Stop covering Obama poll results in 2014

[Merc14]

You can't make this stuff up. Remember then the leading news story nightly was Bush's polling numbers? Well, with Obama set to break all time lows his pollster suggests that hews agencies don't cover any polls till after the elections in 2014.

After a year of seeing President Obama’s approval ratings plummet, the president’s pollster is offering a strikingly candid and pessimistic New Year’s resolution.

Reporters should go the next “year without reporting any public polling data,” Joel Benenson, president and CEO of Benenson Strategy Group, said.

he went on to say,

Asked his New Year’s resolution: “Here’s one — with a variation, if mine is too extreme: Go one year without reporting any public polling data.”

“Rationale: Most public polling continues to be reported on strictly from a topline, horserace-type perspective that does nothing, or at best very little, to illuminate the news of the day.”

Benenson offered an alternative if “this is too strict.”

“Go one year without reporting any public polling data that doesn’t provide in an in-depth analysis of the underlying dynamics that are truly shaping the data,” he said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/31/obama-pollster-reporters-should-stop-covering-polls-in-2014/#ixzz2pBs2cIlw

His reasoning can be narrowed down to you are too stupid to understand the results and they really don't mean anything anyways.

[Lilly]

President Obama is a lame duck at this point (American Presidents can only serve 2 terms). I think the polls would be better served to follow those who have the potential for re-election.

[+and-then]

If a majority of the MSM refuse to show polling data and Fox continues to then of course the data will be considered "tainted". But there are an awful lot of companies out there that have polling as their main income source. Somehow I just don't think this one will catch on

[Merc14]

President Obama is a lame duck at this point (American Presidents can only serve 2 terms). I think the polls would be better served to follow those who have the potential for re-election.

So you are all for not showing Obama's poll ratings?

[Neognosis]

I agree that polling data is useless and detrimental no matter who is in office.

But the news fails in SO many ways.

[Merc14]

I agree that polling data is useless and detrimental no matter who is in office.

But the news fails in SO many ways.

Why is it detrimental? The man is in office to represent the people and if the people are uniformly against his polices hadn't he ought to listen? The President's popularity is also a signal to his party that there is a problem with their leadership. If Obama was polling 70% approve the democrats would be clamoring to have hin go to their states and stump for them but when he is polling at 39% he is poison. The Prsident;s popularity, right or wrong, also effects every single democrat running for office.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Merc14

[Neognosis]

Why is it detrimental? The man is in office to represent the people and if the people are uniformly against his polices hadn't he ought to listen?

........

The President's popularity is also a signal to his party that there is a problem with their leadership. If Obama was polling 70% approve the democrats would be clamoring to have hin go to their states and stump for them but when he is polling at 39% he is poison. The Prsident;s popularity, right or wrong, also effects every single democrat running for office.

First, politicians have their own polling. They don't need to watch the news to find out what the polls say. I suspect that they know that the news polls are not accurate anyway.

Second, people like to favor whoever everyone else favors.

When you repeatedly report that President TwoFace has 70% approval rating, or 30% approval rating, people start to just get on that bandwagon.

I ignore polls, they mean nothing to me, they are not accurate, and they prevent me from thinking for myself.

[+and-then]

So you are all for not showing Obama's poll ratings?

Absolutely not! He made this mess and he shouldn't be allowed to ignore the ramifications of it. It has no impact on him personally but his "coat tails" will stain every democrat in 2014 and 2016 - and since they followed and supported him slavishly THEY SHOULD BURN. If his pimps in the MSM could shield the dems then of course they will but I think the polling industry in general will not be quiet about this.

[+and-then]

........

First, politicians have their own polling. They don't need to watch the news to find out what the polls say. I suspect that they know that the news polls are not accurate anyway.

Second, people like to favor whoever everyone else favors.

When you repeatedly report that President TwoFace has 70% approval rating, or 30% approval rating, people start to just get on that bandwagon.

I ignore polls, they mean nothing to me, they are not accurate, and they prevent me from thinking for myself.

Obama's taint will spread over the dems who bent over backward to push his policies and the polling will reinforce this and cause a lot of people who might be open minded to decide against this bunch of sycophants. They have screwed this country up in a major way and they should be held liable at the polls. My guess is that even if the republicans acquired both houses of congress in 2014 they still will not be able to accomplish much until his veto pen is removed in 2016. Even THEN I find it unlikely that they will change things to make our country more "conservative". I think the scales tipped in 2012 and we are now a nation of takers rather than producers.

[Merc14]

........

First, politicians have their own polling. They don't need to watch the news to find out what the polls say. I suspect that they know that the news polls are not accurate anyway.

Second, people like to favor whoever everyone else favors.

When you repeatedly report that President TwoFace has 70% approval rating, or 30% approval rating, people start to just get on that bandwagon.

I ignore polls, they mean nothing to me, they are not accurate, and they prevent me from thinking for myself.

Hmm, I said much the same thing in the last election and was proved totally wrong. The polls were spot-on and Obama was reelected with almost exactly what the polls predicted. This was also the case in 2010 when the democrats got clobbered although the polls underperformed then.

Some polls are very biased but they are easily spotted and some sources should never be trusted (basically, any source ninja quotes) but the major polls seem to do a pretty good job on most occasions.

What is very telling here is the media attacked Bush like nothing I have seen in my 50 plus years. It was unprecedented and his numbers showed it. i remember the democrat mantra of worst economy in 50 years, repeated endlessly my the lapdog media, when unemployment hit 5%. Obama, on the other hand, has received unprecedented cover from the press since he challenged poor old fat Hillary "the ever suffering" and took her crown away. Obama's bad numbers are in spite of the media's best efforts to protect the crook so this is really bad and any comparison to Bush is wrongheaded and shortsighted. This is genuine anger, not media generated anger and pretending the polls don't exist ain't gonna help.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Merc14

[Merc14]

Absolutely not! He made this mess and he shouldn't be allowed to ignore the ramifications of it. It has no impact on him personally but his "coat tails" will stain every democrat in 2014 and 2016 - and since they followed and supported him slavishly THEY SHOULD BURN. If his pimps in the MSM could shield the dems then of course they will but I think the polling industry in general will not be quiet about this.

I was responding to Lilly, not questioning you but enjoyed your response nonetheless and wholeheartedly agree.

[coolguy]

Left wing media love Obama of course they won't report poll results

[Neognosis]

Obama's taint will spread over the dems who bent over backward to push his policies and the polling will reinforce this and cause a lot of people who might be open minded to decide against this bunch of sycophants.

I think that right around 2015, when the affordable care act turns out to be a good step in the right direction, and more and more people just chuckle at how relentlessly hard FOX news is trying to portray it in every negative light, even when they have to harp for hours on insignificant things and report half truths, then I don't think Democrats will be so worried about it.

Hmm, I said much the same thing in the last election and was proved totally wrong. The polls were spot-on and Obama was reelected with almost exactly what the polls predicted.

Exit pols are completely different.

Obama's bad numbers are in spite of the media's best efforts to protect the crook

I don't know what news you watch, but I have a suspicion....

I watch FOX news exclusively. I don't see much effort to protect the president. IN fact, I see a relentless and, at this point, silly coordinated effort to undermine him.

[Merc14]

I think that right around 2015, when the affordable care act turns out to be a good step in the right direction, and more and more people just chuckle at how relentlessly hard FOX news is trying to portray it in every negative light, even when they have to harp for hours on insignificant things and report half truths, then I don't think Democrats will be so worried about it.

Exit pols are completely different.

I don't know what news you watch, but I have a suspicion....

I watch FOX news exclusively. I don't see much effort to protect the president. IN fact, I see a relentless and, at this point, silly coordinated effort to undermine him.

Do you live in CO?

[Neognosis]

No.

[Merc14]

No.

Be careful then, because what ever you are smoking is still illegal.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Merc14