NEWSWEEK Poll: Bush Hits All-Time Low

[Guernicaa]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major ’08 Republican. Coincidence?

By Marcus Mabry
May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Perhaps that explains why Republican candidates, participating in their first major debate this week, mentioned Bush’s name only once, but Ronald Reagan’s 19 times. (The debate was held at Reagan’s presidential library.)

When the NEWSWEEK Poll asked more than 1,000 adults on Wednesday and Thursday night (before and during the GOP debate) which president showed the greatest political courage—meaning being brave enough to make the right decisions for the country, even if it jeopardized his popularity —more respondents volunteered Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (18 percent each) than any other president. Fourteen percent of adults named John F. Kennedy and 10 percent said Abraham Lincoln. Only four percent mentioned George W. Bush. (Then again, only five percent volunteered Franklin Roosevelt and only three percent said George Washington.)

A majority of Americans believe Bush is not politically courageous: 55 percent vs. 40 percent. And nearly two out of three Americans (62 percent) believe his recent actions in Iraq show he is “stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes,” compared to 30 percent who say Bush’s actions demonstrate that he is “willing to take political risks to do what’s right.”



America has woken up!

[stephanie]

:laugh2:

What is Newsweek???

[Guernicaa]

What is Newsweek???
ahahahahah! your soo funny! ahahahahah


Newsweek is actual news, not to be mistaken with Newsmax...which is opinionated bull shit.

[Hobbit]

Did Newsweek get lazy and just copy and paste archived articles with new numbers? It seems like every week I hear somebody whining about how Bush has 'hit a new low.'

[stephanie]

Did Newsweek get lazy and just copy and paste archived articles with new numbers? It seems like every week I hear somebody whining about how Bush has 'hit a new low.'

No kidding...

Rasmussen polls have President Bush at 40%...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories__1/president_bush_job_approval

Like I said....who even reads Newsweek or watches Msnbc..:laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

:laugh2:

What is Newsweek???

The liberal bible.

[Guernicaa]

Did Newsweek get lazy and just copy and paste archived articles with new numbers? It seems like every week I hear somebody whining about how Bush has 'hit a new low.'
Does the media ever stop saying "___More soldiers have died in Iraq" ???

So why should the media stop reporting Bush's approval rating as it continues to fall lower and lower?

[Guernicaa]

Like I said....who even reads Newsweek or watches Msnbc..
Thats not really funny because millions of more people read Newsweek than they do Human Events/Newsmax or any other bull shit conservative news.

[Guernicaa]

The liberal bible.
No, because unlike people on the right, we think for ourselves. We don't need a religous text full of myths written 2,000 years ago to tell us how to live our lives.

[Mr. P]

Thats not really funny because millions of more people read Newsweek than they do Human Events/Newsmax or any other bull shit conservative news.

The millions of sheep that buy magazines for news, instead of doing a little research of their own? Those sheep?

[Guernicaa]

The millions of sheep that buy magazines for news, instead of doing a little research of their own? Those sheep?
Oh so you travel around the world looking for news? Thats interesting.

[Mr. P]

Oh so you travel around the world looking for news? Thats interesting.

Yea..called the net.

[zefrendylia]

No kidding...

Rasmussen polls have President Bush at 40%...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories__1/president_bush_job_approval

Like I said....who even reads Newsweek or watches Msnbc..:laugh2:


What's interesting about the Rasmussen poll is the way they ask their questions. Unlike other polling agencies like Newsweek, they don't ask, "do you Approve or Disapprove." Instead they use "Strongly and Somewhat." If you simply focus on the Strongly Approve statistic of 17%, you will see that it is a roughly equivalent to an overall approval of 28%.

Another "Liberal Bible" survey which asks more specific questions may paint a more detailed picture:

Jan. 2007--
"The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans. Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who’d prefer the GOP to remain in the White House."

-------------------

I think the more disturbing trend is the Rasmussen poll over a period of time. If you look at the results since May 2006 you will see that it is roughly unchanged. Given all that has happened over the past year, this can indicate one thing. First, the Rasmussen poll is created to eliminate "Not Sure" answers, which in my mind--anyone who answers "not sure" is unaware of current events or simply doesn't care. Because the Rasmussen results have remain unchanged under such turbulent current events throughout this period, I would have to guess (though not conclusively) that sadly, there are many Americans who simply have no opinion and very little knowledge of what is going on with their country's government--and this has not changed. If this is indeed the case, the state of affairs is much more dire than we think.

[Pale Rider]

No, because unlike people on the right, we think for ourselves. We don't need a religous text full of myths written 2,000 years ago to tell us how to live our lives.

Actually, I don't give a flying fuck what bush's approval ratings are. I'm sorry I voted for the prick myself. But you did NOT have to use this opportunity to rant off on a completely different topic and bash my religon.

Go fuck yourself and enjoy the neg rep.

[avatar4321]

Does the media ever stop saying "___More soldiers have died in Iraq" ???

So why should the media stop reporting Bush's approval rating as it continues to fall lower and lower?

Because it's completely irrelevant to anything going on in this nation. Not to mention its rather selective because as pointed out Rassmussen has him around 40% this week. and I trust that polling organization more than Newsweek.

[stephanie]

Actually, I don't give a flying fuck what bush's approval ratings are. I'm sorry I voted for the prick myself. But you did NOT have to use this opportunity to rant off on a completely different topic and bash my religion.

Go fuck yourself and enjoy the neg rep.

I agree with your thoughts on President Bush...I'm very disappointed in a lot of things he's doing, or not doing..
But, he is still better than if Kerry or Gore had won...:laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for Bush

I knew this was coming, look forward to more of it.

Meanwhile Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating. The book end Bush's tied at 28%.

[Pale Rider]

I agree with your thoughts on President Bush...I'm very disappointed in a lot of things he's doing, or not doing..
But, he is still better than if Kerry or Gore had won...:laugh2:

Without a doubt. No matter how much I'm disappointed with bush, he's STILL better than a liberal. I equate liberalism with communism. There's very little difference to distinguish one from the other.

Hitlery = It Takes A Village = Kill the individual, you're all too stupid to take care of yourselves, you need big brother government to do it for you.

[Pale Rider]

Meanwhile Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating. The book end Bush's tied at 28%.

So? :dunno:

What now? Should we all hold hands and sing Kum Ba Ya?

[stephanie]

Yeah but........That supposed....sky high 66% of Clintons...Didn't help in getting another Democrat elected.....did it??:coffee:

[OCA]

ahahahahah! your soo funny! ahahahahah


Newsweek is actual news, not to be mistaken with Newsmax...which is opinionated bull shit.


Newsweek is slanted hard to the left, its a Dem mouthpiece.

[stephanie]

Newsweek is slanted hard to the left, its a Dem mouthpiece.

You said it......So is Msnbc...

[krisy]

How can trust anything that comes form the media anymore anyway. They ask questions that will make the answers they want. They fix pictures to make them look how they want. They report wrong in an effort to report first. They throw their political bias in wherever they want,using everything form words to faces and tones of voice to make something sound worse than it is.

They have run amuck,and while I don't doubt that Bush's numbers are down,I can't help but think the press has played a big part in it. They run this country

[loosecannon]

They have run amuck,and while I don't doubt that Bush's numbers are down,I can't help but think the press has played a big part in it. They run this country

I thought Bush was the decider

[loosecannon]

So? :dunno:

What now? Should we all hold hands and sing Kum Ba Ya?


I was think more along the lines of a big impeachment bar b q.

What kind of whine goes with neocabobs?

[stephanie]

I was think more along the lines of a big impeachment bar b q.

What kind of whine goes with neocabobs?

Let us know what kind of whine........as soon as it HAPPENS for real, and not just in your alls dreams..:poke:

[Pale Rider]

I was think more along the lines of a big impeachment bar b q.

What kind of whine goes with neocabobs?

A.) Go for it, I won't object.

B.) Don't know about what goes with neocbobs, but a blanc goes with libcabobs... :D

[loosecannon]

A.) Go for it, I won't object.

B.) Don't know about what goes with neocbobs, but a blanc goes with libcabobs... :D

I always heard that libcabobs should be served with pinot evil.

