Re: CBS GETS NAILED ON PHONY BUSH POLL
Hard Harry
--
Howard Stern Rules!
Amanda Williams
news:AriNf.52428$bW....@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
> CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats
> Posted by Greg Sheffield on February 28, 2006 - 08:57.
> In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of
> Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating
> and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
>
> On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how
> many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
>
> "Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
>
> "Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
>
> "Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.
>
> Brent Baker also noted how CBS failed to highlight a key portion of
> its poll on the Feb. 27 "CBS Evening News." 66 percent of respondents
> thought the media devoted "too much time" to Cheney's hunting
> accident.
>
> UPDATE 12:31. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has
> a helpful table in this report (page 13) on what percentage of
> Americans consider themselves to be Republican or Democrat. It shows
> that in both 2004 and 2005, 30% said they were Republican compared to
> 33% who said they were Democrats. The new CBS poll (even after being
> weighted) had a population of only 28% Republicans to 37% Democrats.
>
> UPDATE 13:21. Aside from their bias, Jason Smith notes how mid-year
> polls are often unreliable predictors for future elections.
>
>
Stop your whining and crying, I am sure CBS is worried about some
dribbling retarded rightard blogger (I admit the "dribbling" and
"retarded" are redundant)
Besides you will look back on 34% as being the GOOD times.
Your little leader georgie is loathed and dispised.. worldwide.
Learn to live with it.
--
AW
<small but dangerous>
mike wilcox
> CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats
> Posted by Greg Sheffield on February 28, 2006 - 08:57.
> In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of
> Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59
> percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
>
> On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how many
> Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
>
> "Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
>
> "Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
>
> "Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.
>
> Brent Baker also noted how CBS failed to highlight a key portion of its poll
> on the Feb. 27 "CBS Evening News." 66 percent of respondents thought the
> media devoted "too much time" to Cheney's hunting accident.
>
> UPDATE 12:31. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has a
> helpful table in this report (page 13) on what percentage of Americans
> consider themselves to be Republican or Democrat. It shows that in both 2004
> and 2005, 30% said they were Republican compared to 33% who said they were
> Democrats. The new CBS poll (even after being weighted) had a population of
> only 28% Republicans to 37% Democrats.
>
> UPDATE 13:21. Aside from their bias, Jason Smith notes how mid-year polls
> are often unreliable predictors for future elections.
>
>
>
>
>
Republicans and 348 Independants, what's your problem with this?
The majority contacted were not Democrats.
lab~rat >:-)
<appra...@sympatico.ca> puked:
And the minority were Republicans. Imagine that.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
<L...@aol.com> puked:
>CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats
>Posted by Greg Sheffield on February 28, 2006 - 08:57.
> In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of
>Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59
>percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
>
>On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how many
>Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
>
>"Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
>
>"Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
>
>"Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.
>
>Brent Baker also noted how CBS failed to highlight a key portion of its poll
>on the Feb. 27 "CBS Evening News." 66 percent of respondents thought the
>media devoted "too much time" to Cheney's hunting accident.
>
>UPDATE 12:31. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has a
>helpful table in this report (page 13) on what percentage of Americans
>consider themselves to be Republican or Democrat. It shows that in both 2004
>and 2005, 30% said they were Republican compared to 33% who said they were
>Democrats. The new CBS poll (even after being weighted) had a population of
>only 28% Republicans to 37% Democrats.
>
>UPDATE 13:21. Aside from their bias, Jason Smith notes how mid-year polls
>are often unreliable predictors for future elections.
>
>
>
Bottom line, chances are good Bush won't get re-elected...
Arizona Bushwhacker
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:h7qb021mmpkahvmhg...@4ax.com...
I suspect that with Bush's poll numbers down around
34%, the independents who were polled were really
republicans who were to ashamed to admit that
they no longer worship George Bush like you still do.
Number 9
Yes, it is easy to imagine that a random sampling of Americans would
result in more Democrats being polled than Republicans because there
are more Americans who consider themselves to be Democrats then there
are that consider themselves to be Republicans.
Imagine that.
lab~rat >:-)
<AzBush...@cox.net> puked:
You mean 43%. LOL, you people lie your ass off at every opportunity.
