Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1 2

Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low

By RON FOURNIER
WASHINGTON (AP) - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq - the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

``I'm not happy with how things are going,'' said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. ``I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina.''

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues - port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

``You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

``People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, `Well, I wonder what other people can do,''' he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37 percent approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82 percent in February to 74 percent, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39 percent to 36 percent for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47 percent to 43 percent on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40 percent.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60 percent, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974.

The AP-Ipsos poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, gives Republicans reason to worry that they may inherit Bush's political woes. Two-thirds of the public disapproves of how the GOP-led Congress is handling its job and a surprising 53 percent of Republicans give Congress poor marks.

``Obviously, it's the winter of our discontent,'' said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.

By a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.

While the gap worries Republicans, Cole and others said it does not automatically translate into GOP defeats in November, when voters will face a choice between local candidates rather than considering Congress as a whole.

In addition, strategists in both parties agree that a divided and undisciplined Democratic Party has failed to seize full advantage of Republican troubles.

``While I don't dispute the fact that we have challenges in the current environment politically, I also believe 2006 as a choice election offers Republicans an opportunity if we make sure the election is framed in a way that will keep our majorities in the House and the Senate,'' said Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Stung by criticism, senior officials at the White House and the RNC are reminding GOP members of Congress that Bush's approval ratings may be low, but theirs is lower and have declined at the same pace as Bush's. The message to GOP lawmakers is that criticizing the president weakens him - and them - politically.

``When issue like the internal Republican debate over the ports dominates the news it puts us another day away from all of us figuring out what policies we need to win,'' said Terry Nelson, a Republican consultant and political director for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004.

Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company on Thursday abandoned its quest to take over operations at several U.S. ports. Bush had pledged to veto any attempt to block the transaction, pitting him against Republicans in Congress and most voters.

All this has Republican voters like Walter Wright of Fairfax Station, Va., worried for their party.

``We've gotten so carried away I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats take it because of discontent,'' he said. ``People vote for change and hope for the best.''

Associated Press writer Will Lester and AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson contributed to this report.

On the Net:

Ipsos: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

Posted by: Calabrio

O.k.

Posted by: StincolnLincoln

Oh well they voted for his A$$
You know that old saying you get what you pay for well here it is in the form of a vote..

Posted by: barry2952

From Rasmussen.com:

"Monday March 13, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

The number who disapprove bounced up to 57% today, matching the highest level we've ever recorded."

How can the polls mean nothing to the right wing? I keep hearing "a snap-shot in time" but that snap-shot has gone on for a very long time now.

It's beyond snap-shot and has progressed to the reality that Americans are truly dissatisfied with the way that GWB is handing things.

Posted by: Calabrio

Because polling has become as much of an art as it has been a science.
Disapproval ratings are so vague, they serve no purpose. They are just a toll used to undermine the President's credibility and his ability to get things done.

Despite these low polling ratings, he won reelection, but a respectable amount over John F. Kerry. You can vote disapprovingly in these polls, but still overall support the President.

These polls are really destructive. First of all, as mentioned before, they do nothing but undermine the President's ability to advance any kind of agenda. There perpetuate the notion that he is weak and unsupported, so it is difficult- near impossible- to lead the congress going into the 2006 elections.

Second, these polls are being completely misused by the media. They do two things with this subjective polling data that is unethical and irresponsible.

First of all, they are reporting the polling data as news. "Bush poll ratings..." is a headline. It's the laziest kind of journalism.

And second, often these polls are an example of editorial via polls-
they report or commission polls to advance an editiorial opinion in the newsroom.

Remember the corrupted Zogby poll the other week? It made statements that fed into the press' hope that American soldiers in Iraq were overwhelmingly against the mission. This story was too good to be in true in the minds of liberal reporters, so they reported on it like it were undisputed truth. It was only after conservatives attacked the credibility and polling techniques used by the terribly inaccurate, biased, and flawed Zogby, they've been forced to quietly back away from it.

Furthermore, when you're in an atmosphere where EVER SINGLE WEEK, the liberals and/or the media release another distorted, misrepresented "gotcha" story regarding someone in the Bush administration, it's amazed he has ANY support at all. Wall-to-wall attacks from the news, from Hollywood, through out the media.....it's relentless. The administration is under an irrational assault day in and day out.

Posted by: barry2952

Couldn't it just be that he's just not doing a very good job? Shouldn't the American people get to voice their opinion? What other mechanism is there?

You make it sound like the press has only attacked Bush and his buddies. Past presidents have also suffered greatly at the keyboards of the press. They pretty much ran Nixon out of town. They weren't really kind to Bubba either.

Are you infering that the American people are stupid and should be led blindly by the President? That's not the way I understand it to work. Government is supposed to be feedback oriented. I am offended that Bush doesn't put any stock in the polls. I means that he simply doesn't give a $hit what I think.

Certainly the polls shouldn't rule the government but they certainly should be listed to by our CIC. Remember, it's "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Why should we wait an election cycle to effect change?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Couldn't it just be that he's just not doing a very good job? Shouldn't the American people get to voice their opinion? What other mechanism is there?

There was an election in 2002. Republicans took over the Senate and increased their position in the House.
There was an election in 2004. President Bush won that, and the Republicans were strengthened in both the House and the Senate.
And in November, 2006 we'll have another set of elections.

To imply that these polls are important, or serve some kind of higher civic function would be to imply that we are better served now than we were just a few years ago, before the relentless "polling for news" trend.

Quote:

You make it sound like the press has only attacked Bush and his buddies. Past presidents have also suffered greatly at the keyboards of the press. They pretty much ran Nixon out of town. They weren't really kind to Bubba either.

They did certainly run Nixon out of town.
Bubba didn't have an adversarial relationship with the media though. All the "negative" coverage of Clinton was always done with a wink and a nudge.

I remember serious "reporters" gushing over how masterfully the Clinton administration could "spin" the news and manipulate them in their favor.

Also, despite all the coverage of the Lewinski coverage, the reporting never got much deeper than the sexual element of the story. Not the perjury. Not the conspiracy. Just the "poor judgement."

So, you really can't compare the treatment Bush has received to that of Clinton.

I can't speak firsthand of the Carter administration's treatment. But I do remember how unmercifully Reagan was assaulted. I was still a kid and I vividly remember a series of PRIME TIME SPECIALS with puppets that did little more than mock the President Reagan as an incompetent fool.

"Spitting Images"

Quote:

Are you infering that the American people are stupid and should be led blindly by the President? That's not the way I understand it to work.

That's not even what I implied. I don't think that the media should promote an agenda, under the guise of impartiality, on what is still a trusting public.

And should the public be "led" by the President. Absolutely. That's why character is such a critical element when deciding the President. It's a representative republic.

Quote:

Government is supposed to be feedback oriented. I am offended that Bush doesn't put any stock in the polls. I means that he simply doesn't give a $hit what I think.

