Public opinion polls play an important role in American politics. They provide a medium through which people can voice their opinions on any given political issue, including the job performance of the President of the United States. A president's standing in the polls, or approval rating, is closely monitored especially in an election year by the press, the public, and the Washington political community because of the close connection between public support of the president and the political fortunes of the democratic members of Congress up for re-election.
In order to be effective public opinion polls must be conducted correctly and provide statstical information that is accurate and understandable. Consumers of public opinion polls, including policymakers and voters, must have confidence in the information such polls present in order to be significant.
After reading the article linked below, do you think the polls mentioned in the article are accurate indicators of the public's approval of President Obama's job performance? Do you think these polls help or hinder our democratic process? Finally, what are your thoughts on Obama's declining approval ratings and this type of polling in general?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000010_pf.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
60 comments:
I think that polls often change quickly and no one poll can usually mark approval or disapproval for the whole nation. I do, however, think they give the overall mood of the nation fairly accurately, whether or not the numbers are exactly right. This said I believe that their Obama favorability ratings are probably fairly accurate. I think polls hinder the political process because they have become so intense and so in your face. They affect how people vote and feel about politics, which may affect future polls. I think that Obama's favorability ratings have gone down because people were looking for an easy fix for this country. Well the truth is there is no easy fix for this country and no matter who was president the economy wasn't going to jump back to where it was in 2 seconds. Also, policy gridlock is a major problem at this point and much of this is blamed on Obama.
Aw sweet victory. Personally I think that the polls mentioned in this article are fairly accurate because they seem to go with what I have seen as the general trend. Many people are dissatisfied with what Obama has done so far in office because he preached a message of change but has not met the expectations of many people which is why many are unsatisfied with him now. I believe that these polls do help our democratic process when people poll on specific issues because they allow our government to see if they are meeting the desires of their constituency. On the other hand, I feel that in cases like the one mentioned in the article of the poll of which party people will vote for in the November house elections, the poll just shows a trend of American people rather than do much to help parties change their plans. There is only so much that a government can do and the American people tend to dislike the party in power after a couple of presidential terms because they didn't fix every single problem, so they vote for the other party. A term or two later though the people are again unsatisfied so they vote the other way and this trend continues. A poll showing that this trend is still occurring doesn't seem to be too helpful to the government because at this point unless world peace happens and the economy miraculously gets better tomorrow, Americans will be unsatisfied with their government.
I think that Obama's declining approval rates and the polls that figure these things out fit into this same category. Few presidents are loved in a time of a war or large national debt unless they are the president in power when these wars end or the debt goes away even though much of the work done to complete these things were actually done by other presidencies. I think this type of polling just shows us something we could already foresee, people angry that their lives aren't changing immediately.
I think that polling on pressing issues in our society is helpful for the government to see how the country feels about certain issues. On the other hand, I think polling specifically on approval or disapproval of political parties takes us a step backward. Polling on such an issue only heightens the conflict between opposing parties and makes it more difficult to unify as a nation. Disapproval for a political party usually stems from the public blaming that party for whatever is happening in the country. Blame will get us no where. Simply because the Democratic party is in power during a time of economic recession does not mean that it is their fault. Rather than polling on something that will only split the nation further, we should continue polling on issues in society (healthcare, the environment, the economy, etc...) that would provide useful information about how the general public feels about which direction an issue should be taken. As Ellen said, these polls depict the overall mood of our nation, therefore they can offer useful information for our government.
I agree with what Emily said about the approval or disapproval of parties polling because it only takes us backwards. While competition is good and helps make everyone try harder, I don't believe that a hatred of each other will help us so much as it will hinder us. As we get to the point where it evolves from a friendly competition of disagreements to a battle of hatred less things start to get done. People start to vote against things just because the other party proposed it which is not what we need. I'm with Emily in thinking that we should just stick to polling on specific issues instead of on approval or disapproval of entire parties.
