More polls!

[Bob_Arctor]

We all know CBS gave Bush 34%, rightly or wrongly. How does that fit with other polls?

According to Gallup, it's 38%:

Bush's job-approval rating is 38%, 1 percentage point above the lowest rating of his presidency. His disapproval rating is 60%. The proportion who strongly approve of him has fallen to 20%, its lowest ever. The proportion who strongly disapprove has risen to 44%, the highest ever.

(Margin of error +/- 3%)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-02-ports-poll_x.htm


Quinnipiac says 36%:

Only 36 percent of voters approve of the job President Bush is doing, while 58 percent disapprove, his worst approval rating in a Quinnipiac University national poll and down 9 points from his 45 - 48 percent approval rating one year ago. Purple state voters give Bush a negative 31 - 63 percent approval, and blue state voters go negative 34 - 61 percent. Even red state voters are negative 42 - 51 percent.
...
By a 49 - 37 percent margin, voters want the Democrats to win control of Congress in this year's House and Senate elections. And if a candidate for Congress supports President Bush, only 16 percent of Americans are more likely to vote for that candidate, with 37 percent less likely and 45 percent who say it won't make a difference.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11367.xml?ReleaseID=880

Let's see what Fox says... only 39%?!

For only the second time of his presidency, the poll finds that President Bush (javascript:siteSearch('President Bush');)’s overall job approval rating has fallen below 40 percent — today 39 percent of Americans say they approve and a 54 percent majority disapproves. Late last year the president’s approval hit a record-low of 36 percent (8-9 November 2005).

This is also one of only a handful of times that Bush's approval has dropped below 80 percent among Republicans. Today 77 percent of Republicans approve, down from 82 percent in early February. Disapproval among Democrats went from 79 percent in early February to 84 percent today. Approval among independents is essentially unchanged at 35 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186634,00.html

(Also, the Fox poll asked only 900 people, meaning it should have a lower confidence level than the other two polls, which asked around 1100 people. Therefore the lower percentages given by the other two polls may be more representative of reality.)

[sunsettommy]

Another poll!

[Eagle1]

why does anyone care what his poll numbers are???

are they trying to stop him from running for president of a country club??

[Bob_Arctor]

why does anyone care what his poll numbers are???
are they trying to stop him from running for president of a country club??

Bush's miserable numbers cast a shadow over his entire party. Basically, he could drag down Republican candidates in the fall elections. This is pretty much the only reason anyone is interested.

[Eagle1]

i predict the republicans will have a net gain of seats in the house and senate, despite what the media would have us think about bush ratings

[Melz]

Bush's miserable numbers cast a shadow over his entire party. Basically, he could drag down Republican candidates in the fall elections. This is pretty much the only reason anyone is interested.

Oh Bob, unlike liberals, the Republican party is able to disagree with our powers that be and we are able to look toward the future with other hopefuls, conservative ones even. And honestly, the only people who give a shit about a bunch of liberals taking polls on issues regarding the President are LIBERALS. They would vote against a Republican no matter who he is and they would answer negatively about Bush no matter what he has done, good or bad.

The polls lend no weight, to the President or to the Republicans. It does seem to be something the liberals are concentrating on lately though. Won't help their upcoming elections to concentrate on polls about a President who cannot get re-elected but it sure seems like a sport for them!

[Rink]

Couldnt give a hoot bout 'polls' Polls can be skewed in the favor of the polster, so fergetit.

[queue]

The first two polls do not designate the political party of the respondants. The first poll was of 1,020 people and 920 of them are registered to vote. It does ask on question 3 which political party candidate for Congress the respondant is leaning towards supporting and it showed that for the registered voters 53% supporting the Democratic Candidate and 39% supporting the Republican candidate and 7% undecided (for all respondants the numbers are 52%, 39%, and 10% respectively).

The second poll was of 1,892 registered voters. It does ask on question 36-Trend for the respondants preference for the November 2006 Congressional elections of whether having a Democrat controlled Congress or a Republican controlled Congress. 49% wanted a Democrat controlled Congress and 37% wanted a Republican controlled Congress and 14% DK/NA.