No, it means he doesn't give a $hit what the people publishing, and manipulating the polls think. See the difference?

And I'll let you in on a secret. The President and his staff have their own polling data. It's independent data that is collected using scientific methods. This is vastly different than the polling information published in the media. I've spoken with statisticians about this before.

For example, prior to the 2004 election. The media polls showed Kerry in the lead. However, the academics in the statisics community had scientifically collected data that almost exactly predicted the election results.

Quote:

Certainly the polls shouldn't rule the government but they certainly should be listed to by our CIC. Remember, it's "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Let me recap:
1. 2000 - he wins election
2. 2002- Republicans gain control of Senate and increase numbers in House
3. 2004- Bush wins reelection. Republican contorl of Senate and House expands.
4. 2006- the next election. The Best time to make our opinions known.

Second-
Media polling is terribly flawed. It is inaccurate. It is also agenda driven. It is misused by the press. They reported these inaccurate polls as news, and they use these polls as an underhanded way of advancing editorial opinions.

"We don't like Bush, let's conduct a poll that reinforces this idea, and then report the poll like it's news."

Third:
The administration has it's own polling data, independently and scientifically collected. It is far more accurate than the crap Zogby is commissioned to do.

Quote:

Why should we wait an election cycle to effect change?

You don't. But crappy NY Times editioral/Polls are not a way for the public to affect change.

Posted by: barry2952

This is from Rasmussenreports.com. It is not MSM. How do you explain their numbers?

"Tuesday March 14, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

Just 32% of Americans now believe the country is heading in the right direction. Fifty-six percent (56%) believe things have gotten off on the wrong track."

That pretty much sums up my take on GWB's presidency.

I disagree, waiting until election time will be too late. The American people's dissatisfaction needs to be heard now.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

This is from Rasmussenreports.com. It is not MSM. How do you explain their numbers?

"Tuesday March 14, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

If you agree with Bush 90% of the time, but don't like his handling of illegal aliens, you might vote disapprovingly- especially if that has been the focus of a lot of media attention.

If you think the policy in Iraq is fundamentally right, but mistakes are being made in the application, you might vote disapprovingly right now.

When he nominated Harriet Meirs, but agree with everything else, you might vote disapprovingly.

Quote:

Just 32% of Americans now believe the country is heading in the right direction. Fifty-six percent (56%) believe things have gotten off on the wrong track."

That pretty much sums up my take on GWB's presidency.

but what does that mean. Even if you want to take the poll on good faith, what does it mean? Does it mean he's not acting aggressively enough in Iraq, or he should withdraw immediately. That his border policy proposals are too strict, or too lenient. What issue is on the minds of those polled, and which issues have gotten alot of attention in the press.

The poll doesn't mean anything. But what it effectively does it weaken the President and make it near impossible to get anything done because of the perceived weakness.

Quote:

I disagree, waiting until election time will be too late. The American people's dissatisfaction needs to be heard now.

You state this, but it implies that the polling is an accurate reflection of American disasatisfaction. They are not.

Posted by: barry2952

Call 10 of your friends. Ask them the very same questions. If 6 of 10 say that their opinion is that he's doing a lousy job, is that accurate? If not, then your friends opinions don't matter. That's the problem.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Call 10 of your friends. Ask them the very same questions. If 6 of 10 say that their opinion is that he's doing a lousy job, is that accurate? If not, then your friends opinions don't matter. That's the problem.

If I give ten of my friends the opportunity to bitch about anything, they'll take me up on the offer. What does it mean, especially when the guy was reelected with a resounding majority.

Since these polls have become a staple of the news, have you had more or less confidence in government? Can you tell me the positive associated with these relentless polls?

So they are vague, misused by the media for ideological reasons, and they make it increasingly difficult for our politicians to effectively govern.

And, incase you didn't notice, I made a lot of points prior to this post. None of which you responded to, instead you just repeated yourself.

Posted by: barry2952

Why respond to individual points when you fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans think Bush is doing a lousy job?

Apparently, it doesn't matter to you what I think either. You've already made up your mind. Therein lies the problem.

Now that Iraq is on the verge of all out civil war, I believe that the American people will turn of GWB like you've never seen before. You'll not be able to blame the media for this one.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Why respond to individual points when you fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans think Bush is doing a lousy job?

Apparently, it doesn't matter to you what I think either. You've already made up your mind. Therein lies the problem.

Now that Iraq is on the verge of all out civil war, I believe that the American people will turn of GWB like you've never seen before. You'll not be able to blame the media for this one.

Let's say nothing in world changes. The US economy stays the same, Iraq stays the same, Iran is the same. The only thing that changes is the way the media reports the news.

The media places front page how well the economy is doing (which this month astounded the experts), they report on the accomplishments being made by the Americans in Iraq and have nightly news reports from Iraqis saying how grateful they are for our help. The media reports that a majority of Iranians don't want to confront the West but don't know how to get rid of the mullahs and are asking for help. The media reports that the Clinton administration cut deals with the Chinese to own and control ports here and in Panama. The media reports that America's best chance for energy independence lies within our own territories and supports continued exploration, drilling and mining. I know this is a make-believe world but what do you think your polls would show? Would not Bush be in the mid to high seventies in approval? To deny this simple truth would be to demonstrate the hypocrisy in media reporting and the very simple truth that people believe what they are told because they are too lazy to figure it out themselves. All you have proven with your polls is that people are sheeple and polls lead them. That is why lefties love them. The rest of us rely on our brains for what we think.

Posted by: barry2952

How hypocritical Bryan. You're the one that started the thread on polls and touted Rasmussen as being accurate until Bush faltered. Now the polls don't mean anything. Talking out both sides of your mouth again.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

How hypocritical Bryan. You're the one that started the thread on polls and touted Rasmussen as being accurate until Bush faltered. Now the polls don't mean anything. Talking out both sides of your mouth again.

Confused again, eh.

I touted the Rasmussen poll as being the most accurate. So what the poll shows is the accuracy of the media's mis-reporting of the news. My previous statement backs up this assertion. Most people believe what they are told because they are not deeply involved and don't attempt to seek the truth. Ask them who is on the Simpsons and they will score 100. As them who is on the Supreme Court and they can't name a one.

You are so blinded by the rose colored glasses and the kool-aid you drink has removed your senses.

Ever since 1994, the day the earth stood still, the day the liberals watched in horror as the Country moved to the Right, the media has never recovered. And since Bush won in 2000, they have been on the warpath. They know if they cannot turn the electorate, liberalism perishes, at least for a few decades.

So what we have witnessed the last 5 years is a war between conservative ideology and liberalism. With the media in the back pocket of Democrats, it comes as no surprise that they will mis-report and twist any news to further their agenda. Time to wake up to that fact and get back on the team.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

You'll not be able to blame the media for this one.

Perfect examples...

