Saturday, March 21, 2009


Some folks on the far right, not surprisingly, are unhappy that our poll this week showed nominating the Republicans nominating Sarah Palin in 2012 would likely lead to the largest landslide in a generation.

But this 'refutation' of the poll is just bizarre:

-The blogger states as authoritative fact that PPP is run by Stan Greenberg. That's one you have to put into the category of 'where do they come up with this stuff?' There is of course no citation for that 'fact,' which must have come out of thin air.

-He also claims the poll is biased because more Democrats were polled than Republicans. Uh, that's because there's a lot more Democrats in the country than Republicans. Republicans don't seem to understand that aspect of polling. Long time readers of the blog may recall Pat McCrory's nephew having similar difficulty last winter.

-The analysis concludes with 'Mr. Greenberg, you're busted.' I'm sure that is quite some news to Mr. Greenberg.

The ironic thing about Republicans being angry with this poll? The approval rating we found for President Obama was one of the lowest in a national survey that anyone's released over the last month. But we don't expect deluded wingers to let a few facts to get in their way.


Bobby Coggins said...

As a conservative blogger, I can attest that the Sarah Palin supporters are as fanatical as the Ron Paul supporters, and will not hesitate to attack anyone who does not share their enthusiasm.

They will be sorely disappointed in 2012 when reality sinks in as other candidates get more votes in the primaries, or if she declines to run.

Sarah Palin finished 3rd in the CPAC Straw Poll...tying with Ron Paul at 13%.

That alone should be a clue.

Sarah Palin should wait until 2016 or 2020 to run and avoid the meat grinder the lefty media will put her through.

Anonymous said...


You realize that no other pollster has a spread of 44/33/23 D/R/I, do you?

Obama's 55% approval rating is not an outlier (ARG 56%, NPR 57%, and Rasmussen 55%, Newsweek 58%). He's not that well-liked, a little bit less well-liked than George W. Bush if you go by the WSJ article.

68% of whites after 75% of whites comprised the electorate in 2008?

By the way, your Palin favorability numbers are different from the two other most recent Palin polls (Newsweek had her at 44/42, Rasmussen at 52/46). Who's right, you or Rasmussen or you or Newsweek?

I'm a just biased winger for pointing out these numbers for you?

Anonymous said...

By the way Jensen, is Obama still going to beat Hillary by 3 in the PA primary?

hahahah, no other pollster but you had that result. I'm surprised you even showed your face after that result. All you had to was look at a map of PA and the Appalachian Mountains in the state to know Obama was going to get landslided in PA by Hillary. But glad you spent the money and overpolled up a bunch of ACORN city slickers in Philadelphia.

Tell us Jensen, is Obama still going to beat McCain in Missouri and Montana? Is Obama within 2 of McCain in Georgia?

Tom Jensen said...

You have issues buddy.

Anonymous said...


Why not respond to the points made in the second post?

The poster is making three charges:

1) Your 55% approval number for Obama is not significantly lower than other polling outlets. The poster cites Rasmussen, NPR, and ARG, and Newsweek, which all have numbers similar to your Obama approval numbers.

2) Why so few whites polled when they composed 75% of the electorate in 2008, only a 3% decline from 2004. You really expect whites to compose 68%, a 7% decline, in 2012?

3) Why are your favorable numbers so different for Palin than the numbers for Newsweek and Rasmussen.

Why not respond to these charges? They are based on the numbers after all. What say you instead of just a snarkish reply? Is that what a "professional" pollster does, reply snarkishly to a poster providing objective data that challenges your analysis?

Anonymous said...

To the "Anonymous" PPP-bashing poster before me:

Why 68% Whites, not 74% as in the 2008 Exit Poll:

Because PPP's poll is of US adults, not likely voters. US adults are more diverse than likely voters, meaning a higher share of Latinos (who are often not citizens and by far younger than the average American and therefore not allowed to vote, but allowed to answer the phone, the same is true for Asian (immigrants))

Why the bigger Democratic advantage (44-33) than in the Exit Poll (39-32) ?

Mainly for reasons above: Adult Latinos and Asians who are not citizens are likely to identify as Democrats and pushing the margin of Democrats in "Adult Only Polls".

As for the 2008 polls you cite:

PPP was one of the most accurate institutes in the country. Ever heard of the Margin of Error ?

Greetings from Austria, Europe

Brandon K said...

It was actually a poll of "voters" but why quibble over facts Roland.

Full Infinity Flame said...

Oh, and exit polls tend to be full of crap.

Rasmus said...

What is a poll of "voters"? People who voted in the last election? I believe that if this is the case, this may be the reason for the poll being off-> Republicans have no problem to admit that they didn't turn out. Blacks, Latinos and all Democrats probably are a bit ashamed they didn't vote and therefore lie to the pollster.

I believe that there were some national polls with a 'For whom did you vote in the last election' crosstab- and there were regularly more Kerry than Bush voters. Why? Why Bush turned out to be a bad president, and the people are therefore ashamed to admit they voted for him. A live interviewer-poll would likely have had even more problems with that than the PPP IVR poll, but I still think this could have caused the too big PartyID advantage for the Democrats and the 32% minority vote share. You know, I can believe the 12% for Latinos- simply because Hispanics are the fastest-growing voting bloc. But blacks at 15%? How is Obama going to improve African-American turnout by another 25%?

A bigger problem are in my humble opinion the crosstabs for the age groups. Obama crushing Palin with seniors but leading just by 8 with younger voters?
And the approval ratings--- 55% for Obama is 4% below the poll aggregate, so it's really rather low. I have nothing to say about Palin, I don't know enough other results I could compare this poll with.
Well, I don't know. You're certainly one of the best pollsters around, and we should cut you some slack on this poll- if you wouldn't be so transparent we couldn't even find these flaws after all. But I have to agree with the points the second poster makes, too.
The third poster though.. is a joke. All PPP polls you cite were within the margin of error, except PA-Primary, and well.. every pollster gets a bad poll here and then.
Keep up the good work, and your next national poll will certainly be better.

Anonymous said...


Web Statistics