I generally tend to believe that polls do not correctly represent how an entire nation feels. However, I do believe that the polls from this article are a good indicator of the public's approval and disapproval ratings. I feel that the public was expecting a very rapid change when Obama was put into office and that there was no quick fix for the state our country was in, which is why his approval ratings have decreased dramatically. As Kyle said, Obama has not met the expectations and needs of the people which is why much of the public is unsatisfied with him. I think that the polls help with our democratic process because it allows our policymakers to see how people feel about certain issues and helps them know what policies need to be made, changed, or removed.
because i have seen polls similar to these, i believe they are fairly accurate. in the article, they say that presedents approval rating has gone down, and i am curious how often in the past this has happened to former presidents. I feel the country is expecting some great and immediate turn around that is unrealistic, and every day that passes they feel our president has failed. Many of the issues today are very controvercial and the gridlock is very frusterating, the policies may be taking longer than most to change, but you cant change the health care in a day. i think the american people want the impossible, they want changes immediately and dont realize the more important the decision, the more time congress and the president should take to get it right. these polls show the somewhat unfair discontent with the president.
I believe that polls are only useful to a point. As Emily said they can be useful to the government to show them what is important to people, however, I believe that they would be more useful if people knew what was going on. I think that, as discussed in class, polls truly do show that Americans are not aware of what is going on around them, thereby canceling out the effectiveness of polls. Also, I agree that Obama's approval rating have dipped greatly because change didn't happen immediately. Once he was elected I don't believe that people realized or didn't want to realize that change couldn't or wasn't going to happen immediately. Obama is trying to change things though, whether you think for better or for worse is a separate issue; but he is trying to bring about change. People get fired up and panicky in times of change, just look at every major change made to our Consitution or policies. I agree with Karly that people need to calm down and realize that the President and Congress need to take the time that is necessary to improve our nation.
I don't think the polls are necessarily inaccurate, but they do reflect a recent trend among American voters: they are extremely impatient. It seems that history again likes to repeat itself. Obama's approval ratings, when it comes to specific issues, have a downward trend with the passage of time, which reflects the impatience of voters. I don't necessarily agree with everything the guy has done, but I do realize that any economic policy takes months, if not years to affect the general population in a meaningful way. It is likely that we are only just feeling the effects of the initial stimulus in a gradually rising GDP.
This goes to show that most Americans, sadly, have no idea what they are talking about. And it also goes to show that indecisive voters are arguably the biggest morons on the face of the earth. They vote people into critical political positions based on whether or not the guy (or gal) seems nice or friendly. I think Obama's, and even Bush's, low approval ratings can be largely attributed to people being a) impatient with policy that takes time to become effective, and b) not reading into who they are voting for. Obama's politics were pretty well known long before they stepped foot in the oval office, but the indecisive didn't know who they were voting for.
I agree with Ellen and Jack that polls cannot be completely trusted because of the fact that many Americans are not fully aware of what is going on in the political world. While I think politicians need to consider this when examining a poll, I also find it important for them to notice the way a poll is worded. As we saw in class today, simply changing the wording of a poll can completely change the results, even if it asks the same question twice. Not only does a purposeful choice of wording prove that polls are not as credible as they seem to be, but that also proves, again, that Americans are not fully aware of what is going on around them. Due to these conditions, I believe that polls can still be used to indicate how the public feels about certain issues, but only if they are taken with a grain of salt. Policies should not be built based on evidence gathered from a public poll.
I believe public opinion polls are theoretically a great way to project public opinion. In reality, there are many problems. I agree that polls will only be effective if policy makers have confidence in them. But also, the capability of who is being polled can be laughed at, but should not be disregarded. It's true the nation is full of incompetent voters to say the least, but ignoring their political power of voting is irresponsible. Polls reveal a problem of the undereducated masses.
The polls themselves about Obama's job performance are accurate of public opinion, but public opinion is not justified by facts or reality. Public opinion can be determined by other factors that shouldn't contribute, but do. What if he is wearing an ugly tie during his speech? Not that it should matter, but it does. I would say the polls help our democratic process, but do not contribute to the overall growth of our society. I believe Obama's approval ratings are overall accurate to public opinion, whether the public understands his policy's intentions is questionable.
As far as I'm concerned, polls never have been and never will be an accurate measure of public opinion because they force people to answer questions they could very well not be knowledgeable about or that are worded very poorly. A lack of education on polling topics also does not necessarily convey stupidity or ignorance, only that the said issue has not been described very well by the *cough* biased media. As shown by Ellen's example about healthcare today, the problem is not that people are ignorant, it's that we get our information from the news, and when the news doesn't describe what the healthcare bill comprises, few people are going to take the time to dig and find out. As for their effect on the democratic process, polls have little effect. Not just because they do a poor job of portraying public opinion, but also because once they're in office, politicians plainly don't care about the people. This kind of polling, like I basically stated earlier, is a waste of time because it doesn't matter and nobody looks at them. Obama's approval rating drop is clearly caused because of his astounding ability to make dozens of empty promises. It's been over a year since he took office, and things really havn't changed since the Bush administration left. Since promising change, pulling out of Iraq, closing gitmo, and reforming the healthcare system, the only thing that Obama has done is prove that he can lie his ass off to win an election.
i agree with all earlier posts that polls are only useful to a point. while i think they are accurate in portraying the americans emotions, i dont think that the americans themselves often have enough information on the subject to influence what politicians should do. often people dont understand many of the pieces that go into the issues, and dont know what they actually want. No piece of legislation is going to be perfect for everyone, so we just have to find one that works for the country as a whole.
While I don't believe that the numbers projected by polls can be regarded as completely accurate, I do think polls are fairly effective when it comes to showing how opinions change over time. I think the polls that we can have the most faith in are the ones like Obama's approval ratings, that show an increase or decrease over time because you don't have to rely on a number, rather just a trend.
Like many of the people before me, I think the polls are fairly accurate of the publics's approval of President Obama's performance so far. It's pretty obvious that Obama would have been more popular shortly after his election, rather than now, when he's not really a novelty anymore and people are realizing that it'll be a while before the economics situation (among other things) gets better. I agree with Emily in that polls are a good way to find out the public's opinion on the issue but Ellen's right - polls are so important in elections nowadays that you could almost see them as a cause for popularity rather than an indicator of popularity.
The polls presented in the article are probably accurate, but I don't think it will change people's opinions very much. It seems that though the pools are accurate they will not be able to convince people of the other side that one side is better than the other. These polls will probably not change the public opinion nor the democratic process. These polls mean nothing in the whole scheme of things because public opinion is always changing and it is normal for it to shift and when the actions and legislations he has been passing succeed then they will change again shifting back towards th democratic party. Kyle said that Obama was not following through with his promises which I think is because it is hard to make so many changes with so much opposition. So polls are useful overall but make no true changes in general.
I believe public opinion polling is fairly accurate and a good source for politicians and the public. However, it does hinder the political process by affecting the way people vote in elections and other polls.
I think Obama's decrease in approval is the result of things not being changed fast enough. Many Americans don't understand that issues like the economy and healthcare can't be dealt with overnight (even if there wasn't "gridlock" in Congress) and so they look to blame the government.
I think that the polls are for the most part accurate. It seems that recently the general trend has shifted from support of the democrats to support of anybody but the democrats (leaving the republicans). I do agree with Jack that the majority of people regardless of their ideology or party attachment are impatient with our government system. More so, the polls are more than anything a reflection of the economy, and like jack said, the effects of the stimulus bill have only recently and minimally been felt. Most Americans feel that the economy isn't as healthy as it should be at this point in Obama's first term. But as these polls don't mention and like everyone generally forgets, alot can happen until november.
I'd have to agree with Claire, that polls shouldn't be the main source of public opinion. Is there a better option? Policy makers need to find a new resource. Polling's inaccuracies have obviously been proven but other than polling what option is there? I'm open to other means of communication. And while we are trying to redo this process, is there a way to create questions with out bias?
