"Ive Fallen and I Can't Get Up!" Bush at 28% Approval

[chance1]

Originally Posted by General_Alfie
To call Giuliani a "moderate" is an insult to moderates everywhere. Fact is, the man is an extremist, an authoritarian thugette with a shit attitude and a well-known inability to work and play well with others. Honestly, the guy is insane.


This is the Big Dog at his very worst - not only nutty but making no sense

This "extemist, authoritatian thugette" somehow managed to get an overwhelming democratic and liberal electorate to elect him not once but twice

Hmmm

wonder how he did that given his "inability to work with others"

wonder how he convinced an electorate that is more like alfie than anywhere in the country - given his "shit attitude"

something is fishy here

and we know what it is

giuliani isn't the insane one

 

[jackoroe]

My argument is that the polling data stands as is, that the variety and sources of data are so diverse as to be legitimate. I presented thirty polls, you presented one, and you dismissed these thirty polls based on some typical right wing nuttiness. When I ask you to prove your nutty contention, you went off the rails, and refused to prove your extremist contention. In short, you lose -- again.

Debate, Sir, requires facts, not "well I read on this wingnut blog that the polls..." That won't do, Sir, it won't do.

OK, so FOX is now a legitimate news source, so long as it supports your agenda. I got it now. I cited Rasmussen. They are a legitimate polling organization, not a wingnut blog.They are legitimate as any you've cited. Yet you are prepared to pooh-pooh their findings simply because they do not jive with what others have said. Opinterph kindly cited the Rasmussen method of polling and the fact that the number isn't as important as the trend. That is a very important thing to consider. Yet you fail to even take note of it, as it doesn't fit in your partisan agenda. The fact is that Rasmussen is and continues to be a legitimate polling organization. So Bush has 40% instead of 28% what, pray tell, is the difference? He isn't running for anything and clearly doesn't give a shit.

As to who wins or loses, I don't recall your having been named arbiter of such things. Perhaps in your own mind, you care to keep score of such things. Most normal folks simply enjoy intelligent discourse.

 

[RandomAccess]

OK, so FOX is now a legitimate news source, so long as it supports your agenda. I got it now. I cited Rasmussen. They are a legitimate polling organization, not a wingnut blog.They are legitimate as any you've cited. Yet you are prepared to pooh-pooh their findings simply because they do not jive with what others have said. Opinterph kindly cited the Rasmussen method of polling and the fact that the number isn't as important as the trend. That is a very important thing to consider. Yet you fail to even take note of it, as it doesn't fit in your partisan agenda. The fact is that Rasmussen is and continues to be a legitimate polling organization. So Bush has 40% instead of 28% what, pray tell, is the difference? He isn't running for anything and clearly doesn't give a shit.

As to who wins or loses, I don't recall your having been named arbiter of such things. Perhaps in your own mind, you care to keep score of such things. Most normal folks simply enjoy intelligent discourse.

You guys are never happy, are you. Sounds to me like the list provided by GA was "fair and balanced" by including Fox (not FoxNews which is where they put the majority of their crap). You guys like Rupert Murdoch's empire, but you call into question when it is included in your opposition's fact-citing. Sheesh.

 

[Lostlover]

With all fairness to Bush, I don't think he gives a rat's ass about approval ratings. He never did and if he did, why would he now start to care? He doesn't need to get reelected.

 

[Kulindahr]

28% approval now that the Congress - and emotions - are in the People's control again.

Um, the People were just as much "in control" when the Republicans had the majority in Congress -- those were the guys the People voted for.


How low can he go?

How about the square root of his IQ, added to his shoe size?



Oh, wait -- he's almost there already....

 

[OtterJoq]

How about the square root of his IQ, added to his shoe size?

Let X = Duh

 

[Kulindahr]

^

 

[joehill]

28% and going down just like the gop will next election it over for the republicans next time just like 92 America is ready for a change

 

[jackoroe]

​

jack, you're being a fool, and that's your right.