And you know why they call it SeeBS?
lab~rat >:-)
<idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
Maybe you could show me some proof of that bit of information. Unless
the source is where I suspect it is from, inside your ass. In which
case I have no interest in further investigation...
--
Arizona Bushwhacker
> >I suspect that with Bush's poll numbers down around
> >34%, the independents who were polled were really
> >republicans who were to ashamed to admit that
> >they no longer worship George Bush like you still do.
> >
>
> You mean 43%. LOL, you people lie your ass off at every opportunity.
> And you know why they call it SeeBS?
> --
Not according to FOX News.
Even they were saying 34%.
But just keep your head up your
ass. Maybe Bush's numbers will
go back up after Bush sells our
ports to the terrorists.
Number 9
The "proof", as you call it, is in the fact that a random sampling of
Americans returned the results that you posted. When dealing with
polls, that is as far as you can go.
Do you not understand the concept of "random sampling" when doing a
scientific poll?'
Apparently not.
So unless you want to start in Florida and finish in Alaska, asking
every single American whether they are Dem or Pub, totalling the
results and publishing them, you are left to use the resulst of random
sampling to determine the number of Dems vs. Pubs.
You do realize that the information you are using to say that this poll
was biased is *ALSO* based on the same type of random sampling, except
that your sampling is older than this sampling, don't you?
EagleEye
now known, surely?!
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>"LiberalsDespiseAmerica" <L...@aol.com> allegedly said in
>news:AriNf.52428$bW....@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
>
>> CBS Slants Bush Poll in Favor of Democrats
>> Posted by Greg Sheffield on February 28, 2006 - 08:57.
>> In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of
>> Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating
>> and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
>>
>> On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how
>> many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
>>
>> "Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
>>
>> "Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
>>
>> "Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.
>>
>> Brent Baker also noted how CBS failed to highlight a key portion of
>> its poll on the Feb. 27 "CBS Evening News." 66 percent of respondents
>> thought the media devoted "too much time" to Cheney's hunting
>> accident.
>>
>> UPDATE 12:31. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has
>> a helpful table in this report (page 13) on what percentage of
>> Americans consider themselves to be Republican or Democrat. It shows
>> that in both 2004 and 2005, 30% said they were Republican compared to
>> 33% who said they were Democrats. The new CBS poll (even after being
>> weighted) had a population of only 28% Republicans to 37% Democrats.
When the Republican president becomes less popular, the percentage of
us who are Democrats increases. For many people, their identity as
Republican or Democrat can change from time to time.
So Pew figures about the percentage who FORMERLY were Republicans may
not be relevant.
In addition, the support for President Bush among those who state that
they are Republicans also crashed. So it's not just a sampling error
issue.
zebnik
around. You absolutely shit your pants over every little thing that
happens. A friggin hunting mishap sends you into apoplexy. Now you
equate having Dubai manage US ports to having Al Queda given top
security clearance at the Pentagon. The company that makes Depends must
be making a fortune on you guys.
Arizona Bushwhacker
"zebnik" <zeb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1141242807.7...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Getting drunk and shooting your friend in the
face in not a little thing!
Pookie
"Arizona Bushwhacker" <AzBush...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8emNf.1331$kp3.857@fed1read03...
> >
> > >I suspect that with Bush's poll numbers down around
> > >34%, the independents who were polled were really
> > >republicans who were to ashamed to admit that
> > >they no longer worship George Bush like you still do.
> > >
> >
> > You mean 43%. LOL, you people lie your ass off at every opportunity.
> > And you know why they call it SeeBS?
> > --
>
> Not according to FOX News.
> Even they were saying 34%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_ja.html
Pookie
"Number 9" <idontlik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141238901.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
& your proof is shown by how well Democrats have done at election time...
Arizona Bushwhacker
"Pookie" <pooki...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fhnNf.2439$Um2...@fe12.lga...
I thought you republicans trusted FOX News.
Say it with me pookie...
34 Percent.
Pookie
FOX News 2/7 - 2/8 44% 47% -3%
Amanda Williams
news:8aqb02d1trarh9pgc...@4ax.com:
rotfl...
