PDA

View Full Version : latest zogby poll -- bush loses to unnamed dem


zimv20
Aug 21, 2003, 08:13 PM
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=728

re-elect: 45%
someone new: 48%

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 11:55 PM
I've heard there is some weirdness with this particular poll, but I bet it's keeping Karl Rove up tonight.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 12:51 AM
I have a problem with a poll that posts results, but doesn't show the question being asked. Was it leading, biased, etc. Also that they don't know the correct margin of error for the sample size is an indication that they are full of ****.

zimv20
Aug 22, 2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I have a problem with a poll that posts results, but doesn't show the question being asked. Was it leading, biased, etc. Also that they don't know the correct margin of error for the sample size is an indication that they are full of ****.

it's the trend that's interesting to me. regardless of the phrasing or error of margin, the historical numbers tell the story.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I have a problem with a poll that posts results, but doesn't show the question being asked. Was it leading, biased, etc. Also that they don't know the correct margin of error for the sample size is an indication that they are full of ****.

As the old saying goes, the candidate ahead in the polls will tout them to anyone and everyone they can, saying they have the ear of the people; while the candidate behind will try to disparage the results and say you can't trust polls.

As far as the poll goes, here is the question, sample size, and margin of error.



Just over two in five (43%) likely voters say they would choose President Bush over a Democratic candidate, and a like number (43%) preferred a Democrat if the election were held today, compared to July polling by Zogby International where 48% would choose Bush and 43% would favor any Democrat.

The Zogby America poll involved 1,011 likely voters selected randomly from throughout the 48 contiguous states using listed residential telephone numbers. Polling was conducted from Zogby Internationalís Call Center in Utica, NY on August 16-19, 2003. The poll has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.2%.

Zogby polls are considered among the best, certainly better than any partisan poll. The weirdness I mentioned was about a different part of the poll relating to job performance, they gave a ranking of "fair" on the survey as disapproval. The WH is all in a tizzy about this, but like I said before, people who trail in the polls always say they mean nothing etc. etc. I don't think it is a major departure from standard polling procedures. AFAIK, Zogby himself is a conservative.

My bad, upon further investigation, Zogby is NOT a conservative.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 10:10 AM
You have to understand that as a Political Scientist, there is no scientific validity to a poll that will not publish the question. How was it phrased? Was it leading? Was it a biased question to get the desired results? And considered amoung the best by whom?

zimv20
Aug 22, 2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You have to understand that as a Political Scientist, there is no scientific validity to a poll that will not publish the question. How was it phrased? Was it leading? Was it a biased question to get the desired results? And considered amoung the best by whom?

even given the historical trend of the responses, is it your position that the numbers do not reflect reality?

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You have to understand that as a Political Scientist, there is no scientific validity to a poll that will not publish the question. How was it phrased? Was it leading? Was it a biased question to get the desired results? And considered amoung the best by whom?

Here you go!

Link (http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=80)

Do you think President Bush deserves to be re-elected or do you think it is time for someone new?

I was wrong before though, Zogby is a liberal democrat, who's brother is the head of the Arab-American Anti-Defamation League. I got him confused with Frank Luntz. I did, however, find this (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0397/9703008b.htm) article that talks about why Zogby is considered "among the best" by many people.

Zogby already had been in the polling business for several years when his results in 1994 New York elections confounded his competitors but proved to be right in the end. Big-time national recognition came, however, only after the votes were counted in the 1996 election. From early in the campaign, his polls predicted Bill Clinton would win by a much smaller margin than any of the other major pollsters were showing. Their derision grew as the gap widened.

The Zogby pollís final numbers, however, were uncannily accurate because he not only got Clintonís eight-point winning margin right, but also was the only pollster who got the numbers for Bob Dole and Ross Perot right as well. Most of his chagrined competitors, like Richard Morin of The Washington Post, quoted above, were gracious. Others, like The New York Times, whose CBS/ New York Times final poll had predicted Clinton would win by an 18-point margin, were not. It printed a compilation of final polling figures from different organizations that, by obscuring the extent of Zogbyís triumph, masked how far off base the final CBS/Times poll results had been.