[loosecannon]

http://web.mac.com/ian_gillespie/iWeb/Site/Tastes%20&%20Travels/1130A314-64AE-41DB-BCC0-74E955C00CD1_files/IMG_4065.png

[CockySOB]

Does anyone have the actual results from the poll, or is everyone just going off the reported results? I'm curious to see what was asked.

[Guernicaa]

Does anyone have the actual results from the poll, or is everyone just going off the reported results? I'm curious to see what was asked.
Hey cock!

Thanny-tard and Lack Balance miss you on P&CA!

[CockySOB]

Hey cock!

Thanny-tard and Lack Balance miss you on P&CA!

It's generally considered bad form to drag shit from one forum to another. Besides, I can assure you that the administration over there doesn't miss me in the least.

So, got any more specifics on the poll questions? I'm curious to see what kind of questions were asked WRT border security, the war on terror, etc.

[goober]

At this point I don't think Bush's numbers can go much lower, (they can go lower but not much), and then he'll take a dead cat bounce (even a dead cat will bounce if it falls far enough).
Now I don't see him leaving the White House in 2009 as a beloved figure, but I'm thinking that that 28% is a combination of die-hard Republicans, who'd approve of Bush if he got caught raping a boy scout, and a pity factor (the poor man, he must have done something I could approve of).

[Gunny]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/
George W. Bush has the lowest presidential approval rating in a generation, and the leading Dems beat every major ’08 Republican. Coincidence?

By Marcus Mabry
May 5, 2007 - It’s hard to say which is worse news for Republicans: that George W. Bush now has the worst approval rating of an American president in a generation, or that he seems to be dragging every ’08 Republican presidential candidate down with him. But According to the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the public’s approval of Bush has sunk to 28 percent, an all-time low for this president in our poll, and a point lower than Gallup recorded for his father at Bush Sr.’s nadir. The last president to be this unpopular was Jimmy Carter who also scored a 28 percent approval in 1979. This remarkably low rating seems to be casting a dark shadow over the GOP’s chances for victory in ’08. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds each of the leading Democratic contenders beating the Republican frontrunners in head-to-head matchups.

Perhaps that explains why Republican candidates, participating in their first major debate this week, mentioned Bush’s name only once, but Ronald Reagan’s 19 times. (The debate was held at Reagan’s presidential library.)

When the NEWSWEEK Poll asked more than 1,000 adults on Wednesday and Thursday night (before and during the GOP debate) which president showed the greatest political courage—meaning being brave enough to make the right decisions for the country, even if it jeopardized his popularity —more respondents volunteered Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton (18 percent each) than any other president. Fourteen percent of adults named John F. Kennedy and 10 percent said Abraham Lincoln. Only four percent mentioned George W. Bush. (Then again, only five percent volunteered Franklin Roosevelt and only three percent said George Washington.)

A majority of Americans believe Bush is not politically courageous: 55 percent vs. 40 percent. And nearly two out of three Americans (62 percent) believe his recent actions in Iraq show he is “stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes,” compared to 30 percent who say Bush’s actions demonstrate that he is “willing to take political risks to do what’s right.”



America has woken up!

There's something to brag about. Being at the top of the list of "Who's Who" of unqualified nobodies.:lame2:

[lily]

How can trust anything that comes form the media anymore anyway. They ask questions that will make the answers they want. They fix pictures to make them look how they want. They report wrong in an effort to report first. They throw their political bias in wherever they want,using everything form words to faces and tones of voice to make something sound worse than it is.

They have run amuck,and while I don't doubt that Bush's numbers are down,I can't help but think the press has played a big part in it. They run this country


I'm just curious, how did you feel about this liberal press when it was reporting what this administration wanted to get us into this war?

[lily]

Does anyone have the actual results from the poll, or is everyone just going off the reported results? I'm curious to see what was asked.

Cocky, at this point does it really matter? Bush has been consistantly low in the polls. I don't think it even matters if it's by points now, it's the fact that they have stayed low for the longest time.

[uscitizen]

I agree with your thoughts on President Bush...I'm very disappointed in a lot of things he's doing, or not doing..
But, he is still better than if Kerry or Gore had won...:laugh2:

How do you know that ? Neither one has been president, Bush has....

good little song though ;)

[Birdzeye]

Does anyone have the actual results from the poll, or is everyone just going off the reported results? I'm curious to see what was asked.

Check here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

and here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

The question asked was, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

[Guernicaa]

Check here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

and here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

The question asked was, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"
Don't give them facts...
They can't handle the truth.

[Birdzeye]

Back in the immediate post-9/11 days, when the same polls that the righties are now desperately trying to discredit were showing Bush with a near 90% approval rating, they were quite happy to use those poll results to try to demagogue the dissidents. How can you still disapprove of Bush when 90% of the country is behind him, they bellowed.

Different day now, different poll results, and, of course, a different attitude towards those same polls. Go figure.

[CockySOB]

Cocky, at this point does it really matter? Bush has been consistantly low in the polls. I don't think it even matters if it's by points now, it's the fact that they have stayed low for the longest time.

Reason being that there are a number of issues which conservatives have problems with GWB, each of which contributes to the overall approval rating being low as it is. I'm curious to know what the actual poll was, to see how exactly they came to that particular number. My guess is that Gonzales recent bumbling in front of Congress played a significant role in the latest drop. And I'm curious to see if/how the IT failure (e-mails) were significant in any way.

Besides, if the polling agency has nothing to hide, then they'd show us their methodology, no? Isn't that the same thing we talk about with government? Transparency?

[lily]

I'm curious to know what the actual poll was, to see how exactly they came to that particular number. My guess is that Gonzales recent bumbling in front of Congress played a significant role in the latest drop. And I'm curious to see if/how the IT failure (e-mails) were significant in any way.

Cocky, no offense, cuz you know how I love you......but are you out of your ever loving mind????? Do you honestly think that the "average American" actually paid any attention to the Gonzales affair or the deleted emails? His polls and the reason why the Democrats won the election have to do with one thing and one thing only. The way this war is being fought.

During the last election Republicans "were out of town", or presiding over parades when Bush was in town. They couldn't distance themselves far enough from him in the time when any seated president stumping for you during elections would be fought over. The same is starting now, for '08.

[Birdzeye]

Reason being that there are a number of issues which conservatives have problems with GWB, each of which contributes to the overall approval rating being low as it is. I'm curious to know what the actual poll was, to see how exactly they came to that particular number. My guess is that Gonzales recent bumbling in front of Congress played a significant role in the latest drop. And I'm curious to see if/how the IT failure (e-mails) were significant in any way.

Besides, if the polling agency has nothing to hide, then they'd show us their methodology, no? Isn't that the same thing we talk about with government? Transparency?



SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,001 adults, 18 and older, conducted May 2-3, 2007.* Results are weighted so that the sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density.* The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on 1,001 adults and* 831 registered voters.* Results based on smaller subgroups are subject to larger margins of sampling error.* The margin of error is plus/minus 7 percentage points for results based on 422 registered Democrats and Dem. leaners and plus/minus 8 percentage points for results based on 324 registered Republicans and Rep. leaners.* In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/site/newsweek/

(toward bottom)

[CockySOB]

Cocky, no offense, cuz you know how I love you......but are you out of your ever loving mind????? Do you honestly think that the "average American" actually paid any attention to the Gonzales affair or the deleted emails? His polls and the reason why the Democrats won the election have to do with one thing and one thing only. The way this war is being fought.

During the last election Republicans "were out of town", or presiding over parades when Bush was in town. They couldn't distance themselves far enough from him in the time when any seated president stumping for you during elections would be fought over. The same is starting now, for '08.

Actually Lily, I would say that the possibility is certainly there. You know I don't float cockamamie ideas, whether you agree with them or not. And yes, I want to know more specifics on the most recent poll in order to determine WHAT actually moved more people away from GWB. Remember, the poll wouldn't have simply asked, "do you think GWb is doing a good job as POTUS?" and left it at that. Instead, the questions most likely covered a wide range of topics including those which referenced current topics such as the lost e-mail/IT failure. And since people HAVE heard of such things, I would expect them to play a part in the most recent drop in Presidential approval.