The Fox poll was of 900 registered voters. It shows the political party affiliation of the respondants which was 43% Democrats, 33% Republicans, 18% Independents, 3% Other, and 3% Refused/Don't Know.

[markus3622]

I must admit to rather confused by this American obsession with polls. I can understand them just before elections (how will you vote?) but running along all the time does seem rather odd.

[DesertFox]

the Fox poll asked only 900 people, meaning it should have a lower confidence level than the other two polls, which asked around 1100 people. Therefore the lower percentages given by the other two polls may be more representative of reality.1100 is usual, but the difference in confidence levels between 900 and 1100 isn't significant. Now if one had a sample of 11,000, THEN we'd be talking something that mattered. Bush's miserable numbers cast a shadow over his entire party. His numbers aren't miserable, Bob; they're pretty normal for this period in a second administration. But even if they were miserable, they won't be pulling anyone down. America now recognizes the Democrats for what they are: corrupt, lying America-hating punks. America recognizes Republicans for what THEY are: inept, corrupt, lying, me-first punks. America also recognizes Bush for what HE is: a half-Left, half-Right fellow with a heart of gold but not always the right ideas.

IOW: America will be choosing Dems or Pubs based on something other than the president.

[DoctorDoom]

The monomaniacal obsession with polls began when the MSM abandoned journalistic integrity. They no longer report the news. They are now focused on making the news, if not becoming the subjects of the news. Every damned poll screams, "LOOKIT ME, MOMMY! I'M IMPORTANT!"

Second, the MSM have rejected objectivity in favor of kissing RAT asses. They are little more than DemocRATs' unpaid PR agency, and not a day goes by that they don't continue their relentless, mind-numbing drumbeat of Bush-hating.

The polls have less credibility than the poll-takers. And if they had any significance, John F'ing sKerry would be the POTUS now, based on the 2004 exit polls.

[Native American]

Bush's miserable numbers cast a shadow over his entire party.

Perhaps, but apparently John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy's and Nancy Pelosi's, and Howard Dean's and Chuck Schumer's miserable numbers cast an even darker shadow over the Democrat Party, since the Democrats keep losing seats in both the House and the Senate.

But I realize you're searching, desperately, for comfort and solace somewhere, Bob. There's not much for Democrats to be optimistic about these days, is there!

[Native American]

The Fox poll was of 900 registered voters. It shows the political party affiliation of the respondants which was 43% Democrats, 33% Republicans, 18% Independents, 3% Other, and 3% Refused/Don't Know.

It's amusing when a poll only includes 33% Republicans, when the most recent election shows about 52% of the American Voters vote Republican!

And then the Democrats wonder why they keep losing election after election, when "the polls" leading up to those elections showed the Democrats "ahead with the voters"?? :uhh:

[Bob_Arctor]

1100 is usual, but the difference in confidence levels between 900 and 1100 isn't significant.
At 1100 it's around 95%; at 900 it's about 90%. I don't know about social science but in other sciences you always go for the 95% if possible. Anyway though, you're correct to point out that very likely it makes no difference.
His numbers aren't miserable, Bob; they're pretty normal for this period in a second administration.
They are, really? I didn't think sub-40% was normal for this stage. Did Clinton ever get so low, or Reagan?
But even if they were miserable, they won't be pulling anyone down.
Sure they will. They cast a shadow over his whole party, and should negatively affect the Republicans in races this fall.

As was mentioned by Quinnipiac:

By a 49 - 37 percent margin, voters want the Democrats to win control of Congress in this year's House and Senate elections. And if a candidate for Congress supports President Bush, only 16 percent of Americans are more likely to vote for that candidate, with 37 percent less likely and 45 percent who say it won't make a difference.