In the last couple of days the New York Times ran Page One another Abu Graib story. Supposedly the Iraqi that was photographed on the basket with a hood over his head was telling his story. The only problem, he was not who he proclaimed to be. Who revealed the hoax, lie, whatever? None other that another liberal rag, Salon.

The fantastic econmic news reported yesterday??? Page 3 of the business section.

I could point out the 'proof' day in and day out. I've already wasted more time today than I promised myself I would. I simply have to give up. It appears the Left has drank too much kool-aid, brain damage has occurred and it is irreversible. I'm not wasting any more time. Back to something productive.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

There are many problems. And polls are part of the problem. What if those 10 friends were given faulty information? Does their opinion count when rendering a judgment on the truth? Politics is perception, which in turn is power. I never tire of saying this: polls are worthless (to me, anyway). But I will add that they can be very damaging.

Bush is down in the polls, and most likely will stay down. Point conceded.

But Winston Churchill had tremendous highs and lows in his political career as well. After being defeated in 1945 by a huge landslide, he and his party came back and won in 1951. He won despite his opponents' claims of him being a "warmonger" among other things. Sound familiar?

But time and again conservative ideology has been brought into power in times of great turmoil in order to stabilize and strengthen. Liberalism also has good points, at times. But if conservatism loses now, don't fret. If and when things go bad under liberal rule, the people will come around. Likewise for the liberals.

Posted by: barry2952

I don't see how polls damage the President. They are just people's opinions.

Wednesday March 15, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

For the first time ever, a majority of Americans (52%) say that the U.S. mission in Iraq will be judged a failure. Just 32% believe history will judge it a success.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I don't see how polls damage the President. They are just people's opinions.

whatever

Posted by: MrWilson

But that means 63% of americans do, do disaprove of the president...thats some good numbers on his side!

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Why should we wait an election cycle to effect change?

What would you suggest is a solution to your dilemma?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitas

What would you suggest is a solution to your dilemma?

Apparently, answering what are often loaded questions, presented in a skewed manner by the media, consitutes effecting change?

You'd think that democracy couldn't function prior to weekly CBS/NYTIMES/CNN/ZOGBY pollings.

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Presidents are elected to four year terms. Perhaps Barry will explain his point of view.

Posted by: barry2952

Friday March 17, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's just one point above the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove.

The President earns approval from 75% of Republicans, 14% of Democrats and 33% of those not affiliated with either major party. Until last fall, the President typically enjoyed approval ratings in the high-80s among Republicans.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe that President Bush should be censured, or formally reprimanded, by the U.S. Senate.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Americans believe that President Bush should be censured, or formally reprimanded, by the U.S. Senate.

Wow, what a shock! The haters are at 42% in the poll but 'only' 38% want censure? Barry, looks like you have some more work to do. Looks like 4% of the haters haven't jumped on your bandwagon yet.

Posted by: barry2952

One from Leno"

"President Bush's approval rating has hit a new low: 33%. But he stated he's confident that he will reverse those numbers."

Posted by: barry2952

Saturday March 18, 2006--Forty percent (40%) of American adults now approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That matches the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) disapprove.

The President earns approval from 73% of Republicans, 16% of Democrats and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party. Until last fall, the President typically enjoyed approval ratings in the high-80s among Republicans.

Posted by: Calabrio

You are aware that he had poll numbers similarly low prior to the 2004 election. There is a distinction between approval ratings" and voting.

If you think these polls are important,
state, for the record, how you anticipate the 2006 elections to go.

Posted by: barry2952

I don't do predictions but my hopes are for a Republican Congress to reign in spending initiatives from a Democratic White House.

Posted by: barry2952

That hope included the 2008 election.

Posted by: Calabrio

That's not an answer-

In 2006,
will Republicans retain the House and the Senate?

What Democrat candidate looks like they have any possibilty of winning both their party nomination and then the general election?

And how do you possibly think a Democrat anything will reign in spending. Can you point to any program that the Democrats are willing to cut? The problem with the Republicans hasn't really been their spending, but their reluctant to cut programs.

Since the Democrats are opposed to ANY reform of Social Security and Medicare, it's really near impossible to control spending. Those two programs are about HALF of the total budget.

Clinton was able to cut the size of government, but we never talk about how. He did it by cutting the size of the military.

Posted by: barry2952

Please reread what I wrote. I clearly said a Republican Congress to reign in the spending of a Democratic White House. What didn't you understand?

Posted by: barry2952

Sunday March 19, 2006--For the second straight day, just 40% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Prior to the past two days, the President's Job Approval had fallen to that level just once in a Rasmussen Reports survey.

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Please reread what I wrote. I clearly said a Republican Congress to reign in the spending of a Democratic White House. What didn't you understand?

Now there is a QUANDARY. Should we take a poll as to WHO CARES what Barry said?

Posted by: barry2952

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday dismissed suggestions that the Bush White House, hampered by a weak response to Hurricane Katrina and stumbles on policy questions, needs a shake-up.

``I don't think we can pay any attention to that kind of thing,'' Cheney said on CBS ``Face the Nation.'' ``The president has got a job to do. ... He ignores the background noise that's out there in the polls that are taken on a daily basis.''

Bush's job approval in March was at 37 percent, which tied for his lowest rating in the AP-Ipsos poll. Senior Republicans and others have said the Bush team may need an infusion of fresh blood and ideas.

Posted by: Calabrio

I asked Barry what he thought.

But here is what he said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I don't do predictions but my hopes are for a Republican Congress to reign in spending initiatives from a Democratic White House.

That's not a predicition. I hope to find a winning lotto ticket. But I don't expect it to happen.

So, I'll reask my question to Barry- What do you think will happen?
You seem interested in these polls, what tangible things do they foreshadow.

Posted by: barry2952

I reiterate. I think the polls foreshadow a Republican CONGRESS for 2006 and a Democratic PRESIDENCY in 2008. Is that clear enough?

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I reiterate. I think the polls foreshadow a Republican CONGRESS for 2006 and a Democratic PRESIDENCY in 2008. Is that clear enough?

That's an answer.
Thanks.

Which Democrat looks good in 2008?
More important, which Democrat will survive the nomination and be able to win the 2008 election?

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Which Democrat looks good in 2008?

None of them, but it won't matter who the Dems put up. The damage to a Republican presidency in 2008 is already done. This is where the polls matter.

Posted by: Calabrio

But Bush isn't running again, so the 2006 polls will have absolute ZERO influence on the 2008 Presidential race. As has been mentioned repeatedly, the low polling numbers didn't even prevent President Bush from being REELECTED.

Furthermore, which Democrat would you, or the public, be comfortable placing the national security and foreign policy in the control of? Because, despite the spin, the executive branch's job really isn't formulating domestic policy. They are to enforce it, true. But one of the most important roles of the Executive office is foreign affairs, particularly during times of war.