And yeah, the 2008 election cycle is already into the early innings. So far I'm not overly impressed with ANYONE on either side of the aisle. I still think Hillary will be the Democrat front-runner, but I haven't seen anyone really make a decent move on the right (with the possible exception of McCain, that is).

[CockySOB]

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,001 adults, 18 and older, conducted May 2-3, 2007.* Results are weighted so that the sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density.* The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on 1,001 adults and* 831 registered voters.* Results based on smaller subgroups are subject to larger margins of sampling error.* The margin of error is plus/minus 7 percentage points for results based on 422 registered Democrats and Dem. leaners and plus/minus 8 percentage points for results based on 324 registered Republicans and Rep. leaners.* In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18491981/site/newsweek/

(toward bottom)

I saw this when I followed the link on the OP, but thanks for reposting it here. I'd still like to see the survey itself to ascertain the content and weight of the survey questions, to get a better idea of HOW the final approval rating was achieved.

[krisy]

I'm just curious, how did you feel about this liberal press when it was reporting what this administration wanted to get us into this war?

Bush himself told us,so the press pretty much reported what he said. There couldn't have been too many ways around that.

I know that if you are a Liberal,you don't see the bias. But the number of Dems/Libs in the media far outnumbers the number of Rep/cons. For anyone to think bias doesn't come through is kind of naieve. An example I have used many times is the lack of reporting on good things happening in Iraq. Interview a soldier there and they are proud of what they are doing and see all kinds of movement in the right direction. You NEVER hear that from the press.

Watch Cnn,MSNBCC,they will always have someone tearing Bush apart. At least Fox presents both sides,which I have no problem with. If someone is on ripping Bush a new one,someone else is on backing his ideas up.

[lily]

Bush himself told us,so the press pretty much reported what he said. There couldn't have been too many ways around that.

I'm not sure what you mean? You're not saying that Bush is the only one who spoke about Iraq, before we invaded? In any case, it doesn't asnwer the question of the press was just fine when it was reporting to get us into this war.


I know that if you are a Liberal,you don't see the bias. But the number of Dems/Libs in the media far outnumbers the number of Rep/cons. For anyone to think bias doesn't come through is kind of naieve. An example I have used many times is the lack of reporting on good things happening in Iraq. Interview a soldier there and they are proud of what they are doing and see all kinds of movement in the right direction. You NEVER hear that from the press.

I've seen it, but to be perfectly blunt.......soldiers are only allowed to say what their commanding officers would approve. I've been told that they are NOT allowed to say anything negative while wearing the uniform.


Watch Cnn,MSNBCC,they will always have someone tearing Bush apart. At least Fox presents both sides,which I have no problem with. If someone is on ripping Bush a new one,someone else is on backing his ideas up.

Krisy, I don't just watch one news station. I'm a huge channel surfer, also I really prefer to read my news, so that I can make up my own mind. I don't need some high priced shill to tell me what I'm suppose to think.

[loosecannon]

Bush himself told us,so the press pretty much reported what he said. There couldn't have been too many ways around that.

I know that if you are a Liberal,you don't see the bias. But the number of Dems/Libs in the media far outnumbers the number of Rep/cons. For anyone to think bias doesn't come through is kind of naieve. An example I have used many times is the lack of reporting on good things happening in Iraq. Interview a soldier there and they are proud of what they are doing and see all kinds of movement in the right direction. You NEVER hear that from the press.

Watch Cnn,MSNBCC,they will always have someone tearing Bush apart. At least Fox presents both sides,which I have no problem with. If someone is on ripping Bush a new one,someone else is on backing his ideas up.


This study continues: “we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists' personal views. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists "nearly always" turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and conservative think thanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; liberal think tanks are often invisible. When it comes to sources, ‘liberal bias’ is nowhere to be found.”

Liberal media bias is a completely manufactured fiction.

In reality media, at least MSM, reflects the conservative, pro business, pro dominant white paradigm cultural message that it's corporate sponsors and corporate owners possess.

The media is tilted far in favor of whites, corporations, the government and the right as a rule.

There are exceptions, but as a rule the media bias is in favor of the right.

[loosecannon]

Watch At least Fox presents both sides,which I have no problem with. If someone is on ripping Bush a new one,someone else is on backing his ideas up.

That would be fair and balanced if Bush was marginally close to being right.

Fox's definition of fair and balanced is to present the dem and the repub POV, but not necesarily in equal measure.

So what happens when BOTH the dem and the GOP POV are full of shit?

I mean aren't they always FOS?

What Fox doesn't do is bother to find out and report anything TRUE to counter the BS of both parties.

Politicians lie routinely.

Should our news merely repeat those lies or seek to present a TRUE account?

"Fair and balanced" means ALL BS, ALL the time. Just in two flavors.

[Birdzeye]

I saw this when I followed the link on the OP, but thanks for reposting it here. I'd still like to see the survey itself to ascertain the content and weight of the survey questions, to get a better idea of HOW the final approval rating was achieved.

The MSNBC link I provided lists all the questions asked, and the results (percentages) of the responses.

[CockySOB]

The MSNBC link I provided lists all the questions asked, and the results (percentages) of the responses.

Hmmm.... I searched it again and the only thing that is asked (with marginal relevance) in the poll cited are these questions

19. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
21. Do you believe George W. Bush is politically courageous, or not?
22. Which comes closer to your view of Bush’s recent actions in Iraq…

So if this is how people figure GWB's approval ratings are so low, then I have to say their reasoning is weak, and their "facts" cherry-picked. The poll is about the political landscape for the 2008 Presidential election cycle, not about Presidential approval ratings. To pull a single question (#22) which is so broad, out of context, and proclaim that this is proof that GWB's numbers have fallen is woefully inadequate.

The other two questions are interesting, but again are so broad in scope as to be practically unusable. (For the record, I don't think GWB is very politically courageous, but that's another thread.)

Show me a poll which focuses totally on Presidential job approval, and I'll give it due consideration. But cherry-picked sound bites from a poll which is not focused on Presidential approval are fairly meaningless.

[Birdzeye]

Hmmm.... I searched it again and the only thing that is asked (with marginal relevance) in the poll cited are these questions


So if this is how people figure GWB's approval ratings are so low, then I have to say their reasoning is weak, and their "facts" cherry-picked. The poll is about the political landscape for the 2008 Presidential election cycle, not about Presidential approval ratings. To pull a single question (#22) which is so broad, out of context, and proclaim that this is proof that GWB's numbers have fallen is woefully inadequate.

The other two questions are interesting, but again are so broad in scope as to be practically unusable. (For the record, I don't think GWB is very politically courageous, but that's another thread.)

Show me a poll which focuses totally on Presidential job approval, and I'll give it due consideration. But cherry-picked sound bites from a poll which is not focused on Presidential approval are fairly meaningless.

What problem do you have with the question, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Polls often tackle multiple issues at once, as did this one. It sounds like you're desperately trying to find some excuse to discredit this poll that reflects poorly on Bush, no matter what.

If you go back to the links to pollingreport.com that I provided earlier, you can find the trends in Bush's approval rating over the years.

[Dilloduck]

What problem do you have with the question, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Polls often tackle multiple issues at once, as did this one. It sounds like you're desperately trying to find some excuse to discredit this poll that reflects poorly on Bush, no matter what.

If you go back to the links to pollingreport.com that I provided earlier, you can find the trends in Bush's approval rating over the years.


Seriously----why should anyone care what his approval ratings are?

[CockySOB]

What problem do you have with the question, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Polls often tackle multiple issues at once, as did this one. It sounds like you're desperately trying to find some excuse to discredit this poll that reflects poorly on Bush, no matter what.

If you go back to the links to pollingreport.com that I provided earlier, you can find the trends in Bush's approval rating over the years.

Only someone seeking a simplistic answer would find that kid of poll satisfying. I want to know what factors caused the most recent drop (as I explained to Lily). Again I say, how many different factors could contribute to a person answering "for" or "against?" My opinion is that the recent televised hearings with AG Gonzales, and the Jessica Lynch/Tillman family testimonies could have easily swayed public opinion over the short term. I'd like to know specifics.

