0
   

Kerry v Bush: The Facts, the Campaigns and the Spin...

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2004 11:40 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Well don't get too comfortable C.I. The weird part of these polls is that on almost every single issue, most are preferring Bush over Kerry

Not true. Not even if you take the Fox poll's word for it!

Look here, this site's got all such polls from different agencies listed, as you'll see when you'll scroll down.

If we just look at the last few:

- ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 17-20 asked, "Who do you trust to do a better job handling
    , Bush or Kerry?" [color=red]Bush [/color]"won" on: The situation in Iraq [color=blue]Kerry [/color]"won" on: The U.S. campaign against terrorism, The economy, The federal budget deficit, International affairs, Education, Taxes, Prescription drug benefits for the elderly, Health care. - [u]FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. June 8-9[/u], asked: "Which candidate do you think would do a better job on the following issues: George W. Bush or John Kerry? . . ." [color=red]Bush [/color]"won" on: A national crisis, The war on terrorism, Foreign policy, The situation in Iraq They were tied on: Taxes [color=blue]Kerry [/color]"won" on: The economy, Education, Health care, Social Security, Gas prices. - [u]Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, May 12-13[/u], asked: "Which candidate -- George W. Bush or John Kerry -- do you think would do a better job on each of the following issues? . . ." [color=red]Bush [/color]"won" on: Handling the war on terrorism, Moral values They were tied on: Gay marriage [color=blue]Kerry [/color]"won" on: Handling foreign policy, Handling the situation in Iraq, Taxes, Handling the economy, Reducing unemployment, Reducing the deficit, Health care, Protecting the environment. [quote="Foxfyre"]It's too close to call, and my gut feeling is it will stay that way all the way into November.[/quote] Yep.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2004 08:17 pm

Kerry's partisan, revisionist history.


Last Thursday, CNN's Larry King asked John Kerry whether he would want former President Bill Clinton to campaign on his behalf. Kerry said yes. "What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"

Kerry's answer is revealing. We were, in fact, at war. The Clinton administration, with the exception of a few cruise missiles, had simply chosen not to fight back. Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the United States, had launched attacks on our embassies and on a warship of the U.S. Navy. Saddam Hussein had defied U.N. weapons inspections, repeatedly threatened America, and attempted to assassinate former President Bush.

Furthermore, where does Kerry object to young Americans' being deployed? Afghanistan? But Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for an insufficient commitment of troops there. Iraq? But Kerry voted for the war and has said he would not cut and run.

So Kerry was simply indulging in demagoguery. He's not the only one. The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on pre-Iraq intelligence failures last Friday. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's ranking Democrat, claimed that, because of the flawed intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, "Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of America in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

Consider the extremism of Rockefeller's statement. Our global standing has never been lower? Our nation is more vulnerable than ever before? Then consider the facts. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States and its allies have deposed the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrown Saddam Hussein's Baathist despotism in Iraq. The Pakistani/Libyan international nuclear weapons bazaar has been shut down. Al Qaeda operatives not already killed or captured are on the run, with no safe base of operations remaining in the world. All this has made us more vulnerable? If that's true, then it is the position of Senator Rockefeller that the American and allied soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq not only have accomplished nothing but have been counterproductive. This is a slander the Bush administration must answer -- if not for its own sake, then for the honor of those who have sacrificed so much to make this country less vulnerable than it has been for years.

As for hatred of America, al Qaeda leaders were planning their attacks on New York and Washington back in those halcyon days of the Clinton era that John Kerry recalls with such nostalgia. Indeed, al Qaeda was left unmolested as it trained thousands of terrorists at camps in Afghanistan. And of course, lest we forget: On October 12, 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda struck two U.S. embassies in East Africa killing 257 -- including 12 Americans -- and injuring 5,000. During the 1990s, numerous other attacks were planned (the Millennium attack on the Los Angeles airport) or executed (the Khobar Towers attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). Those were the good old days when, by Jay Rockefeller's reckoning, America was less hated and less vulnerable.

The Senate Intelligence Committee faults the U.S. intelligence community for providing flawed intelligence to policymakers. But the intelligence community is not up for reelection this fall. The policymakers are. So many Democrats, with a compliant media, will be tempted to fall in behind Rockefeller. We'll soon be hearing a lot about the Bush administration's "exaggeration" of intelligence.