I wondered how long it would take one of you retards to say that... lol..
Amazing when the shrunb's #s took a temp. uptick all you rightards were
happy to quote CBS, ABC etc etc now thay are going down you screech
"BIAS"
Well just keep an eye on them they are going to get LOWER.
Pookie
"Amanda Williams" <p...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9779A17...@63.218.45.254...
CBS News Admits They Ran a Bogus Bush Poll
by Jim Kouri, CPP
It appears that every other day there's a new poll released on President
George Bush's job approval rating. The majority of these polls or surveys
are conducted by news organizations or polling companies contracted by news
organizations. Many American's believe these poll results are accurate and
still trust the news organizations to conduct them fairly.
However, the blogosphere and talk radio uncovered a bit of hanky-panky going
on at CBS once again. No, they didn't use forged documents again -- and
those responsible for the use of fraudulent memos used to damage the Bush
presidency are gone from CBS News, including Mary Mapes and Dandy Dan
Rather.
This time we're talking about a CBS poll that showed President Bush's
approval rating at an all time low of 34%. For the last few months,
American's were fed a steady diet of bad news regarding Bush or members of
his administration. From torture to spying to an accidental shooting to the
Dubai ports controversy, there's never a shortage of news stories that show
the President of the United States in a less than favorable light.
And so most people will accept without question the results of this latest
poll even if it does come from the obvious Bush-haters at CBS News.
So, in an effort to turn the findings of bloggers and talk hosts, who caught
CBS monkeying with the poll numbers, into a non-story, they decided to "out"
themselves on their website, albeit in the guise of explaining how polls are
conducted.
CBS News explained to readers what most pollsters do when they conduct their
telephone surveys, and then they dropped this little bomb in the midst of
their explanation:
Bush's favorability poll was weighted in favor of Democrats.
Bush's 34% approval rating is a result of polling 37% Democrats, 28%
Republicans and 35% other or independents. One can only imagine the
affiliations of that 35%. Are they Libertarians? Socialists? Communists? Are
some extreme right-wing militia-types, who hate Bush as much as the left?
But just the divide between Democrats and Republicans is noticeably suspect.
Nine percent fewer people who identified themselves as Republicans were
polled. That is far from insignificant when one realizes "the other or
independent" respondents are 7% higher than the Republican respondents, as
well.
Also, the poll fails to differentiate between registered voters, likely
voters or people who don't even know they can vote. Does CBS or their
pollsters screen these respondents in the Independent category? How many are
registered with the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Socialist Party, Reform
Party, Liberal Party or Conservative Party, and how many are truly
independents?
Granted, there are no perfect polls, but a poll released by CBS News is
always deserving of further scrutiny.
Discuss This Article
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association
of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance
(thenma.org). He's former chief at a New York City housing project in
Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war
in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New
Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.
He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and
security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and
security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer
and others. He's a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He's also a
columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's
syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over
100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN
Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is
available at Amazon.Com. Kouri's own website is located at
http://jimkouri.us
http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/jkouri_NMA030106.html
KARL ROVE: LIAR & TRAITOR (Jake WK)
Liar. They did not.
Imagine that...a Republican that lies.
Jake
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
>
> Liar. They did not.
>
> Imagine that...a Republican that lies.
>
Imagine a Republican cop that lies!
>
>
> Jake
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
ggg
"Pookie" <pooki...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:t4oNf.569$JJ6...@fe09.lga...
mike wilcox
The second largest group were Independents, amoung which would have
preferences leaning either to the left or right. I call it even
mike wilcox
That's my view as well. If bush is polling under 40% it stands to reason
this is true.
Amanda Williams
said in news:gRoGRAaHtrzn+B...@4ax.com:
>
> Liar. They did not.
>
> Imagine that...a Republican that lies.
>
>
>
> Jake
>
Yeah I am SHOCKED ... rotfl....
Amanda Williams
news:t4oNf.569$JJ6...@fe09.lga:
[... dribble zapped ...]
>
>
> http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/jkouri_NMA030106.html
>
>
It's Jimmy that needs the reality check Pukie... rotfl...
