fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
As was your post calling me names. Get over it and move on.
Bush's Approval Rating Hits New Low
- Thread starter barry2952
- Start date
As was your post calling me names. Get over it and move on.
FreeFaller
USAF LS8
barry2952 said:
Oh...well...color me stupid. :shifty:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Speaking of polls...
Public Trust in Media Down
Posted by Greg Sheffield on May 3, 2006 - 13:26.
Reuters reports that in a survey of ten countries, citizens of the U.S. and England have a low regard for the media.
Britain may have a sophisticated media industry but it also has some of the most sceptical consumers, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) believing the media does not report all sides of the story.
********************************************************
A 10-country opinion poll for Reuters, the BBC and the Media Centre found British and U.S. consumers out on a limb when it comes to public levels of trust in the media.
Overall trust in the media in Britain has bounced back over the past four years, from a low of 29 percent trusting in 2002 to 47 percent today. But this is still below the 10-country average of 63 percent.
Americans emerged as the most critical of the news media's balance, with 69 percent disagreeing that the media reports all sides of a story.
A similar proportion, 68 percent, thought the media covered too many "bad news" stories.
********************************************************
Despite the fact that those in the poll said the media reported too many "bad news" stories, the writer of the Reuters article insists the low approval ratings are because citizens feel the media are too closely allied to the war-time governments. Since the governments try to promote "good news" stories from Iraq, the opposite of the media, assuming an alliance is inaccurate.
The Reuters journalist took this meaning from the words of Doug Miller, the president of the company that conducted the survey, GlobeScan.
The low levels of trust may, he said, be related to perceptions in the U.S. that the media is too close to the government on issues relating to the Iraq war.
"It may have something to do with the pulling away from traditional media that we're seeing -- this move towards the Internet where people can get other perspectives on major stories that they're not getting from the mainstream media."
He did not say people think journalists are in bed with the government. In fact, people use sources other than the mainstream media to find the good news in Iraq.
Public Trust in Media Down
Posted by Greg Sheffield on May 3, 2006 - 13:26.
Reuters reports that in a survey of ten countries, citizens of the U.S. and England have a low regard for the media.
Britain may have a sophisticated media industry but it also has some of the most sceptical consumers, with nearly two-thirds (64 percent) believing the media does not report all sides of the story.
********************************************************
A 10-country opinion poll for Reuters, the BBC and the Media Centre found British and U.S. consumers out on a limb when it comes to public levels of trust in the media.
Overall trust in the media in Britain has bounced back over the past four years, from a low of 29 percent trusting in 2002 to 47 percent today. But this is still below the 10-country average of 63 percent.
Americans emerged as the most critical of the news media's balance, with 69 percent disagreeing that the media reports all sides of a story.
A similar proportion, 68 percent, thought the media covered too many "bad news" stories.
********************************************************
Despite the fact that those in the poll said the media reported too many "bad news" stories, the writer of the Reuters article insists the low approval ratings are because citizens feel the media are too closely allied to the war-time governments. Since the governments try to promote "good news" stories from Iraq, the opposite of the media, assuming an alliance is inaccurate.
The Reuters journalist took this meaning from the words of Doug Miller, the president of the company that conducted the survey, GlobeScan.
The low levels of trust may, he said, be related to perceptions in the U.S. that the media is too close to the government on issues relating to the Iraq war.
"It may have something to do with the pulling away from traditional media that we're seeing -- this move towards the Internet where people can get other perspectives on major stories that they're not getting from the mainstream media."
He did not say people think journalists are in bed with the government. In fact, people use sources other than the mainstream media to find the good news in Iraq.
Just so David doesn't get confused again this information comes from Bryan's favorite pollster, rassmussenreports.com.
Thursday May 04, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove.
Thursday May 04, 2006--Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-seven percent (57%) disapprove.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Of course the media is projecting the landslide that is to become of the '06 elections. Big bad Bush will finally bring down the Republican party.
Alas, the economy will be strong, our society will remain safe, people's retirement funds will have rebounded, most people will have jobs, and as a result, Republicans will retain control of the House and the Senate, and add to their levels in the Governor and State Houses.