What the Bush campaign must do is remind Americans that the Iraq war was no mistake -- that the case for the war was and is compelling, and that it used to be bipartisan. Jay Rockefeller, of all people, made that case well in an October 2002 floor speech: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." Rockefeller wasn't done. "He could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against American citizens....Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam Hussein thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might think it not so irrational."

Indeed. So it was right to remove him. And we are safer for having done so.
-------
Rocky said the same things he's trying to vilify Bush for saying. I think these quotes, and those from Kerry, Clinton and others will start making the rounds. Hard to condemn a man for saying exactly what you said... and do so with any credibility.

The spin on this story is amazing. And the electorate who hasn't followed this story will soon see and hear.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2004 08:38 pm
Sofia wrote:

Kerry's partisan, revisionist history.


Last Thursday, CNN's Larry King asked John Kerry whether he would want former President Bill Clinton to campaign on his behalf. Kerry said yes. "What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"

Kerry's answer is revealing. We were, in fact, at war. The Clinton administration, with the exception of a few cruise missiles, had simply chosen not to fight back. Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the United States, had launched attacks on our embassies and on a warship of the U.S. Navy. Saddam Hussein had defied U.N. weapons inspections, repeatedly threatened America, and attempted to assassinate former President Bush.

Furthermore, where does Kerry object to young Americans' being deployed? Afghanistan? But Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for an insufficient commitment of troops there. Iraq? But Kerry voted for the war and has said he would not cut and run.

So Kerry was simply indulging in demagoguery. He's not the only one. The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on pre-Iraq intelligence failures last Friday. Jay Rockefeller, the committee's ranking Democrat, claimed that, because of the flawed intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, "Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of America in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

Consider the extremism of Rockefeller's statement. Our global standing has never been lower? Our nation is more vulnerable than ever before? Then consider the facts. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States and its allies have deposed the Taliban in Afghanistan and overthrown Saddam Hussein's Baathist despotism in Iraq. The Pakistani/Libyan international nuclear weapons bazaar has been shut down. Al Qaeda operatives not already killed or captured are on the run, with no safe base of operations remaining in the world. All this has made us more vulnerable? If that's true, then it is the position of Senator Rockefeller that the American and allied soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq not only have accomplished nothing but have been counterproductive. This is a slander the Bush administration must answer -- if not for its own sake, then for the honor of those who have sacrificed so much to make this country less vulnerable than it has been for years.

As for hatred of America, al Qaeda leaders were planning their attacks on New York and Washington back in those halcyon days of the Clinton era that John Kerry recalls with such nostalgia. Indeed, al Qaeda was left unmolested as it trained thousands of terrorists at camps in Afghanistan. And of course, lest we forget: On October 12, 2000, al Qaeda bombed the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. On August 7, 1998, al Qaeda struck two U.S. embassies in East Africa killing 257 -- including 12 Americans -- and injuring 5,000. During the 1990s, numerous other attacks were planned (the Millennium attack on the Los Angeles airport) or executed (the Khobar Towers attacks, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). Those were the good old days when, by Jay Rockefeller's reckoning, America was less hated and less vulnerable.

The Senate Intelligence Committee faults the U.S. intelligence community for providing flawed intelligence to policymakers. But the intelligence community is not up for reelection this fall. The policymakers are. So many Democrats, with a compliant media, will be tempted to fall in behind Rockefeller. We'll soon be hearing a lot about the Bush administration's "exaggeration" of intelligence.

What the Bush campaign must do is remind Americans that the Iraq war was no mistake -- that the case for the war was and is compelling, and that it used to be bipartisan. Jay Rockefeller, of all people, made that case well in an October 2002 floor speech: "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." Rockefeller wasn't done. "He could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against American citizens....Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam Hussein thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might think it not so irrational."

Indeed. So it was right to remove him. And we are safer for having done so.
-------
Rocky said the same things he's trying to vilify Bush for saying. I think these quotes, and those from Kerry, Clinton and others will start making the rounds. Hard to condemn a man for saying exactly what you said... and do so with any credibility.

The spin on this story is amazing. And the electorate who hasn't followed this story will soon see and hear.


It is rather amazing.
The number of people on this board who have, in effect, written "well, if you don't know that Bush is a war criminal, then I wash my hands of you..." is somewhat unnerving.
I realize that many of them are not Americans, but the number of Americans that seem to have adopted this mindset is just a little bit scary.
It would appear that the print and television media have gone over part and parcel to the "anyone but Bush" crowd.
And there seems to be a very large "moonbat Moore" contingent who really believe that "Bush lied to us..."
Why do you think this is?
Why do you think that people have gone so insane that they actually believe that Bush is a traitor to the United States?
Just because is it repeated over and over again?

