31% approval for Bush, 26% approval for JFK? What is this?

[beachmom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/washington/10poll.html?ei=5094&en=641ddb430eab14f8&hp=&ex=1147320000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

The problems plaguing the Republicans have clearly helped the Democrats: 55 percent said they now had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, compared with 37 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 57 percent had an unfavorable view of Republicans, compared with 37 percent who had a favorable view.

The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election.

And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

Okay. I don't understand this poll at all. How can JK have such a low approval rating, when he is doing senatorial duties for his state, and not that often on the national stage? How can people disapprove about somebody they never hear about in any big way on the news?

I know, I know -- polls mean nothing this far out, but I have to say this is not good. Was it him being made fun of by CNN for the Alito filibuster? Is it continued RW attacks against him? What's going on here?

[Mass]

1. Because they are focusing at the wrong numbers

Look at the negatives: 50 % for Bush and Cheney, in the 30 % for Democrats.

Most people just do not have any opinions about people who are neither president or VP. They just dont care. No big deal. Uf Bush feels better because he does better than any senator, particularly one who is ignored by the media, it shows how desperate he is.

ON EDIT: Of course, I should have looked at who wrote this article. Adam Nagourney! He could not decipher a poll if his life was depending on it.

Bush positives 29
Bush negatives 55
Bush DK 16

Clinton positives 34
Clinton negatives 35
Clinton DK 22

Kerry positives 26
Kerry negatives 38
Kerry DK 24

Gore positives 28
Gore negatives 39
Gore DK 23

[karynnj]

19. Also, these can't be taken as parallel

We are in a very negative pre-primary period and there are huge splits in the Democratic party that mean that people will answer negative - to the candidate of the faction they aren't with.

There's also something weird with the Clinton, Gore and Kerry numbers - With DK as a possibility, wouldn't that almost be the default - Because of this, I think the negative number is the only one that really portents anything - and the difference between 35, 38, and 39 seem pretty close 2 1/2 yrs out. Kerry does need to get more positives - but I assume some of the DK and non response are people that don't hate or think he's done a bad job, but don't want him to get a high positive score.

Tell the truth, if surveyed about Clinton - I would check DK or not respond. I couldn't bear to join the RW in negative, but I wouldn't want her to get my vote.

[Mass]

23. Oops - Add 10 to Democratic DK numbers.

[jillan]

2. Excuse me - this sounds insane!

Who exactly is being polled on Sen Kerry? And why?

[Mass]

5. The poll says 34 % dont know. No surprise. I wished that people who

write these articles learn how to read polls. This article is just stupid.

Democrats dont go on TV, so people do not know what they do. That is all. (at least Hillary gets some airtime because of the fluff pieces, but neither Kerry nor Gore have as much time, so why be surprised).

[jillan]

8. This is the only site I know that gives approval ratings to Senators

http://www.surveyusa.com/100USSenators0805SortedbyNetApprovalScore.htm

Kerry is #73.

Obviously, they didn't ask this group.

Look whose at the bottom - hahaha

[ProSense]

3. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1148577&mesg_id=1148577

[Mass]

7. Excellent, ProSense.

[ProSense]

11. Really makes you wonder

why, after seeing all those undecideds, they would focus on the favorable scores instead, and without clarification. Either leave them out or clarify (takes one sentence).

[Mass]

15. During the campaign, Nagourney has consistently misinterpreted

polls, so I am not surprised that he does the same thing here (in addition to an obvious bias).

However, I am amazed that he would used different measures to compare Bush and the democrats, which increases Bush's numbers by 2 %. This is plainly ridiculous.

The only question that remains: How long did he wait before waiting this article after he stopped talking with a GOP operative.

[TayTay]

4. Kerry is a Senator now

He has gone 'back into the pack' so to speak. He is not running for anything nationally at the moment. These numbers are in line with that and with the recent national race. (His unfavorables are high. That is to be expected. There are a certain number of Rethugs who hate him and always will. The rest are undecideds.)

[jenndar]

6. I thought he was at nearly 50% like, two weeks ago??? n/t

[Mass]

9. Even worse, Nagourney is not comparing the same numbers for Bush and the

Dems.