So, which Democrat do you think will keep the U.S. secure? I can't think of a single Democrat who's won the nomination within my lifetime that would have. Carter, Mondale, Dukokis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry....none of them.

So, who do you see?
And if you say someone like Lieberman, or any other semi-hawkish Democrat, how the hell are they going to win the nomination, capturing the MoveOn.org base critical in a primary.

Posted by: barry2952

I disagree. The polls will have a great effect on the election in 2006 and 2008. Those that ignore the polls are condemned to die by them. That's the new politics. That's never going to change.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I disagree. The polls will have a great effect on the election in 2006 and 2008. Those that ignore the polls are condemned to die by them. That's the new politics. That's never going to change.

Were you saying that before the 2002, when the Republicans regained the Senate and increased their strength in the House?

Were you saying that in 2004, when, despite low poll numbers and being 10 points behind, Bush went on to win the election by a resounding margin.

And, if you really think these polls are telling in 2006, then why don't you think the Democrats will take control of the Congress?

Posted by: barry2952

You seem to have a problem understanding that I hold no malice for the Republican Party. I just detest GWB and his cronies. Looks like I'm not alone.

BTW, your statement that BuSh won by a resounding margin is BS and you know it.

I didn't say that that I think the Republicans maintain control of Congress. I said that was my hope. It is my hope, again, the a Democratic President is elected an that that President is reigned in, financially, by a Republican Congress.

That's all I've ever said. You may now proceed to twist my words.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

You seem to have a problem understanding that I hold no malice for the Republican Party. I just detest GWB and his cronies. Looks like I'm not alone.

Yeah. Just look at the polls.

Quote:

BTW, your statement that Bush won by a resounding margin is BS and you know it.

51% to 48%.
286 to 252 Electoral Votes.
Bush was the first President to win with a majority since 1992.
62,040,606 vs 59,028,109

And, if you really believed the polls published by the MSM, Bush was going to lose all day.

Quote:

I didn't say that that I think the Republicans maintain control of Congress. I said that was my hope. It is my hope, again, the a Democratic President is elected an that that President is reigned in, financially, by a Republican Congress.

That's all I've ever said. You may now proceed to twist my words.

I don't need to twist anything. You did say "hope," but that wasn't adequate. I pressed you for a specific. You responded by saying, "I think the polls foreshadow a Republican CONGRESS for 2006 and a Democratic PRESIDENCY in 2008. Is that clear enough?"

And I thanked you for providing an answer. So don't accuse me of twisting your words, especially the problem is your confusion.

As I've stated before, if these polls warrant the focus and attention you think they deserve, they must foreshadow results in the coming election. But, you're still "hoping" for things. Based on this polling "data" what do EXPECT to happen. If this information is important (or even accurate) you should be able to present some predicition for the coming election.

Not hope. Right brain answers. Think, calculate, analyze, determine.

If you can't even use these polls to determine how they'll influence the 2006, or 2008, elections, they have virtually no value- other than to politically weaken the appearance of the President.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

None of them, but it won't matter who the Dems put up. The damage to a Republican presidency in 2008 is already done. This is where the polls matter.

So now you agree that polls can be damaging? You continue to amaze me.

Doesn't anybody else actually read the poll questions and see just how misleading the questions and answer options can be? They could be of limited use, but more often than not they are purely propaganda tools.

Posted by: barry2952

It's a damaged Presidency. Why wouldn't the polls be damaging?

Posted by: barry2952

Tuesday March 21, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

The President's Approval Rating has fallen to 70% among Republicans.

Posted by: barry2952

I don't know why the "I said a bad word" smiley showed up where it did in the last post. That was a cut and paste from Rasmussen.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

It's a damaged Presidency. Why wouldn't the polls be damaging?

Look at post #18 and #19 of this same thread.

Posted by: barry2952

Whatever.

Posted by: Kbob

You can fool some of the people all of the time . . . .

Posted by: barry2952

Geez, in 50 posts you all have convinced me that the polls do harm to BuSh. So what?

Posted by: Kbob

Here's to all the propaganda propagaters!

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Geez, in 50 posts you all have convinced me that the polls do harm to BuSh. So what?

So what positive is done by the constant media polling?
What is the purpopse? Why do they keep doing it?

Are they just lazy journalists, aware that it's easier to report on a poll than to find a real story. Or are they editorial decisions designed to weaken the President they didn't support (9 out of 10 journalists vote Democrat)?

Posted by: Calabrio

GALLUP POLLING DROPS CNN AFTER 'LOW RATINGS'; FULL MEMO REVEALED
Tue Mar 21 2006 19:01:37 ET

The GALLUP polling company has dropped CNN as its outlet for electronic distribution.

GALLUP, CNN and USA TODAY have been polling partners since 1992.

"CNN has far fewer viewers than it did in the past, and we feel that our brand was getting lost and diluted," GALLUP claimed in an internal memo, obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

CNN tells TVNEWSER.COM, which first reported the split: "We want to make it clear that the decision to not renew our polling arrangement had to do with GALLUP's desire to produce their own broadcasts and not about CNN viewership figures. In fact, GALLUP had negotiated with us for four months in an effort to extend the partnership."

**EXCLUSIVE**The full memo, by Jim Clifton, Chairman & CEO of GALLUP:

We have chosen "not" to renew our contract with CNN.

We have had a great partnership with CNN but it is not the right alignment for our future. The longtime partnership has been very helpful to The Gallup Poll as it put us "back big" fifteen years ago when our famous Gallup Poll had lost most of its national coverage. Our CNN partnership helped us make a great comeback. We had a great run as we just cut our 4000th segment this week.

The Gallup Poll will go on with more polling than ever, but with new distribution channels.

WHY. 1) CNN has far fewer viewers than it did in the past and we feel that our brand was getting lost and diluted combined with the CNN brand. We have only about 200 thousand viewers during our CNN segments.

2) We are creating our own e-broadcasting programs and we don't want to be married to one broadcast network. We don't want to move to another network like CBS or Fox but rather become our own network. We cannot do this while married to CNN.

3) By dissolving our partnership with CNN we believe that Frank and other Gallup analysts will be seen as more independent so they will be more likely to be invited on a wide variety of television shows rather than primarily linked to CNN. We believe with this new found independence, we will get covered by more broadcast media because we are not the poll of their competitor.

4) We have enthusiastically renewed our print partner, USA Today. They have arguably the best readership of any newspaper in the world. It has approximately 2.4 mil subscriptions and 7.5 mil readers per day. Far more than the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. And it has substantial international coverage for being a US paper. We also believe that print is a much needed way to present our polls for those interested in studying a chart or reading analysis.

In the big picture, USA Today supplies more than 10x the users per day than CNN. USA Today is our 800lb paperboy. Or the primary distributor of The Gallup Poll. We want to have two primary distribution channels. 1) USA Today and 2) e-Gallup News. We will go on any regular TV show for guest appearances because it will help build our e-viewership. We also will be featured on AOL's front page for news. The AOL e-distribution will likely add more eyeballs per day than all of CNN.