I feel like I am being very redundant in saying that I too believe polls to be accurate when describing trends, but they should not be relied on for policymaking. Many good arguments have been brough forth, most of them in agreement with eachother. We all seem to agree that polls are unreliable, but somewhat necessary in predicting certain trends. As far as Obama's favorability ratings, I also agree that the polls do a good job of showing the general trend (people are frustrated that nothing is getting done, when they were promised so much change). I believe that polls would be slightly more reliable if, like Sammy said, the questions were completely unbiased. The way a question is posed has a lot to do with a person's response to it. I almost feel as if the Independent party should pose some poll questions, for they seem to be the "third party" in all of this by disagreeing with both the democrats and the republicans. Also, I agree with the idea that we are not going to get anywhere or accomplish anything if both parties are clashing all of the time. I can't remember who said it, I think it was Karly, but I agree that the reason the government is spending so much time on policies for certain high interest issues, like healthcare for example, is because a decision either way will affect a TON of people, both positively and negatively and the government is afraid to commit to one decision, by the chance that it is the wrong one.
I personally think that the polls do help in our democracy. The polls discussed in the article show that people aren't happy with the way Obama is conducting business. Many of the big issues he's trying to tackle have seen negative reactions from people across the country. I think these polls have helped our democracy because it shows that people are displeased with how things are going with the government right and lets potential government officials know what they need to do if they want to win the suppport of the American people. Polls can become a problem if all leaders do is just follow polls and not take a stand. We do need our leaders to be able to stand strong on tough issues.
As everyone has already said, I believe that polls are great in theory. They can help polticians know what their constituents value and can be useful in terms of forming public policy. In reality, however, the results for many polls end up being relatively useless. The public either contradicts itself (i.e. the healthcare example ellen talked about earlier in the week, where Americans overwhelmingly approved of all aspects of healthcare but not the overall package), or a question is worded in a biased manner, or the results change within the next week. In terms of Obama's approval ratings, I think that these polls are accurate because it's a fairly straightforward question, and it's asked so frequently that there are multiple polls that, when looked at together, present a good idea of the country's opinion. I think that the polls ultimately hinder the democratic process, however, because people change their minds a lot and many are completely uneducated about the issues. Politicians are elected because the majority of people trust them to make the right decisions for their areas..polling simply distracts them. In terms of Obama's declining approval ratings, this was bound to happen because, as mentioned, Americans are impatient. The economy wasn't immediately fixed, thus Obama is a bad president. It's also important to remember that America is one of the most, if not the most conservative of the developed nations...it's no surprise that we would be returning to a more conservative stance after awhile.
As numerous people have already stated, I believe some opinion polls are fairly useful when trying to view a trend in the public's view on specific issues. However, I don't think that these polls should be relied on by those trying to create policies because there are way too many factors that contribute to the poll's potential inaccuracy. As stated before, people could lack the knowledge or the question could be bias. Therefore, i believe politicians should not rely on the specific numbers of the polls when creating policies but instead take note of the overall sentiment of the public that a poll depicts.
I also think that polls change very quickly over a certain amount of time. I don't think that the approval or disapproval of the nation as a whole can be found in polls. If you think about it, situations change all the time. One minute Obama could be doing something really stupid and making everyone mad, and the next he could be doing something great that makes everyone happy. His approval ratings are going to continue to fluctuate as his term continues. I think for a certain amount of time polls can be considered accurate, but not for long periods of time, because things change, and people's opinions are continually changing as a result of issues that keep coming up. The reason I feel like Obama's approval rates are way now right now is that at the moment ticked off and looking for someone to blame because things haven't been fixed as rapidly as the people had hoped. I'm not in any way defending Obama, I'm upset like everyone else, but I think that everyone, including myself, needs to realize that things take time. It could be a long time before everything is completely back to normal, and it's hard to hear, and it sucks, but everything cant and wont just be fixed in a year, it doesnt work that way.