I find it odd. Even the Republicans, in their mad dog foaming hatred of Clinton didn't actually accuse Clinton of selling out to some amorphous enemy....

The story posted is very well done. It is concise and to the point. What is the argument of the "anyone but Bush" gang?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 07:01 am
Just remember and be happy in the fact that the membership of A2K is not representative of the greater whole of America and the world.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 07:32 am
Quote:
Jay Rockefeller, the committee's ranking Democrat, claimed that, because of the flawed intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, "Our standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep hatred of America in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before."

Consider the extremism of Rockefeller's statement. Our global standing has never been lower? Our nation is more vulnerable than ever before? Then consider the facts. [..] Al Qaeda operatives not already killed or captured are on the run, with no safe base of operations remaining in the world. All this has made us more vulnerable? [..] This is a slander the Bush administration must answer -- if not for its own sake, then for the honor of those who have sacrificed so much to make this country less vulnerable than it has been for years.


Annual Survey of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London:

"Overall, risks of terrorism to Westerners and Western assets in Arab countries appeared to increase after the Iraq war began in March 2003. [..] The May 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, the gathering of foreign jihadists in Iraq, and the November 2003 attacks in Saudi Arabia and Turkey confirmed this expectation.The Madrid bombings in March 2004 reinforced the perception that al-Qaeda had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the US and its closest Western allies in Europe and established a new and effective modus operandi that increasingly exploited local affiliates."

Minority Staff Committee on Government Reform US House of Representatives:

"Fact Sheet: State Department Issues Revised Terrorism Data

Today, the State Department issued revised data for its annual report, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003. The new data, which represents a good- faith effort by the State Department to correct serious mistakes in its initial 2003 report, shows a major increase in deaths and injuries from terrorist attacks in 2003. The number of "significant" terrorism attacks reached a 20-year high in 2003.

When the State Department released the initial terrorism report in April 2004, the report stated that terrorist attacks in 2003 were "the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969." [..] The revised report undercuts these assertions. The State Department now reports that there were 175 significant terrorist events in 2003. This is the highest level of significant terrorist events in 20 years. Since 2001, the number of significant terrorist attacks has increased by 41%."


For corroboration, see this CNN story or for example this WaPo story.

Quote:
As for hatred of America, al Qaeda leaders were planning their attacks on New York and Washington back in those halcyon days of the Clinton era that John Kerry recalls with such nostalgia. [..] Those were the good old days when, by Jay Rockefeller's reckoning, America was less hated and less vulnerable.

Demagogy. Of course Al-Qaeda already hated the US back then. Rockefeller was talking about your "standing in the world". The world is larger than just you and Osama. And among that rest of the world, America's standing has far deteriorated. How long a list can you make of countries where America now has a better standing than before Bush?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 07:46 am
Foxfyre wrote:

Edwards didn't win his own county and it is highly speculated he wouldn't win re-election next time round. ]


Edwards did win his own county in '98 (92,252 to 84,547) See Wake County http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/98generl/98g143.pdf

He also won Cumberland County (28,089 to 21,773) home of Fort Bragg, Mecklenberg County (87,171 to 70,279 ) home of our largest city - Charlotte, and Durham County (39,237 to 19,379) which includes Durham and Research Triangle Park.

This represents a WIDE range of appeal given the Research Triangle/ Duke/ UNC and State Capital as well as the urban area of Charlotte and military support of Fort Bragg.

Not sure where the lie of him not winning his own county is coming from, but he clearly has the support of his home state of North Carolina.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:21 am
You may be right Squinney. I was quoting from memory of the prevailing wisdom out there which isn't always so wise.

North Carlina is supporting Bush/Cheney by a wide margin however.

And Nimh, I will concede that many polls probably do have Kerry ahead of Bush on numerous issues. As you know, I go with Rasumussen who does essentially daily polls on presidential preference and Bush job approval and at least weekly polls on many other issues.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 08:49 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And Nimh, I will concede that many polls probably do have Kerry ahead of Bush on numerous issues. As you know, I go with Rasumussen who does essentially daily polls on presidential preference and Bush job approval and at least weekly polls on many other issues.

