Correct Rasmussen Favorable / Unfavorable Numbers (12/31):

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

These numbers have gotten all bollixed up in another thread, so here is the correct data with the controversy explained.

First, Rasmussen Reports has had a chart page up for MONTHS that never changes. I know this because I've had disputes with people for months who cite this link as current: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election The favorable/unfavorable numbers on that chart are ancient. Rasmussen should either update the page or stop linking to it, because this same controversy comes up every few weeks. He, along with everyone else, should also stop burying the data in sentences in an article, and post the data in a proper chart. Sadly, lots of reports of polls do the same thing... expressing the numerical data through a bunch of confusing bloviation.

In Rasmussen's newly reported as of 12/31 favorable/unfavorable polling, here are the figures in the article:

EDWARDS: 49/42
CLINTON: 48/50
OBAMA: 43/51

McCAIN: 53/37
GIULIANI: 40/55
ROMNEY: 38/51

The other reason for the controversy is that nobody can believe Obama has higher unfavorables than Clinton, because it's a reversal of trend. What should be noted is that Obama is better known today than he was 4 months ago, so his Fav/Unfav total is higher than it used to be. (94% to Clinton's 98% and Edwards 91%) I have no idea what Obama's metaphysically true numbers are, or how this compares to other recent polling.

I am merely straightening out what Rasmussen polling is reporting. The Obama number is so startling that in a chart I would assume it was accidentally transposed, but the thrust of the article is that John McCain is now the only candidate with a favorable over 50. So it's not likely to be a typo, or McCain wouldn't be the only one over 50.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[IndianaJones]

1. that is a stunning reversal. I really question those numbers. nt.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Rasmussen has a republican bias in his national data-sets, so I don't value the

absolute numbers, only the relative relationships. (For example, he always has Bush's approval shaded high, but I value the movement of that approval measure, though not the absolute percentage.)

A reversal this dramatic probably represents something real, though not to the degree the numbers suggest.

[ccpup]

2. yes, Obama's unfavorable rating was

surprising, at first. But then when you consider Edwards has targeted Obama more recently in his campaign, it's not as surprising. Secondly, I also suspect this is a natural correction as people have gotten a better look at Obama and he's no longer -- after months of campaigning and relatively unexciting, although steady, debate performances -- an Unknown. Add to all of that his latest gaffs (the Benazir assassination/Axelrod foot-in-mouth is one that comes to mind) and the number starts to make more sense.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. It's probably exaggerated, but some drop is to be expected.

As people get defined it is normal for their un-fav. to climb... every-day people are cynical about politicians, so it would be odd for the "don't know" crowd to come down on the favorable side.

[KennedyGuy]

3. K & R

[Sulawesi]

6. I weighed in on this before, perhaps causing some of the confusion...

It is not at all clear which data are from which dates. As these are the latest numbers, then it is a seismic shift. The embedded link contains data which I have heard someone categorize as months old, but I saw the very different numbers posted as new just a few days ago (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/27/EDIEU4QCL.DTL">link). Maybe the SF Chronicle had their dates wrong. Suffice it to say that I am confused. Why can't Rasmussen just put the dates on their data tables?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Sloppy web management. And I am not endorsing the Obama figures as accurate in the real-world

Just accuarte as what Rasmussen is saying.

I would be surprised of other polling showed such a strange result for Obama. A little drop-off, yes, but not that big.

[earthlover]

8. Well, if these new figures are accurate Edwards is the only canidate with a shot

at beating McCain.

Maybe one of the effects of Hillary's negative campaign during the past 2-3 weeks.

He negatives are still at 50%, higher than her positives although this is a slight "improvement"...much the same as 10 runs behind in a baseball game is better than being 12 runs behind....

[flpoljunkie]

9. Rasmussen contradicts itself in next sentence. Is Clinton's favorable rating 48% or 43%?

John Edwards is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 42% and Hillary Clinton is the only other candidate with favorable about 43%. She is viewed favorably by 48% and unfavorably by 50%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll