1
   

House in Disarray - Democrats Dazed

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 10:59 am
blatham wrote:
It's tough to figure how to respond to you okie. My impression is that you are a nice fellow. You've stuck in here, arguing your case, even while many others from the conservative side have fallen away as the pendulum has swung away from this administration and from conservative electoral dominance.

Thanks, I try.

Quote:
But you clearly restrict your input to rightwing media sources and they are not serving you well.

Just your opinion there. Conversely, I think your are too tuned into liberal "group think."
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 11:07 am
okie, have you ever had a thought of your own?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 11:24 am
okie wrote:


One of the greatest men of history, Abe Lincoln, was not a popular man at the time, and was considered to be a total idiot by many. The man did believe in black and white principles. Wishy washy people don't accomplish much, blatham.


Those southerners that seceded from the Union because Lincoln was an elected "idiot" certainly weren't wishy washy but they did manage to get a hell of a lot of people killed because of their 'black and white' principles. You follow in their footsteps rather well okie.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:14 am
okie wrote:
I think something needs to be clarified. nimh quoted polls with approval ratings of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. That is different than the approval rating of Congress as a body, in terms of its performance, and that has hit historical lows.

That is correct.

okie wrote:
Someone could approve of a Congressmen, but highly disapprove of the job that Congress as a whole is doing. [A]gain, to evaluate approval ratings of individual congressmen, I would need to look at who is being polled in each poll. In the overall poll, it doesn't matter as much because it is finding an overall picture from the population, but for evaluating individuals, if more Democrats are asked, then they will naturally approve of Democrats at a higher rate. Figures don't lie, but liars will figure.


Here you're off. For two reasons - one specific and factual, the other more general.

1. The polls I quoted do not ask about "individual Congressmen".

They do not ask, Do you like Congressman X, or Congresswoman Y.

The wording (and I gave the links where it could be found) is simple:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republicans in Congress are doing their job?"

Then the same for "the Democrats in Congress".

That's the wording of the ABC News/WaPo poll. The wordings used by the Fox News poll and the USA Today/Gallup poll are almost identical. The CBS poll asks, "In general, is your opinion of the Republicans [resp. "Democrats"] in Congress favorable or not favorable?" Only the Harris poll asks a slightly different question (see the overview here).

So no, these are not "approval ratings of individual congressmen". They are approval ratings of THE Republicans in Congress, and THE Democrats in Congress.

And in every single poll that's come out this year, THE Republicans in Congress are judged more harshly than THE Democrats in Congress.

Every single poll. And thats where number 2. comes in:

2. We're not talking about just the one poll here, that could easily be off this way or that.

You write, "if more Democrats are asked, then they will naturally approve of Democrats at a higher rate". But I already answered this bit, and note the bolded bit in particular:

Quote:
professional polling agencies, and Gallup etc certainly are, take into account the balance of party affiliation. They [..] either try to assure a representative sample by making sure there's a good regional, age etc. spread, or they actively apply weighting to the data they gather: if the raw data includes disproportional numbers of Democrats or Republicans, they weigh the data to fit the national numbers on party affiliation etc. instead. Even without weighing, however, it would be unlikely for twelve polls in a row, without exception, done by different polling agencies, to all be overrepresenting Democrats.

You would be entirely right to question the specifics of one poll, especially if its results diverge from what other pollsters are finding. But are you really suggesting that ALL twelve polls, by FIVE different polling agencies, must have oversampled Democrats? Although they all use random sampling techniques? (And at the same time you're willing to take their word for it when it comes to the overall approval ratings for Congress?)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 08:42 am
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
I merely pointed out how low the Congress is in the polls, which I think is generally accurate as a general cross section of the American people


okie wrote:
I do not think the pollsters are always consistent in this regard, and it depends upon the time of day the people are polled, and other factors, so I would still like to see the numbers behind the numbers for each poll.


Okay. You believe that all those polls that show how miserably Congress is doing are "generally accurate". But all those polls that show that people are even less content with Congress Republicans than with the Democrats depend "upon the time of day the people are polled, and other factors".

Gotcha.


You do seem to have nailed it, Old Europe. Some serious cherry-picking going on.

But enough already. As we have established, no we're not talking about polls about individual Congressmen; we're not talking about the one or two polls that might have overrepresented Democrats; yes, pollsters do take the partisan balance into account in one of two ways; no, it's not just that the Democrats and Republicans are both impopular. Enough dissections and possible evasions.

Data from over the entire year, from a range of different pollsters and commissioned by media as varied politically as Fox News and CBS, show one thing:

The Republicans in Congress, as a group, are significantly more impopular than the Democrats in Congress. (By 10,2% on average.)

This is the thing I asked about that you havent answered yet, Okie. Why do you think the Republicans in Congress are MORE impopular still, as a group, significantly more impopular even, than the Democrats in Congress?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 09:17 am
The trouble with Okie is his unrelenting sophistry. You can hit him over the head with fact after fact, and can depend on his replying with nonsensical arguments or nonsequiturs.

For instance, if you are discussing some egregious action of Bush, you can be assured that Okie will somehow drag Bill Clinton into the discussion.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 10:07 am
nimh wrote:

....
The Republicans in Congress, as a group, are significantly more impopular than the Democrats in Congress. (By 10,2% on average.)

This is the thing I asked about that you havent answered yet, Okie. Why do you think the Republicans in Congress are MORE impopular still, as a group, significantly more impopular even, than the Democrats in Congress?


First of all, nimh, the word should be "unpopular," as commonly used in English. At least I don't ever hear the word "impopular" if it is even a word in the English language.

I have answered it but I will try again. First let us clarify something that I have been trying to suggest in terms of the sampling by the polls, if the polls are weighted according to the overall percentages of Democrats and Republicans in the United States, and this should be the case if the sample is a good random sample, according to the following information on registered voters, Democrats comprise roughly 42.6% vs Republicans at 32.5%, which is a 10% spread, coincidentally matching the spread that your cited polls are showing. Secondly, Independants comprise the other 24.9%, and who knows how they shake out but I don't think they are going the Republicans way currently.

It is therefore quite likely that of the people disapproving of the job that Congress is doing, the polled Democrats will tend to approve of Democrats in Congress and disapprove of Republicans, and there are more Democrats than there are Republicans. So your polls are not surprising.

So with that said, to answer your question again in different words in an effort to make it plain, there are more Democrats than there are Republicans, and Democrats are more likely to approve of Democrats than they are Republicans. That is why they are registered as they are by party. I am repeating myself in an effort to make this clear, but Democrats tend to blame Republicans for a poor Congress and Republicans tend to blame Democrats for a poor Congress, and Democrats outnumber Republicans by around the 10 percentage points. Again, to prove that or for you to disprove that, you would need to look at the makeup of each one of the polls, as I have already said repeatedly.

To see the makeup of the registration of people by party, that I have derived the numbers, here is the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Party_affiliation_USA.jpg

The fact still remains that the approval ratings of the job that Congress is doing is very low, and again, the Democrats control the agenda. Democrats and Republicans can blame the party they tend to blame, but that does not change the fact that Democrats control the agenda. No poll can change that.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 01:35 am
According to one late poll, Congress approval ratings are at a robust 11%, as compared to Bush at 24%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1624620720071017

nimh, I would guess, consistent with this whole debate, that the Democrats included in that poll probably rated Congress higher than Republicans, and would have rated Democrats higher than Republicans in Congress, and vice versa for Republicans that were in the poll, but if the statistical sample tracked the real world, Democrats should outnumber Republicans in the poll, which answers your question to me, as outlined in the above, but the salient point is that the overall rating of Congress is down to a historical low.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 02:06 am
okie, I'm not sure where Wikipedia got those numbers, but they disagree with most other party breakdowns, which put GOP at around 32% (down, incidentally, from around 38% when W came into office--way to keep your base, George), Dems at about 37% and independents around 40%. W has managed to thoroughly alienate Independents and Dems. If you look at WHY people are dissatisfied with Congress (which some polls also go into, but not usually in the news stories that get into print, or buried way down in the end paragraphs) you find that the overwhelming reason Congress gets low marks is dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq (64% of Americans want US troops out of Iraq within a year, 28% want troops home NOW), because Congress hasn't stood up to Bush on the war--which is because the Dem margin is small, and not veto proof. That is what the bulk of the country thinks--that is the overwhelming number of Dems and Indeps. And that is why in generic congressional elections, close to 60% of the country wants an effective Democratic Congress.

Bush has also lost Republican support because of issues like immigration, which Congress is deadlocked on, and which cause Repubs to fault it.

What it seems to boil down to is that the country faults Congress because it hasn't neutered Bush/Cheney--which is largely an artifact of not enough Democrats in Congress.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:33 am
I think we ought to let okie have that thin silver lining. Things are not looking good for his side and when a President's popularity sinks down to Nixon-at-most-hated-by-americans level...well, sheesh, we can imagine what dark dreams fill his nights.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 08:53 am
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:03 am
Look at today's corporate leaders. They are all baby boomers. Completely untrustworthy stinky hippies. I hate hippies.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 09:41 am
username wrote:
okie, I'm not sure where Wikipedia got those numbers, but they disagree with most other party breakdowns, which put GOP at around 32% (down, incidentally, from around 38% when W came into office--way to keep your base, George), Dems at about 37% and independents around 40%. W has managed to thoroughly alienate Independents and Dems.

Okay, but the point I made still stands according to your numbers, which tends to show more Independents, less Democrats, and about the same Republicans as the numbers I cited, so the Dems are still higher than Repbulicans, and probably Independents vote more as Dems. I don't know but it appears Independents grew at the expense of Democrats from my link to your numbers.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 10:22 am
okie wrote:
I don't know but it appears

Classic!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 10:24 am
Another classic.
shiksa wrote:
I hate
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 10:25 am
cjhsa wrote:
Look at today's corporate leaders. They are all baby boomers. Completely untrustworthy stinky hippies. I hate hippies.


gosh that really hurts because I feel certain all the hippies are very fond of you....
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 10:59 am
dyslexia wrote:


Typical.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 11:39 am
dyslexia wrote:
Another classic.
shiksa wrote:
I hate


You should have put "you" on the end of it.

No point denying it, eh Mr. Anarchy?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 08:36 pm
cjhsa wrote:


No point denying it, eh Mr. Anarchy?

You raise my curiosity, cjhsa, where did dyslexia acquire that name, or why did you use it? It could be helpful for all to know the reason.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Oct, 2007 11:00 pm
cjhsa wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Another classic.
shiksa wrote:
I hate


You should have put "you" on the end of it.

No point denying it, eh Mr. Anarchy?

Yes I'm quite sure you do hate me shiksa, it gives meaning to your life that is otherwise barren.
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 0.03 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 07:10:21