Let's get back on track.

I asked you to indicate which polls are heavy with Dems, and you refused to do so. Now, your exact words were that you're "not obligated to prove anything," and I think that is so typical. You want to challenge and rebuke sources that do not agree with you, but you refuse to prove your case, you expect, or hope, that everyone will simply take you at your word, that you need not prove your claims. Well don't you just sound like coward Bush over the WMD, and we know jack, we know that Bush was lying. Proof is what wins arguments, not temper tantrums.

So, in the "Polling World According to Jackoroe, here's how it looks: the red-lettered polling organizations are WRONG, and the black are right:



[STRIKE]ABC News
AP-IPSOS
CBS News
Democracy Corps (D)
Diageo/Hotline Poll
Economist/YouGov
The Field Poll
GWU/Battleground
Gallup
Harris Interactive
IBD/TIPP
ICR - International Communications Research
LA Times
Marist Poll
NBC/Wall Street Journal
New York Times
Pew Research Center
Polimetrix
Princeton Survey Research Associates International
Public Agenda
Public Policy Polling
Quinnipiac University Poll[/STRIKE]
Rasmussen Reports
Survey USA
Time/SRBI
Washington Post
Zogby International




As do I, but when discoursing against someone who is without facts or proof, how else can one measure the arguments? I win on a technicality: I want to discourse, you want to whine. You came unprepared, jack.

Yes, Alfie by all means, let's get back on track. Fact of the matter is the Newsweek poll has the number of Democrats at a 17% advantage over people who consider themselves Republican. This is of course yet another example of the left wing bias of the media .In actuality, the number of people who consider themselves to be Democrat, is only 7% more than the folks who call themselves Republicans. So Democrats are over represented in the Newsweek poll by 10%. A small but significant detail, I'm sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...to_identify_with_gop_or_dems_reaches_new_high

 

[RandomAccess]

Yes, Alfie by all means, let's get back on track. Fact of the matter is the Newsweek poll has the number of Democrats at a 17% advantage over people who consider themselves Republican. This is of course yet another example of the left wing bias of the media .In actuality, the number of people who consider themselves to be Democrat, is only 7% more than the folks who call themselves Republicans. So Democrats are over represented in the Newsweek poll by 10%. A small but significant detail, I'm sure.

Where do you get that??? I couldn't find it. Are the numbers coming from somewhere in your lower-rear anatomy?

 

[jackoroe]

^Try clicking on the link.

 

[White Eagle]

Yes, Alfie by all means, let's get back on track. Fact of the matter is the Newsweek poll has the number of Democrats at a 17% advantage over people who consider themselves Republican. This is of course yet another example of the left wing bias of the media .In actuality, the number of people who consider themselves to be Democrat, is only 7% more than the folks who call themselves Republicans. So Democrats are over represented in the Newsweek poll by 10%. A small but significant detail, I'm sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...to_identify_with_gop_or_dems_reaches_new_high

I don't understand. You are talking about a Newsweek poll but link to rasmussen reports. I didn't see anything about Newsweek in that link.

 

[jackoroe]

I don't understand. You are talking about a Newsweek poll but link to rasmussen reports. I didn't see anything about Newsweek in that link.

Don't be confused. The Newsweek poll took a sample that was not representative of the population as a whole. They intentionally oversampled Democrats. They have 51% Democrat and 34% Republican. The reality is, according to Rasmussen, that there is only a 7 percentage point disparity between those who identify themselves as Democrats and Republicans, not the 17% disparity in the Newsweek poll. This skews the result toward the Democrat view by asking too many Democrats to participate in the poll. The Rasmussen poll, is a more accurate, albeit less interesting barometer of the mood of the country.

 

[jackoroe]

So take Bush's current approval rating percentile with Republicans and see where it lands in comparison to these results. Even if the new "average" would increase, we'd be talking like 30% versus 28%. No matter the number, its not like Bush's approval rating would skyrocket to heights never before seen.