The 31 % is job approval, not favorables, which is 29 %.

[jillan]

10. Actually his #s have gone up

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=167be8b3-bb54-4fb9-bd74-401e630f31d8

[TayTay]

12. Are there any raw numbers for this survey (Calling Karynnj!)

These numbers make no sense. Did the Times offer up their raw data anywhere? We have several people here who can read the survey results and interpret them correctly. (Nagourney is a moron sometimes. Big Time.)

[ProSense]

13. The full results (PDF) are at the link in post 3 n/t

[Mass]

14. Prosense posted the numbers and they are on this page.

THere is no mystery in these numbers. As you said earlier, people have a less well defined opinion about individual senators than they have about their president or VP.

So Bush and Cheney have huge negatives: 50 % and higher, and few undecided, when the Democrats have much higher undecided and much lower negatives.

here are the numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060509_POLL_RESULTS.pdf

[karynnj]

22. Prosense and Mass sum it up very well

I think there's a lot of game playing too. First of the numbers for the Democrats don't add to 100. So in addition to the Don't Knows, there are a large number of people who didn't respond at all (12% for Kerry and 10% for Gore). I doubt that over a third of the population don't know who Gore or Kerry are. I supect some are Democrats, who if really questioned do think on balance the person is doing a good job or is a good person - but they don't want to be counted as either opponents or supporters.

If you look at just the negatives - 35, 38, and 39 are within shouting distance - especially 2 years out. Hillary has gotten mostly positive coverage, while Kerry and Gore have gotten very savage coverage and poor coverage of any good they did. Recently, in the last month or two Gore has gotten some (well deserved, long delayed) positive coverage - but it will take a while to counter years of bad publicity.) That said- all of these people need to raise their positives.

[Mass]

24. My bad for Dont know numbers - Add 10 to the Democratic numbers

negatives and Dont know enough to answer/No opinion are basically equal, which is pretty good as it gives margin to improve the positives.

[karynnj]

26. It just seems weird to me

Kerry has a total of 36% DK/no response
Gore has a total of 33% DK/no response
Hillary has a total of 30% DK/no response

Did they outsource this poll???

[Mass]

27. They have McCain with 54 % of DK/no response.

You're right. It is really weird. There are 54 % of people who has no opinion of McCain?

[jillan]

16. Question - how do we counter this?

Yes, we can sit here and debate this all day, but
how do we get the truth out there?

Attack the messenger?

[Mass]

17. Why bother? These polls will be forgotten next week.

I dont think it is worth the effort. If Kerry thought it was worth the effort, the easiest way for him to change that would be to be more present in the media. I imagine his PR team is big enough to figure that out.

[jillan]

18. You're probably right - I just get a bit

overprotective when it comes to Kerry.

[jenndar]

20. Well, stuff like this is why he says

he pays no attention to the polls.

The numbers are so much less important than the issues.

[wisteria]

21. These numbers are comparing leaders in the party- not Bush vs Kerry

They are comparing apples and cucumbers. Frankly, the numbers represent very little right now. I do find it amazing that Hillary's "leadership" is preferred over Kerry's? Gore seems to be on this poll based on current PR recognition.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12703794/

But the “favorables” of leading national Democrats are weak: 34 percent for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton; 26 percent for Sen. John Kerry; 28 percent for former Vice President Al Gore.

[karynnj]

25. More people chose between negative and positive for Hillary

Hillary is doing the best - both on negatives and positives. But consider the relative press all have gotten - and this shouldn't be considered all that great for Hillary. I'm supicious that 36% registered neither a negative or positive effect for Kerry.

It does show Kerry has a huge amount of work to do - and the press is not helping him. In the last 2 months, Gore has gotten positive press and many don't think of him as running because that has only come up within the last week in the MSM.

[wisteria]

28. The press never helps him. Every time he does a positive thing

some in the press for obvious reasons try to discredit him. I do think he has gained some though,he has fought back to be considered a contender in 2008. Many said he couldn't accomplish that. I am not going to read to much into this poll. I just don't trust the numbers. The poll almost seems sloppily done or perhaps it is the reporting of it that is messy. I think people have to see and hear Senator Kerry to recognize his greatness. More air time and fair press would be in order. perhaps with some Dem gains the press will cozy up to our party.