America now recognizes the Democrats for what they are: corrupt, lying America-hating punks. America recognizes Republicans for what THEY are: inept, corrupt, lying, me-first punks.
Hehehehe...I can agree on all but the "America-hating" part, which is ridiculous - the idea that one who challenges Dear Leader hates our nation isn't playing so well anymore, now that the majority of people dislike his strategies.
America also recognizes Bush for what HE is: a half-Left, half-Right fellow with a heart of gold but not always the right ideas.
You're a very charitable man, DF :grin:
IOW: America will be choosing Dems or Pubs based on something other than the president.
Certainly there will be other factors, but his performance is a big one, rightly or wrongly.

[Bob_Arctor]

So back in the glory days when Bush was at 60, 70, 80 and even 90%, those numbers were meaningless and likely false as well, because they were gathered by the same polling groups? Hmmm...


The monomaniacal obsession with polls began when the MSM abandoned journalistic integrity. They no longer report the news. They are now focused on making the news, if not becoming the subjects of the news. Every damned poll screams, "LOOKIT ME, MOMMY! I'M IMPORTANT!"
Second, the MSM have rejected objectivity in favor of kissing RAT asses. They are little more than DemocRATs' unpaid PR agency, and not a day goes by that they don't continue their relentless, mind-numbing drumbeat of Bush-hating.
The polls have less credibility than the poll-takers. And if they had any significance, John F'ing sKerry would be the POTUS now, based on the 2004 exit polls.

[bannerman]

gallop the grandaddy of POLLS...began this mess as a PAID PROPOGANDIST or a political party


lets LEAK some "secret info" and then do a POLL about it?

thats what polling has become as of late.

damned shame most Americans dont know how BENT the data from such polls is...nor how they are constructed..nor WHY

[Bob_Arctor]

Perhaps, but apparently John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy's and Nancy Pelosi's, and Howard Dean's and Chuck Schumer's miserable numbers cast an even darker shadow over the Democrat Party, since the Democrats keep losing seats in both the House and the Senate.
They lost seats in the last election. No one seems to think they'll lose any this fall.
But I realize you're searching, desperately, for comfort and solace somewhere, Bob. There's not much for Democrats to be optimistic about these days, is there!
You tell me, since I'm not a democrat. However, I can say that the poor performance of the Republicans lately will favor the Democrats, though the democrats are doing little to gain votes on their own. Politics would seem to be a zero sum game.
It's amusing when a poll only includes 33% Republicans, when the most recent election shows about 52% of the American Voters vote Republican!
You're still on that? :rolleyes: 52% voted for a Republican president, once. You mean to say this means our nation will forever be 52% Republican in voting? Tsk tsk
And then the Democrats wonder why they keep losing election after election, when "the polls" leading up to those elections showed the Democrats "ahead with the voters"??
How many times has this happened?

[UnkHiram]

I really hate to mention this, but the polls dont matter President Bush will Not running for Re-election. If the Mainstream Media wants to continue to try to derail his re-election no problem. If the Democrats want to continue to run against him, let them. Most Americans can tell the difference between President Bush and Condeleza Rice (The Probably 08 Republican Nominee)

[Naturalized-Texan]

All that counts is whether President Bush is doing a good job and he is, especially when one considers that the War on Terror was forced on the U.S. by the 9/11 terrorist attacks that occurred on his watch. President Bush not only had to fight the War on Terror, but he has had to fight the Democrat Party leaders who are doing their damndest to undermine the our troops as well as the entire war effort.

My new sig line perfectly describes the Democrat leadership.

[Popperite]

Little factoid. In Belgium political polls are actually forbidden by law.
However, the law, though still on the statute books, has become meaningless about seven years ago when the Belgian newspapers decided to print them anyway and the government of the day declined to intervene.

[DoctorDoom]

So back in the glory days when Bush was at 60, 70, 80 and even 90%, those numbers were meaningless and likely false as well, because they were gathered by the same polling groups? Hmmm...And did you liberals believe them as you believe the ones that you're posting?

How often do libs cite polls saying the majority of Americans support access to abortion, but utterly ignore polls that show the overwhelming majority of Americans opposing PBA?