I love these lying rightard shills that stick their lies right in the
subject and sit back and wait for the cut and paste brigade, who they
know, will just cut and paste without actually reading the article which
, needless to say, has nothing to do with the subject.
Poor Pukie, fooled YET again ... ah well... lol..
Rob
How the President will be viewed by history should be of more concern than
his"poll numbers." Some of our greatest Presidents have had poor numbers
during their admininistration. If poll numbers are a indication of how
history will view President Bush II, He will be our greatest leader yet.
Rob
Kerri
K
Pookie
"ggg" <tom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O4udnUDnELE...@comcast.com...
tom...@aol.com
RCP Average 2/15 - 2/26 40.4% 54.8% -14.4%
Rasmussen 2/24 - 2/26 43% 55% -12%
Cook/RT Strategies 2/23 - 2/26 40% 54% -14%
CBS News 2/22 - 2/26 34% 59% -25%
Hotline/FD 2/16 - 2/19 45% 52% -7%
Time 2/15 - 2/16 40% 54% -14%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html
Liman Jig Tacker
>From: tom...@aol.com
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.howard-stern,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics
>Subject: Average Bush Approval Rating 40.4%
>Date: 1 Mar 2006 21:00:19 -0800
>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>Lines: 144
>Message-ID: <1141275619.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>References: <AriNf.52428$bW....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>
> <8aqb02d1trarh9pgc...@4ax.com>
> <Xns9779A17...@63.218.45.254>
> <t4oNf.569$JJ6...@fe09.lga>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.108.19.142
Tired of this poster spamming your group?
You have to copy a message including headers and email it to
groups...@google.com
Permitted Uses. You agree that you are responsible for your own communications
and for any consequences thereof. You agree to use the Groups only to send and
receive messages and material that are legal, proper and related to the
particular Group
Tired of off topic posts? Report these spammers to their ISP's
lab~rat >:-)
<AzBush...@cox.net> puked:
Are you implying all Saudis are terrorists? Just wondering because if
so, we agree on something. I'm glad you finally wised up and realized
that this shit is serious and we need to start wholesale killing
muslims...
lab~rat >:-)
<idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
Well I don't want to get in the way of you being a sanctimonious ass,
but I was expecting that there would be some statistic of registered
voters that would prove the point, rather than an uninformed
blathering of how polls work.
Guess what? If you poll people in one part of the country you'll get
more of one party than in another.
You probably didn't think of that because you are so sure that the
polls represent the world fairly and equally. Of course not, you're
an idiot.
--
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>NO ONE, in good conscience, supports GW, not now, not with everything
>now known, surely?!
Right. That poll was skewed because CBS doesn't want Bush to look
bad. You people are such idiots.
lab~rat >:-)
<AzBush...@cox.net> puked:
>
Prove he was drunk or admit you are lying (again).
lab~rat >:-)
<AzBush...@cox.net> puked:
>
This is really gonna affect the chances of him serving another term.
lab~rat >:-)
<appra...@sympatico.ca> puked:
Call it what you want. You have no proof.
Number 9
Are you saying that this poll was only conducted in one part of the
country, that it wasn't really a scientific poll ? Be clear.
> You probably didn't think of that because you are so sure that the
> polls represent the world fairly and equally. Of course not, you're
> an idiot.
> --
Of course I thought of it, why would I think it has occurred here when
a reputable polling organization has done the work?
I'll tell you what, though, I'll go ahead and give you back the points
you want, Bush's approval rating, adjusted the sample for your
invisible Republicans would have been, I believe, 37% or 38%. There
are plenty of Bushtards who have gone through the trouble to calculate
this and this is what they came up with.
So, Bush's approval rating is at 38% according to others like you.
Happy?
lab~rat >:-)
<idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
I couldn't care less what the poll says. My point is that it was
biased. Is there anything else you want to argue?
--
Amanda Williams
@news20.bellglobal.com:
> Have you dropped your msnr email?
>
> K
>
PMS2 ????
No... it's still active if a bit clogged.
I know, I haven't been around lately.. sorry.
:o)
Amanda Williams
news:OMqNf.6018$5M6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
rotfl...
