010 election 35/35/30.  Are we to believe that Republicans will comprise a lower percentage of the vote in 2012 than in 2008?  Really?

Furthermore, Pew doesn’t mention that it switches from registered voters to general-population adults when it produces the presidential approval ratings.  One only discovers that by drilling down to page 42 of the report, where the total number of voters is 1503, not 1188.  That group only has 27.4% Republicans, and it’s also the least predictive sampling type available.  They do actually calculate this among the registered-voter sample, which produces a slightly different 51/43 rating, one which would have made the same point — perhaps even more strongly — while not pulling a bit of a bait-and-switch on readers.

So far, the Pew results are all outliers compared to the rest of the polls coming out this week, and its own methodology strongly suggests the reason why.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Didn’t take you that long to inject the man’s race into this didn’t it? And you wonder why blacks will never accept you tea billies hate the man simply because he’s a black man occupying the “people’s” house.

HotAirLib on May 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.

Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2