Newest poll-61% do not approve of Bush

[CabanaBoy]

. . . . . . . . .

[german]

So you support terrorism?

[isabeau]

german what on earth does that mean??? not supporting bush is supporting terrorism?? i mean get real. i never supported bush and i'm not surprised at his drop in the polls. does that mean i support terrorism? i think not. its plain silly to say that if you dont support the president, you must be in league with bin laden and others who hate us. terrorists have been among us way before bush became president and they will continue after he is long gone. as long as there are people who hate us with a passion, terrorism will exist.

isabeau

[isabeau]

This illogical response that has nothing to do with this discussion on current poll numbers and is not even worthy of any response. Therefore I am not responding to this irrational remark but instead suggesting you seek phychological counseling.

Peace.


lol and dumb me responded. o well you are right i shouldnt have either.

isabeau

[Dr. Vollin]

I could write out a long post addressing this topic, but instead I'll make it brief.

Polls :rolleyes: :idunno: :rolleyes:

[Dr. Vollin]

Peace and finally possibly hope.

Yeah, right. When Bush leaves office, all the terrorists will just go away. :rolleyes:

[Cosmo_ac]

to be honest, it doesn't matter if Bush is down in the poles or not. 98% of Americans could hate the man, but unless they are willing to get up and do something it doesn't matter. Bush's in until they either impeach him, or there are mass riots in many cities denoucing him.

[maniactickler]

to be honest, it doesn't matter if Bush is down in the poles or not. 98% of Americans could hate the man, but unless they are willing to get up and do something it doesn't matter. Bush's in until they either impeach him, or there are mass riots in many cities denoucing him.


Impeach? mass riots? you talk like Bush is the devil himself. :illogical

[ShadowTklr]

to be honest, it doesn't matter if Bush is down in the poles or not. 98% of Americans could hate the man, but unless they are willing to get up and do something it doesn't matter. Bush's in until they either impeach him, or there are mass riots in many cities denoucing him.

There is one other option, and that is to wait until his term is over.

Also, you have to consider that a vote for Bush was really a vote AGAINST Kerry. Kerry put himself in an unwinnable position by not standing his ground until the 11th hour of the debates.

Bush won with 53% of the vote. It is the lowest margin of election win for a presidential election in history. So, Bush was seen by a preponderance of the American voting public as the ONLY choice - NOT the best choice.

Also noteworthy, according to the latest Gallop Poll, is that there was only one other President in history who had as low an approval rating in the summer of his second year of his second term as Bush does - Richard Nixon. Who could have guessed that it would be two republicans with the lowest approval ratings in Presidential history? :shock:

[ShadowTklr]

So you support terrorism?

...he said as he scratched his nuts wearing a stained "Kill em all, let God sort em out" T-shirt and a Budweiser cap with beer can holders on the sides. :manicd:

[MrMacphisto]

Also, you have to consider that a vote for Bush was really a vote AGAINST Kerry. Kerry put himself in an unwinnable position by not standing his ground until the 11th hour of the debates.

Bush won with 53% of the vote. It is the lowest margin of election win for a presidential election in history. So, Bush was seen by a preponderance of the American voting public as the ONLY choice - NOT the best choice.


Hmmm... it appears that the American people inadvertently saw through this facade of an election. If you really think about it, why would the Democrats intentionally pick one of the weakest candidates they had? Why would they select a man who had just as many connections to Bush as he does to his own party? Maybe the Democrats are just there to make us think this is a democracy, when in fact.... it's a plutocracy.

[german]

Yes my statement was blunt, but the meaning behind it is; the war on terrorism is why Bush's approval rating is so low. What im saying is do you think the world would be better off with out the western world going into Iraq.

What I was asking would you of liked Bush to do nothing and leave Iraq and surrounding Middle Eastern countries as is; a breeding ground for terrorist. Most people hating the way we live; and f**king hell they were dancing when sept. 11 happened and countless groups but there hands up claiming it was there group. But they should be left to live there life and continue plotting another Sept. 11?????

Regardless of evidence, or the reason this war happened it has started a slow process of making it safer

[drew70]

taken from AP wire--"Almost two-thirds, 65 percent, say the country is headed in the wrong direction — up from 59 percent last month. President Bush's job approval was at 39 percent, the lowest point since AP-Ipsos began measuring public approval of Bush in December 2003."

They tally approval rating being 39% which means that 61% disapprove. I am happy to finally be joined by many of the misled Americans that were lied to and fooled by this administration.

Peace and finally possibly hope.Oh no!!! This is really going to hurt President Bush's reelection in '08!! :blaugh:

[german]

Look im sorry if I offended any body but that is point of view.

And ShadowTklr I dont drink Budweiser and if want to speak against me again. I will take your life and we will let God sort it out

[MrMacphisto]

Watch out, Shadow... He must be powerful if he can kill you all the way from Sydney. By the way, German, how is Rupert Murdoch doing?

[unclebill]

I wish some of these people who disapprove of Bush so much now would have been thinking a little more back in November. Maybe things wouldn`t be so screwed up. The damage that President Bush has created will take years to recover. The next U.S. president will have his work cut out for him........ Or her. :woot:

[ShadowTklr]

Look im sorry if I offended any body but that is point of view.

And ShadowTklr I dont drink Budweiser and if want to speak against me again. I will take your life and we will let God sort it out

It's not a good idea to threaten to kill people, especially in broken English. It makes them laugh, and I don't think that's the frightened response you were going for. But, just so I don't completely disappoint you, here's a little something to make you feel like you made progress... :scared: :scared: :shake: :shake:

I hope that helped.

[Robace252]

Ok Ok, this is just getting silly :bouncybou
1st off let me again say that polls are worth about as much as my used tissue paper on E-Bay. All of the "Major Polls" are all done in only 5 major metropolitian areas (LA, Chicago, NY, Minneapolis, and DC), rarely in the South, and NEVER in rural areas. Thus is the reason why before the 2004 election Kerry looked so strong in the polls. Ive asked this question in another thread and I got the response I figured..no one was ever polled or couldnt think of someone they knew that was polled. They have a call list at the "polling" places of 2,500 names in which they only call about 1000 of them. Those are people that REGISTERED to be polled. When you register to be polled by a major orginazation you indicate what you would prefer to be polled about as well as you affilations with religious, political and civil orginazations, oh yeah and your income and education level.
Any numbers given out by polls should be remembered for what they are.
Just a number of people pre-disposed to answer that question at a certain moment of time. It has no real bearing on anything more than media sensationalism. I dont care if a poll says Bush is good, Bad or hates midgets as Chris Rock said on the "Shelter from the Storm Concert" tonight...ROFL Kwane West must have taken Rock off his buddy list and his Blackberry.
People who believe in or listen to polls are doing it for one of 3 reasons..
1.) To prove to themselves that everyone or a majority of people agree with them.
2.) To use the FACT that 690 out of 1000 people selected and asked a question answered it the same way they would have. OOOO it feels so good. And to use that number for their own method of attempting to sway others so the next poll they can get to the elusive 720 out of 1000 number.
3.) Mindless people who want to "BAAA!" follow the flock and refuse to use their own brain to make a decison. They would rather follow a phantom number which makes up a precentage of people who they dont know, never will meet or even know they exist.
For every poll that exists I can show 30 that dont (because they are never released because it didnt have the numbers that was expected). It doesnt make them anymore believeable than the fact that I just ate a box of Alpha-Bits and crapped out the entire works of Shakespear. :D
But hey, go ahead and let Bush's numbers fall faster than Courtney Love at a Rave...they both have one thing in common...neither will run for President in 2008.
1 last little tidbit to show you why I dont listen to polls and would rather make up my own mind and listen to the "news" and not the polls to help make a decison or to validate my position to myself:
-AP 12 Dec 2002-
The Bill of Rights Confusing to Americans
In a recent poll people were shown the "Bill of Rights" and asked if they agreed or disagreed with it.
62% of respondants did not recognize that these freedoms on the list we already guaranteed bythe Bill of Rights.
47% said they would vote against these rights if they were on the ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough said...kinda sad to think that many American's dont know their own rights. But like I said, thats why I dont believe in them. Ill believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus before Ill believe in a poll. No matter if its good or bad.

[asutickler]

No actually I want to thank you for responding so maybe this person will realize his irrationality and next time possibly think before they embarrass themselves or as I suggested obtain a physcological analysis.

Actually I will be glad to perform a free of charge analysis right here on the spot . . . . lemme see . . . okay I'm done . . . . he's nuts!!



Oh, the irony... :wow:

[drew70]

I guess that depends on who's doing the remembering. I'll always remember him as the guy who took a stand against terror and mobilized a coalition dispite the objections of a corrupt and cowardly UN.

[Cosmo_ac]

I'll always remember him as the guy who took a stand against terror and mobilized a coalition dispite the objections of a corrupt and cowardly UN.

corrupt and cowardly UN....Seems like the pot calling the kettle black here. I think the US has lost any right over the last few years to point any fingers.

[maniactickler]

:sowrong: This pains me severely but I sadly must totally agree with you. The United States since it has been under the Bush administration has displayed widespread corruption (real cause of the Iraq war, Halliburton and Enron ties, and Bush and the business dealings with the Saudis, etc.) and coward displays (like prison abuse).

Once the country looked up to we appear like a bunch of corrupt, greedy and insensitive group of people in the rest of the world's eyes.

So back to the topic. This is great now the rest of the world can see that a majority 61% of us disapprove of the incompetent job this president is doing.


Cabana, just curious, are you from the soviet union or china?