This line within the argument is like arguing whether a student got a 54 on a test or a 57. Either way, he failed.

"F". "F'. "F" (...or anywhere in the vicinity of 28%).

No it wouldn't skyrocket, it would simply accurately describe the mood of the country. Democrats are oversampled by about 14% as described by Rasmussen. Republicans are oversampled by about 4%. So it is reasonable that 40% approval is more accurate. It agree it still sucks, so t matters not a wit. But it is another example of intentionally misleading "journalism" by the main stream media.

 

[White Eagle]

Bullshit!!!!!!

 

[opinterph]

Over the weekend I discovered a blog which appears to take this business of polling numbers quite seriously. The blogger posts on blogspot.com under user name “Political Arithmetik” and is self-reported as “a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, where I teach statistical analysis of polls, public opinion and election results.”

One of the professor’s most-recent blog entries is titled “Bush Approval: Newsweek at 28%, Trend at 33.2%.” The professor’s blog entries are generally saturated with numerous links and provide a “virtual playground” for persons interested in matters of statistical analysis as that pertains to the realm of public-polling and politics.

An earlier blog entry titled “Lack of new polls obscures Bush approval trend” includes some interesting reader comments relating to Rasmussen …

Alan Reifman said...

Rasmussen tends to be ignored by the major poll-compilation sites, perhaps because it uses automated phone survey techniques (as does Survey USA). However, Rasmussen's 2004 election eve poll was very accurate in predicting the national popular vote.

Also, Rasmussen's Bush approval numbers tend to be a bit higher than other outlets' (i.e., an apparent house effect), but if you're looking for changes and trends, Rasmussen's results should be useful.

Charles said...

Alan makes a good point. Rasmussen's methodology is viewed with suspicion in polling circles, but for daily polling he is the only game in town.

… I think you can make an argument that their robo-polling is not intrinsically biased. The effect of it on response rate and response validity is more the problem. A random sample of numbers is easy to get and it is fine by sampling standards. The problem is with a very low response rate. The self-selection of a very small fraction of those called MAY induce considerable bias, and certainly creates the possibility for such bias despite an initially good sample of numbers. But with live interviewer telephone response rates in the 20%-30% range, it is increasingly hard to argue that robo-polls are all that much worse than traditional phone methods …

Well, for whatever it's worth~ thot I’d share the resource. I’ve bookmarked it and will continue to monitor the posts. I will appreciate any feedback others may wish to share relating to Political Arithmetik’s approach.

 

[Kulindahr]

Alfie posted a good paragraph about how poll results are given. "Weighting", at least when I was taking college math, meant using a constant/multiplier to adjust for sampling rates that didn't match actual rates in the population. So if the results have been weighted, the problem of over-sampling of Democrats has been dealt with.
Though he's wrong about LBJ... how can you call a man who campaigned promising to end the Vietnam business but then increased U.S. involvement astronomically "honorable"?

Besides that and a few other twists and distortions, that was a good post, Alf.

 

[RandomAccess]

^Try clicking on the link.

A Rasmussen report about there being fewer Republicans than ever in the country? I DID click on it the first time, and I just did again. It still doesn't explain your anally - produced numbers. Where, exactly, do you get that Newsweek "oversampled" Dems??? Your "insistance" doesn't make it so.

 

[opinterph]

Where, exactly, do you get that Newsweek "oversampled" Dems???

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

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.

 

[Andreus]

jack

i have to tell you

your behavior in this thread indicates a certain habit that has become all too familliar with republicans everywhere nowadays, but especially here

posts that are filled with intellectual dishonesty only point to a desperate attempt to stave off the TRUTH

i have to remind you of something.... not liking the truth isnt enough.... that wont make the truth any different

why are all republicans that still support bush so distainfull of the truth?

this will be their undoing in the upcoming ellections

the american people want better

so do we here in this thread and at this site, so either provide proofs for your specious claims or simply stop posting the fantasy flame posts