Despite the best efforts of the media nobody trusts.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
"Champagne would fall from the heavens. Doors would open, velvet ropes would part"...
Nicholas Cage circa 2000
You are one positve guy and I mean that as a compliment.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I try to be positive on a daily basis. I don't look for the negatives but I will point them out time to time.95DevilleNS said:
I am hopeful.
I am hopeful that Iran does what is right before Israel turn Iran to glass and China and Russia wipe Israel off the map.
I am hopeful that we can do a better job educating our kids by getting rid of teacher tenure and encouraging school choice so we allow competition to elevate the whole playing field and weed out the week as with what happens in the private sector.
I could go on and on but I must get back to (um) work.
But thanks for the compliment. It is appreciated.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
You left this part out:
"Beginning this past Sunday, Rasmussen Reports Job Approval updates are based upon data using a slight modification to our targeting and weighting process. From this point forward, we will set our partisan affiliation weighting targets based upon survey results obtained during the previous three months. These shift only modestly month-to-month, but the change could be significant over a long period of time.
Based upon the past three months, the current targets are 36.6% Democrat, 33.5% Republican, and 29.9% Unaffiliated. These targets will be updated monthly. Previously, our weighting targets assumed an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.
We have adopted this system because we believe it allows us to maintain the day-to-day stability needed to follow trends while adjusting periodically for any substantive shifts in partisan affiliation (see trends in party affiliation).
The practical impact of this revision is modest in the current environment. The new approach will result in the President's reported ratings being a point or two lower than they would have been under the old system."
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Direct your lame comments at Bryan, barry. I don't give a crap what you think.barry2952 said:
You left this part out:
"Beginning this past Sunday, Rasmussen Reports Job Approval updates are based upon data using a slight modification to our targeting and weighting process. From this point forward, we will set our partisan affiliation weighting targets based upon survey results obtained during the previous three months. These shift only modestly month-to-month, but the change could be significant over a long period of time.
Based upon the past three months, the current targets are 36.6% Democrat, 33.5% Republican, and 29.9% Unaffiliated. These targets will be updated monthly. Previously, our weighting targets assumed an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.
We have adopted this system because we believe it allows us to maintain the day-to-day stability needed to follow trends while adjusting periodically for any substantive shifts in partisan affiliation (see trends in party affiliation).
The practical impact of this revision is modest in the current environment. The new approach will result in the President's reported ratings being a point or two lower than they would have been under the old system."
Can you spell skewed, boys and girls? That's right, barry, S-K-E-W-E-D.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:But thanks for the compliment. It is appreciated.
You're welcome and for your sake, I hope Bush doesn't fall short of your expectations. I for one to not expect much greatness out of him; call me negative for it if you like, but the way I see it, I won't be disappointed when/if he fails and if he so happens to pull through, then I'll be pleasantly surprised.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
I told everybody that Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster. I also told you, he, like Zogby has become infected by the liberal media bias.
We had a thread about it. How Rasmussen was posting 'hate Bush' stuff. I think I even *owned* Johnny over the negative ads posted next to Bush poll numbers on the site.
So this only confirms that Rasmussen, like many other pollsters before him is starting to twitch and manipulate his polling data. Too bad. Guess I'll have to find another pollster willing to tell the truth.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
OK, BARRY? YOU GOT THE MESSAGE NOW?
Friday May 05, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-six percent (56%) disapprove. Those numbers are a couple of points higher than recent readings and it remains to be seen whether this is anything more than statistical noise.
Saturday May 06, 2006--Forty-three percent (43%) of Americans Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's up a couple of points from recent readings and it remains to be seen whether this is anything more than statistical noise.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, May 6, 2006 12:14 p.m. EDT
Poll: Fox Most Trusted News Source in U.S.
The Fox News Channel is the most trusted news source in America, according to a new poll released by the BBC and Reuters that surveyed 10,000 news consumers around the world.
Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News - more than any other news source in the U.S.
Fox News led the broadcast networks by substantial margins, with ABC coming in at 4 percent, NBC - 4 percent and CBS - 3 percent.
In less crowded news markets, percentages were higher. 32 percent of Britons, for instance, named the the BBC, while 59 percent of Egyptians named Al Jazeera.