[Robace252]

As in another post I will again say:
Ok Ok, this is just getting silly
1st off let me again say that polls are worth about as much as my used tissue paper on E-Bay. All of the "Major Polls" are all done in only 5 major metropolitian areas (LA, Chicago, NY, Minneapolis, and DC), rarely in the South, and NEVER in rural areas. Thus is the reason why before the 2004 election Kerry looked so strong in the polls. Ive asked this question in another thread and I got the response I figured..no one was ever polled or couldnt think of someone they knew that was polled. They have a call list at the "polling" places of 2,500 names in which they only call about 1000 of them. Those are people that REGISTERED to be polled. When you register to be polled by a major orginazation you indicate what you would prefer to be polled about as well as you affilations with religious, political and civil orginazations, oh yeah and your income and education level.
Any numbers given out by polls should be remembered for what they are.
Just a number of people pre-disposed to answer that question at a certain moment of time. It has no real bearing on anything more than media sensationalism. I dont care if a poll says Bush is good, Bad or hates midgets as Chris Rock said on the "Shelter from the Storm Concert" tonight...ROFL Kwane West must have taken Rock off his buddy list and his Blackberry.
People who believe in or listen to polls are doing it for one of 3 reasons..
1.) To prove to themselves that everyone or a majority of people agree with them.
2.) To use the FACT that 690 out of 1000 people selected and asked a question answered it the same way they would have. OOOO it feels so good. And to use that number for their own method of attempting to sway others so the next poll they can get to the elusive 720 out of 1000 number.
3.) Mindless people who want to "BAAA!" follow the flock and refuse to use their own brain to make a decison. They would rather follow a phantom number which makes up a precentage of people who they dont know, never will meet or even know they exist.
For every poll that exists I can show 30 that dont (because they are never released because it didnt have the numbers that was expected). It doesnt make them anymore believeable than the fact that I just ate a box of Alpha-Bits and crapped out the entire works of Shakespear.
But hey, go ahead and let Bush's numbers fall faster than Courtney Love at a Rave...they both have one thing in common...neither will run for President in 2008.
1 last little tidbit to show you why I dont listen to polls and would rather make up my own mind and listen to the "news" and not the polls to help make a decison or to validate my position to myself:
-AP 12 Dec 2002-
The Bill of Rights Confusing to Americans
In a recent poll people were shown the "Bill of Rights" and asked if they agreed or disagreed with it.
62% of respondants did not recognize that these freedoms on the list we already guaranteed bythe Bill of Rights.
47% said they would vote against these rights if they were on the ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough said...kinda sad to think that many American's dont know their own rights. But like I said, thats why I dont believe in them. Ill believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus before Ill believe in a poll. No matter if its good or bad.

Again, Im noticing a trend here that though I speak with facts, I speak with general civility, and understand everyone's point of view, why are 90% of the thread I post about or 2 have little or no disagreement with.
Is it because you do agree with me and since I make no "cheap shots" at others beliefs and understand the other sides anger (rightfully so) that no one needs to answer anything I say directly.
Or is it because my facts leave people with nothing to say, and would rather argue with people less "in-tuned" with the real world, and would prefer to argue with someone that has "no-creditability" instead of attempting (I use that word strongly) to argue me down.
I really am curious....

[maniactickler]

Actually I was born in the Midwest. Brought up in a blue collar family with 6 siblings in a Catholic family. Dad worked hard 6-7 days a week and saved enough to send all of us children to school. All the adults are happily married, never a divorce in my family, ever!

My first career was in blue collar factory positions (6 yrs. after high school) I then attended a fire academy then worked in fire/rescue for 13 years where I formed a union and served the citizens of a local community. Later I changed careers and now own my own successful corporation.

I have paid taxes my entire life (do you?), never been arrested (have you?), have led a clean OLD FASHIONED AMERICAN life (have you?). I am as American as one can get

Now you may realize why I'm so pissed off about this Bush administration crushing the heart and soul of this country. So much has changed for the worst.

How about you now. Can you even compete close with that bio? All your responses sound like they come from some nut thats ready to grab his M-16 and go into public and make a point. I expect your AMERICAN BIO may not sound as American as some of us so-called Liberals now would it?

I will no longer respond to any one of your posts, Mr. Maniac and will simply refer you back to this bio of mine since you made this ridiculous comment. Continue to have a mis-leading life and good-bye forever, Mr. Maniac. You know it takes more than flying a flag on your house and yelling "God bless America" and "Hail to the president" to be considered a true American. So now that you have read my American bio, you should set down your weapon, look into the mirror, stare into your eyes and ask yourself, "Am I a true American . . . or am I a Maniac?" Then ask, "Now that I realize some of these Liberals are actually more American than I am, should I again respond with hatred and illogicality?"