Huh? Daily presidential preference and job approval polls Rasmussen does, yeah. But are there any numbers in the Rasmussen polls about voters "preferring Bush over Kerry [..] on almost every single issue"? I mean, those weekly polls you mention only cover just the two issues, I think. "Who do you trust more on National Defense?" and "Who do you trust more to manage the economy?". That's it, I think, he doesn't do any other polling on who people trust more on the issues, does he? Or is there more for premium subscribers?

As for those two, Bush comofortably leads on the national defence one, and though he has a narrow margin right now on the economy, "Bush and Kerry have been essentially even on this issue for the past three weeks", says Rasmussen.

So yeah, not sure what you were talking about here, really. Even the Fox polls dont confirm your point at all, and as far as I know, Rasmussen doesnt have much data to confirm your point.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:13 am
Bush continues to claim that he is fighting terrorism, but he'd rather spend time on trying to deny one group of people their constitutional rights in the US by trying to legislate against "gay marriage." Doesn't our federal government have more important things to spend their time on? Like terrorism? Like the federal deficit? Like the lack of health insurance for 44 million of our citizens? Like food and shelter for our citizens? Like the higher cost of college education? Like our schools not being maintained for the safety of our children? Lack of school funding?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 10:15 am
nimh wrote:
Not true. Not even if you take the Fox poll's word for it!

To go off on a tangent here, nimh: A test for the partisanship of Fox polls just occured to me. At pollingreport.com, they have the approval ratings for Clinton's second term as well as Bush's first. If it's not too much trouble for you, it would be interesting to construct a similar graph for Clinton's approval ratings as you sometimes do for Bush's approval ratings. If it's just a methodological coincidence that current Fox polls turn out Bush friendly, Clinton's approval ratings should come out higher than average in Fox polls. If Fox is part of a conspiracy to make Republicans look good and Democrats look bad, Clinton's approval ratings should come out lower than average in Fox polls. My current best bet would be 70% conspiracy, 30% coincidence.

But if this is too hard to do under your setup, please ignore this post. I'm just a lazy sadist who likes to suggest work for other people.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 11:12 am
These are the ones Rasmussen posts regularly and updates weekly. I understand there are other things polled that are available to subscribers only but I am not a subscriber so have to depend on the couple of people I know who are for those.

Who is a Better Leader? Bush 47 Kerry 38
Trust on Nat'l Defense? Bush 50 Kerry 42
Trust to Manage Economy? Bush 47 Kerry 45
Winning the War on Terror US 44 Terrorists 30
How is Bush handling Iraq Ex/Good 41 Poor 43
How is Bush handling Econ Ex/Good 42 Poor 37

Edited to include link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 11:15 am
Bush polls

Bush Approval Ratings Hit Lowest Point EVER in New York, with NYC the Center of Anti-Bush Movement

Newsday: "Bush's approval rating has sunk to its lowest level ever in New York and Democratic challenger John Kerry's lead in the heavily Democratic state is growing, a statewide poll reported Wednesday. The bad news for Bush comes less than 2 months before the Republican National Convention in to open in New York City for the first time. The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey had Bush's approval rating in the state at 36%, down from 52% a year ago and from the 82% mark it hit in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center towers. "The Northeast is not Bush territory and New York is the center of anti-Bush sentiment," said Maurice Carroll, director of the Hamden, Conn.-based polling institute." In short, Bush has been "hoisted on his own petard" of arrogance - assuming NYC would welcome the "9/11 hero" with open arms.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 12:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Who is a Better Leader? Bush 47 Kerry 38
Trust on Nat'l Defense? Bush 50 Kerry 42
Trust to Manage Economy? Bush 47 Kerry 45

Yep, thats what I thought. Only issues Rasmussen compares Bush and Kerry on are national defence and the economy. OK, yeah, and "who is a better leader". Dont know if thats an issue, but its a comparison, granted.

Foxfyre wrote:
Winning the War on Terror US 44 Terrorists 30
How is Bush handling Iraq Ex/Good 41 Poor 43
How is Bush handling Econ Ex/Good 42 Poor 37

These numbers are utterly irrelevant to your argument - they say nothing about how Bush compares to Kerry or whether "most are preferring Bush over Kerry".