I'm not a huge fan of these polls. They make me sad, no matter what the subject. They seem to be generally accurate, though. Most people excepted that once Obama was elected things were going to happen immediately and the country would do a 180, which is obviously unrealistic. Seeing as how that didn't happen, people are becoming upset that nothing is being done, so it doesn't surprise me that his approval ratings went down. I don't think they'll have much of an effect on people's opinions about how to vote for the house. To be honest I don't think these polls do much at all, but theoretically they should be helping. I don't think they can ever REALLY be accurate, though, because so many variables play into them. Are you calling people on land lines or cell phones? Are you calling everyone or just registered voters? How are you phrasing the question? All of these things play an important role in polls. The biggest problem going on right now in the country is that nothing is happening, and since Obama promised change that is slow to happen, everyone's blaming him. I say bull puckey!
I agree with Mary on the fact that polls are good for expressing public opinion but policymakers need to be able to stand up and lead. I think the polls right now are fairly accurate and there is a growing unhapiness with Obama and his performance. The polls are starting to show that the overall majority wants the economy fixed but they don't like the method of a stimulus bill handing out free money.
I agree with Kelly; the factors that play into polling are extremely variable. People's responses can depend on so many different things, from the mood they're in to the way the question is asked to the time of day it is. Supposedly, random sampling takes out these variables, but I still don't believe 1,000 can accurately respresent the views of more than 300 million people. Who is being reached is also highly variable--what is their education level, their family's political leaning, their race, their age, their social class? If you're only calling registered voters, or landlines, will you really have a representational sample? It just seems like there's too much up in the air with polling and it just causes confusion.
P.S. I'm not sure why my other post is under 'lizzilu21' but it's mine...
I am afraid that what I might say will only repeat ideas of many other of my peers' comments. My apologies if my post seems unoriginal. Anywho, the polls in the article are, in my opinion, "okay" indicators of the public's approval of President Obama. They're fine, but ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
As many other of my fellow AP Gov students have said, there are lots of things one must take into consideration before paying attention to such polls. For instance, the questions may have been phrased in certain ways that would have gotten a particular answer out of the respondents. And the fact that the respondents gave the time to answer the questions shows that they are opinionated enough to share their opinion, so there is the risk that the 1004 people in the sample are 1004 people with very strong opinions that may not reflect the majority.
However, I do believe that regardless of question phrasing and who answers the questions, polling is a fairly decent way to measure the general mood of the public. I don't think you can make any concrete decisions based off of them, but you can get an overall idea of how the public feels on certain issues, such as Obama's presidency so far.
Again, these polls should be taken with a grain of salt. If they are taken too seriously, I believe that they do hinder our democratic process. There are so many opinions out there and so many different ways of phrasing questions that to try and make solid sense of such chaos would be an almost absurd task. However, they should not be ignored altogether. The polls are still, regardless of how accurate they are, a measure of the people's opinion, and if treated as an indicator, can be quite useful in some decisions.
In terms of Obama's declining approval ratings, I'm not surprised. A lot of people put such faith into his campaign that he was turned into a sort of political god that could solve all our problems with a wave of his magic wand. Admittedly, the promises he made did nothing to stop these beliefs. So it is no surprise that his approval ratings have gone down, since there is no way ANY politician can live up to all the promises they make during their campaign. And, as several of my peers have stated, most presidents' approval ratings will go down during their terms, unless they are present for the end of a war or an economic boom, and really, with our complex systems of government today, that's mostly dumb luck.
However, I do believe that Obama is taking the heat for some things that he shouldn't. For instance, it is not his fault that the economic crisis hasn't been fixed, that is the fault of the political gridlock in Congress. You can't blame the man if his policies haven't even been given a chance to be tried out. It is unreasonable to think that one man can magically make people agree, and even if he could, that would undermine the basic idea of democracy. So people, while they have every right to be bummed about the current state of our government, have little reason to critisize Obama so harshly as to say he is someone who can "lie his ass off."
I think the lack of confidence in the American people is not so directed towards Obama as it is towards the lack of cooperation in Congress. One can see an example of this in the findings of the article, how most polls are finding a fairly "straight down the middle" sentiment of the people towards the Democratic and Republican parties.
All in all, the declining approval ratings of Obama do not surprise me and I think that they are fairly accurate, but not in describing the quality of Obama as a president. Rather, it reflects the misguided opinions of a large portion of Americans, who are upset with the ineptitude of the partisan polarization of Congress, which is naturally pinned on the figure-head of our government, the president.