I hope this clears up some of your questions.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 11:01 AM
Although I bet Bush still wins if you put any of the Democrats names in the "unnamed" candidate slot. Here's hoping Wesley Clark runs.

IJ Reilly
Aug 22, 2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Although I bet Bush still wins if you put any of the Democrats names in the "unnamed" candidate slot. Here's hoping Wesley Clark runs.

I'd agree with the first part of your statement, that Bush would poll better against a "named" Democrat then an "unnamed" Democrat. No doubt he'd run better against a person then an entire party. But Wesley Clark? What do we know about him, other then he's a retired general?

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'd agree with the first part of your statement, that Bush would poll better against a "named" Democrat then an "unnamed" Democrat. No doubt he'd run better against a person then an entire party. But Wesley Clark? What do we know about him, other then he's a retired general?

He's a sharp cookie, can't be attacked as weak on defense, and he seems like a straight shooter type. I think he would really change the dynamic of the poor assortment of democrats running.

mcrain
Aug 22, 2003, 06:12 PM
So far I like Dean, but whoever comes out on top for the Dems, VOTE REGIME CHANGE IN 2004!!

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 06:18 PM
Isn't it nice that we vote for regime change here instead of killing people? Freakin amazing when you really think about it.

IJ Reilly
Aug 22, 2003, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
He's a sharp cookie, can't be attacked as weak on defense, and he seems like a straight shooter type. I think he would really change the dynamic of the poor assortment of democrats running.

So I keep hearing, but I can think of a whole lot of sharp cookie straight shooter types who'd I never cast a ballot for, so that's not much of an endorsement. It doesn't work for me anyway. As for the "weak on defense" business, I suppose that's how political strategists need to think, but I don't. I'm less interested in "electability" then in somebody who can articulate a whole set of alternative national policies from the ones we have now.

pseudobrit
Aug 22, 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
As the old saying goes, the candidate ahead in the polls will tout them to anyone and everyone they can, saying they have the ear of the people; while the candidate behind will try to disparage the results and say you can't trust polls.

So the only one complaining is Bush and the only one gloating is an unidentifiable Democrat? ;)

Backtothemac
Aug 23, 2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
So far I like Dean, but whoever comes out on top for the Dems, VOTE REGIME CHANGE IN 2004!!

How could you vote for a person that is against the use of military action even against the Taliban, and Al Queada?

HasanDaddy
Aug 23, 2003, 12:35 AM
I know Zogby is very respected, but I've always felt that his polls heavily favor the liberal/democrat side

in 2000, one of his polls had Al Gore winning Florida by around 15 percent!

K4NN4B15
Aug 23, 2003, 01:02 AM
in 2000, one of his polls had Al Gore winning Florida by around 15 percent!

Wow Gore got 15% in Fla? Good job Jeb.

HasanDaddy
Aug 23, 2003, 02:13 AM
let me clarify

the poll was something like -

Gore - 52

Bush - 38

btw - don't quote me on those numbers, but it was something like that

K4NN4B15
Aug 23, 2003, 03:15 AM
Yes but why do you blame this completely on the pollsters and not even partially the massively shady conditions of the 2000 elections in fla?

SPG
Aug 23, 2003, 03:31 AM
I saw this one the other day and thought it worth repeating...

No more Bu__sh__ in 2004!

LibertyBell
Aug 23, 2003, 11:24 AM
I hope people vote for the anti Bush. I think we have had enough of our president bending over backwards for big buisness and the wealth.
I want a hard working dedicated man with vision.