And I use PollingReport as well, however I would recommend that you actually consider the fact that each poll is comprised of different questions of varying complexities, and different sample sizes. (BTW, I have no problem with either the methodology nor focus of the cited Newsweek poll, but I don't like watching the ignorant cherry-pick and say "ah-HA!" I didn't tolerate it over in the homosexuality thread, and I won't tolerate it now either.) Besides, how are you going to reconcile the Quinnipiac RV statistic which was presented a single day earlier, yet showed an approval rating of 35%? What constituted the 7% difference between the two polls? Any answers? Are you still ready to accept that your simple, straightforward "thinking" is so riddled with holes as to give a sieve envy?

Could it be you're satisfied with the results you claim the poll presents because you lack the intellectual honesty and integrity to dig deeper? Could it be that you're all too eager to accept "results" which reflect your own opinions?

[loosecannon]

how are you going to reconcile the Quinnipiac RV statistic which was presented a single day earlier, yet showed an approval rating of 35%? What constituted the 7% difference between the two polls?

The 3-4% margin of error in each poll.

Polling report has 6 polls within the last 15 days that all fall within the 28-35% range.

[CockySOB]

The 3-4% margin of error in each poll.

Polling report has 6 polls within the last 15 days that all fall within the 28-35% range.

Don't get me wrong Loose, I can certainly see and believe GWB's job approval being around 33% or so, and possibly a little lower, but a single question cherry-picked from a poll about the upcoming Presidential election and current candidates does NOT have any business being cherry-picked in such a manner, especially when there are so many variables which could contribute to an overall approval rating.

Something else to consider, wasn't it the last weekend in April (right before this poll) that gas prices took their normal summertime jump? Proper or not, I would expect that also contributed to the responses received to that overly simplistic question.

Although I don't usually consider Wikipedia reliable enough to cite, their entry on "opinion polls" is worth checking out, especially the section about "Wording of questions" as pertains to this poll. I'll quote the relevant section, but you may visit the site directly for more information.

It is well established that the wording of the questions, the order in which they are asked and the number and form of alternative answers offered can influence results of polls. Thus comparisons between polls often boil down to the wording of the question. On some issues, question wording can result in quite pronounced differences between surveys. [3][4][5] This can also, however, be a result of legitimately conflicted feelings or evolving attitudes, rather than a poorly constructed survey.[6] One way in which pollsters attempt to minimize this effect is to ask the same set of questions over time, in order to track changes in opinion. Another common technique is to rotate the order in which questions are asked. Many pollsters also split-sample. This involves having two different versions of a question, with each version presented to half the respondents.

The most effective controls, used by attitude researchers, are:

* asking enough questions to allow all aspects of an issue to be covered and to control effects due to the form of the question (such as positive or negative wording), the adequacy of the number being established quantitatively with psychometric measures such as reliability coefficients, and

* analyzing the results with psychometric techniques which synthesize the answers into a few reliable scores and detect ineffective questions.

These controls are not widely used in the polling industry.

Hence my reason for asking for the actual poll questions and not simply relying on a result, which as what some people are intent on doing.

[Birdzeye]

Only someone seeking a simplistic answer would find that kid of poll satisfying. I want to know what factors caused the most recent drop (as I explained to Lily). Again I say, how many different factors could contribute to a person answering "for" or "against?" My opinion is that the recent televised hearings with AG Gonzales, and the Jessica Lynch/Tillman family testimonies could have easily swayed public opinion over the short term. I'd like to know specifics.

And I use PollingReport as well, however I would recommend that you actually consider the fact that each poll is comprised of different questions of varying complexities, and different sample sizes. (BTW, I have no problem with either the methodology nor focus of the cited Newsweek poll, but I don't like watching the ignorant cherry-pick and say "ah-HA!" I didn't tolerate it over in the homosexuality thread, and I won't tolerate it now either.) Besides, how are you going to reconcile the Quinnipiac RV statistic which was presented a single day earlier, yet showed an approval rating of 35%? What constituted the 7% difference between the two polls? Any answers? Are you still ready to accept that your simple, straightforward "thinking" is so riddled with holes as to give a sieve envy?

Could it be you're satisfied with the results you claim the poll presents because you lack the intellectual honesty and integrity to dig deeper? Could it be that you're all too eager to accept "results" which reflect your own opinions?


I'm only as "satisfied" as the rightwingers were when the polls showed Bush's approval rating at 90%. :laugh2:

Right now, I'm just amused at how desperately you doubletalk to try to discredit a poll when it doesn't suit you. I haven't tried to compare different polls with different methdologies and possibly different questions. I have noticed the trends over time for Bush's approval seem to be similar in poll to poll.

I think your accusing me of lacking intellectual honesty and integrity is out of line.

[CockySOB]

I'm only as "satisfied" as the rightwingers were when the polls showed Bush's approval rating at 90%. :laugh2:

Right now, I'm just amused at how desperately you doubletalk to try to discredit a poll when it doesn't suit you. I haven't tried to compare different polls with different methdologies and possibly different questions. I have noticed the trends over time for Bush's approval seem to be similar in poll to poll.

I think your accusing me of lacking intellectual honesty and integrity is out of line.
The shoe fits you, Birdzeye. I laid it out very plainly that placing ANY validity in the Newsweek poll on Presidential candidates was dishonest, and you have yet to refute that point. Instead, you duck and dodge, raising ad hominem attacks which only serve to display your own partisan beliefs. Why don't you try countering my argument with something substantial (that means no name-calling)?

You seem to assert that a single question, asked in a poll not focused on GWB's job approval, is a valid snapshot of public opinion.

I assert that poll data should only be used within the context and focus of the poll it was incorporated into. I also assert that in order for a poll to be valid, it should have more than one or two questions, and that those questions should be presented in order to protect the integrity of the poll (to prevent unreported bias).

So far, you haven't shown me anything substantial.

[loosecannon]

Hence my reason for asking for the actual poll questions and not simply relying on a result, which as what some people are intent on doing.

Your questions are certainly valid, but in a discussion of presidential approval rating out of context.

Unless of course there has been a qualitative drift in those polls thru their lifespan of maybe 40 years.

In which case the most specific details could then become central.

But approval ratings with multiple polls as data over long periods are just snap shots, not intended to provide that deeper look.

And their value is mostly in trends and nadirs over long periods.

[loosecannon]

You seem to assert that a single question, asked in a poll not focused on GWB's job approval, is a valid snapshot of public opinion.

I am not at all sure that that is Birdzeye's POV.


I assert that poll data should only be used within the context and focus of the poll it was incorporated into. I also assert that in order for a poll to be valid, it should have more than one or two questions, and that those questions should be presented in order to protect the integrity of the poll (to prevent unreported bias).


If the same questions were asked in a series over a long period and many administrations, you would not find the results to be valid at all?

Not even in clarifying trends, comparative results etc?

[Birdzeye]

Seriously----why should anyone care what his approval ratings are?

The rightwads were sure happy when Bush's approval rating was 90%.

[Hagbard Celine]

Is it really news to anybody that the worst US president in history has been given an "F-" by the American people? :duh:

[Birdzeye]

The shoe fits you, Birdzeye. I laid it out very plainly that placing ANY validity in the Newsweek poll on Presidential candidates was dishonest, and you have yet to refute that point. Instead, you duck and dodge, raising ad hominem attacks which only serve to display your own partisan beliefs. Why don't you try countering my argument with something substantial (that means no name-calling)?

You seem to assert that a single question, asked in a poll not focused on GWB's job approval, is a valid snapshot of public opinion.

I assert that poll data should only be used within the context and focus of the poll it was incorporated into. I also assert that in order for a poll to be valid, it should have more than one or two questions, and that those questions should be presented in order to protect the integrity of the poll (to prevent unreported bias).

So far, you haven't shown me anything substantial.


I've argued my point, which you've chosen to ignore. Since you have chosen to resort to personal attacks against me, I have to guess that you have no counterarguments.

I dare you to back up your allegations of my "intellectual dishonesty." It's put up or shut up time.

[CockySOB]

I've argued my point, which you've chosen to ignore. Since you have chosen to resort to personal attacks against me, I have to guess that you have no counterarguments.

I dare you to back up your allegations of my "intellectual dishonesty." It's put up or shut up time.

Gee, is this Glockmail that'd I'm talking to? Sure sounds like it. Or at least a Yin to his Yang....