This is a big move for us. We have to boldly change and invent new futures for Gallup or we will not survive the hurricane of competition coming from all directions in everything we do. I personally proposed the deal to Ted Turner about fifteen years ago while backstage at a "People's Choice" event and then again at their headquarters in Atlanta. It has been a great partnership and one that has meant a lot to this CEO. One in which we have all been very proud and one where we delivered our very best work every week. We have offered to help CNN find a new polling partner and to be as helpful as we can during this transition.

Jim

END

Posted by: MonsterMark

I miss my daily Barry bashing of Bush's poll numbers.

What?!? Bush's numbers are climbing and nothing is mentioned.

Seems that Barry acts exactly like today's media. Report on and trumpet the bad news and at all cost, bury the good news.

Typical liberal tactics.

For what it is worth to anyone who cares, there is a group of conservatives looking to buy a major liberal print outlet and turn it transparently conservative. In other words, spin the editorial department on its ear and start reporting the truth, good news, optimism, etc. Everything that today's MSM media is incapable of doing. This won't be a FOX attempt at running down the middle. This is a take a lib rag and make it worth more than the toilet paper it is printed on attempt. Could be very interesting.

Posted by: barry2952

Typical loudmouth, jacka$$, response Bryan.

In case you hadn't noticed there were some real conversations going on now that things have calmed down. Nice personal attack, jerk.

As a matter fact, you buddy's numbers hit 40% for three days in a row and I didn't say a word.

You can be a real pindick when you want to.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

hope

What exactly is "hope" based on.
What critical thinking skill do I need to focus on inorder to refine and develop my hoping skills?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Typical loudmouth, jacka$$, response Bryan.

In case you hadn't noticed there were some real conversations going on now that things have calmed down. Nice personal attack, jerk.

As a matter fact, you buddy's numbers hit 40% for three days in a row and I didn't say a word.

You can be a real pindick when you want to.

I guess here is where the smileys really come in handy...

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

What exactly is "hope" based on.
What critical thinking skill do I need to focus on inorder to refine and develop my hoping skills?

Wasn't Clinton from "hope" ?

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

What exactly is "hope" based on.
What critical thinking skill do I need to focus on inorder to refine and develop my hoping skills?

Does "pray" fit your RW ideology better? What skills does one need to pray?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Does "pray" fit your RW ideology better? What skills does one need to pray?

To "pray" requires a conscience. Which may explain why many liberals are agnostic.

Posted by: barry2952

Since Bryan wants to see how poorly GWB is doing I will post the numbers every day, just for him.

Thursday March 23, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

And Bryan's proud of BuSh's recovery from 40%. Pretty funny. Pretty pathetic.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Since Bryan wants to see how poorly GWB is doing I will post the numbers every day, just for him.

Gee, I chided you and only now are you going to bore us with a daily briefing on Bush's popularity. LOL.

Plus, show me where I said I was 'proud' of Bush's recovery from 40-43%? Oh mister don't put words in my mouth master.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

And Bryan's proud of BuSh's recovery from 40%. Pretty funny. Pretty pathetic.

Bush's numbers are only at 43%? You should be ashamed of yourself. With 5 years of spin and lies by the whole of the MSM, Bush is 'ONLY' down 8 points from what got him elected and that is pathetic?

You know what is pathetic? Clinton was elected President in '92 with only 43%. Now that was pathetic.

Posted by: barry2952

That's lack of popularity. Less than 50%, remember?

Posted by: barry2952

Friday March 24, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

Posted by: barry2952

Monday March 27, 2006--Forty-five percent (45%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

It is not clear whether the recent uptick in the President's Approval Rating is a lasting improvement or statistical noise. However, the change reflects a rebound among Republicans, 80% of whom now give the President their approval. That's a lower level of support than the President enjoyed from the GOP faithful during his first five years in office. However, it is an improvement from the last couple of weeks.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Monday March 27, 2006--Forty-five percent (45%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

It is not clear whether the recent uptick in the President's Approval Rating is a lasting improvement or statistical noise. However, the change reflects a rebound among Republicans, 80% of whom now give the President their approval. That's a lower level of support than the President enjoyed from the GOP faithful during his first five years in office. However, it is an improvement from the last couple of weeks.

Barry...

Are you working for Rasmussen? It almost sounds like you are writing the analysis now.

More statistical noise....I love it. Wheneverthenewsisgood, it's now called statistical noise.

BTW, I HAVE noticed that Rasmussen is becoming statiscally more liberal. What a surprise, eh!

Posted by: barry2952

You picked the source. I simply post the results. Why aren't you upset with your buddy Rasmussen? You think he should fold up shop because you perceive that he is hurting the president? Have you told him that? What was his response?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

You picked the source. I simply post the results. Why aren't you upset with your buddy Rasmussen? You think he should fold up shop because you perceive that he is hurting the president? Have you told him that? What was his response?

Actually, I have told him a couple times that he is losing his perceived impartiality. One need only look at all the 'hate' ads he posts on the site now to know where the group is going. Same exact thing happened to Zogby.

It's too bad. I always felt he was the most honest in his questioning but now I tend to doubt it. All you have to be is very subtle with your polling questions to change the results. It may be he feels his results aren't in line with the rest of the mainstream media, so he has to change approach.

All I know is an impartial pollster should not have any kinds of political ads on the site. Rasmussen has gone over the edge in my opinion so the numbers don't carry as much water for me anymore. Don't blame me. Blame the site for allowing Bush bashing ads. Always follow the money.

Posted by: barry2952

Lame.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Lame.

Once again you demonstrate your insightfulness and quick wit. I am overwhelmed indeed.

It is no wonder that people go out of their way to engage you. I mean, look, you have such a way with words. It must be intimidating to most that few seem to want to challenge you post to post.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Actually, I have told him a couple times that he is losing his perceived impartiality. One need only look at all the 'hate' ads he posts on the site now to know where the group is going. Same exact thing happened to Zogby.

It's too bad. I always felt he was the most honest in his questioning but now I tend to doubt it. All you have to be is very subtle with your polling questions to change the results. It may be he feels his results aren't in line with the rest of the mainstream media, so he has to change approach.

All I know is an impartial pollster should not have any kinds of political ads on the site. Rasmussen has gone over the edge in my opinion so the numbers don't carry as much water for me anymore. Don't blame me. Blame the site for allowing Bush bashing ads. Always follow the money.

WTF are you talking about??

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

The only adds I see on this page are one for the WSJ and another for free credit reports. Fabricating another fantasy excuse?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

WTF are you talking about??

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

The only adds I see on this page are one for the WSJ and another for free credit reports. Fabricating another fantasy excuse?

Another time you get owned. Obviously you guys on the Left only look for headlines. Guess where your 'friend' Barry got his avatar?

And the picture was taken right from the Rasmussen site.