[karynnj]

29. I agree

As Tay Tay has said he's likely where he needs to be. The prevailing wisdom has been that Hillary is prohibitly ahead. Here, their negatives are not significantly different. Hillary has higher positives - but nowhere near the numbers where she was so far ahead that no one could catch up.

Gore's publicity over the last few months has been totally connected with global warming - I'm surprised he's not higher. Also, the fact that he's officially not a politician anymore likely helps. So, I'm impressed that Kerry and Gore are at the same level.

[wisteria]

31. Also, he is listed as a leader. Other's apparently didn't make

the cut. Actually, this whole poll seems to be based on name recognition.

[demdiva]

49. People either like her or don't

If one follows politics at all, I think they know what they think about her

[karynnj]

50. That's what I think too - so what could 30% dk/no answer mean

That's what makes me think people took the question as different from the words. I may be wrong, but on all three, I assume that the people who really think they are more bad than good, easily answer unfavorable. I suspect that there are very few who didn't have an opinion at all, which is why I think they are answering it that way because they support someone else. (Gore may be different as the majority of people who answered likely didn't see the Al Gore 2008 perculating on the internet. (In fact, a few days ago, my husband, who is more informed than most, mentioned it as news because he heard a reference to the possibility on TV or radio.))

[demdiva]

51. hmmm interesting

[beachmom]

30. Can somebody e-mail Andrew Sullivan?

I got this info via him, and here is his post:

Bush still beats Kerry

W is at 31 percent; JFK is at 26 percent. Don't even think about it, Mr Senator. One more thought. Can you imagine how battered a president Kerry would have been by now? He'd be stuck with Bush's Iraq mess; he'd be constantly told he's Neville Chamberlain on Iran for doing exactly what Bush has been doing; he'd be ruthlessly attacked by the Hannity right over Teresa, immigration, gays, and any other cultural issue they could exploit. And the GOP would have escaped the responsibility for their fiscal insanity, while Kerry took lumps for raising taxes. As a matter of principle, I do not regret endorsing Kerry. My decision was based on the manifest incompetence and unconservatism of Bush. But in the sweep of history, it is fitting that Bush, for the first time in his entire life, actually face the consequences of his own recklessness. It is also important for conservatives to see up-front what abandoning limited government and embracing fundamentalism leads to: the collapse of a coherent conservatism. There was a silver lining in Bush's re-election: the unsentimental education of conservative triumphalists.

His candidate already is John McCain. Prosense -- once again you amaze me with your excellent research and analysis, which is why I post this stuff here. I think according to your organizing the numbers properly, McCain's numbers are no better than Bush's. Can you or someone else do the e-mail?

His e-mail address is [e-mail]. No guarantees, of course, but he does sometimes print e-mails that persuasively question his posts, so he's always worth a try.

I would do the e-mail, but I have company here, and don't have the time to compose a succinct, witty, smart e-mail to him (well, not that I have ever accomplished that).

Edited to add:

Here's the link
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/05/bush_still_beat.html

Also: Sully now has a trackback feature, so if anyone has a blog, they can post it to debunk the misleading numbers, and then use the trackback, which will show your post on his high traffic blog, as well as a link to your blog.

I guess what I am asking for is a blitz starting with the Time magazine website.

[ginnyinWI]

32. he does have a point about bush facing his failures, though.

Our silver lining: that Conservatism is seen as the failed ideology it really is. These guys have had their way with the country, and look what's happened to it. Conservatism is bad for everybody except maybe the wealthiest people who live off the stock market.

[globalvillage]

33. Imus will not let up on this stupid poll this morning.

Of course, he does not mention the DK. Even when he was interviewing Chuck Schumer this morning, one of the first things he said was "did you know JK's approval is worse than bush*?"
I know it's a stupid show, but a lot of people watch it.
Time to e-mail him again.

[Mass]

34. And of course, Schumer was not able (or willing) to answer

(you know, like saying that comparing numbers for a president and a senator is meaningless, or that among people from MA, Kerry's numbers are above 50 %).