Sorry kid, he will be forever a disaster. A total failure. History will
not be kind to little georgie. I know that makes you sad but you will
just have to live with it.. sorry about that :o)
tom...@aol.com
Liman Jig Tacker wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2006 21:00:19 -0800, tom...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >From: tom...@aol.com
> >Newsgroups: alt.fan.howard-stern,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics
> >Subject: Average Bush Approval Rating 40.4%
> >Date: 1 Mar 2006 21:00:19 -0800
> >Organization: http://groups.google.com
> >Lines: 144
> >Message-ID: <1141275619.3...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >References: <AriNf.52428$bW....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>
> > <8aqb02d1trarh9pgc...@4ax.com>
> > <Xns9779A17...@63.218.45.254>
> > <t4oNf.569$JJ6...@fe09.lga>
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.108.19.142
>
wrote
>
> Tired of this poster spamming your group?
>
> You have to copy a message including headers and email it to
> groups...@google.com
>
> Permitted Uses. You agree that you are responsible for your own communications
> and for any consequences thereof. You agree to use the Groups only to send and
> receive messages and material that are legal, proper and related to the
> particular Group
>
;;;;
> Tired of off topic posts? Report these spammers to their ISP's
Yes, I'm definitely tired of shills who panic at the sight of
inconvenient information, such as the fact Bush's AVERAGE poll rating
is 40%, when shills are trying to chastise CBS for showing him to have
low poll numbers.
Please have yourself removed from this discussion group. Thank you.
Number 9
Ok...
> My point is that it was
> biased.
Buuut...You don't care...
> Is there anything else you want to argue?
With you? No, not really interested.
lab~rat >:-)
<idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
Not particularly. Does it mean a lot to you?
Number 9
Not really, his numbers have been declining steadily since the Nov. '04
election. It appears that Americans are beginning to suspect that he
isn't all that concerned with them, after all.
But, that is just my opinion. These polls don't really change
anything, we still need to go upstream and the current leadership in
Washington is quickly destroying all of our paddles.
lab~rat >:-)
<idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
>> >Buuut...You don't care...
>> >
>>
>> Not particularly. Does it mean a lot to you?
>
>Not really, his numbers have been declining steadily since the Nov. '04
>election. It appears that Americans are beginning to suspect that he
>isn't all that concerned with them, after all.
>
>But, that is just my opinion. These polls don't really change
>anything, we still need to go upstream and the current leadership in
>Washington is quickly destroying all of our paddles.
The good news is that the Democrats have so much to offer. First,
they aren't Bush. Second...
Number 9
Well, at this poing, First might be enough for many people, but
Second...
They have a *recent* track record of leading us into sane fiscal
policies with regards to the national budget, economic growth coupled
with real job and wage increases (See: The 1990's).
lab~rat >:-)
<idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
>
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>> On 2 Mar 2006 10:12:13 -0800, "Number 9"
>> <idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
>>
>> >> >Buuut...You don't care...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Not particularly. Does it mean a lot to you?
>> >
>> >Not really, his numbers have been declining steadily since the Nov. '04
>> >election. It appears that Americans are beginning to suspect that he
>> >isn't all that concerned with them, after all.
>> >
>> >But, that is just my opinion. These polls don't really change
>> >anything, we still need to go upstream and the current leadership in
>> >Washington is quickly destroying all of our paddles.
>>
>> The good news is that the Democrats have so much to offer. First,
>> they aren't Bush. Second...
>
>Well, at this poing, First might be enough for many people, but
>Second...
>
>They have a *recent* track record of leading us into sane fiscal
>policies with regards to the national budget, economic growth coupled
>with real job and wage increases (See: The 1990's).
I thought we weren't allowed to talk about Clinton.
Since you brought it up, arguably a lot of our problems were brought
on by 9/11. If Clinton used some of his feel-good potion that you
people sucked up on taking care of business, maybe Bush's term would
be prosperous.
And before you start whining about Iraq, bear in mind the criticism
you heaped on Bush for not knowing about 9/11 and not acting.
Regardless of what you people think he said, his reasoning for going
to Iraq was preemptive, to keep them from becoming a threat. Just
like you expected to happen prior to 9/11. Like Clinton should have
done...