No Bird, you haven't argued ANY point so far except to say that you believe that cherry-picking a single question from a particular poll constitutes some kind of valid survey. Then you go on to make some claim about Republicans and some alleged polls claiming GWB's popularity around 90% or some such. Again, you fail to support your position with anything other than rhetoric and partisan blather. Your position is intellectually dishonest because it enjoys, no, REVELS in ignorance, and rather than justifying your position via fact and logic, you then use the cop-out, "but, but, Republicans do it too!" reaking pathetic and both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

Last I checked, Birdzeye, YOU drew first blood by asserting that
It sounds like you're desperately trying to find some excuse to discredit this poll that reflects poorly on Bush, no matter what. Looks like you were the one to try to make this personal, not me.

[Psychoblues]

Look, CSOB, you don't have authority on the thoughts and opinions of others and yours ain't freakin' it!!!!! Dig it?????



Gee, is this Glockmail that'd I'm talking to? Sure sounds like it. Or at least a Yin to his Yang....

No Bird, you haven't argued ANY point so far except to say that you believe that cherry-picking a single question from a particular poll constitutes some kind of valid survey. Then you go on to make some claim about Republicans and some alleged polls claiming GWB's popularity around 90% or some such. Again, you fail to support your position with anything other than rhetoric and partisan blather. Your position is intellectually dishonest because it enjoys, no, REVELS in ignorance, and rather than justifying your position via fact and logic, you then use the cop-out, "but, but, Republicans do it too!" reaking pathetic and both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

Last I checked, Birdzeye, YOU drew first blood by asserting that Looks like you were the one to try to make this personal, not me.

You get personal, get personal again and accuse the other of getting personal? Ol' double dimple chin and you need to get a room!!!!!

[CockySOB]

Look, CSOB, you don't have authority on the thoughts and opinions of others and yours ain't freakin' it!!!!! Dig it?????

You get personal, get personal again and accuse the other of getting personal? Ol' double dimple chin and you need to get a room!!!!!

I see you're unable to counter any part of my argument, so rather than try addressing the issue, you move to ad hominems. You're so predictable.

Do you believe that pulling a single question from someone else's poll is a valid opinion poll? Have you bothered to even check to see what constitutes a valid opinion poll (RE: Wikipedia definition and explanation)?

What I find amazing is that the people who are accepting such an invalid methodology are all staunchly opposed to GWB. Rather than argue on content, they seem intent to argue on emotion alone. Seems they sheeple are content to let that opinion poll stand unchallenged because it matches their own bias. What's even funnier is that I'm nowhere NEAR being a staunch GWB supporter, yet that's the accusation simply because I can knock holes in the headline they support.

:slap: Now go have some breakfast.... :coffee:

[Birdzeye]

I see you're unable to counter any part of my argument, so rather than try addressing the issue, you move to ad hominems. You're so predictable.

Do you believe that pulling a single question from someone else's poll is a valid opinion poll? Have you bothered to even check to see what constitutes a valid opinion poll (RE: Wikipedia definition and explanation)?

What I find amazing is that the people who are accepting such an invalid methodology are all staunchly opposed to GWB. Rather than argue on content, they seem intent to argue on emotion alone. Seems they sheeple are content to let that opinion poll stand unchallenged because it matches their own bias. What's even funnier is that I'm nowhere NEAR being a staunch GWB supporter, yet that's the accusation simply because I can knock holes in the headline they support.

:slap: Now go have some breakfast.... :coffee:

As has been pointed out to you already, the "single" question was one of many asked during the poll. None of the questions even remotely came close to being phrased in a way to elicit a certain response (as in push polls). The calculation of a margin of error (4%, IIRC) gives us some sense of the possible extent of any sampling error. This is content, not emotion, as you allege.

You have failed miserably at trying to discredit the validity of the poll.

[CockySOB]

As has been pointed out to you already, the "single" question was one of many asked during the poll. None of the questions even remotely came close to being phrased in a way to elicit a certain response (as in push polls). The calculation of a margin of error (4%, IIRC) gives us some sense of the possible extent of any sampling error. This is content, not emotion, as you allege.

You have failed miserably at trying to discredit the validity of the poll.

So now you're going to try to claim that the entire poll was about Presidential approval instead of that one question? Sorry, but the poll in question was designed specifically around opinions on the upcoming 2008 Presidential election cycle.

BTW, I have no problem at all with the cited poll's methodology. What I have a problem with is how some people cherry-pick parts of it, or try to warp the poll itself to reflect something which it does not. That's the basis of the intellectual dishonesty. Use the poll for what it was designed, nothing more.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Cocky, I've never seen a poll that you DID like. It seems like you are always pissing up a rope about them especially if they make the rightwing/conservative side look bad. The fact that someone/anyone takes one question out of a poll and talks about it does not invalidate that poll and neither does it make it into concrete fact. It's a poll, not the Ten Commandments. By their very nature they are fluid and they change from polling period to polling period. That's why people are interested in them: to see what other people are thinking.

Sorry that your Boy George isn't doing too well but then that's a situation of his own making. What you want to bet that the next poll that comes out from Newsweek has him setting a new record for unpopularity? What you want to bet you'll be back pissing up a rope about that one, too?

[CockySOB]

Cocky, I've never seen a poll that you DID like. It seems like you are always pissing up a rope about them especially if they make the rightwing/conservative side look bad. The fact that someone/anyone takes one question out of a poll and talks about it does not invalidate that poll and neither does it make it into concrete fact. It's a poll, not the Ten Commandments. By their very nature they are fluid and they change from polling period to polling period. That's why people are interested in them: to see what other people are thinking.

Sorry that your Boy George isn't doing too well but then that's a situation of his own making. What you want to bet that the next poll that comes out from Newsweek has him setting a new record for unpopularity? What you want to bet you'll be back pissing up a rope about that one, too?

You're right about one thing, I haven't met a poll I liked. I can tolerate some polls provided they expose their methodology and questions, and the conclusions people draw are supported by the combination of the above and the results. But in general, I don't much care for polls. (And I really dislike partisan hacks who mangle number to try to make their position seem "justified.")

BTW, "my Boy George???" Put the crack pipe down BVE. As I've said on numerous occasions, GWB's done a lot that I disagree with. When I see a poll which has a sufficient number of questions (and yes, 25 or so is fine with me) all objective and geared specifically around GWB's job performance, I'll consider it to be a valid poll about his job performance. Hell, I've said myself that I figure GWB's job approval is somewhere in the low 30% area and rightly so. But unlike the cited poll, I can list specific reasons that *I* give him low marks for his job performance. And I'd place my own opinion of his job performance at around 35-40% successful. But then, you (and other BDS-afflicted individuals) want to try to paint anyone who can knock holes in your theories as being Bush-bot or the like rather than address the issue directly.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Cocky, in my book anyone who voted for the current WH resident gets tagged with the 'your Boy George' label. You DID vote for him last time round, didn't you? If you did, then I hold you and every other person who did responsible for the mess we are in. Simple as that. Run away from that all you want but I just am going by the last REAL poll: the election of 2004.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

BDS? Bush the Dumb Shit?

[Birdzeye]

So now you're going to try to claim that the entire poll was about Presidential approval instead of that one question? Sorry, but the poll in question was designed specifically around opinions on the upcoming 2008 Presidential election cycle.

BTW, I have no problem at all with the cited poll's methodology. What I have a problem with is how some people cherry-pick parts of it, or try to warp the poll itself to reflect something which it does not. That's the basis of the intellectual dishonesty. Use the poll for what it was designed, nothing more.

You're putting words in my mouth. That pretty much takes away from you the moral claim to pass judgment on someone else's "intellectual honesty." Maybe you'd care to define what is "intellectually honest/dishonest?"

I never claimed, or insinuated that the "entire" poll was based on presidential approval. That's a straw man you've raised anyhow. None of the polls work that way anyhow; it wouldn't be efficient. The time I got called by some polling organization, they asked me a lot of questions about a lot of issues, including who I supported in the upcoming election, if I approved of Bush's performance, if I approved of the war, etc. etc.

Unless you can point to something wrong with the wording of the question, your objections to people referring to the results of that question having been asked are simply without merit.