Jeez, thanks Schumer. Once again, this guy will never stop disappointing me!

[wisteria]

36. I have had it with Schumer too. He has way to much say in what

is going on, and I don't think he really supported Kerry at all. I think I will wright him and ask why it is so hard for him to defend Senator Kerry. My impression of Schmuer is one of a true slim ball politician.

[karynnj]

39. He really is a jerk

It really would have been good to counter this - I suspect though he might have responded if Imus pointed out that Clinton was pretty low too. Imus, likely sees 34% as good as it is higher than 31%, which is a strange way to look at this.

The difference in 55% negatives and (35 - 39)% negatives is major. The later reflects the people that Democrats will never get, the President has lost some people who Republicans usually have.

[wisteria]

35. I am beginning to think this is being done on purpose.

Why not mention that Gore is doing worse than Bush, and Hillary is only slightly ahead. Actually, reviewing the whole thing, McCain didn't do well either. Why single out Kerry for special recognition?
The one question that would have made this poll relevant to a showdown between Kerry and Bush, if the election were held today... was not what was asked. How can it be expected that any of the mentioned Democrats would fair well nationally when they are not the party in power.How can the poll even be relevant then? Notice where this poll is being mentioned the most and who is mentioning it- all conservative leaning commentators or media types along with conservative leaning journalists. Notice Mary Chaney's prominent mention of Kerry in her book. Rove and his ilk are not happy that Kerry hasn't rolled over and played dead. Rove, it seems has lost his touch, he is known to destroy all opposition for good. Senator Kerry hasn't obliged him in this respect.
I regards top Imus and his crew, they don't want Kerry to run and they have made that clear. Imus wants McCain. I think I will contact him and let him know that hell will freeze over before I will ever vote for McCain and that a comparison between Kerry and Mccain's characters and integrity would have McCain coming up short.

[Mass]

37. The GOP is using Kerry as a scapegoat, probably because they

know Gore will not run and that the other ones on the left of Kerry dont stand a chance.

But I am not neither surprised nor offended about that. It is the game.

What bothers me a lot more is the inability (unwillingness) of Democratic leaders like Schumer to make even the slightest remarks to dismiss that. (It reminds me of Emmanuel a few days ago he wished he had 5 people like Kerry helping him, but not putting Kerry in a poll of Democratic leaders). Can Democrats stop for a minute this pre-primary fight and unite to push Democrats in 06.

[karynnj]

41. It mustbe that the Democratic leaders really fear he could win

the nomination. It would be in their interest otherwise to help Kerry recover the reputation that he deserves. I am less offended when they don't back him on popularity or the quality of his campaign than when they don't defend him on the quality of his work, his character or his integrity. The Klein charge was absolutely sickening - because it attempted to steal from Kerry the credit due him for having taken stands on American misdeeds - oddly, Klein identifies that these stands have defined Kerry's whole adult life and they have come with very significant costs. I have yet to hear one columnist or politician defend Kerry on this.

[wisteria]

45. I wrote Schumer about the very things you mention. I realize that

Republicans will be Republicans, but for a fellow Democrat not to defend another Democrat is just inexcusable. I mentioned I was now directing all of my donations to just Senator Kerry.

[karynnj]

44. Agree with your rant - it is frustrating.

I really don't care that they didn't ask an, "if the election were tomorrow" question. As the election (with Bush) is in the past and realistically it will not be redone. Therefore, even if you ask the question, the results are distoted by the fact that people don't buy the premise. (Before an election people can) The last set of results that had Kerry at 49% and Bush in the 30s, but there were over 10% saying they would either not vote or vote third party. In reality, many people who prefer someone else to Kerry may be in this group - in a real election they would be the true ABB. I do agree that the comparison does force more people to choose.