So basically, you make this sweeping generalisation, "these polls [show] that on almost every single issue, most are preferring Bush over Kerry"; it turns out not to be confirmed in the least (if anything, the opposite) by a cross-spectrum selection of polls, but you shrug that off and refer to another pollster - who has in fact only ever compared the two candidates on 2 or 3 issues. Of which, according to the pollster's summary, Kerry actually's drawing even on 1.

I may be anal, but I just dont like people making such generalisations up out of thin air <shrugs>.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 12:37 pm
Thomas wrote:
To go off on a tangent here, nimh: A test for the partisanship of Fox polls just occured to me. At pollingreport.com, they have the approval ratings for Clinton's second term as well as Bush's first. If it's not too much trouble for you, it would be interesting to construct a similar graph for Clinton's approval ratings as you sometimes do for Bush's approval ratings. If it's just a methodological coincidence that current Fox polls turn out Bush friendly, Clinton's approval ratings should come out higher than average in Fox polls. If Fox is part of a conspiracy to make Republicans look good and Democrats look bad, Clinton's approval ratings should come out lower than average in Fox polls. My current best bet would be 70% conspiracy, 30% coincidence.

But if this is too hard to do under your setup, please ignore this post. I'm just a lazy sadist who likes to suggest work for other people.

LOL!

Well, I dont really believe in a conspiracy, tho sometimes I can't escape the sense that there's a little bit of tweaking going on ... I think it's more likely a question of using a methodology that is, by its own parameters, sound, but in practice turns out to slightly favour Bush - and leaving it that way.

For example, in a recent batch of state polls, Fox came up with much more positive numbers for Bush than other pollsters had. But that was mainly because the numbers included much more "don't knows" and fewer Kerry preferences. That can be the result of pushing less hard for an answer (not asking those who didnt express a preference a second question about whom they leaned to, for example), which would benefit the candidate with the stauncher supporters - Bush.

With the job ratings its trippy that Fox actually polls pretty average approval ratings for Bush - but consistently lower disapproval ratings. So yeah, it would be interesting to see if it also polled below-average disapproval ratings for Clinton. But finding out would mean charting both Fox's and "the average" disapproval ratings (i.e., those of all major pollsters) and err, yeah, no, thanks ... the current graphs already took me a night or two to first set up ;-)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 03:12 pm
I trust Rasmussen and Zogby more than any media sponsored polls purely because Rasmussen and Zogby don't have any detectable preference. But, you're right and I'm wrong Nimh. On the grand scale, many more prefer Kerry to Bush and that must be the way it is. I simply have to learn to be a better nitpicker I guess.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 09:05 pm
Zogby's poll on Bush's performance as president.
Zogby America Poll. July 6-7, 2004. N=1,008 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

.

President Bush -- Job Rating:

.

..Excellent/Good...Fair/Poor....Not Sure

..................... % % %
7/6-7/04........ 49 51 0
6/2-5/04....... 46 54 0
5/10-13/04.... 42 58 0
4/15-17/04.... 47 52 1
4/1-4/04........ 47 53 -
3/17-19/04..... 46 53 1
1/15-18/04..... 49 50 1
12/15-17/03.... 53 47 -
12/4-6/03....... 49 50 1
11/3-5/03....... 48 52 -
10/15-18/03... 49 51 -
9/22-24/03..... 50 49 1
9/3-5/03........ 45 54 1
8/16-19/03..... 52 48 -
7/16-17/03..... 53 46 1
6/6-10/03....... 58 41 1
4/8-9/03........ 61 38 1
3/24/03......... 57 43 -
3/14-15/03.... 54 46 -
3/5-7/03........ 54 46 -
2/19-20/03.... 57 42 1
2/6-8/03....... 62 37 1
1/24-26/03.... 57 43 -
1/4-6/03....... 63 36 1
10/26-29/02.. 64 35 1
9/25-27/02.... 63 36 1
7/19-21/02.... 63 36 1
7/12-15/02.... 62 38 0
6/17-19/02.....69 28 3
6/7-9/02........ 69 30 1
5/28-30/02.... 70 30 -
4/19-22/02.....69 30 1 RV
3/25-27/02.... 74 25 1 RV
3/1-3/02...... .74 24 2 RV
1/29-31/02... .74 25 1
1/21-23/02... .77 22 1
1/14-17/02... .79 19 2
1/7-9/02...... .78 21 1
1/2-4/02...... .80 19 1
12/17-19/01. .81 17 2
12/10-12/01. .82 18 1
12/3-5/01.... ..81 17 1
10/23-24/01. .78 20 2
9/14-16/01.. ..82 18 2
8/28-30/01.. ..50 49 1
7/26-29/01.. ..47 51 2
6/24-26/01.. ..51 48 1
4/23-25/01.. ..52 44 4
3/27-28/01.... 52 41 7
2/27-28/01.... 53 37 10
2/9-14/01.... ..57 29 14
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2004 09:39 pm
The following supports my 13:13 post, above.
*************
Senate Blocks Bush Move to Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Wed Jul 14, 6:45 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!


