January 17, 2006
More Bush Job Rating Polls
Just have time to post links to a few new surveys that included the Bush job rating that I had not seen last week or that have been released since. These results are consistent with those summarized here last week. I see not lasting or statistically significant change in Bush's overall job rating since early December:
- SurveyUSA has ust posted Bush job rating results from a new round of automated surveys conducted in all of the 50 states. It includes a combined weighted national average that shows 41% approve and 56% disapprove of his job performance. The results were one point different in each direction in December: 40% approve, 57% disapprove.
- AP-IPSOS released results last week from a survey conducted January 3-5. It showed the Bush job rating at 40% approve, 59% disapprove; down two points from their last survey in early December (42% approve, 57% disapprove).
- Harris Interactive released results from a telephone survey conducted January 6-9 that shows 43% rating Bush's performance as excellent or good, 56% as "only fair or poor." That marks a significant increase since their last survey in November, when 34% were positive and 65% negative. Unlike the other surveys we have been discussing, Harris did not poll on Bush in December.
- Also, a Zogby poll conducted Jan 9-12 shows Bush's job rating at 39% excellent or good, 60% fair or poor. Zogby's last telephone poll, conducted December 6-8, showed a slightly lower approval rating (38% excellent/good, 62% fair/poor).
Have you had a look at this?
I would be very interested in your views.
Posted by: Alastair Thompson | Jan 17, 2006 9:15:53 PM
The paper may be mathematical, but it isn't scientific. A scientific paper would apply the same math to a control group to see if the hypothesis of "Stolen Election" holds.
New Hampshire is the perfect vehicle for this control, because a partial hand recount proved, to all involved parties' satisfaction, that the exit polls in New Hampshire were wildly wrong.
Applying this mathemetical approach to New Hampshire would allow us to evaluate the quality of this approach. If the analysis leads to similar results between New Hampshire and Ohio, then we can conclude that this analysis does not prove fraud.
Until they run the state of New Hampshire through the same analysis to test their model, I'm dubious that this proves anything at all.
Posted by: Marty H | Jan 18, 2006 4:32:09 PM
Thanks for the response Marty.
Posted by: alastair | Jan 30, 2006 5:35:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.