[karynnj]

38. Here's the letter I sent

Dear Imus,

After hearing you mention the NYT/CBS poll numbers for President George W. Bush, I went to learn more about the results on the NYT web site. You may want someone on your staff to look at the complete numbers. You have been comparing the President's numbers with those of Senator Kerry. First of all, the comparison should be made using the same question. When people were asked if they had a negative or positive opinion, 55% of the people were negative, 29% were positive and 16% said that they didn't know enough to respond. Senator Kerry's comparable numbers were 38% negative, 26% positive, 24% don't know, and 12% didn't respond. (The other Democrats had a similar pattern of very high non-responses. (Likewise, Senator Clinton and former VP Gore, while having low positives like Bush, have much lower negatives (35% for Clinton and 39% for Gore - so their negatives are significantly lower than Bush's 55%.)

A possible explanation for this is that for each of the Democrats, many of the people who didn't give a response may have no problem with what they are actually doing, but would prefer them not to be the candidate in 2008. It really seems unlikely that a third or more people in this country don't know enough about these 3 people. These numbers are likely not what any of the 3 want to see, but especially when looked altogether, the Democrats are in much better shape than Bush. (My surprise is that Clinton's numbers are not that much better than Kerry's or Gore's. She has been the beneficiary of relatively good press for at least the last four years, while both Kerry and Gore have been treated more negatively than almost anyone. (The media incidentally is ignoring this highly significant difference in negatives. )

I've enjoyed listening to you and your various interesting guests.

[beachmom]

40. Great letter, Karynnj. I finally found the time to send Sully an e-mail

Here is that e-mail:

Andrew,

I was puzzled by the NYT article you linked to regarding Bush vs. Kerry. First, the article compared the job approval rating of Bush (31) and the favorable rating of Kerry (26), which is highly misleading, and downright misinformation (did I mention I was an accountant before staying home with my kids?). Even using the correct figure of Favorable for both men, how could the two be judged side by side, when one is president, on TV every day, while the other is a Senator doing the job for his constituents in Massachusetts largely under the radar by a media that has decided to ignore him?

Well, the answer is in ALL of the numbers, not just what the writer selected.

From pages 19-23 of results:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060509_POLL_RESULTS.pdf



George W. Bush
Favorable 29%
Not Favorable 55%
Undecided 13%
Haven’t heard enough 3%
Refused 1%

John Kerry
Favorable 26%
Not Favorable 38%
Undecided 21%
Haven’t heard enough 13%
Refused 1%

The key figure is "Not Favorable" -- 55% for Bush and 38% for Kerry. Obviously, people know they disapprove of Bush, but when asked about Kerry have not made up their mind about the future (34% don't know about Kerry vs. 16% don't know about Bush), which is not about job approval ratings but who people want for president in '08.

And what of the two politicians most mentioned in the media as getting the nominations in their respected parties?

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Favorable 34%
Not Favorable 35%
Undecided 23%
Haven’t heard enough 9%
Refused --


John McCain
Favorable 31%
Not Favorable 15%
Undecided 25%
Haven’t heard enough 28%
Refused 1%


They only do a few percentage points better than Bush in the Favorable rating, and I think you would agree that John McCain's numbers are quite disappointing (was it Jerry Falwell that has tanked the numbers of what I thought was the most popular politician in America?).

And don't forget the poll that came out recently that said, if the election of 2004 were held today, people would vote for Kerry:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007359.php

And perhaps most importantly at this time, Sen. Kerry has over 50% approval ratings in his own state, despite being battered by the 2004 election and faced with the wrath of disappointed liberals:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=167be8b3-bb54-4fb9-bd74-401e630f31d8

I guess this goes to show that the saying "there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are the selected use of poll numbers" is true.

Beachmom

[karynnj]

42. I like your letter better

I need to both - mention that I was a mathematician who did analytical analyses for 24 years - I never did survey research though and link to back up.

[demdiva]

43. They are both great letters

Thanks for sending and posting

[wisteria]

47. Very good, I wrote him also, but didn't provide much detail. You're

letter is great.

[ProSense]

48. Excellent job! Thanks Beachmom and Karyn.

These letters are great! Posting here is great! People are watching us, make no mistake. Sending letters and posting the facts here will make a difference. No matter what they say, all of this is why the GOP and RW shills are getting desperate.

[wisteria]

46. Very informative. I hope he reads it and knocks off the Kerry bashing. n/t