You guys make it too easy.

Follow the linky...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Posted by: barry2952

Wrong again RWW! Do a search for Bush + Monkey and you'll find hundreds of real flattering pictures.

Posted by: barry2952

Wednesday March 29, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Wednesday March 29, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove

It is not clear whether the recent downtick in the President's Approval Rating is a lasting decline or statistical noise.

Oh, it DIDN'T say that?

My bad.

Posted by: my95mark8

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Does "pray" fit your RW ideology better? What skills does one need to pray?

I never appoved of him in the first place.

Posted by: Calabrio

42% percent approve according to that poll,
that's interesting knowing that Clinton won the election in 1992 with just 43% of the vote.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

42% percent approve according to that poll,
that's interesting knowing that Clinton won the election in 1992 with just 43% of the vote.

There is ONLY ONE REASON Clinton won EITHER election:

Ross Perot.

Posted by: barry2952

Try and stay on subject fellas. This is about Bush's lousy poll numbers.

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

It is not clear whether the recent downtick in the President's Approval Rating is a lasting decline or statistical noise.

Oh, it DIDN'T say that?

My bad.

Nice try Fossten. Batting zero again.

Thursday March 30, 2006--Forty percent (40%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That matches the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The slight increase in Approval seen last weekend was clearly nothing more than statistical noise.

Posted by: barry2952

Saturday April 01, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove as the President continues to struggle in the court of public opinion.

Posted by: barry2952

Sunday April 02, 2006--For the second straight day, 42% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove as the President continues to struggle in the court of public opinion.

Posted by: barry2952

Monday April 03, 2006--For the third straight day, 42% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove as the President continues to struggle in the court of public opinion.

On the divisive issue of immigration, there is some common ground among the general public--66% believe we first need to control our borders and enforce existing laws before debating new laws. Forty percent (40%) favor the forcible removal of all 11 million illegal aliens from the United States.

Posted by: barry2952

Tuesday April 04, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove as the President continues to struggle in the court of public opinion.

Posted by: barry2952

Wednesday April 05, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove.

For the first time ever, approval of the President fell below 70% among Republicans (down to 69%).

Posted by: barry2952

Thursday April 06, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-eight percent (58%) disapprove.

Posted by: Kbob

.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Fascinating response. I don't know how quite to answer.

Posted by: barry2952

Statistical noise?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Statistical noise?

definition: Barry's post count.

Posted by: Calabrio

And Democrats in the Congress have an approval of 29%.

Republicans too, but that's besides the point.

Posted by: barry2952

Saturday April 08, 2006--Forty-four percent (44%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove. The slight upward blip of the President's ratings in the past couple of days is most likely statistical noise.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

The slight upward blip of the President's ratings in the past couple of days is most likely statistical noise.

Why of course it is. Everybody hates Bush, right?

Americans I guess can't stomach fighting for peace and can't seen to enjoy prosperity either.

Can't wait for the bad times to hit if things are sh!t now.

Clueless sheeple.

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

And Democrats in the Congress have an approval of 29%.

Republicans too, but that's besides the point.

Relatively, in a direct comparison, GWB beats them all.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Fascinating response. I don't know how quite to answer.

I was going to squabble about the numbers. But in the end, I decided 1% was a petty reason to reply. Thus my "." edit.

Posted by: barry2952

Sunday April 09, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitas

Relatively, in a direct comparison, GWB beats them all.

In the important category of likeability:

George Bush vs.:

Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Howard Dean
Chuck Schumer
Ted Kennedy
Tom DeLay
Hillary Clinton

Americans like him better.

Posted by: barry2952

Monday April 10, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove.

Posted by: barry2952

Tuesday April 11, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove

Posted by: barry2952

Wednesday April 12, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Posted by: fossten

Wednesday April 12, 2006--Ninety-nine percent (99%) of surfers on this forum continue to wait for barry to say something interesting. Since his posts are nothing but statistical noise, there will probably be no downtick in these expectations.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Wednesday April 12, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

Posted by: Joeychgo

How can you argue with the clear trends??

We can quibble over numbers all you want. End result is, his popularity trend has been downhill since 9/11. Its now in the 30's.

Good news is.... I dont expect it to get much lower. Too many fanatics that would approve of his performance regardless of what he does or doesnt do.

Graphs from: University of Minn

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

How can you argue with the clear trends??

We can quibble over numbers all you want. End result is, his popularity trend has been downhill since 9/11. Its now in the 30's.

Good news is.... I dont expect it to get much lower. Too many fanatics that would approve of his performance regardless of what he does or doesnt do.

Graphs from: University of Minn

You're missing the point (see post #105 and actually read it). I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that barry hasn't posted anything interesting in weeks, even though he posts in this thread daily. I check it to see if he's said anything new, and - no, same dull stuff every day. Who cares?

Must I explain everything to you people?

Posted by: barry2952

I only post to keep you and your's informed.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

I only post to keep you and your's informed.

Like I care.

I only read to see if you've actually posted anything interesting. Guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by: barry2952

Please, hold your breath.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You're missing the point

No, your missing the point. I was trying to get things back on topic a bit. GW's approval has been in frefall since the election, and wasnt great before that.

Try to discuss that - not Barry's statistical noise.

Barry, why dont you try to say something with a little more information / opinion.

<ding> Round 4

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Fair enough. I made my point, and you made yours. I will now go back to the more interesting threads.

Posted by: barry2952

Why don't you just go away like you promised? What have you contibuted that was worthwhile? Nothing, in my opinion.

I will continue posting GWB's crappy numbers just to infuriated pinhead RWW's. It gives me great pleasure to read your responses.

Just remember, Bryan started this by trying to rub our noses in BuSh's climbing numbers. Don't like the posts, don't read them. You have that option.

Posted by: MonsterMark

I believe I started this debate not to rub LWW noses in it but rather to offset the media landslide of misleading and often manipulated polling data. I pointed out that if anybody really cared about what polls say, they would be best served to listen to Rasmussen as he was the guy, LIKE ME, that came closest to the real results. You know what they say, garbage in, garbage out, which is what I think of most other polls.

Bush is solidly at 45%. Considering all the people he has hacked off, including in his own party, he is doing pretty well, despite 5 years of the most concerted effort in our country's history to discredit him on a daily basis.

Also interesting, 55% say they are better off now than they were 4 years ago. Bd, bad news for the Dems. People always vote with their pocketbooks. How there is a majority poll saying we are heading in the wrong direction is beyond me. I think it simply reflects the shallowness of the American people for instant gratification without sacrifice.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

[whiny voice, sniffle]Why don't you just go away like you promised? What have you contibuted that was worthwhile? Nothing, in my opinion.

I will continue posting GWB's crappy numbers just to infuriated pinhead RWW's. It gives me great pleasure to read your responses.

