It doesn't tell you damn thing. If you look at the sample, they are different demographics.
It does give stupid point to talk about.
Poll: Obama's job approval rises
Job approval ratings for President Barack Obama, shown at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Va. on Tuesday, were up
NEW YORK - President Barack Obama's approval ratings are starting to rise after declining ever since his inauguration, new poll figures show as the country's mood begins to brighten. But concerns about the economy, health care and war persist, and support for the war in Afghanistan is falling.
An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama's job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It's the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up.
People also feel better about his handling of the economy and his proposed health care overhaul.
But not about the war.
Support for the war in Afghanistan has declined, the poll said Tuesday. And approval of Obama's handling of it is holding steady — in contrast to his gains in other areas — as he considers a big troop increase there. Poll respondents narrowly oppose the increase.
Fewer disapprove of performance
Overall, 39 percent said they disapproved of Obama's performance in office, down from 49 percent last month.
While a majority of those surveyed remain pessimistic about the direction of the country, that number has begun to improve, too. The poll found 41 percent now believe the U.S. is headed in the right direction, compared with 37 percent in September.
But a large majority of respondents said they remain very concerned about most of the major issues facing the country. The economy was the biggest concern, with 88 percent saying they consider it extremely or very important, followed by unemployment, health care, terrorism, the budget deficit, taxes and the war in Afghanistan.
The increase in Obama's job approval rating was driven by a more positive view of his handling of nearly all of those issues.
Fifty percent of those surveyed said they approved of the president's handling of the economy, up from 44 percent in September. And 48 percent said they approved of his handling of health care, up six points and about equal to the 47 percent who said they disapproved. Obama has made health care the signature domestic issue of his presidency.
Terence Glass, a 45-year-old Milwaukee resident studying to be a teacher, said he was pleased with Obama's handling of health care and the economy, especially his decision to provide federal help to the ailing auto industry.
"We have to look at what was going on before he got in his office. The country was in pretty bad shape," Glass, a Democrat said, adding that since Obama had become president, "I look at it now and I think it's doing a little better."
Drop in support for war
The only measure that remained unchanged from September was Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan. Forty-six percent said they approved of his handling of the conflict, while 41 percent disapproved.
Indeed, the poll found a drop in overall support for the war. Forty percent said they favored it, down four points from July, while 57 percent said they were opposed. Some 46 percent favor sending more U.S. troops there, while 50 percent oppose a troop increase, a major decision Obama is weighing.
Obama boosted troop levels in Afghanistan last spring by about 21,000. He and his national security team are now reviewing a warning by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in that country, that the war will be lost without another big increase.
Glenda Holton, 53, a retired Army sergeant from Dublin, Ga., said she strongly approved of Obama's performance in office — and opposed a troop increase.
"I don't feel like they need to have any of them over there," she said about U.S. troops in Afghanistan. "Because it's not doing any good, it's escalating and there hasn't been any improvement."
Holton, who did not vote for Obama in the general election and considers herself an independent, added, "It keeps going on for nine years. ... It's not our fight over there."
Deep divisions
To be sure, the poll found persistent and deep partisan divisions over Obama. While 88 percent of Democrats said they approved of his performance in office, just 18 percent of Republicans approved. But that GOP figure was up six points since September, when only 12 percent of Republicans said they approved.
Click for related content
Afghan troop decision bedevils Obama
Obama: Terrorists are relentless, 'still plotting'
Obama's job approval has also gone up among independents. Fifty-three percent said they approved of the president's job performance, a nine point increase since September. Even more strikingly, the percentage of independents who said they disapproved plunged 16 points, from 53 percent last month to 37 percent now.
The poll of 1,003 adults was conducted Oct. 1-5, using both landline and cell phone interviews, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Go to Real Clear Politics. They have all the major polls and compute the average.
He had an up tick of a 2 1/2 points since his low, but now he lost 1.4 point of that.
Here is a summary: His low was 51.0 on Sept. 1. Then it jumped up to 53. 6, and now it is down to 52.2.