[CockySOB]

Cocky, in my book anyone who voted for the current WH resident gets tagged with the 'your Boy George' label. You DID vote for him last time round, didn't you? If you did, then I hold you and every other person who did responsible for the mess we are in. Simple as that. Run away from that all you want but I just am going by the last REAL poll: the election of 2004.

Yes I did vote for him both in 2000 and 2004. I don't run from my decisions. And as disappointed as I am about a lot of his decisions, he's still been a better choice than I think John Kerry would have been.

[CockySOB]

You're putting words in my mouth. That pretty much takes away from you the moral claim to pass judgment on someone else's "intellectual honesty." Maybe you'd care to define what is "intellectually honest/dishonest?"

I never claimed, or insinuated that the "entire" poll was based on presidential approval. That's a straw man you've raised anyhow. None of the polls work that way anyhow; it wouldn't be efficient. The time I got called by some polling organization, they asked me a lot of questions about a lot of issues, including who I supported in the upcoming election, if I approved of Bush's performance, if I approved of the war, etc. etc.

Unless you can point to something wrong with the wording of the question, your objections to people referring to the results of that question having been asked are simply without merit.

Which is it, Bird? Either you cited the Newsweek poll in its entirety, or you cited a single question out of it. Which is it? Either you mangled a poll on the current candidates for the 2008 Presidential election cycle' or, you cherry-picked a single question out of that poll and misrepresented it as an entire poll. Either way, it's being intellectually dishonest with the facts. Deal with it and move on.

BTW, did you even bother to read that Wikipedia article? I figured it used simple enough vocabulary that you'd be able to follow the explanation of what generally constitutes a valid poll or survey. But maybe I gave you credit for being able to see beyond your BDS and approach such an issue rationally. What the hell was I thinking? :rolleyes:

[CockySOB]

BDS? Bush the Dumb Shit?

Bush Derangement Syndrome. (Although I gotta admit that some of the shit GWB has done is royally stupid.)

[Birdzeye]

Bush Derangement Syndrome. (Although I gotta admit that some of the shit GWB has done is royally stupid.)

Is that at all related to the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that we saw an epidemic of amongst rightwingers in the 90s? :laugh2:

[CockySOB]

Is that at all related to the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that we saw an epidemic of amongst rightwingers in the 90s? :laugh2:

Very similar. I suspect it's OPPOTUSDS (Opposition Party President of the US Derangement Syndrome).

[Yurt]

ahahahahah! your soo funny! ahahahahah


Newsweek is actual news, not to be mistaken with Newsmax...which is opinionated bull shit.

You mean like when "newsweek lied and people died?"

I guess you don't care if people die, so long as a looberal rag reports huh?

[loosecannon]

Very similar. I suspect it's OPPOTUSDS (Opposition Party President of the US Derangement Syndrome).

Cocky if you don't mind me saying so I think you are being anal on this point. People may interpret them for more than they are worth.


This poll was one of 6 that have been collected into a loooooong running series of ostensibly the same questionaires being asked by the 6 with stable samples sizes and methodology.

The long term comparative results are meaningful.

I don't think anybody believes that THIS particular poll accurately predicts anything any more specific that the fact that Bush has an approximate 26-32% approval or job performance rating "whatever that means". I mean these are ambiguous ideas; "job performance rating", "approval rating".

But that is nit picking.

I think it IS fair to interpret this as meaning that Bush is about 1/3 as popular amongst americans as he was after 9/11.

And that Bush is about half or less popular than Clinton at the same point in his presidency.

Or that Bush is among the very least approved presidents in the history of this polling tradition, which dates back at least to Ford.

Polling is like statistics. ALWAYS imperfect and in some senses FALSE.

But still very useful and providing some very meaningful truth as well.

I mean if I had a dollar for every American who really did not understand the inherent shortcomings of Math, Science and stats I could buy an NFL football team.

But those shortcomings do not prevent math, science and Stats from serving a miraculous utility.

[loosecannon]

You mean like when "newsweek lied and people died?"



:lame2:

[CockySOB]

Could be, loose. But the fact remains that cherry-picking a single question, or mangling a poll designed for oen purpose to suit your own is intellectually dishonest. I'd expect that from the professional politicians running around trying to justify their positions, but hopefully we can rise above those lowlifes....

[loosecannon]

Could be, loose. But the fact remains that cherry-picking a single question, or mangling a poll designed for oen purpose to suit your own is intellectually dishonest. I'd expect that from the professional politicians running around trying to justify their positions, but hopefully we can rise above those lowlifes....

Many of us are exceedingly anxious to see this presidency and most of what it stands for flushed down the American toilet.

This was the first poll to rank him below 30. If three more follow we will know that his hard core support is finally falling away.

1/3 of the senate and House have to begin opposing the prez for meaningful change to overwhelm the WH.

We aren't far from that happening, so we get excited about progress.

MANY people, perhaps 55% of the nation, consider Bush to be the bane of America today. We want his war ended, his corruption prosecuted, his policies rejected, the unitary exec creep reversed and the destruction of the BOR's reversed and now.

And we feel like we are more than justified in our POV and our demands are just and reasonable.

[Yurt]

:lame2:


No need to describe your response. Silence would have worked just as well.

[Yurt]

Many of us are exceedingly anxious to see this presidency and most of what it stands for flushed down the American toilet.

This was the first poll to rank him below 30. If three more follow we will know that his hard core support is finally falling away.

1/3 of the senate and House have to begin opposing the prez for meaningful change to overwhelm the WH.

We aren't far from that happening, so we get excited about progress.

MANY people, perhaps 55% of the nation, consider Bush to be the bane of America today. We want his war ended, his corruption prosecuted, his policies rejected, the unitary exec creep reversed and the destruction of the BOR's reversed and now.

And we feel like we are more than justified in our POV and our demands are just and reasonable.


I don't get it with these "polls." He was low in 2004, not as "low" but low. He got REELECTED. Let it go with your silly polls. Besides, that is not really a debate point, because he in fact, got re-elected. The only "progress" you have to be excited about is typical non-intelligent (well you don't associate with any political group or so your claim) posts like this:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=54762&postcount=81


What a strong debate point there....

Then again, in your own words:



I am an asshole


loose admits he is an asshole (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=2844)

[Kathianne]

Newsweek, a bastion of truth:

http://heathicus.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweek-lied-people-died.html



NEWSWEEK LIED! PEOPLE DIED!

(CNN) -- Newsweek magazine issued a retraction Monday of a May 9 report on the alleged desecration of the Quran at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The report -- which said American interrogators put copies of the Quran on toilets or in one case, flushed one down a toilet -- was blamed for anti-American riots in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world last week.

- http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf
/05/17/newsweek.quran/index.html


So where are all the protests and chanting from people so concerned over "lies" leading to death? Do you think this guy is going to change his sign?


And why does CNN try to gloss over the fact that people did die? The following paragraph appears near the center of the article (which, as I learned in journalism classes, is the least read section of an article):


CNN confirmed at least four deaths last week stemming from riots in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Newsweek reported rioting in Afghanistan and "throughout much of the Muslim world" last week had "cost at least 15 lives."



Is this another step to the grave for the old liberal mainstream media? They are so quick to jump on any aspect of a story that paints America (and the Bush administration specifically) in a negative light that they don't care if it's true or not.

Thank goodness for people like Arthur Chrenkoff (Good News From Iraq, Good News From Afghanistan, Good News from the Islamic World) who are working to counter balance the "bad news only" tendencies of the old media.

[loosecannon]

Newsweek, a bastion of truth:

http://heathicus.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweek-lied-people-died.html

:lame2:

Bush lied 653,000 people died. Not 4.

4 people die from bee stings every 4 hours.

[loosecannon]

I don't get it with these "polls." He was low in 2004, not as "low" but low. He got REELECTED. Let it go with your silly polls. Besides, that is not really a debate point, because he in fact, got re-elected. The only "progress" you have to be excited about is typical non-intelligent (well you don't associate with any political group or so your claim) posts like this:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=54762&postcount=81


What a strong debate point there....

Then again, in your own words:





loose admits he is an asshole (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=2844)

:lame2: :lame2:

[Kathianne]

:lame2: :lame2:

Truly, you have nothing to say. I thought OCA was hard on you, now I acknowledge I may have been wrong. Most likely was.

