Pew’s Polarization Numbers Are Out Of Whack
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, PollsWhen I read the headline of this poll(“Partisan Gap in Obama Job Approval Widest in Modern Era”) I thought it seemed a bit weird.
And then I looked at the numbers…
The faulty logic is glaring.
Note it’s apparent that Clinton enjoyed less Republican support than Obama did, but since Obama has more support from Dems his “R-D Diff” is higher. To their credit, Pew does acknowledge this is in their analysis, but it’s a bit disingenuous to on one hand title a poll like they did, while on the other say, “Yeah, but, here’s the reason why.”
And then there’s the inconsistency between polling dates. Obama’s is in March, but Bush’s is a month later in April? And the elder Bush’s number were taken a month later in May? A lot can happen in a few months, as this presidency has proven.
So the bright spots in this poll for Obama? First, he enjoys more the most support from Independents than any other President since Reagan. And his total job approval rating is nearly equal to that of Reagan’s.
Still, I’d like to see Pew’s numbers from right now. Because between the market’s rally and his trip to Europe, my guess is that they’d be higher.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 6th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Not to be the hyperbole police, but let’s also note that Obama’s support from independent’s is only one point higher than independent support for Bush. Which is what, less than 2% higher? So “highest since Reagan” while factually accurate (according to this Pew poll), sounds a lot better than the numbers really reveal. And here’s another fun quote that tortures the numbers, “Bush had more support from Democrats than Obama has from Republicans.”
April 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I see no faulty logic. Only a focus on various numbers whose meaning is very, very, very, very, very, very, very open to debate.
The root question is “to what extent is the gap between within party approval and opposition party approval a proxy for measuring polarization.”
Obviously, moderates and independents foul the measurement. Also, overall approval fouls the measurement, because it’s very, very hard to have a big gap in this measure unless you are very popular within your party.
In other words, in general you are probably more likely to see a lower partisan gap when a President is getting poor marks all round. Suppose a given President is doing so poorly that a majority of his own party disapproves of him, which I believe happened with Bush. Does this mean that people are being “less partisan?” Probably not.
Now to the current Obama admin. IMO it strains credulity to suggest that Obama and his early policy movements have not led to increased partisanship due to reflexive dislike for liberal policies on the part of a substantial majority of conservatives. Higher spending, tax increases, and a more conciliatory foreign policy are all things that have alienated conservatives regardless of their merits. And honestly, this is not really cause for losing any sleep. We could have set our watches by it, right?
BTW you can’t have it both ways. You can’t run multiple posts on fringe conservatives foaming at the mouth and Rush Limbaugh running the show, and then deny that things are more partisan.
Bottom line: these pol numbers are built for spin. I would read very little in to them. It’s early, overall approval is good, moderates seem to be still on board in good numbers, and the GOP aint. Who is surprised by this, exactly?
April 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
ExiledIndependent, as pointed by Nate Silver, only 24% of the polled identify themselves as republicans. There’s a lot more indepentents now than there were eight years ago or 28 years ago for that matter. So despite that there’s lots of former republicans lurking among the independents, Obama is polling 1% higher than Bush.
April 6th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I guess we need a new poll every day or so to give the media and republicans something to try to hang their hopes on.
Any comparison to Bush, Reagan, Clinton, etc. means nothing. None of those presidents took office in the climate that Obama took over. None of them, not even Bush, had the 24 hour coverage focused on them, most of it critical, that Obama does.
And before you right wing loons start with your liberal media bias bullshit, watch a bit of news. ATtacks from the left on not going after the Bushies on torture, illegal wiretapping, former VPs and ignoring decorum by attacking a sitting president, whole networks fomenting violent outrage over socialism, fascism, gun rights, on and on.
Must suck for wingnuts that Obama is still so popular. But that’s the consequences of having total power and completely and utterly screwing up. Now sit in the back of the room while the smart grownups fix your mess.
April 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
The one thing I find interesting is that except for the first President Bush, the approval ratings from Independents is within 2% of the overall approval (don’t know how Ford would have fit into this had he been included).
I agree though that the headline used for the data is an attempt at grabbing headlines and from what I can tell, it has worked. Saw one of the talking heads on CNN this morning quoting it to support why Obama’s policy’s were bad for the country.