Day by day polls are kind of dumb, but follow the trend from when he took office.
I won't make a conclusion. You can draw your own.
I think we need to have the ability to remove a President (or any other politician) by popular vote at any time. That would force them to do things to keep their approval ratings high and keep people happy enough not to fire them.
While I don't agree with Obama, I would think any change that would allow him to be removed early by popular vote would be terrible.
The president has to be able to make choices for his term that are not popular because sometimes the popular is not good for the long term.
It would be a disaster to change the Constitution to be able to remove Obama if his numbers dip further.
If I dislike his positions on something like health care, I can work on the lower level for the rest of his term.
But he shouldn't have to be looking over his shoulder at popular winds. His job is rough enough.
(One thing I dislike about Clinton was his constant reading of polls. One of the things that made Truman the greatest 20th Century president was that all his great accomplishments were very unpopular when he made the decision. See Marshall plan, intergrate the military, etc.
No, what I'm saying is that the American People should have the ability to remove ANY politician from office at any time. They should also have the power to vote for their own laws. They should also have the power to veto or overrule any decision made by the government.
There isn't anything that our politicians should do that isn't popular. But most importantly, if the people had this power, then they would learn to use it properly. Not at first, but eventually. This would turn politicians into simple pencil pushers, and it would turn Washington into an (almost) scandal-free city.
We can't even get half of the eligible voters to vote. And you want to give them more power???? Most of them have no clue what is happening in the world. Many of them can't even tell you who their U.S. Representative or Senators are.
The last thing we need is to have Presidents making decisions with the idea of pleasing the populace. More Presidents need to be like Truman, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43 and make decisions without showing concern about their popularity ratings. The approval ratings are a joke and are never a true barometer of the job that the President is doing or has done.
Yes, I want to give them more power. The reason why the majority (not half) don't vote is because it doesn't matter if they vote anyway.
Yes, most don't know what is happening in the world, or who their Representatives are. That's because it doesn't matter if they know. They can't change it or affect it. There's no need to know, so they don't. If they did have the power to affect things, then they would learn, and learn quickly. It wouldn't work well at first, but with time (I'm guessing 5 to 10 years) people would figure it out.
The problem we have is that Presidents do things that don't please the populace and get away with it. And it doesn't matter what side of the fence you're on either. Both liberals and conservatives were opposed to bailing out the banks and Wall Street. What happened? The left (and the majority) are against the war in Iraq. Are we out of there? The right (and the majority) were against the assult weapons ban back during the 90's. What happened?
To paraphrase a certain founding document, government derives it's just powers from the CONSENT of the governed. We need to put the consent back into play.
I understand what you are saying. All I am saying is that spur of the moment popularity is not the best vehicle for long term policies. The president needs to consider something more than the curren polls.
Also, it is incredibly complex to set up in reality. Are you talking about a simple recall, where if he loses the VP steps in?
Are you talking a full blown election? Do primaries precede it so parties can put up their agreed upon potential successor?
How do you know when to have the recall election? Do you have one every time people can get 30% signing a petition?
The practical implications are incredible just of figuring out how this would work.
Do you really want elections every two years or more if the president's popularity slips?
It may be a nice idealistic dream, but the reality is attrocious.
Which anyone who posts on this board should realize is simply not true. A true democracy in a country as large and diverse as ours would be closer to anarchy in real life.
As you so accurately state, "the reality is attrocious"
We are Democracy. If you want to get clinical about it, we're a Constitutionally-limited Republican Democracy.
I would prefer a larger element of a direct democracy. Direct democracy isn't that different from anarchy, but I'm talking about classical anarchism....as in the "anarchy is order" of Proudhon.
And everyone would learn how to think in the long term if their opinion mattered. And if a spur of a moment popularity became an issue to the rights of political minorities, then you already have a Judicial system in place to protect against that...after all, that's their primary job anyway.
No, it's not complex at all. If a President would be removed then you simply follow what the Constitution already states about how to move forward, same as if he was impeached.
Popular elections are another thing entirely. This is something separate. You have a recall election every secondd of every single day. All you need is to get 50%+1 to agree. Petitions aren't required for American Idol, and I don't think it should be required here either.
Hey it works in Switzerland.
It doesn't tell you damn thing. If you look at the sample, they are different demographics.
It does give stupid point to talk about.
Yeah, it isn't perfect. But do you have a better idea as to how to judge current views?
Yu attack looking at the average. What is better?
Would you only use one poll? CNN? How about just one associated with the Democratic party? Or only the pollster for the GOP?
Yes, every poll has a different demographic, which is why looking at a range is best. It is too long to list, "A says, B says, C says...." Therefore, the average is one means of summarizing the findings of the polls.
Of course, you could just say looking at any polls is dumb, but then what do you do? Go to the coffee shop and make notes of what you hear. Count bumper stickers?
Is there anyway of knowing how he is doing? If there is a better way, I would be happy to look at that in the future.
And why do you have to jump to insults about how it is for the stupid people? Can't you people ever just disagree without "stupid" or similar attacks?
If the average of the polls are for the stupid, how do the smart people evaluate how popular a view is?
Don't average polls. Averaging polls started in the UK during last elections by Daily Mirror (a Murdoch publication) and CNN copied it to be first in the US and it spread from there.
If you are familiar with population samples, and statistics you would know what is wrong with averaging. If not, you would just argue and make illogical arguments. So, why bother.
Somethings, you have to learn yourself.
You said where it started and who used it next.
The question is not what is wrong with it (which you didn't even directly addresss), but what is better.
Okay, I agree statistics etc reveal a flaw in averaging.
But what is a better way of judging public opinion?
Teach me. How to you educate yourself on what the public is thinking? Do you use one poll? To you use coffee shop talk? Do you use two polls (a GOP and a Dem poll) and compare them, a different form of crude averaging?
I agree any one poll has its flaws. What better way is there to find the public pulse than to look at many polls and try and see what the Poll of Polls indicates, which is all averaging is.
Again, what else is there?
And again, I think my question was reasonable, but you have to jump to a snide "illogical" "learn for your self."
OKAY. Challenge. Where was the illogic in my post? (Hint: 90% of it was questions. Questions aren't illogical.)
Harry Truman!!!! aaaaaaah-- his wife, mother-in-law and a daughter all thought he was a putz!!! And I think he was a putz too!
Joe Stalin took one look at him AND KNEW HE COULD PLAY HIM!! ALL WITHIN 5 SECONDS.
Truman screwed up Eastern Europe and Korea BIG-TIME. He felt threatened by MacArthur and fired him. MacArthur would have beaten those dirty rotten commies nice and good.
But that's just my 2 cents. You and RWU and XL1 are the brainiac wordsmiths.
His two big mistakes, E. Europe and Korea, were largely a result of an incredibly war weary public.
The thought of continuing the war against Russia over Eastern Europe would have been more than the public could bear. The thought of fighting on the Soviet front would be more than I could bear.
Also, the thought of having to gear the public from thinking of the Russians as the heroic force that had been our ally and now would be our enemy would have required an impossible public relations feat.
Likewise, while he did limit the General, a land war in China would be a nightmare as well. Mao did not mind sending 100,000 troops into battle to kill 100 enemy. The logistics would be a nightmare.
Also, as to General Mac, his decision to come ashore at Incheon (SP??) was bold and worked very well, but he there were terrible mistakes in other areas, including under estimating the number of Chinese and a lack of being prepared.
Truman had to go against popular opinion on many things, and it was his willingness to do what he thought was right that makes me like him.
Finally, after a life of public service, he retired with about two dimes to rub together. He was given all sorts of offers for speaking gigs etc. He turned them down, saying that what they wanted for the affairs was the president, and the president's job wasn't his to sell.
Read the McClellan bio. That is what made me a big fan.
(I do respect your views re some of his mistakes.)