Polling Schizophrenia

TW: Reporting on polls follows a very simple formula, it is almost always about the movement up or down, rarely about the absolute figures. The following posts from the same blog of one of the more level-headed sites you can find, the Economist, demonstrates the challenge. In the first, the theme is "woe is Obama as his numbers decline", the second wakes up and says but jeez he still is in absolute terms way ahead of his predecessors. The problem with high poll numbers is that they really have only one way to go which always leads to the wave of "woe is the POTUS". Clinton had a very rough first 6-8 months in office, W. Bush was also steadily losing support pre-9/11.

My net, net remains- if you do not like Obama, who exactly do you believe would be doing a better job? Are you pissed at Obama or the massive challenges the country faces. Obama to me at this point is about as good as it is going to get in terms of a talent in the White House.

From Economist blog post #1 today:
"TWO new polls show the first serious slippage in support for Barack Obama's agenda since he walked the inaugural parade route. They're fascinating: they show no rise in support for the floundering Republicans whatsoever, and steady support for Democrats. But more Americans are buying into the rhetoric of Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the conservative movement. Closing Guantánamo Bay? Taking over General Motors? Keynesian deficit spending? All sagging badly, all dragging the president down.

This stuff should be inducing nightmares in a White House staff that's heavy on veterans of Bill Clinton's administration. Mr Clinton arrived in office with a smaller mandate but an agenda similar in several ways: lots of up-front spending on "investment" in infrastructure and education, a health-care reform that covered every American. Very quickly, those plans were shredded by the consensus, held by voters and (more importantly) by Alan Greenspan, that America's economy couldn't grow without deficit reduction. Out went investment, in came tax increases."

From post #2 later this morning:
"IT'S possible to read too much into a few polls that show the president's agenda slipping in popularity. Compared to the last Democratic president, he's still rolling around in the hay. Take the CBS/New York Times poll. The top line: Mr Obama enjoys a 63% approval rating.

Now, take the CBS/New York Times poll that was released 16 years ago, gauging support for Bill Clinton.
His rating stands at 38 percent of the public approving how he handles his job, with 47 percent disapproving. Half the people say the President, who campaigned as a populist and vowed to end the status quo in Washington, has lost touch with average Americans.
Mr Obama's popularity is 25 points higher than Bill Clinton's was at this point in his presidency.

And compared to the last Repubican president? From a report on the June 21st, 2001 CBS/New York Times poll: Mr. Bush's job approval rating, which stands at 53 percent, is down seven points from March.

This is key for Mr Obama. Bill Clinton couldn't keep Democrats in line because there was no perceptible political benefit for sticking with him. Mr Obama remains the most popular political figure in the country. You can't discount that as he lobbies for his agenda."