P.S. Sorry for posting such a giant comment.
I agree with Kelly. There are so many things to take into consideration with these polls, I didn't even really think of any of that. There is really no way that these polls are completely accurate. There are way too many things that can affect how the polls are answered, especially the phrasing of the questions.
I also agree with Teddy to some extent that the polls arent accurate when it comes to the quality of Obama as a president. The polls do I think more reflect our misguided disappointment in Congress, but since Obama is the head of state, we put all the blame on him. Even though a lot of it should be put on Congress.
I think overall the polls are somewhat accurate in regards to how the public is feeling about certain issues. However there is always going to be some inaccuracy with how everything is changing so rapidly in the government today. In looking at the decline in Obama's ratings I don't think it's that they don't agree with his decisions it's the fact that it isn't changing as fast as they had hoped. The government is currently in a state of policy gridlock and because of that the public isn't happy and that's one of the reasons Obama's ratings have declined. However I don't think the public understand that these issues take time and need to be thought through so that the decision they make can please the most amount of people possible.
Jess!!!! Quick, take your last name off before they get you!!!!!!!!!!!
As for the post, I agree with Hannah. Sort of... Take an Obama approval rating poll. The approval rating isn't 3% accurate to what his approval is for the month, or even for the week. It's merely for that day at that time. And it could probably change depending on the time of day. So there's that in addition to the fact that any change in a question can lead to a huge change in the answers, as shown by the gay marriage example in class.
Instead of "Do you approve of Barak Obama's performance as President?", what if the question was instead, "Do you DISapprove of Barak Obama's performance as President?" I bet the results would be drastically different. Also, adding a neutral option would change results as well. It's not that people are ignorant or stupid, it's that most Americans probably just don't care because it doesn't affect them.
I agree with Lizzi and Kelly on some level; that there are so many variables to take into consideration that it's hard to have confidence in the accuracy of polling. However, it seems to be the best way so far to gage public opinion. For example, if more polls were conducted online, we would be missing a significant portion of the public opinion as well. Also, I don't think it should matter that some polls only focus on registered voters because it's likely people who aren't even registered to vote don't know much about the issues anyway.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a way to just educate the entire American people about all the issues? That way, we wouldn't need to worry about all the polling problems, because I agree, that while they are faulty, they are also our best method of trying to measure the public's opinion. Still, that would be easier if the public knew what they were talking about, or at least had enough background knowledge on the questions asked that they could comfortably give an answer that reflected their true beliefs. Not that our government isn't spending enough, but someday it might be nice to have like one solid way to get all the facts on every political issue in a widespread, digestible way so that everyone could know what is going on. This is, of course, a very unrealistic dream. But even if the government put up like a website that summerized all the issues and the viewpoints of each party so we the people could see where they're all coming from would make some dramatic changes.
I agree with Teddy about the fact that there really needs to big one big source of information where the public can find out general,relevant info about the policies and the parties and the candidates. The polls do reflect some kind of opinion of the public but most likely not a completely accurate opinion. Its hard to believe the people when they really don't know what they're talking about. If the public is more educated, the results from polls will be much more believable and just many more things would get accomplished in the government because of the mutual understanding. IF the people were educated, which they are mostly not so we have to use what we can. I think the Obama ratings have gone down which might not be entirely his fault because of the way the economy had been spiraling downwards but his ratings are also being to spiral down as well. The question is if he'll be able to raise those rating and polls would be helpful to assist him in his decisions but sadly, they are not very credible tools to use effectively although some public opinion is truly mixed in there, but not much.