The original purpose of polling was not to invent news and support political viewpoints. That began when the press threw out objectivity and professionalism.

And no, little boy, I give no credence to polls either way.

[Bob_Arctor]

And did you liberals believe them as you believe the ones that you're posting?
Sure, why not? We'd just been attacked and pseudocowboy Bush was going to kick some ass. People loved the tough guy act.

Wait - are you trying to say that back then he actually didn't have those approval ratings? Come on now.
How often do libs cite polls saying the majority of Americans support access to abortion, but utterly ignore polls that show the overwhelming majority of Americans opposing PBA?
I don't know what "PBA" is. What does this have to do with the argument anyway?
The original purpose of polling was not to invent news and support political viewpoints. That began when the press threw out objectivity and professionalism.
I see you're upset that polls reveal Bush is no longer the untouchable golden boy in the minds of the masses. It's really quite ridiculous for you to claim that polls are meaningless. So QC does a poll, and its results - either way - are just props for a point of view. Right.
And no, little boy, I give no credence to polls either way.
Why not? Have you ever studied statistics? If you had, you'd understand why polls work.

[DesertFox]

Uh, polls work when properly conducted.

[Bob_Arctor]

Uh, polls work when properly conducted.
Indeed, but I've seen no evidence that any of the three in the OP were improperly conducted! Two of them match up nearly perfectly, and the third (Fox) is only very slightly out of the same range, but still well within the margin of error.

It's obvious no one here likes Bush's low numbers, but that doesn't mean the polls are invalid. Who here thought the polls were wrong when his ratings were very high?

[DesertFox]

I don't care about his numbers. Never have. I don't recall how high his high ratings were. Do you? They meant nothing to me, either.

I don't trust ABC or NBC or CBS polls because I've listened as Bob what's-his-face spun them shamelessly. When they showed Bush at the same approval levels as Clinton had had, good old Bob made it sound real negative -- though when Clinton had had those numbers he made them sound real positive.

That's what I'm talking about. And the fact that the economy under Bush is zooming and all three MSM networks regularly present it as faltering and staggering, with polls adduced and appropriately slanted to support what they say.

Bob, the MSM suck whether you like them or not. They are liars. We have caught them out too many times. Do you really think we're going to believe you instead of our own eyes and ears?

[Native American]

They lost seats in the last election. No one seems to think they'll lose any this fall.

Wrong again, Bob. I think the Democrats will lose even more seats this Fall.

It's amusing when a poll only includes 33% Republicans, when the most recent election shows about 52% of the American Voters vote Republican!

You're still on that? :rolleyes: 52% voted for a Republican president, once.

Yep, still on it, because you still don't understand it. BTW, 52% didn't just "vote for a Republican president"; 52% voted Republican. Or aren't you aware yet that there were elections for House and Senate seats in 2004, in addition to elections for the presidency, Bob?

You mean to say this means our nation will forever be 52% Republican in voting? Tsk tsk

You mean to say you still don't understand? OK, I'll explain it to you again, Bob. It means the most accurate current poll we can devise must poll 52% people who voted Republican and 48% who voted Democrat, because that's the most accurate spread we can base the polls on. To base a poll on any spread other than that one is pure wishful thinking on the part of you and the pollster, Bob.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Sure, why not? We'd just been attacked and pseudocowboy Bush was going to kick some ass. People loved the tough guy act.



So, that's how you interpret the defense of the United States? A pseudo tough guy act?

Interesting...

Question. Is any defense at all, in the wake of us being attacked, anything other than 'an act' according to you?

And further, to clarify your 'act' of being tragically pseudo-jaded, what kind of action wouldn't be interpreted as merely 'an act'?

Give it a shot.

[DoctorDoom]

Do you really think we're going to believe you instead of our own eyes and ears?Well, OF COURSE we should. After all, he's a liberal and he has a Bachelor's degree. That makes him an authority on every subject.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The best polls are the polls pulled out of one's ass. Like Zogby who predicted a Gore win followed up in '04 with a Kerry win. Both of which were pulled directly out of his ass, like festive cheese logs rolled in nuts, Zogby just squatting over the American public's faces and grunting like a quivering dog trying to pass a peach pit.