Its highly unlikely for a liberal to be more american than a conservative, their against everything that made this country great. and yes, i pay my taxes, havent been arrested, never did a drug, and live a more than clean life also. i can see your liberal colors are showing through. anger, and lashing out at your fellow american citizens. refusing to respond to my posts. you and New2u need to grow up. and just for the record, ive never used my M-16 in a densely populated area. :xpeepsofa

[maniactickler]

As in another post I will again say:
Ok Ok, this is just getting silly
1st off let me again say that polls are worth about as much as my used tissue paper on E-Bay. All of the "Major Polls" are all done in only 5 major metropolitian areas (LA, Chicago, NY, Minneapolis, and DC), rarely in the South, and NEVER in rural areas. Thus is the reason why before the 2004 election Kerry looked so strong in the polls. Ive asked this question in another thread and I got the response I figured..no one was ever polled or couldnt think of someone they knew that was polled. They have a call list at the "polling" places of 2,500 names in which they only call about 1000 of them. Those are people that REGISTERED to be polled. When you register to be polled by a major orginazation you indicate what you would prefer to be polled about as well as you affilations with religious, political and civil orginazations, oh yeah and your income and education level.
Any numbers given out by polls should be remembered for what they are.
Just a number of people pre-disposed to answer that question at a certain moment of time. It has no real bearing on anything more than media sensationalism. I dont care if a poll says Bush is good, Bad or hates midgets as Chris Rock said on the "Shelter from the Storm Concert" tonight...ROFL Kwane West must have taken Rock off his buddy list and his Blackberry.
People who believe in or listen to polls are doing it for one of 3 reasons..
1.) To prove to themselves that everyone or a majority of people agree with them.
2.) To use the FACT that 690 out of 1000 people selected and asked a question answered it the same way they would have. OOOO it feels so good. And to use that number for their own method of attempting to sway others so the next poll they can get to the elusive 720 out of 1000 number.
3.) Mindless people who want to "BAAA!" follow the flock and refuse to use their own brain to make a decison. They would rather follow a phantom number which makes up a precentage of people who they dont know, never will meet or even know they exist.
For every poll that exists I can show 30 that dont (because they are never released because it didnt have the numbers that was expected). It doesnt make them anymore believeable than the fact that I just ate a box of Alpha-Bits and crapped out the entire works of Shakespear.
But hey, go ahead and let Bush's numbers fall faster than Courtney Love at a Rave...they both have one thing in common...neither will run for President in 2008.
1 last little tidbit to show you why I dont listen to polls and would rather make up my own mind and listen to the "news" and not the polls to help make a decison or to validate my position to myself:
-AP 12 Dec 2002-
The Bill of Rights Confusing to Americans
In a recent poll people were shown the "Bill of Rights" and asked if they agreed or disagreed with it.
62% of respondants did not recognize that these freedoms on the list we already guaranteed bythe Bill of Rights.
47% said they would vote against these rights if they were on the ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough said...kinda sad to think that many American's dont know their own rights. But like I said, thats why I dont believe in them. Ill believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus before Ill believe in a poll. No matter if its good or bad.

Again, Im noticing a trend here that though I speak with facts, I speak with general civility, and understand everyone's point of view, why are 90% of the thread I post about or 2 have little or no disagreement with.
Is it because you do agree with me and since I make no "cheap shots" at others beliefs and understand the other sides anger (rightfully so) that no one needs to answer anything I say directly.
Or is it because my facts leave people with nothing to say, and would rather argue with people less "in-tuned" with the real world, and would prefer to argue with someone that has "no-creditability" instead of attempting (I use that word strongly) to argue me down.
I really am curious....

The libs dont argue with you as much because they cant dispute the truth. fortunately you take the time to search the facts and hammer them with the truth. if they do reply, its with distortions that they get from the liberal media. your a welcome addition to this forum. ill just continue to take the blows from the libs here cause im an easy target for them. thats why they pick on me. they dont realize i have feelings too you know. :sadcry:

[hivoltage]

Bush was reelected for being more "family values" oriented than John Kerry.

Now he is being bashed because too many optimists did nothing about New Orleans catastrophe potential, and too many Americans drive gas guzzlers.

Polls aren't stupid because they are hopelessly inaccurate, they are stupid because they show a snapshot of the whims of the people at a given moment.

Anybody starting too see a significant flaw in "majority rule"???

We need to leave more decisions to impartial experts (like requiring higher gas mileage requirements for cars and trucks!), and less decisions to politicians who answer directly to short-sighted constituents.

[ShadowTklr]

The libs dont argue with you as much because they cant dispute the truth. fortunately you take the time to search the facts and hammer them with the truth. if they do reply, its with distortions that they get from the liberal media. your a welcome addition to this forum. ill just continue to take the blows from the libs here cause im an easy target for them. thats why they pick on me. they dont realize i have feelings too you know. :sadcry:


I think people don't argue as much with Rob because he is not a flat-out asshole. I certainly disagree with many of the things he says (particularly when they involve defending Bush), but, at least he HAS something to say, and his posts are thoughtful and well written. You simply choose to say stupid, thoughtless things repeatedly, like a broken goddamn record. You display no degree of intelligence, you have nothing of worth to offer, and your only claim to fame in this entire forum is that you are a rabid flame baiter.

I've practically begged you early on to open a fucking book and read, or at least post a response that pretends you have a brain, but you just won't do it, so don't whine about your feelings.

Interestingly enough, if you think about it, no one is arguing with you about politics or religion. They're ranting to you about your blatant stupidity. Is that really the type of "blows" you're talking about? You're a joke without a punchline pal.

[Dussicar]

Hmmm... it appears that the American people inadvertently saw through this facade of an election. If you really think about it, why would the Democrats intentionally pick one of the weakest candidates they had? Why would they select a man who had just as many connections to Bush as he does to his own party? Maybe the Democrats are just there to make us think this is a democracy, when in fact.... it's a plutocracy.



WHOA! Thanks a lot, MrMacphisto! I'm already pretty much as paranoid a conspiracy theorist as they come(especially about Bush and co.) and your new revelation sure won't help me sleep at all.

That's it! I'm getting my self medicated and I'm sending you the bill!

You brought this on yourself, mister! :blaugh:

[isabeau]

I think people don't argue as much with Rob because he is not a flat-out asshole. I certainly disagree with many of the things he says (particularly when they involve defending Bush), but, at least he HAS something to say, and his posts are thoughtful and well written. You simply choose to say stupid, thoughtless things repeatedly, like a broken goddamn record. You display no degree of intelligence, you have nothing of worth to offer, and your only claim to fame in this entire forum is that you are a rabid flame baiter.

I've practically begged you early on to open a fucking book and read, or at least post a response that pretends you have a brain, but you just won't do it, so don't whine about your feelings.

Interestingly enough, if you think about it, no one is arguing with you about politics or religion. They're ranting to you about your blatant stupidity. Is that really the type of "blows" you're talking about? You're a joke without a punchline pal.

holy wow man, shadow why dont you say what you really mean? just kidding i couldnt agree more with you. and as for robace i find him highly intelligent and i agree he has thought provoking posts as do you my friend. i have just read thrru this thread again and i find it entertaining to say the least. to think someone is actually threatening your life. wow and from australia at that. havent had a good laugh yet today and this helped me out. once again i say why cant we post ideas without attacking each other personally? its like children.

isabeau

[Red Jester]

Who cares about his current approval ratings? Hypothetically if those polls were valid and worth taking notice of, the election is over. We're stuck with Bush until 2008 unless he does something so bad that even the core Republicans can't have him keep his office. Rallying Democrats don't accomplish anything more than rallying Republicans. Anyone who carves their political affiliation in stone ussually turns into a narrow minded "liberal" or "conservative" who thinks the other is somehow immoral for wanting to improve or maintain their current lifestyle.

[ShadowTklr]

holy wow man, shadow why dont you say what you really mean? just kidding i couldnt agree more with you. and as for robace i find him highly intelligent and i agree he has thought provoking posts as do you my friend. i have just read thrru this thread again and i find it entertaining to say the least. to think someone is actually threatening your life. wow and from australia at that. havent had a good laugh yet today and this helped me out. once again i say why cant we post ideas without attacking each other personally? its like children.

isabeau

Well said! I have sent replys back-and-forth to robace (we disagree many times) but he and I offer facts and reasons.

maniac responds to our well-versed writings and opinions with things like "so are you from russia or china?" I guess that's the best verbage capable of coming from one's mouth who I picture sitting on a bar stool in some dark bar at 10:30 AM scratchin' his ass (to give his balls a break) and eating a Spam and Cheese Whizz sandwich drinking a Pabst Blue Ribbon with a weapon stuffed in is boot.


Thanks for the support Isabeau and Cabana. And I apologize for the disruption to the thread.
It really takes a lot these days for me to reach my boiling point. I can have heated discussions with anyone about topics, and still walk away with a respect for them and their point of view. However, what is really aggravating to me is that a few of us on both sides of the issues really take the time to think, research, and post intelligent points of view, only to have them picked at and character assaulted by morons who don’t EVER contribute useful commentary. I have written rebuttals in defense of opinions I didn’t share against people who were attacking them for no reason.

However, now that I’ve gotten some much-needed air through my spleen, I think I’m done with the rant. Thanks again, and I’ll return back to the topic at hand.

[MrMacphisto]

Anybody starting too see a significant flaw in "majority rule"???

We need to leave more decisions to impartial experts (like requiring higher gas mileage requirements for cars and trucks!), and less decisions to politicians who answer directly to short-sighted constituents.

I totally agree. A meritocracy is usually better than a democracy. The trick is in properly setting it up. Sometimes I wonder if the only reason why the founding fathers picked democracy was because of how easy it is to begin compared to most other governments. Then again, they actually did have more of a meritocratic approach to government than most of our country's later leaders. Slowly but surely, we've seen a dumbing down of our presidential candidates to fit the foolish whims of an ignorant populace....

[MrMacphisto]

WHOA! Thanks a lot, MrMacphisto! I'm already pretty much as paranoid a conspiracy theorist as they come(especially about Bush and co.) and your new revelation sure won't help me sleep at all.