Number 9
lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2006 12:57:43 -0800, "Number 9"
> <idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
>
> >
> >lab~rat >:-) wrote:
> >> On 2 Mar 2006 10:12:13 -0800, "Number 9"
> >> <idontlik...@hotmail.com> puked:
> >>
> >> >> >Buuut...You don't care...
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Not particularly. Does it mean a lot to you?
> >> >
> >> >Not really, his numbers have been declining steadily since the Nov. '04
> >> >election. It appears that Americans are beginning to suspect that he
> >> >isn't all that concerned with them, after all.
> >> >
> >> >But, that is just my opinion. These polls don't really change
> >> >anything, we still need to go upstream and the current leadership in
> >> >Washington is quickly destroying all of our paddles.
> >>
> >> The good news is that the Democrats have so much to offer. First,
> >> they aren't Bush. Second...
> >
> >Well, at this poing, First might be enough for many people, but
> >Second...
> >
> >They have a *recent* track record of leading us into sane fiscal
> >policies with regards to the national budget, economic growth coupled
> >with real job and wage increases (See: The 1990's).
>
> I thought we weren't allowed to talk about Clinton.
>
When did I say that?
> Since you brought it up, arguably a lot of our problems were brought
> on by 9/11.
That *could* be argued. It could also be argued that a lot of our
current problem have been brought on by this Admin's reaction to 9/11,
namely spending 1/2 trillion dollars and still rising on a failed
invasion of Iraq.
> If Clinton used some of his feel-good potion that you
> people sucked up on taking care of business, maybe Bush's term would
> be prosperous.
>
Yes, Bush's problems are all Bill Clinton's fault, that is the ticket.
> And before you start whining about Iraq, bear in mind the criticism
> you heaped on Bush for not knowing about 9/11 and not acting.
>
That is the crux of the problem, Bush *always* seems to get it wrong.
His AG wanted cuts anti-terrorism funding, which I believe were going
through and he had warnings that something was amiss, but he ignored
them. Then, when he had the people responsible in his sights, he
pulled up the tent pegs and moved on to a different war, one that we
all know now was totally by choice, not by necessity.
So, why don't you want me to point that out?
> Regardless of what you people think he said, his reasoning for going
> to Iraq was preemptive, to keep them from becoming a threat. Just
> like you expected to happen prior to 9/11. Like Clinton should have
> done...
"to keep the from becoming a threat"?!?!?! Is that all you need to
hear before supporting a war?
And by the way, I think the track record now *CLEARLY* shows that
Clinton *did* prevent Iraq from becoming a threat. All the evidence
you need is in Bush's failed hunt for WMD's in Iraq.
Number 9
Pookie wrote:
> "Number 9" <idontlik...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141238901.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Actually, my "proof" is that, in every poll I have seen recently (and
in more distant memory, as well) more Americans say they are Democrats
then say they are Republicans.
As to the election results, neither makes a majority, so it is those
that claim neither that make the difference in most elections.
But, you already knew that, didn't you?
do...@aol.com
>Actually, my "proof" is that, in every poll I have seen recently (and
>in more distant memory, as well) more Americans say they are Democrats
>then say they are Republicans.
"Party identification is a dynamic variable that changes with the
popularity of the party in control," [L.A. Times Poll Director Susan]
Pinkus said. "The proportion of people who identified with the
Republican Party was higher when Bush had more positive approval
ratings."
Number 9
do...@aol.com wrote:
> Number 9 wrote:
>
>
> >Actually, my "proof" is that, in every poll I have seen recently (and
> >in more distant memory, as well) more Americans say they are Democrats
> >then say they are Republicans.
>
>
> "Party identification is a dynamic variable that changes with the
> popularity of the party in control," [L.A. Times Poll Director Susan]
> Pinkus said. "The proportion of people who identified with the
> Republican Party was higher when Bush had more positive approval
> ratings."
>
'Zactly.
00:00:00Hg
> "The proportion of people who identified with the
>> Republican Party was higher when Bush had more positive approval
>> ratings."
Is that the 'angle of the dangle' thing with
statistic variants?