Just remember, Bryan started this by trying to rub our noses in BuSh's climbing numbers. Don't like the posts, don't read them. You have that option.

You said it, barry. Translated: 'I don't make a habit out of posting anything interesting, so don't expect me to start now.'

Posted by: barry2952

Bryan,

You are truly full of

. Here is your original post. How many other things were you wrong about, too.

Bush Poll Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know all our lefties here LOVED to watch Bush sink in the polls. Every day there was a new poll (skewed), with new poll numbers showing Bush in the dumper.

So I thought I would sticky this (See Barry, you are finally right. I am using admin status to bully) so as to inflict as much mental anguish upon you as possible. Again, the ONLY poll I watch is Rasmussen. The most consistent and accurate polling company out there.

Today Bush is at 46%. Up 3 points in a week.

Some more things to happen.

Some truth about Iraq will come out that things are going well with the new Iraq government and US troop levels will start to drop in January after the new government is voted in in December.

Didn't happen

The MSM press will be forced to 'reveal' that the US economy is doing surprisingly well despite the impact of the hurricanes.

Didn't happen

Rove won't be indicted and he will lead Republicans to victory in '06. (Hard to believe, but when people finally realize how long they had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will be pissed at the Dems for it.)

Not going to happen

Gas will continue to drop over the winter although people are going to be plenty pissed about natural gas.

Didn't happen

Bush is finally fighting back and even quoted the mental midget John Kerry yesterday saying Iraq needed to be attacked because they were imminently dangerous.

Some WMD will turn up in Syria.

Didn't happen

Jordanians will lead a revolt against Al-Qaeda.

Didn't happen

Stock Market will continue its bull run.

Didn't happen

It will be revealed the Bush economic run is longer and better sustained than the Clinton one.

?

Interest rates will remain (reasonably) in check.

Didn't happen

And liberals will be exposed for the hypocrites they are.
Fantastic new book out on Barbra Streisand and Michael Moron revealing their absurd hypocrisy. Book is entitled (appropriately): Do as I say, not as I do.

That's friggin hilarious. How about all the dirt on Republicans?

In the book Barbra is shown preaching about conservation yet it is revealed her water bill is $22,000 month. Michael Moore preaches diversity in hiring yet he has only 'hired' 3 minorities in over 120 recent hires. He even says he doesn't own a share of "big money", you know, stocks, when it is revealed that he owns, get this, Halliburton. 1st time I had pissed in my pants since I was in diapers. LOL. And much much more.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Bryan,

You are truly full of

. (PERSONAL ATTACK)Here is your original post. How many other things were you wrong about, too.

Bush Poll Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know all our lefties here LOVED to watch Bush sink in the polls. Every day there was a new poll (skewed), with new poll numbers showing Bush in the dumper.

So I thought I would sticky this (See Barry, you are finally right. I am using admin status to bully) so as to inflict as much mental anguish upon you as possible. Again, the ONLY poll I watch is Rasmussen. The most consistent and accurate polling company out there.

Today Bush is at 46%. Up 3 points in a week.

Some more things to happen.

Some truth about Iraq will come out that things are going well with the new Iraq government and US troop levels will start to drop in January after the new government is voted in in December.

Didn't happen

Wrong. It did.

The MSM press will be forced to 'reveal' that the US economy is doing surprisingly well despite the impact of the hurricanes.

Didn't happen

Despite their best efforts to hide it, the truth has come out about the economy. Wrong again.

Rove won't be indicted and he will lead Republicans to victory in '06. (Hard to believe, but when people finally realize how long they had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will be pissed at the Dems for it.)

Not going to happen

Oh, excuse me, was Rove indicted? I thought for sure the news would have covered that.

Gas will continue to drop over the winter although people are going to be plenty pissed about natural gas.

Didn't happen

Finally. Correct.

Bush is finally fighting back and even quoted the mental midget John Kerry yesterday saying Iraq needed to be attacked because they were imminently dangerous.

Some WMD will turn up in Syria.

Didn't happen

Yet. But eyewitnesses with more cred than John Effing Kerry have stated that they were shipped to Syria.

Jordanians will lead a revolt against Al-Qaeda.

Didn't happen

Wrong again.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175150,00.html

Stock Market will continue its bull run.

Didn't happen

Wrong. Do you even read newspapers?

DJIA:

Attachment 16294

It will be revealed the Bush economic run is longer and better sustained than the Clinton one.

?

Again, do you even read newspapers?

Interest rates will remain (reasonably) in check.

Didn't happen

Define reasonable. They seem to be in check to me. Remember the Carter years?

And liberals will be exposed for the hypocrites they are.
Fantastic new book out on Barbra Streisand and Michael Moron revealing their absurd hypocrisy. Book is entitled (appropriately): Do as I say, not as I do.

That's friggin hilarious. How about all the dirt on Republicans?

That's friggin hilarious. I've got 5 for every 1 you name.

In the book Barbra is shown preaching about conservation yet it is revealed her water bill is $22,000 month. Michael Moore preaches diversity in hiring yet he has only 'hired' 3 minorities in over 120 recent hires. He even says he doesn't own a share of "big money", you know, stocks, when it is revealed that he owns, get this, Halliburton. 1st time I had pissed in my pants since I was in diapers. LOL. And much much more.

I know, I know. Snif snif, why don't I just go away. Blah blah blah. Get over it or keep whining, I don't care.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Bryan,

You are truly full of

. Here is your original post. How many other things were you wrong about, too.

Bush Poll Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know all our lefties here LOVED to watch Bush sink in the polls. Every day there was a new poll (skewed), with new poll numbers showing Bush in the dumper.

So I thought I would sticky this (See Barry, you are finally right. I am using admin status to bully) so as to inflict as much mental anguish upon you as possible. Again, the ONLY poll I watch is Rasmussen. The most consistent and accurate polling company out there.

[But this thread you point out is not the "Original" thread that was started about polling in general. Find that post and we can see what I said back then.]

Today Bush is at 46%. Up 3 points in a week.

[So I guess we are back to the starting point. Remarkable after all the negative and slanted news reports, isn't it?]

Some more things to happen.

Some truth about Iraq will come out that things are going well with the new Iraq government and US troop levels will start to drop in January after the new government is voted in in December.

Didn't happen

[Troop levels have dropped. A new Goverment wil be installed shortly. Elections went off without a hitch. Lots of progress in Iraq. Just nothing the media wants to bring to your attention.]

The MSM press will be forced to 'reveal' that the US economy is doing surprisingly well despite the impact of the hurricanes.

Didn't happen

[Pull your head out of the sand. The ecomony is BOOMING! I'd be happy to post article after article to support this statement.]

Rove won't be indicted and he will lead Republicans to victory in '06. (Hard to believe, but when people finally realize how long they had the wool pulled over their eyes, they will be pissed at the Dems for it.)

Not going to happen

[Rove was NOT indicted, was he? Republicans will not lose control of the House OR Senate. The economy is too good and we have not been attacked yet.]