That's it! I'm getting my self medicated and I'm sending you the bill!

You brought this on yourself, mister! :blaugh:

LOL... all in a day's work... :D

[maniactickler]

I think people don't argue as much with Rob because he is not a flat-out asshole. I certainly disagree with many of the things he says (particularly when they involve defending Bush), but, at least he HAS something to say, and his posts are thoughtful and well written. You simply choose to say stupid, thoughtless things repeatedly, like a broken goddamn record. You display no degree of intelligence, you have nothing of worth to offer, and your only claim to fame in this entire forum is that you are a rabid flame baiter.

I've practically begged you early on to open a fucking book and read, or at least post a response that pretends you have a brain, but you just won't do it, so don't whine about your feelings.

Interestingly enough, if you think about it, no one is arguing with you about politics or religion. They're ranting to you about your blatant stupidity. Is that really the type of "blows" you're talking about? You're a joke without a punchline pal.

Shadow, in the words of my good friend New2u......."you have no credibility" :wavingguy

[maniactickler]

Well said! I have sent replys back-and-forth to robace (we disagree many times) but he and I offer facts and reasons.

maniac responds to our well-versed writings and opinions with things like "so are you from russia or china?" I guess that's the best verbage capable of coming from one's mouth who I picture sitting on a bar stool in some dark bar at 10:30 AM scratchin' his ass (to give his balls a break) and eating a Spam and Cheese Whizz sandwich drinking a Pabst Blue Ribbon with a weapon stuffed in is boot.

Again, to quote my fine friend New2u......."you have no crediblity" :rolleyes:

[drew70]

I think people don't argue as much with Rob because he is not a flat-out asshole.....Hmm....that never stopped me from arguing with....well, guess I'd better not name names, eh? :blaugh:

[maniactickler]

. . . the 3rd grader yelled as he ran out of the room, crying with nothing better to say . . . :idontwann

Tell that to your fellow liberal lunatic buddy New2u, not me. im a civilized adult. :cool2:

[isabeau]

Tell that to your fellow liberal lunatic buddy New2u, not me. im a civilized adult. :cool2:


now what exactly was this thread about again?? come on people grow up and quit acting like this. why cant we express our opinions without getting called names? such as liberal lunatic. i resent that because my mom spent many times in a mental hospital. please try to keep it civil. thank you

isabeau

[ShadowTklr]

Hmm....that never stopped me from arguing with....well, guess I'd better not name names, eh? :blaugh:

I'd like to think that despite your disapproval of my points of view, every now and then, (okay, all the time) that you could at least acknowledge that there is a significant difference between saying absolutely nothing, and saying absolutely nothing with STYLE! ;)

[MrPartickler]

I haven't been able to respond to this until now.
1st off let me again say that polls are worth about as much as my used tissue paper on E-Bay.
Sorry, robace but this isn't universally true. All polls aren't created equal. A Gallup poll is not equal to the internet questionnaire on jim-bob.com. And if it comes from Gallup, you can bet it was done about as scientifically as possible (including the margin of error) and they <i>track</i> their performance for preditions on election results. They've done so for a very, very long time.
All of the "Major Polls" are all done in only 5 major metropolitian areas (LA, Chicago, NY, Minneapolis, and DC), rarely in the South, and NEVER in rural areas. Thus is the reason why before the 2004 election Kerry looked so strong in the polls.

These statements conflict with the Gallup poll info in several ways.

On the pre-election poll:
<i>The analysis is based on Gallup's final pre-election poll of Oct. 29-31, which showed Bush at 49% and Kerry at 47% among likely voters. Those overall figures and the figures for the subgroups are adjusted to the final two-party candidate vote totals of 51.5% for Bush and 48.5% for Kerry. </i>

That's not too far off, IMHO. (Frankly I recall being impressed by the accuracy of the poll results just after the presidential election in 2004.)

On the survey methodology:
<i>These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1.573 likely voters, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 29-31, 2004. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

The results are adjusted to reflect the overall national popular two-party vote. </i>

These quotes are taken from this <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13957&pg=1">Gallup site</a>. Note that you may need to be a member to view them. They have a "30-day free trial" though, which I just did to locate this info. It's an amazing site with more polling info than you can reasonably digest in a lifetime. (Thank goodness for the search engine. lol)

I'll add that random-digit-dialing is the method of choice for most quality polls done today--ever since the majority of US households have had at least one phone in them. Although I don't doubt less-reputable and/or less-scientific polling organizations constrain themselves to limited regions or demographics, there's simply no <i>need</i> to do so in this day and age. So the good ones don't.
Ive asked this question in another thread and I got the response I figured..no one was ever polled or couldnt think of someone they knew that was polled.
Not to single you out too much here, but this would be an example of an unscientific poll.
They have a call list at the "polling" places of 2,500 names in which they only call about 1000 of them. Those are people that REGISTERED to be polled. When you register to be polled by a major orginazation you indicate what you would prefer to be polled about as well as you affilations with religious, political and civil orginazations, oh yeah and your income and education level.
Any numbers given out by polls should be remembered for what they are.
Just a number of people pre-disposed to answer that question at a certain moment of time.
Again, this is true of the bad polls. It's good to know which ones have more validity than others.