The most trusted news networks on a global basis were the BBC, and CNN, the Reuters/BBC poll found.
"National TV is still the most trusted news source by a wide margin, although the Internet is gaining ground among the young," said Doug Miller, president of London-based research firm GlobeScan, which conducted the polling.
More than 1,000 people were surveyed in March and April in each of the United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia and South Korea.
Saturday, May 6, 2006 12:14 p.m. EDT
Poll: Fox Most Trusted News Source in U.S.
The Fox News Channel is the most trusted news source in America, according to a new poll released by the BBC and Reuters that surveyed 10,000 news consumers around the world.
Asked which news source they most trusted, 11 percent of Americans named Fox News - more than any other news source in the U.S.
Fox News led the broadcast networks by substantial margins, with ABC coming in at 4 percent, NBC - 4 percent and CBS - 3 percent.
In less crowded news markets, percentages were higher. 32 percent of Britons, for instance, named the the BBC, while 59 percent of Egyptians named Al Jazeera.
The most trusted news networks on a global basis were the BBC, and CNN, the Reuters/BBC poll found.
"National TV is still the most trusted news source by a wide margin, although the Internet is gaining ground among the young," said Doug Miller, president of London-based research firm GlobeScan, which conducted the polling.
More than 1,000 people were surveyed in March and April in each of the United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia and South Korea.
Sunday May 07, 2006--Forty-two percent (42%) of Americans Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That's up a couple of points from recent readings and it remains to be seen whether this is anything more than statistical noise.
(CNN) -- In a new poll comparing President Bush's job performance with that of his predecessor, a strong majority of respondents said President Clinton outperformed Bush on a host of issues.
The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)
On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.
Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.
When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.
Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate.
The poll of 1,021 adult Americans was conducted May 5-7 by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush). (Watch whether Americans are getting nostalgic for the Clinton era -- 1:57)
On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.
Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.
When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.
Clinton was impeached in 1998 over testimony he gave in a deposition about an extramarital sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinksy. He was later aquitted by the Senate.
barry2952 said:
I think this shows that poll results have more to do with popularity at a given time than actual facts.
Under Clinton, the 1993 World Trade Center attack occurred and also the Clinton administration, primarily through Jamie Gorlick, created "The Wall" which disallowed communications between intelligence agencies and thus hindered intelligence operations. Also, much blame can be attributed to Clinton for the success of the 9/11 attacks since our intelligence agencies were dysfunctional during his administration and he failed to take action when terrorists attacked American targets and interests around the world. Below is a partial list of terrorist attacks which were ignored by Clinton:
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered
Since 9/11, the United States has not been attacked. Perhaps the reason can be attributed to our intelligence agencies doing things right despite the critics who seem to not agree with any of the President's national security policies.
Therefore, to say that Clinton was better at handling national security is to ignore the facts. Obviously, due to opposition to the war in Iraq and all the attendant circumstances, poll results will reflect the emotional state of the sampled population give their overall view or feelings towards the President. Obviously, poll results fluctuate and some swings in poll data can be 10 points or more. Accordingly, should President Bush’s overall popularity increase, it will likely be manifest in positive poll data across the spectrum.
You make a a good point in that we have not been attacked since 9/11 and people may not be giving Bush credit for that.
We dont know if we would have been attacked, but its a valid assumption that we would have. Maybe not on our own soil, but we would have.
But, we also lose soldiers nearly every day in Iraq to Al Qaida insurgants. Does that count as a terror attack, like the USS Cole?
We dont know if we would have been attacked, but its a valid assumption that we would have. Maybe not on our own soil, but we would have.
But, we also lose soldiers nearly every day in Iraq to Al Qaida insurgants. Does that count as a terror attack, like the USS Cole?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Joeychgo said:
It's incorrect to say that we don't know if we would have been attacked. There have been several foiled attacks made public by the Bush admin in the last year.
Our soldiers are fighting terrorists in a WAR on the front lines. Those are known as guerilla tactics.
Please stop calling them insurgents. They are terrorists.
Terror attacks by definition target civilians, not troops in a war.