[lily]

Seriously, what difference does this one poll make, when Bush's numbers have been in the crapper for the longest time than any other president in history?

[manu1959]

Seriously, what difference does this one poll make, when Bush's numbers have been in the crapper for the longest time than any other president in history?

if everyone at your job said you sucked but you were doing what you knew was right would you change?

[lily]

if everyone at your job said you sucked but you were doing what you knew was right would you change?

I'd be fired.

[manu1959]

I'd be fired.

didn't ask waht would happen to you .... asked what you would do....if you would be fired .....one can only assume that means you would hold your ground against those that thought you were wrong.......

bush is doing the same thing.....

[loosecannon]

Truly, you have nothing to say. I thought OCA was hard on you, now I acknowledge I may have been wrong. Most likely was.

I acknowledge that you are an authority on having nothing to say. That is your norm and area of expertise.

But in this case your post was so boring it deserved no more.

[manu1959]

I acknowledge that you are an authority on having nothing to say. That is your norm and area of expertise.

But in this case your post was so boring it deserved no more.


yet you keep responding.......

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Cocky, in my book anyone who voted for the current WH resident gets tagged with the 'your Boy George' label. You DID vote for him last time round, didn't you? If you did, then I hold you and every other person who did responsible for the mess we are in. Simple as that. Run away from that all you want but I just am going by the last REAL poll: the election of 2004.
Yes I did vote for him both in 2000 and 2004. I don't run from my decisions. And as disappointed as I am about a lot of his decisions, he's still been a better choice than I think John Kerry would have been.

Then it's your Boy George, Cocky, because you helped put him there and I am merely following the credo that all of our dedicated Republicans/conservatives have preached about for years and years and years and years and that is the credo of personal responsibility. You, among many, are personally responsible for him being in the WH and I plan to hold you accountable whether you agree with what he is doing right now or not.

The larger point being that Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet at 28% and they are going to go lower in my opinion. I really do trust the methodology of a respected magazine over the gut feeling that you have as to where Bush's approval level is. That's not a personal shot. It's just a fact.

[lily]

didn't ask waht would happen to you .... asked what you would do....if you would be fired .....one can only assume that means you would hold your ground against those that thought you were wrong.......

bush is doing the same thing.....


Cool! Let's fire him too!

[Baron Von Esslingen]

if everyone at your job said you sucked but you were doing what you knew was right would you change?

I'd be a tad bit curious as to why everyone felt that way. Bush is not.

If I listened to those people and they told me a better way to do my job, I would look at doing what they said. Bush does not.

If it went against my moral fiber to do what those people told me to do, then I would keep doing what I was doing regardless of the consequences. This is what Bush is doing.

You see, Manu, it's all about HIM. It's no longer about what's best for the country, the world or anything else. It's what's best for George Walker Bush and no one else.

The last place I worked that had an ego-centric, know-it-all, arrogant, my-way-or-the-highway, kind of person working there he lasted about a year. The place was chaos the last three months. His contract was not renewed. We had a party after work the last day he was there, a party he was not invited to. We DID, however, send him the "ADIOS, JERK" banner that we all signed afterwards. It was the best day we all can remember working at that place.

On January 20th 2009, there will be a similar party. Chimpy is not invited.

[manu1959]

I'd be a tad bit curious as to why everyone felt that way. Bush is not.

If I listened to those people and they told me a better way to do my job, I would look at doing what they said. Bush does not.

If it went against my moral fiber to do what those people told me to do, then I would keep doing what I was doing regardless of the consequences. This is what Bush is doing.

You see, Manu, it's all about HIM. It's no longer about what's best for the country, the world or anything else. It's what's best for George Walker Bush and no one else.

The last place I worked that had an ego-centric, know-it-all, arrogant, my-way-or-the-highway, kind of person working there he lasted about a year. The place was chaos the last three months. His contract was not renewed. We had a party after work the last day he was there, a party he was not invited to. We DID, however, send him the "ADIOS, JERK" banner that we all signed afterwards. It was the best day we all can remember working at that place.

On January 20th 2009, there will be a similar party. Chimpy is not invited.

chimpy isn't running.....

as i keep saying .... step up and fire him then....stop talking and fire him....

[manu1959]

Cool! Let's fire him too!


then do it.....start a referendum....stop writing bills that fund the war with strings.....just fire him....

[Baron Von Esslingen]

chimpy isn't running.....

as i keep saying .... step up and fire him then....stop talking and fire him....

Why waste the time? Do an end run around his irrelevant ignorant ass. He's only got a quarter of the country backing him up anyway.

[Doniston]

:lame2:

Bush lied 653,000 people died. Not 4.

4 people die from bee stings every 4 hours. but none in the three intervening hours? that seems strange.:lol:

[Doniston]

Cool! Let's fire him too! I really wish someone wiuld start THAT ball rolling.

[Kathianne]

yet you keep responding.......

LOL, so true.

[avatar4321]

I'd be a tad bit curious as to why everyone felt that way. Bush is not.

If I listened to those people and they told me a better way to do my job, I would look at doing what they said. Bush does not.

If it went against my moral fiber to do what those people told me to do, then I would keep doing what I was doing regardless of the consequences. This is what Bush is doing.

You see, Manu, it's all about HIM. It's no longer about what's best for the country, the world or anything else. It's what's best for George Walker Bush and no one else.

The last place I worked that had an ego-centric, know-it-all, arrogant, my-way-or-the-highway, kind of person working there he lasted about a year. The place was chaos the last three months. His contract was not renewed. We had a party after work the last day he was there, a party he was not invited to. We DID, however, send him the "ADIOS, JERK" banner that we all signed afterwards. It was the best day we all can remember working at that place.

On January 20th 2009, there will be a similar party. Chimpy is not invited.

Why should he wonder why people who hate him think he sucks? its kind of self explanatory.

[lily]

then do it.....start a referendum....stop writing bills that fund the war with strings.....just fire him....

It's hard to take you serious when you go off like this.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Why should he wonder why people who hate him think he sucks? its kind of self explanatory.

That would apply IF I hated him. I do not.

[Psychoblues]

28% approval in poll after poll? I would be wondering!!!!!!



Why should he wonder why people who hate him think he sucks? its kind of self explanatory.

It's pretty clear. gwb sucks more than any President in the history of the United States Of America including his rEpublican mentor and personal enabler of deflection from United States Armed Forces participation, Richard Millhouse Nixon.

[Hobbit]

28% approval in poll after poll? I would be wondering!!!!!!




It's pretty clear. gwb sucks more than any President in the history of the United States Of America including his rEpublican mentor and personal enabler of deflection from United States Armed Forces participation, Richard Millhouse Nixon.

Not to be picky, but Newsweek is the only poll that has him at 28%. Most of the others are in the 32-36% range.

[lily]

[QUOTE=Hobbit;55620]Not to be picky, but Newsweek is the only poll that has him at 28%. Most of the others are in the 32-36% range.[/QUOTE....and any poll worth it's salt states a +5 or -5....so I'm not sure what the point is.

Either way, as I've stated, he holds the record for the longest time down in the polls.

[Hobbit]

....and any poll worth it's salt states a +5 or -5....so I'm not sure what the point is.

Either way, as I've stated, he holds the record for the longest time down in the polls.

No point, just picking nits. The methods of the Newsweek poll have also been called into question, but I'm not in the mood to bring that stuff up.

[Birdzeye]

No point, just picking nits. The methods of the Newsweek poll have also been called into question, but I'm not in the mood to bring that stuff up.


By whom? Over what? And why did you bother making that comment, if you didn't want to discuss it?

The only "questioning" of the poll that I've heard has come from people who are desperately trying to discredit a poll that puts their hero in such a poor light, but they haven't come up with a single piece of evidence that the poll wasn't conducted in keeping with widely accepted sampling and survey techniques.

[CockySOB]

No point, just picking nits. The methods of the Newsweek poll have also been called into question, but I'm not in the mood to bring that stuff up.

No the methodology of the Newsweek poll is fine provided no one tries to use it for anything other than what it was designed: to roughly determine public opinion on the various candidates for POTUS in 2008.

[CockySOB]

By whom? Over what? And why did you bother making that comment, if you didn't want to discuss it?