People who believe in or listen to polls are doing it for one of 3 reasons..
1.) To prove to themselves that everyone or a majority of people agree with them.
2.) To use the FACT that 690 out of 1000 people selected and asked a question answered it the same way they would have. OOOO it feels so good. And to use that number for their own method of attempting to sway others so the next poll they can get to the elusive 720 out of 1000 number.
3.) Mindless people who want to "BAAA!" follow the flock and refuse to use their own brain to make a decison. They would rather follow a phantom number which makes up a precentage of people who they dont know, never will meet or even know they exist.

More good reading from the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/help/FAQs/poll1.asp">Gallup FAQ page</a>:
<i>
Public opinion polls would have less value in a democracy if the public -- the very people whose views are represented by the polls -- didn't have confidence in the results. This confidence does not come easily. The process of polling is often mysterious, particularly to those who don't see how the views of 1,000 people can represent those of hundreds of millions. Many Americans contact The Gallup Organization each year

1. to ask how our results can differ so much from their own personal impressions of what people think,
2. to learn how we go about selecting people for inclusion in our polls, and
3. to find out why they have never been interviewed. </i>

-AP 12 Dec 2002-
The Bill of Rights Confusing to Americans
In a recent poll people were shown the "Bill of Rights" and asked if they agreed or disagreed with it.
62% of respondants did not recognize that these freedoms on the list we already guaranteed bythe Bill of Rights.
47% said they would vote against these rights if they were on the ballot.

:jester: This is actually pretty a funny result. Without even knowing the background info on the poll I still wouldn't doubt the results. Heck, I bet more than that percentage still think Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.... (I'd say 'lol' here, but that's really sad, IMHO.)

As a final note I'll post a link to perhaps the best info page I was able to dig up on this topic. (http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4176) It's from a conservative website but it very objectively weighs the different major polls/polling organizations out there. In short, it describes the standard criteria and questions each of the polling sources on methodology and adherence to that standard.

There are about 20 listed there, but I just can't resist spoiling the outcome here with a few tasty (and ironic) tidbits:

CBS News, and CBS News/NY Times: GOOD
Gallup: GOOD (the "gold standard"; 69-year track record on file and available!)
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics: BAD (inconsistent, does not reveal methodology, etc.)

and for the poll that started this thread...

Associated Press/Ipsos: DUBIOUS (they don't reveal all the details on their survey methodology)

but, as it turns out, Gallup basically agrees:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=18148&pg=1

I do believe if Gallup produced a poll that said 90% or more of the American public disapproved of Bush, we'd know it....and more importantly, Bush would know it.

[Robace252]

Mr. Partickler, thank you...thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!
THANK YOU!
And did I say THANK YOU!
Rarely does anyone reply to a post I make, and especially with the information you gave. I would agree with about 90% of what you had. The Gallup poll still is however just a snapshot in time over a particular subject. And there are many polls that gallup has done that they do not release because they believe the numbers are wrong due to previous polls they might have had on a similar subject that show entirely diffrent numbers.
Also nothing they say shows where they poll at, and what numbers they call. Again this is because they poll the major cities and not rural areas.
Nothing disputes that. As for all the other polls mentioned. Yes they are very suspect including Fox's polls and the AP's. As for CBS it is accurate according to its viewers and the same with the Times, it is accurate within its target readers. And I can say that Gallup is as close as we can probally get to an "accurate poll" but still again I say it isnt as "accurate" as everyone is led to believe.
Also LOL, i wasnt doing a poll..just asking a question, but then again maybe that is a poll. But I wasnt looking for numbers just a general question.
Also the 3 reasons I listed was why people listen to polls and use them, not questions they have about polls. But again I found the information interesting. Again thank you for giving me links and things to read and research. I appreciate that.

[kurchatovium]

As Mark Twain said "There are Liars, Damn Liars and Statisticians." Well that is a bit to harsh I believe, but I do rarely pay attention to any poll be it from Fox, CNN, Gallup, or any other source. :D

[jugner]

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

This shows all approval ratings during Bush's presidency. I guess people just didn't like Kerry because his ratings were low when he was re-elected. He won by a majority. He was the only one that did since Reagan. Even Clinton never did that. That's why I don't give polls much credibility.

I really don't get why people post Bush's poll numbers. He can't run anyway in 2008 anyway. But to each his own.

[hivoltage]

jugner, you will notice that Bush's poll numbers have been between 55% and 50%, if you exclude the 3 significant spikes (and recent downspike). This reflects a basic split in the country that was best seen in the 2000 election.

Until recently, Bush had always had an approval rating above 50%, which generally translates into reelection.