By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday failed in his attempt to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage when a divided U.S. Senate blocked the measure, virtually killing it for at least this election year.

On a 48-to-50 vote, six Republicans broke ranks as proponents of a proposed amendment fell 12 votes short of the needed 60 to end a Democratic procedural hurdle.
White House hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites) and fellow Senate Democrats accused Republicans of pushing the proposal merely to rally their conservative base for the November presidential and congressional elections.

Democrats also charged that four days of Senate debate on it could have been better spent on such issues as health care and national security.

***Good for them republicans.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 04:21 am
Glad to see the vote of confidence in Zogby, Fox, if only just cause it makes for a nice change. Most conservatives seem to hate Zogby, for some reason or other. Never quite gotten that. I mean, I dont take Zogby any more seriously than any other mainstream pollster (and the online polls its doing now are dubious), but I still never got why so many conservatives get red in the face when Zogby's mentioned.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 04:50 am
nimh wrote:
Glad to see the vote of confidence in Zogby, Fox, if only just cause it makes for a nice change. Most conservatives seem to hate Zogby, for some reason or other. Never quite gotten that. I mean, I dont take Zogby any more seriously than any other mainstream pollster (and the online polls its doing now are dubious), but I still never got why so many conservatives get red in the face when Zogby's mentioned.

For the same reason liberals get red in the face about Fox polls. Zogby polls tend to come out at the unfavorable end when they produce approval ratings for President Bush, so conservatives suspect a conspiracy against their team. By the way, I did some web searching on the spread of Clinton approval ratings across pollsters. It turns out that Dr.Pollkatz, a web site that publishes similar graphs of Bush approval ratings as you do, did construct the corresponding graphs for Clinton's approval ratings. They don't show the graph, but say that the pattern is the same for Clinton as it is for Bush. Fox polls come out at the pro-Clinton end, and Zogby comes out at the contra-Clinton end. There was no swing from above-average Clinton ratings to below-average pro-Bush ratings (or vice versa) after the presidenc. Coming from a decisively liberal site, this means something. I'm surprised about this outcome, and I guess I owe Fox an apology for suspecting it might cook its poll results for political gain.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 05:19 am
Thomas wrote:
For the same reason liberals get red in the face about Fox polls. Zogby polls tend to come out at the unfavorable end when they produce approval ratings for President Bush, so conservatives suspect a conspiracy against their team.

Very simple explanation for that one though - they ask a different question. They dont ask you whether you "approve" or "disapprove", but whether you evaluate his job performance as "excellent", "good", "fair" or "poor". They then add up excellent and good as the positive rating and fair and poor as the negative rating - and the latter tends to consistently be higher than what you get in terms of "disapprove" answers. Its not the only poll to do so tho - the Harris Poll does the same, for example, and ends up with similarly off-average results. Thats why I havent included them in my job ratings graphs - they're basically on a different playing field. So thats quite a different case from Fox, which comes out with different results than other polls on the same question.

Thomas wrote:
By the way, I did some web searching on the spread of Clinton approval ratings across pollsters. It turns out that Dr.Pollkatz, a web site that publishes similar graphs of Bush approval ratings as you do, did construct the corresponding graphs for Clinton's approval ratings. They don't show the graph, but say that the pattern is the same for Clinton as it is for Bush. Fox polls come out at the pro-Clinton end, and Zogby comes out at the contra-Clinton end. There was no swing from above-average Clinton ratings to below-average pro-Bush ratings (or vice versa) after the presidenc.

Wow! That is interesting. OK, so it must indeed be a question of methodology - like it probably is with their state polls the way I outlined above. Very cool - I mean, as in how its always cool for your apprehensions to be proven wrong. Thanks for the info. Will post it on the "bookie" thread.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 09:38:47