Gas will continue to drop over the winter although people are going to be plenty pissed about natural gas.

Didn't happen

[Gas did go down and now is going back up with summer demand. Guess you don't buy gas. The chauffer[sic] must do it for you.]

Bush is finally fighting back and even quoted the mental midget John Kerry yesterday saying Iraq needed to be attacked because they were imminently dangerous.

Some WMD will turn up in Syria.

Didn't happen

[Nope, not yet. But it is there and also safely back in Russia.]

Jordanians will lead a revolt against Al-Qaeda.

Didn't happen

[Got me on that one. Notice no more international attacks on muslim countries though.]

Stock Market will continue its bull run.

Didn't happen

[Again, what planet are you living on? Even all my kids stock portfolios are back to pre 9/11 levels. EVERY stock index is up.]

It will be revealed the Bush economic run is longer and better sustained than the Clinton one.

?

[It already is. When Bush leaves office in '08, we'll have had a strong 7 year run.]

Interest rates will remain (reasonably) in check.

Didn't happen

[Unemployment and interest rates are lower than the averages of the '70
s, 80's and 90's. Best in 4 decades.]

And liberals will be exposed for the hypocrites they are.
Fantastic new book out on Barbra Streisand and Michael Moron revealing their absurd hypocrisy. Book is entitled (appropriately): Do as I say, not as I do.

That's friggin hilarious. How about all the dirt on Republicans?

[Liberals are exposed on a daily basis. Try checking out some conservative blogs. We're having a field day with the libs.]

See my attached comments in red.

Posted by: barry2952

[But this thread you point out is not the "Original" thread that was started about polling in general. Find that post and we can see what I said back then.]

This is your original post Bryan. You made it a sticky. Memory or credibility problem?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

[But this thread you point out is not the "Original" thread that was started about polling in general. Find that post and we can see what I said back then.]

This is your original post Bryan. You made it a sticky. Memory or credibility problem?

I see you didn't choose to touch any of my other replies to your post.

No credibility problem with me. Just seem to remember differently how this whole 'poll' thing started. I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I'll stand pat.

Look forward to seeing you discredit my comments and those of Fossten on the same post you made. To be honest, I think I pretty much hit on all my predictions.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

It will be revealed the Bush economic run is longer and better sustained than the Clinton one.

?

[It already is. When Bush leaves office in '08, we'll have had a strong 7 year run.]

Yeah, on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Have you looked at the national debt and budget deficits since BuSh took office?

Posted by: barry2952

In addition, I believe that the "great economy" Bryan referrs to is a false economy based on major increases in government spending that has risen at an alarming rate. You're right, his kids will pay.

Has anyone noted that the bankrupcy rate?

I can't believe that Bryan is happy with the market being where it was five years ago. I don't blame Bush for that but he seems to be giving him credit for it. How lame.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Yeah, on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Have you looked at the national debt and budget deficits since BuSh took office?

Baloney. Your graph shows a percentage, which (if you bothered to check your history and figures) reflects the high middle class taxes under both Carter and Clinton, which would squelch any economy. It's easy to cut deficits by increasing taxes, duh. The thing your boys never did was cut spending or even the rate of growth, something Bush has actually done.

Your graph also misleadingly charts years that have not yet happened. The fact is that the budget is a smaller percentage in Bush's term than even in Reagan's terms, which just shows how much our economy is booming.

Don't try to play in the big leagues, Johnny, at least until you've taken Econ 101. Your local community college offers it, maybe you should sign up. Come back after Christmas break.

Posted by: barry2952

Friday April 14, 2006--Forty-four percent (44%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Your graph also misleadingly charts years that have not yet happened. The fact is that the budget is a smaller percentage in Bush's term than even in Reagan's terms, which just shows how much our economy is booming.

1. The chart clearly indicates this data is a prediction based on the OMB's own data. Where is it "misleading"???
2. The reason the % is smaller in GW's term than at the end of Reagan's is because so much progress was made during the Clinton years, NOT because you think the economy is "booming". Remember, plotting the debt as a % of GDP "normalizes" the data so that the effects of the ups and downs of the economy are nulified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Don't try to play in the big leagues, Johnny, at least until you've taken Econ 101. Your local community college offers it, maybe you should sign up. Come back after Christmas break.

You crack me up. You think YOU are playing in the "big leagues"?? Then WHY do I always have to break it down to you into terms that even children still sucking their thumbs can understand??

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

1. This is not *my* graph.
2. Plotting the national debt as a % of GDP is a perfectly accepted practice amongst economists as it compensates for ups and downs of the economy. Your attempt to distort these facts by claiming some sort of "reflection of high middle class taxes" during certain administrations only exposes your lack of knowledge about these matters. This is the BIG PICTURE, of how different administrations have handled the US government's budget, INCLUDING all tax revenues. Even your "boys" in the GOP prefer to talk about the debt as a % of GDP because plotting it any other way makes it look even worse for them.

1. The chart clearly indicates this data is a prediction based on the OMB's own data. Where is it "misleading"???
2. The reason the % is smaller in GW's term than at the end of Reagan's is because so much progress was made during the Clinton years, NOT because you think the economy is "booming". Remember, plotting the debt as a % of GDP "normalizes" the data so that the effects of the ups and downs of the economy are nulified.

You crack me up. You think YOU are playing in the "big leagues"?? Then WHY do I always have to break it down to you into terms that even children still sucking their thumbs can understand??

1. They are not my "boys" in the GOP, or hadn't you noticed?
2. My argument still stands, your riposte has not refuted it.
3. It is your graph inasmuch as you (mis)used it to support YOUR bogus statements.
4. The economy IS booming. Acknowledge it or be presumed an idiot.
5. I noticed you started your numbers over after 2. What's the matter? Can't count any higher?

I guess they don't have any smilies that can help you with that.
6. Again, deficit shrinking can be accomplished by massive tax increases, which WERE during Clinton's term, despite your failure to read any history whatsoever.
7. Do you need another 4 days to find somebody (like your econ101 teacher) to break this down for you before you respond again?

Posted by: barry2952

Great job, Bushie! Must be the MSM.

Monday April 17, 2006--For the second straight day, 39% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's the lowest level of approval ever measured by Rasmussen Reports

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Great job, Bushie! Must be the MSM.

Monday April 17, 2006--For the second straight day, 39% of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's the lowest level of approval ever measured by Rasmussen Reports

39% .... must mean that 39% of the people in the United States actually have brains. Sounds about right.

Posted by: barry2952

That must be it!

Posted by: Joeychgo

WTF ever made you think taxes decrease?

They just get shifted somewhere else - thats all.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

WTF ever made you think taxes decrease?

They just get shifted somewhere else - thats all.

Remember that cartoon next time your favorite neighborhood Dems like Pelosi and Schumer have the Exxon execs in for a slam session talking windfall profit taxes.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote: