[Posted by Karl]
The following, courtesy of Pollster.com, are a series of poll averages measuring opinion about ObamaCare.
This is the basic poll of polls, including different types of samples, polling methodologies, and question wording, showing 50.5% disapprove, 43.7% approve.
Folks on the left do not like that graph very much. People like Andrew Sullivan and Taegan Goddard do not like Rasmussen Reports, without which the poll of polls would look like this:
Obviously, lefties would prefer a mere two-point gap in disapproval, but is there really a non-partisan argument to be made for excluding Rasmussen?
Scott Rasmussen explains that the difference between his polls and others is that he polls Likely Voters, as opposed to adults, or even Registered Voters. Coming fresh off an election, it is useful to look at how the poll of polls changes if you exclude polls of adults, and look only at polls of voters:
Liberals will not like that at all, but what happens if you exclude the evil Rasmussen from this group?
Oops! Disapproval drops by about a point, but support drops almost five points.
A more nuanced criticism of the Rasmussen polling is the IVR “robocalling” method. Indeed, Obama supporters whined about Democratic polling firm PPP for “robocalling” voters after both firms started producing lower job approval numbers for Obama, though the method cannot be determined to cause the lower results, given the differences in samples, questions, etc. As it happens, the robopolls did pretty well in calling the off-year elections. But just for the sake of argument, what happens if you take out Rasmussen and PPP (and other party-linked polls, since PPP is a Dem outfit), leaving live, non-party polls of voters?
In short, no matter how you slice it, polls of voters show increasing, majority disapproval of ObamaCare, however much folks on the left would like to ignore it. That may not stop House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from trying to jam through her bill on Saturday night, assuming she has moved enough of the undecideds and supposed pro-lifers. But it may explain why senior Congressional Democrats see the Senate’s work on ObamaCare slipping into 2010.