In-between the wet farts and untaxed corn kernels, Zogby breathes, then re-flexes his rectum again until he gets just the right squirt.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Wrong again, Bob. I think the Democrats will lose even more seats this Fall.
I agree. The American people are PO'ed at the vicious hate-and-lies campaigns by the sicko-leftist leadership of the Democrat Party.

Yep, still on it, because you still don't understand it. BTW, 52% didn't just "vote for a Republican president"; 52% voted Republican. Or aren't you aware yet that there were elections for House and Senate seats in 2004, in addition to elections for the presidency, Bob?
Given the fact that the current Democrat Party is controlled by sicko, hate-America leftists, there are far more registered Democrats who will vote Republican than registered Republicans who will vote Democrat. In fact, the only way that a registered Republican would vote for a Democrat candidate is in the extremely rare case in which a conservative Democrat is running against a RINO. If anything, polls should give Republicans much more weight than Democrats.

EDIT: If Lowell Weicker gets the Republican nomination to run against Sen. Lieberman this year, Connecticut Republican voters will turn out in droves to vote for Lieberman. Lieberman is a moderate who is a rarity among Democrats - a patriot - and Weicker is almost as far left as Kennedy and Kerry.

You mean to say you still don't understand? OK, I'll explain it to you again, Bob. It means the most accurate current poll we can devise must poll 52% people who voted Republican and 48% who voted Democrat, because that's the most accurate spread we can base the polls on. To base a poll on any spread other than that one is pure wishful thinking on the part of you and the pollster, Bob.
Given my responses above, 52% Republican is too low.

[Bob_Arctor]

Wrong again, Bob. I think the Democrats will lose even more seats this Fall.
You're welcome to that opinion. I hope you're still here in November!
Yep, still on it, because you still don't understand it. BTW, 52% didn't just "vote for a Republican president"; 52% voted Republican. Or aren't you aware yet that there were elections for House and Senate seats in 2004, in addition to elections for the presidency, Bob?
So I suppose that forever into the future we'll have 52% go Republican, because it happened once. Ridiculous.
You mean to say you still don't understand? OK, I'll explain it to you again, Bob. It means the most accurate current poll we can devise must poll 52% people who voted Republican and 48% who voted Democrat, because that's the most accurate spread we can base the polls on. To base a poll on any spread other than that one is pure wishful thinking on the part of you and the pollster, Bob.
That was years ago. If you want to call the 2004 election a poll, it certainly isn't recent enough to be meaningful today.

For example - if there presidential election were held tomorrow and Bush were running again, do you think he'd get 52% of the vote? If he would not, then your entire fantasy is invalid.

[Bob_Arctor]

I don't care about his numbers. Never have. I don't recall how high his high ratings were. Do you? They meant nothing to me, either.
His approval ratings were once extremely high - among the highest ever for a president I believe.
Bob, the MSM suck whether you like them or not. They are liars. We have caught them out too many times. Do you really think we're going to believe you instead of our own eyes and ears?
Hey, I don't care for them too much myself. I compare the MSM's work to the journalism produced by some other nations and I am ashamed. Their biases (they go both ways) and sloppy work is a disgrace.

However, merely because a media company comissions a poll doesn't mean it is automatically flawed. Fox's results were essentially the same. Quinnipiac, Gallup, Rasmussen and the rest aren't part of the media anyway - one's a college, the others are private companies.

What things here looks like to me is a bunch of people who dislike the way some results are going which is leading them to say it's all lies. You know yourself that if you poll a few thousand people, the results will be within a few percent of the feelings of all Americans. Even if you throw out the CBS poll, the others aren't much better for the Republicans. I believed it when Bush was at 80%+. I believe it now that he's at half that. Further, this correlates perfectly well to my own experience - many people I knew and talked with used to love Bush. Now I rarely find anyone defending him.