I believe that these poll results are indicative that some form of change is necessary. I think some people are beginning to disapprove of Obama's job performance but more simply had to high of expectations and are just plain getting sick of the rampant partisanship in our government. Obama has been in office one year and people are beginning to disapprove of him because he has not fixed everything that was wrong. We are making gains but Obama inherited a nightmare situation that even our greatest presidents would have difficulty facing. So yes I think the polls are accurate but I think the reasons behind them being accurate are irrational. As to whether or not these polls help or hinder the people I believe they hinder. Policy makers very rarely use the poles to judge popular opinion and they can hurt when people don't vote because of them. As for my thoughts on Obama's approval ratings as I said earlier I think we expected too much as Obama came in to office. We expected all our problems to disappear as if by magic. It's true that Obama has been in office for a year now but that is hardly enough time to expect sweeping reforms in such a nightmare situation. And Obama has been hampered by the rampant partisanship that is frankly disgusting. Politicians would rather only concern themselves with their party not the welfare of our country. They would rather stagnate our country in the hope it'll help their party succeed and that is the true problem.
I understand the necessity of polls to convey the thoughts and opinions of people to politicians, but I feel that the way in which the polls are taken is somewhat flawed. Random-digit dialing is a good system for choosing who should be called, but only a certain amount of people asked to take the poll actually do. This creates somewhat of a bias in the survey because younger people are less likely to take the survey than older people. If more older people are taking the survey than the amount that were originally called the poll then does not give an accurate representation of public opinion. One could say that this also happens with voting, but a poll usually only surveys 1,000-2,000 people so one more old person taking the survey over a young person has a much greater effect.
As others before me have stated, this public opinion matter seems inconsequential and not an overall indicator for the efficiency and opinion of the President. Gauging favorability alone is not an accurate portrayal of the President's abilities or policies. Concerns on specific issues and ideas are what is important, and polling about these give a better understanding of where the American people lie in terms of satisfaction with the government. Asking merely "Do you approve" does not solve anything. Specific polling and the focus on certain key issues and how the government seems to be handling them is what is key and what will make this opinion surveys more relevant and important.
Also, as far as Obama's dropping ratings go, this is only indicative of a government of parties running for re-election, not looking after the common good. This in-fighting between parties solves nothing, and the American people are demanding change. What these polls don't show is why Obama's doing so little, why the government seems to be floundering. His ratings are probably accurate, and I don't blame the American people for looking for someone to blame. Polls, however, do not address the issue of the strict partisanship that is ravaging the American government. Obama's ratings are down because under this pressure and the struggle of attempting to unite a country that is only after political power, he is able to do very little. So, while polls may show that he is waning in his popularity and presence, they are painting our government in black and white. Either you are with Obama, or against Obama. This is not the way the American machine runs, and is running. To simplify policy and government practice into something as simple as "Do you approve..?" is nonsense.
Like almost everyone else, it seems like, I agree with the polls being faulty. I think it was Justin who mentioned random digit dialing and how its biased depending on what group of people is willing to answer, and Teddy who discussed just how the American population is just clearly not well informed about the current issues being discussed. I think that our government should focus less on trying to solidify our polling system and more on a better way to get people thinking about government! When it comes down to it, the polls will always be faulty unless people truly understand the issues at hand and actually know what the heck they're talking about!
I think that these polls are fairly accurate. I would have to argue that they do not hinder our democratic system but rather make apparent a flaw of our system; that politicans often make insignificant middle of the road decisions so their approval ratings will remain high thus getting them reelected in following years. I think this approval rating type of polling is more interesting to the public than to politicians. Obviously Obama's ratings will decline as he faces the realities of the challenges he must take on. Therefore these polls really don't show anything of much shocking significane.
It seems the majority of us have reached a consensus. We all agree that polls are flawed, which is obvious. We also seem to agree that though they are flawed, they have some value to them. We are able to get a rough estimate of where people stand on certain issues or their favorability of certain candidates. If there was some way to conduct a poll without flaws, which would be almost near impossible, we would have very reliable results, leading to accurate predictions on winning candidates and so forth. However, until this time, we must accept the flaws of polls and realize that their results are by no means final. We must not let polls influence us on political issues and instead view them as a means of judging the nation's overall attitude toward an issue, which can be used in the future as a way of studying past elections and policies and the attitudes of americans at the time.
I agree with Teedy and Zena and Jess about how the blame is not on the Congress who deserves it but is instead on Obama who is trying very hard and is not at fault for the issues that he is being blamed for. I also think that the polls are inaccurate and that they should be reflecting more the public's anxieties about the current situation both in the economy and in the Congree that bills are taking so long to pass or fail building frustration that is being shown through the polls on Obama. So these polls are not properly representing what they should be.
I personally think that these polls do show an accurate reflection of President Obama's approval rating at the moment. I think that the polls do stand as fairly accurate measures of public sentiment as Obama's approval ratings were around 60% at the beginning of his term and are now at around 50%. While perhaps this isn't fair because our nation's current stasis is due mostly to Congress's indecision, it does seem like a 10% drop is very feasible. I also don't think that polls hinder the democratic process necessarily. In a democracy people have the right to such information. There is so much information thrown at constituents that I think polls also often get lost in it all. I do like the polls because I think they're quite fascinating and it's nice to see in what direction our nation sways on different issues.
I also want to call into question Remington's assertion that the polls are inaccurate because the questions are written by the liberal press. I think that in certain circumstances that might be an appropriate assumption, but one can see by looking at various polls that they all pretty much report the same statistics. Basically, I don't really think that saying polls are inaccurate because of liberal bias because we have repeatedly seen sources like Fox and CNN post the same poll results.
I agree with Mary and also believe that people need to recognize that the results of polls are flawed, and should not be taken as fact. I think policy makers should be aware of the polls, but should not be influenced by them so much that they are making decisions that they don't feel good about.
I agree with what Kelly said. There are so many factors that play into the results of polls that it makes it difficult to deem polls accurate. It seems that they may show the general trends of how the nation feels, but they should definitely not be used in policy making. Also, people need to lay off Obama. People were expecting such a huge change in a short amount of time, but they don't realize that we weren't going to be able to turn everything around immediately. Change takes time, and it seems to me that Obama has been moving this country in a new better direction.
I don't really know what else to say. 53 comments is quite a bit and most people have been redundant and saying the same thing over and over again. I guess the only thing that I didn't say before that I agree with, as stated by Anne is that these polls seem to be one of the only ways to gauge public opinion, so we probably need them unless we come up with a more efficient way.
I, like many of the others on the blog, have conflicted opinions about the accuracy of these polls. On the one hand, I believe that polls are helpful because they allow the general public to participate in politics and share their opinions. However, given that most of the American public is uninformed about the issues our nation faces, inaccuracies will undoubtedly be seen in polling results. I also agree that much of the recent drop in Obama's approval rating can be attributed to dissatisfaction with what Cohen and Balz call "partisan polarization." Americans are frustrated by the federal government's inability to get anything done, and the blame for their inaction is inevitably placed on Obama.
As basically everyone stated, theses polls are never 100% accurate, but are not entirely false either. I agree with alex in that these polls sometimes influence politicians to make middle of the road decisions in an attempt to keep everyone happy, but in reality does very little to help the issue. Because of this, i feel like these polls do more bad than good when it comes to real issues and the smaller details of policies.
Despite many of the inaccuracies people have stated, I think polls will maintain their popularity because they are a direct and easy to understand way of looking at often complex issues.
I'm keeping this short so people will read it. I believe there is a need for polls and that the system of polling has some flaws, but as of now it is the best method of finding out poeple's opinions without forcing citizens to take polls.
I agree with Anne that despite the many shortcomings of polling, it does seem to be the best available way to gauge the opinions of the wider American public. As she mentioned, changing the method would not necessarily make the results any more accurate than they are when using the current random-digit dialing strategy. I also understand where Eric is coming from in saying that approval ratings are too black and white to accurately reflect the intricacies of Obama's success as President. Most people probably approve of the Obama administration's work on some issues but disagree on others, which is difficult to reflect in an approval rating poll.
I have to say that I agree with Alex that even though the polls can be inaccurate and we say that they are mostly not used, I'm sure that they will continue to exist because they still give some kind of idea of the public opinion for the politicians. Even if its a distorted idea, its still there.
I think a lot of the conflict over polls is decided by how strongly you believe in 1. the swayability (if that's a word) of people and 2. the fairness of the current political system and of the media
Post a Comment