The only "questioning" of the poll that I've heard has come from people who are desperately trying to discredit a poll that puts their hero in such a poor light, but they haven't come up with a single piece of evidence that the poll wasn't conducted in keeping with widely accepted sampling and survey techniques.

Put the crack pipe down, Bird. BTW, you never answered me did you? Are you claiming that cited Newsweek poll in its entirety is a GWB jobl approval poll? Or are you cherry-picking a single question from that poll and claiming it is a valid poll in and of itself? Remember, no matter which answer you choose, you come off sounding like someone with an axe to grind with GWB, and a penchant for screwing with numbers to suit your desires.

[GW in Ohio]

For Christ's sakes, can't you Republicans come up with any decent candidates?

First you give us Richard Nixon, and we all know what a fuckup he turned out to be.

Then you give us this idiot Bush, who never had a clue about what it took to be president. The GOPers thought if they make Uncle Dick Cheney his Vice President/babysitter, he'll keep the boy king out of trouble, steer him toward largely ceremonial duties, and then Uncle Dick and his chums can run the country the way it ought to be run.

The problem is, Uncle Dick Cheney and his chums (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.) turned out to be the biggest fuckups of all. Their Iraq war will go down in history as the stupidest, most embarrassing foreign policy fiasco this nation ever engaged in.

I'm personally embarrassed by Cheney and his crew of idiots.

And for those of you in the bunker with Bush, still claiming it's "not so bad" .....

1. You lost the House and Senate in '06. (quite a feat)
2. Your moron president has the lowest approval ratings in history.
3. The moderate GOP members of the House are revolting against him.
4. I don't care if you put up Jesus Christ as the GOP candidate for prez in '08, he's gonna lose.
5. Start practicing now....President Hillary.....President Obama....President Edwards.

[Dilloduck]

For Christ's sakes, can't you Republicans come up with any decent Republican candidates?

First you give us Richard Nixon, and we all know what a fuckup he turned out to be.

Then you give us this idiot Bush, who never had a clue about what it took to be president. The GOPers thought if they make Uncle Dick Cheney his Vice President/babysitter, he'll keep the boy king out of trouble, steer him toward largely ceremonial duties, and then Uncle Dick and his chums can run the country the way it ought to be run.

The problem is, Uncle Dick Cheney and his chums (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.) turned out to be the biggest fuckups of all. Their Iraq war will go down in history as the stupidest, most embarrassing foreign policy fiasco this nation ever engaged in.

I'm personally embarrassed by Cheney and his crew of idiots.

And for those of you in the bunker with Bush, still claiming it's "not so bad" .....

1. You lost the House and Senate in '06. (quite a feat)
2. Your moron president has the lowest approval ratings in history.
3. The moderate GOP members of the House are revolting against him.
4. I don't care if you put up Jesus Christ as the GOP candidate for prez in '08, he's gonna lose.
5. Start practicing now....President Hillary.....President Obama....President Edwards.

:trolls:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Put the crack pipe down, Bird. BTW, you never answered me did you? Are you claiming that cited Newsweek poll in its entirety is a GWB jobl approval poll? Or are you cherry-picking a single question from that poll and claiming it is a valid poll in and of itself? Remember, no matter which answer you choose, you come off sounding like someone with an axe to grind with GWB, and a penchant for screwing with numbers to suit your desires.

Taking a question asked by a pollster and highlighting that question is merely that: highlighting the question. Read too much into it and you will be putting yourself in the company of people like those tax dodgers who claim that the word "may" in the IRS authorizing legislation means they don't have to pay taxes. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Given your history of disliking polls, why do you even bother? Isn't it like picking at a scab? If it is, why do you keep on doing it?

Come to think of it, I have an axe to grind with your Boy George. A real big fucking ax. I don't have to fuck with any numbers to know that the country has wised up to his neocon "WoT" schtick and the fear-mongering that comes with it and his numbers, no matter which poll you use or which methodology you are happy with, are down. They are lower than any other president's numbers at this point in his administration and they are bound to get lower because your Boy George never admits mistakes, said he was going to Stay The Course and then claimed he was never Stay The Course, and increased the troop levels when the American people wanted them decreased.

Your Boy George has forgotten who he works for and has now made this war all about him, not the peace & democracy & elmination of terror that he has been trumpeting all these long years. And the poll numbers reflect it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The problem is, Uncle Dick Cheney and his chums (Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, etc.) turned out to be the biggest fuckups of all. Their Iraq war will go down in history as the stupidest, most embarrassing foreign policy fiasco this nation ever engaged in.

They ran it like a business... one of GWB's old businesses... and ran it right into the ground.


5. Start practicing now....President Hillary.....President Obama....President Edwards.

Excellent point!

[Birdzeye]

Put the crack pipe down, Bird. BTW, you never answered me did you? Are you claiming that cited Newsweek poll in its entirety is a GWB jobl approval poll? Or are you cherry-picking a single question from that poll and claiming it is a valid poll in and of itself? Remember, no matter which answer you choose, you come off sounding like someone with an axe to grind with GWB, and a penchant for screwing with numbers to suit your desires.

If you look at all the questions asked, you will see that the upcoming election was NOT the only issue mentioned in the poll questions. This is normal practice for polls; they often do NOT cover just one issue, but as many of the current events as possible.

Judging from the history of the Newsweek poll, the question whether people approve or disapprove of Bush's performance is routinely included; thus, it is a legitimate part of the poll. You have provided no rationale why this particular question, or the results of that question, is not a legitimate part of the poll taken.

I am not screwing with the numbers, but am merely repeating what the poll results show. You, OTOH, are showing yourself to be the one with the axe to grind, i.e., because the results of this particular question are so unfavorable to Bush, you are doing some serious contortions of logic to invalidate the poll.

Now, if you show me some empirical evidence that the sampling methodology or the data analyses were flawed, or that the wording of the question(s) made it a "push poll" (designed to elicit a desired response), then we'd have something to discuss.

[loosecannon]

Taking a question asked by a pollster and highlighting that question is merely that: highlighting the question. Read too much into it and you will be putting yourself in the company of people like those tax dodgers who claim that the word "may" in the IRS authorizing legislation means they don't have to pay taxes. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Given your history of disliking polls, why do you even bother? Isn't it like picking at a scab? If it is, why do you keep on doing it?

Come to think of it, I have an axe to grind with your Boy George. A real big fucking ax. I don't have to fuck with any numbers to know that the country has wised up to his neocon "WoT" schtick and the fear-mongering that comes with it and his numbers, no matter which poll you use or which methodology you are happy with, are down. They are lower than any other president's numbers at this point in his administration and they are bound to get lower because your Boy George never admits mistakes, said he was going to Stay The Course and then claimed he was never Stay The Course, and increased the troop levels when the American people wanted them decreased.

Your Boy George has forgotten who he works for and has now made this war all about him, not the peace & democracy & elmination of terror that he has been trumpeting all these long years. And the poll numbers reflect it.

:clap: :clap: :clap: great post

[loosecannon]

If you look at all the questions asked, you will see that the upcoming election was NOT the only issue mentioned in the poll questions. This is normal practice for polls; they often do NOT cover just one issue, but as many of the current events as possible.

Judging from the history of the Newsweek poll, the question whether people approve or disapprove of Bush's performance is routinely included; thus, it is a legitimate part of the poll. You have provided no rationale why this particular question, or the results of that question, is not a legitimate part of the poll taken.

I am not screwing with the numbers, but am merely repeating what the poll results show. You, OTOH, are showing yourself to be the one with the axe to grind, i.e., because the results of this particular question are so unfavorable to Bush, you are doing some serious contortions of logic to invalidate the poll.

Now, if you show me some empirical evidence that the sampling methodology or the data analyses were flawed, or that the wording of the question(s) made it a "push poll" (designed to elicit a desired response), then we'd have something to discuss.

I agree with all of that content.

This appears to be an argument without an underlying disagreement beyond what is fair and ordinary in individual perception.

Nobody appears to be abusing the results of the poll. Or even trying to maximize it's significance.

[lily]

No point, just picking nits. The methods of the Newsweek poll have also been called into question, but I'm not in the mood to bring that stuff up.

Works for me!