If you don't remove the upspikes and the recent downspike, one would be inclined to conclude that Bush's approval ratings have been declining for 4 straight years.

This is partially true (witness the withdrawal of his social security improvements), but really he has just fallen from about 55% to 50% since his first year, a significant but small drop - mostly caused by the prolonged Iraq war, which almost cost him the election.

[kurchatovium]

I find these threads somewhat pointless. I mean should we start discussing how Grover Clevland never really should have been elected or that his rating was really low at the end of his term. How about that tricky Millard Fillmore? What is the point? Bush won in 2000, again in 2004 by over 50% of the population with a very high voter turnout. If his approval rating plummets to .000000000001% it wont matter. He cant run in 2008. I mean I am not his biggest fan by any stretch of the word but isnt it time to move on.

[hivoltage]

These approval ratings will likely impact the 2006 and 2008 elections for President and Congress, at least to a small extent.

The greatest impact of Bush's declining poll ratings is the decrease in his ability to press forward with his agenda, and I think that is quite significant.

After 9/11 he could have proposed digging a moat along the Mexican border, and that would have sailed thorugh. But now, he can't even get Congress or the American people to give much of a crap about his Social Security initiative (which sucked anyway).

[Robace252]

I really dont think Bushie poll numbers will affect the 06 and definatly not the 08 elections. Why I think this is because something bigger will happen (it always does) before the next election or right around that time that will push everything else out of memory. Remember when Terri Schavio was around abd how that was going to be SOOOO huge in the 06 elections, honestly no one cares about that anymore..heck no one is asking Future Supreme Court Justice Roberts about his view oin right to die, thats how much it has been forgotten. People only care about the flavor of the month. Hear anymore Karl Rove talk? Nope, its not sexy journalism unless its new and all news networks are gulity as hell about it. So in the summer of next year, some new and huge problem will come up and that will be the determining factor...not something from a year ago. Funny how people will bring up something from 20 years ago to attack someone or to help someone creditability, but all it takes is for them to put their foot in their mouth that day...and all but the most recent event is forgotten.
Now where can I find a good tailor at 130am? I have a shirt that needs a button put back on......

[BigJim]

So you support terrorism?


More polarised than a smegging magnet.


The sad thing about the fact that started this thread is that 39% still do approve and the 61% who don't would say they'd approve of the Democrat version who have handles events in exactly the same way, but in a different manner.

[BigJim]

Impeach? mass riots? you talk like Bush is the devil himself. :illogical


Not far off. Didn't anyone ever check under his shirt tails to see if he's got a tail?

[BigJim]

Hmmm... it appears that the American people inadvertently saw through this facade of an election. If you really think about it, why would the Democrats intentionally pick one of the weakest candidates they had? Why would they select a man who had just as many connections to Bush as he does to his own party? Maybe the Democrats are just there to make us think this is a democracy, when in fact.... it's a plutocracy.


What, you mean the Roman god of the Underworld is in charge? :D


Yanno Mac, some might think you were turning into a conspiracy theorist.

[New2u]

Impeach? mass riots? you talk like Bush is the devil himself. :illogical

He is a devil, the facts prove that.

P.S. you still don't have any credibility

[Red Jester]

Bush is a figurehead. Decision making isn't his job.

[MrMacphisto]

What, you mean the Roman god of the Underworld is in charge? :D


Yanno Mac, some might think you were turning into a conspiracy theorist.

LOL... perhaps... :D

[maniactickler]

He is a devil, the facts prove that.

P.S. you still don't have any credibility


Alleged facts. :yawnface:

[kurchatovium]

Have to agree with robace on this I doubt approval ratings will effect the 2006 election let alone 2008 election, assuming the alleged polls are even accurate. Basically polls are worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit. :D At least IMHO.

[New2u]

Alleged facts. :yawnface:

I repeat, you have no credibility

[New2u]

Have to agree with robace on this I doubt approval ratings will effect the 2006 election let alone 2008 election, assuming the alleged polls are even accurate. Basically polls are worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit. :D At least IMHO.

Disagree kurch, polls are worth it from the standpoint of their numbers and consistancy. If Bush's lack of approval ratings were every once and awhile that's one thing, but they have been consistant for at least a year-and-a-half or more.

[jim66e]

Disagree kurch, polls are worth it from the standpoint of their numbers and consistancy. If Bush's lack of approval ratings were every once and awhile that's one thing, but they have been consistant for at least a year-and-a-half or more.


But still, the poll results aren't going to effect the 2008 election, Bush isn't going to run again. And as Kurch says, I don't think it will effect the 06 elections either. The only worth the polls have is that certain people can feel better because such and such percentage agrees with them.

[kurchatovium]

The polls are consistant I think only from the standpoint that they show the same people that did not like Bush before still don't like him today. Hardly anything here newsworthy or of great importance. Like I said even if the polls showed Bush had an approval rating of 81% I still would not read anything into it. Nothing to do with politics per se, everything to do for my mistrust of polls in general.