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

[Andreus]

and heres a chilling thought to ponder....

anyone consider that the bush agenda has so disenfranchised its members that there are simply less people willing to identify themselves as republican?

shouldnt a poll reflect the overall demographic?

or should the statistical minority simply get equal time because they have big mouths?

should they be given a realistic place within the statistics?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17150019/

in 2006, this category exploded to a 10.2-point advantage for Democrats: 50.4 percent for Democrats, 40.2 percent for Republicans. The remaining 9.4 percent did not lean toward either party.

This 10.2-point advantage is the biggest lead either party has had since Gallup began tracking the leaners in 1991.

 

[jackoroe]

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

Rather than lecturing and filling posts with empty platitudes, you might impress us all by making an intelligent argument. I've provided information that Newsweek has oversampled Democrats by 14% and Republicans by 4%. The Rasmussen information was provided so you can see the numbers of people identifying themselves as Democrats and Republicans. Those numbers do not match what Newsweek considered a representative sample. Quite simply, the Newsweek sample was fucked. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read this information. It does take someone who would at least care to make an attempt at an intellectual evaluation of factual data. I've noticed that doesn't seem to be a matter of great import to you.

That having been said, what is the difference in any event? Bush isn't up for election. He never gave a flying fuck about public opinion. 28% or 40% makes no difference in how he will govern. The point is to question the validity of "news" organizations that pay polling organizations to essentially create news in the form of a poll.

 

[Andreus]

Rather than lecturing and filling posts with empty platitudes, you might impress us all by making an intelligent argument. I've provided information that Newsweek has oversampled Democrats by 14% and Republicans by 4%. The Rasmussen information was provided so you can see the numbers of people identifying themselves as Democrats and Republicans. Those numbers do not match what Newsweek considered a representative sample. Quite simply, the Newsweek sample was fucked. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read this information. It does take someone who would at least care to make an attempt at an intellectual evaluation of factual data. I've noticed that doesn't seem to be a matter of great import to you.

That having been said, what is the difference in any event? Bush isn't up for election. He never gave a flying fuck about public opinion. 28% or 40% makes no difference in how he will govern. The point is to question the validity of "news" organizations that pay polling organizations to essentially create news in the form of a poll.

lol

did you skip the post after the one you quoted honey?

it may have some of your answers

 

[Kulindahr]

Jackoroe, did you read post #55?
The second quote block is important!

 

[jackoroe]

Jackoroe, did you read post #55?
The second quote block is important!

Thank you, I did not. But it also doesn't say how they weighted the numbers. So we don't really know what they did.

 

[RandomAccess]

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

Thatnk you.

 

[Andreus]

as my link and post indicated, the republicans are fairly represented because there are less of them now in the nation

you may also notice that when the antion is polled even though the registered republicans go for a republican candidate as evenly as democrats go for their own candidate, the democratic candidate always get the lead.

there are LESS republicans than democrats and to give them an equal pull in the poll would be to make a poll intentionally biased towards the republicans.

the republicans can ignore this fact at their own peril as the presidential elections get closer.

 

[Kulindahr]

Thank you, I did not. But it also doesn't say how they weighted the numbers. So we don't really know what they did.

Generally you use a constant/multiplier that makes the results from the actual sample match the distribution in the actual population. It increases the margin of error, but if you have a decent sample size, the increase isn't significant.
Of course if they're distinguishing between actual Republicans and "leaners", they may be using two sets of constants, further increasing the margin of error by a slight bit.
Andreus is talking about a big drop in the number of Republicans, but as I read the reference what's really happened is that a lot of non-affiliated people and independents have switched which direction they lean. Basing hopes and predictions on them is an iffy proposition; once they've switched their lean, it often doesn't take much to get them to move their weight to the other leg and lean back.

Of course I keep wishing they'd wake up and lean away from both big parties, and go looking for a new one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why on earth would you want a thing like that?

Um, because I want to see the FedGov shrink by about 2/3, and leaving the entrenched big parties entangled in government the way they are won't allow it -- they have too much vested interest in the system.
I want to be able to make changes in my life without jumping through the hoops of regulations, get myself some property and build a house without having to pay out 20% to 40% of the cost in permits and inspections, finish it at my own pace, live in it once there's a bathroom... I want to be able to do good things for people without dealing with red tape...
I want freedom, and neither of the big parties believes in that any longer.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your definition of freedom -- what is it?

Not bumping into imperi-- er, FedGov regulation every time I turn around.

 

[Kulindahr]

All of the checks for permits which I've ever had to pay for have usually been made out to the county (which is within the state, of course).

But then, maybe you're building major federal airports or something.

I think that too little fed gov breeds mini countries under one flag (but not for long) and not a "united" states.

One can't move about (as one does even today with purportedly too large a fed gov) from one state where tax on something is ENORMOUS while tax on that same thing is non-existent in another state.

That imbalance (economically and philosophically) creates utter chaos and a nation in which the people have less in common with one another than they do more in common.

Who or what will hold us together? Christine Aguilera in Concert Specials on VH-1?

So one would have to then ask, what's the point in being one nation?

And BOOM! The Civil War happens all over again.

Oh, frightful!

What I do agree with is that Republicans and so-called "Republican" states which profess a dislike for federal gov ought to stop being first in line for every fed dollar they can get their hands on for every project under the sun they can think of within their state.

That two-faced, two-fistedness ought to end. Be a state then and grow up and figure out a way to build a space station within your state's borders without bothering the rest of the country's taxpayers.

So say I!

The U.S. held together quite well back when the [STRIKE]imperial[/STRIKE] federal government was less than 1% of what it is now. And having all the states doing basically their own thing was the whole point -- not provinces, but states, as in individual, sovereign political entities. In fact, having the states very separate and distinct and the federal government small was part of the checks and balances system.

I agree the states should all stop trying to feed at the trough, not just the red ones. I read a joint congressional committee report a while back which concluded that for every dollar spent in imperi-- er, federal largess, an additional $1.40 was sucked from the economy, for an actual loss of $2.40 -- so we'd all be wealthier if the pork was stopped.

 

[Kulindahr]

How's your pruning of the federal government coming -- have you trimmed it back by two-thirds? What did you lope off?

As to your claim that federal regulations are impinging on your freedom, you earlier posted this:


So far as I know, these are local concerns, local government regs, not federal. Further, these regs are, much like federal programs, enacted and enforced for the public good and are usually things citizens want.

They're all bureaucratic pipedreams, whether local or federal. I rarely meet anyone they effect who actually wants them. I do know that people can't afford homes, can't find places to live, can't afford food, lose businesses, lose farms, and more becuase of all the regulations. I rarely meet a regulation that doesn't favor the wealthy, or the companies it's supposed to regulate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Cutting the federal government:

Let's start by outright eliminating these:

Agriculture
Education
Energy
Housing and Urban Development
Environmental Protection Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation

Then severely cut these back:

Commerce
Health and Human Services
Interior
Labor
Transportation
Treasury
Corps of Engineers
Small Business Administration

And take a close look at and trim these seriously:

State and Other International Programs
Executive Office of the President

Lastly, take this one and semi-privatize it:

Social Security Administration


Then eliminate ALL federal laws which govern what individuals can do, unless it involves crossing a state line -- at which point it becomes a federal matter if the two states involved request it. Laws concerning basic behavior are the province of the States, not the center, whether it's prostitution, pot, or panhandling.
Things people find useful, such as certification of the safety of food and drugs, can be done privately -- United Laboratories is proof of that; their certification is Gospel to those things their cover.
As for NASA... there are those who believe we would have had a colony on the moon before Reagan's time if things had been handed over to private hands after Apollo; I'm not prepared to go that far, but I do agree with scientists who say that with post-Apollo technology we could have sent probes to find nickel-iron asteroids by the time Reagan was out of office, and had at least one into near-Earth orbit during Clinton's second term -- and causing an economic boom by providing cheap steel by now (skip building a space station when you have a massive hunk of metal to park on, too....).

Obviously it can't all be done at once; I'm not one of those Libertarians who gleefully contemplate what would result if all those things, and more, were eliminated all at once and the seat-warmers sent packing. Two, maybe three two-term presidencies ought to be enough time, though.

 

[chance1]

let's keep this going so on Monday we can do a "Bush falls to 26%"

 

[smelter]

let's keep this going so on Monday we can do a "Bush falls to 26%"

LOL, if it falls again Chance, here is a song for you and the rest of the [strike]20[/strike] 18 percenters:

 

[Kulindahr]

Or maybe someone can start a thread about Pelosi -- you know, one based on lies and distortions? Or a thread on how Al Gore is FAT? Or maybe one on how global warming is a lie and can be proved a lie because fat Al Gore spends TOO MUCH FUCKING MONEY on electricity?

There you go heading toward the infantile again, Alfie.

I think I know what thread about Gore you're referring to, but that's a twisted sort of spin you put on it -- not surprising though; it's the same sort of spin that was put on Clinton's obstruction of justice, trying to turn it into something about sex. I think the tactic is called "misdirection".

Speaking of global warming, I was showing my volunteer conservation project to a friend yesterday, and pointed out where the face of the bluff has lost five feet in seven years, due to the sea level rising, and made a comment about global warming... he doesn't think humanity's contribution to the CO2 content is significant.... Once again I wished I had access to the raw data and graphs from my professors at OSU when I was there -- even back in '92, it was bloody obvious from the graphs that human-produced CO2 tracks parallel to but ahead of the atmospheric warming curve. Rush Limbaugh might say that doesn't prove cause, but the correlation and timing are tight enough for a court of law.

Blind stubbornness! Or maybe stubborn blindness....

BTW, in a poll of residents on our block, Bush is at 10%.
And people who've seen "An Inconvenient Truth" is 0%.
Those who think Al Gore was fat when on TV recently is 90%.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's a chart of the distribution of the federal budget, which is about $3 trillion per annum. You want to reduce the size of the government by 75%, or $2.25 trillion. I don't see how your ideas, even if enacted in full, would be more than a drop in the bucket. You would have to cut, not privatize, but cut Social Security and Disability. You want that? You would have to cut, not trim, the military. Is that your plan? You'd have to end repayment of the federal deficit. You would have to end all research and development, all Medicare and health programs, all feeding programs. What sort of nation would be left after this? I look forward to your solution.

??
If Social Security was private, it wouldn't be on the chart. GM is private, and it isn't on the chart, and the same with Boeing, after all.
Though first all those IOUs Congress has paid to Social Security would have to be made up.
The military has a Constitutional foundation -- HUD and most of the others don't. Social Security doesn't, nor do transportation, or "income security".

Those aside, I'm not after cutting dollars by two-thirds, but offices and personnel -- and laws, and alphabet soup (BLM, ATFE, USFS....).