SPG
Aug 23, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by K4NN4B15
Yes but why do you blame this completely on the pollsters and not even partially the massively shady conditions of the 2000 elections in fla?
True, If you've read any of the BBC reports on the Florida election you'd see that the polls would have been a lot closer to the truth had Jeb not "cleaned" the voter registrations of tens of thousands of minority and poor voters. Or not tampered with the ballot machines in those same poorer, minority counties. Did you know that the ballot machines in the more republican leaning counties were set to spit out questionable ballots back to the voter so they could fix their mistake while the same machines in the poorer/more democratic counties were not?

wwworry
Aug 23, 2003, 09:00 PM
Has Bush done anything right? Maybe going into Afghanistan but then he lost interest and the last I heard it's becoming more like it was 8 years ago.

As for America:
Economy sucks.
environmental doo-doos
lies and more lies
constitutional breaches
deficits where once there were surpluses
tax cuts designed to benefit the vice-president
no Ossama
no anthrax killer
not yet Hussein

the guy is a loser

oh and I forgot he is on the payroll of all the enron energy types who in the last few years have messed up the US electric energy infrastructure and gotten rich doing it.

LibertyBell
Aug 23, 2003, 10:03 PM
Oh yes I was really happy with the blackout.
But you see, bushco is so narcissistic he will never accept the
blame for any of his actions. The man couldn't get a job at Burger King
if daddy was not rich and lucky enough to be a on term president. And like father like son, bushco will be gone but not forgotten in 2004.

mactastic
Aug 23, 2003, 10:04 PM
You are right, we will be dealing with this mess for many, many years to com.:mad:

LibertyBell
Aug 23, 2003, 11:12 PM
The Dem that beats him will have a mess to clean up for sure. Almost feel sorry for the man who wins in 2004. So long as it is not Bush.

K4NN4B15
Aug 24, 2003, 01:43 AM
And the funny thing is Id bet that all of the problems that bush has created will be blamed on whoever follows him. Even if it is another republican.

Bush has a very very few good points but mostly, at least to me, seems to have no charisma, no intelligence, no common sense, and no ideas of his own. He has cheated his way into office, ruined our economy, raped the bill of rights, payed off anyone rich enough to contribute to his campaign or otherwise, sent us to a pointless war on false pretenses and will probably send us to at least one more if he can get away with it, and taken a big steaming dump on ALL of our foriegn allies... Yet people STILL love him.

I sincerely hope that it is only part of the giant mass A.D.D. we seem to be inflicted with in this country. If i remeber correctly it seems to me that everyone loved bush sr. as well while he was president, but still let clinton wipe the floor with him and hated his guts the minute he was gone.

RobVanDam
Aug 24, 2003, 02:36 AM
How'd Bush cheat his way into office? By convincing people to vote for him?

K4NN4B15
Aug 24, 2003, 03:40 AM
No, by convincing the same supreme court juctices that his father and regan put in office in the first place to vote for him. Like I said.. A.D.D.. It wasnt even 3 years ago, was it? Did you really forget or just choose not to remeber it the way it actually happened?

visor
Aug 24, 2003, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
Has Bush done anything right? Maybe going into Afghanistan but then he lost interest and the last I heard it's becoming more like it was 8 years ago.

As for America:
Economy sucks.
environmental doo-doos
lies and more lies
constitutional breaches
deficits where once there were surpluses
tax cuts designed to benefit the vice-president
no Ossama
no anthrax killer
not yet Hussein

the guy is a loser


Maybe not so interesting for americans, but still worth noting:
Russian President Putin making fun of Bush asking for those weapons of mass destruction in a press conference.
Insulted 'old european' countries see Bush crawling at their feet, begging for assistance in the iraq mess. North Korea going Nuclear pointing at the Nuclear Policies of the USA.
Bush embarresses his closest ally, the UK with Iraq with not taking suggestions seriously.
etc...
Just look at the Annan birthday speeches of Clinton and Bush - it's a difference like seeing a play at the broadway, or at your local elementary school.

I'm truely suprised how one can loose so much repect of the world / do so much image damage to his country, in such little time.

mactastic
Aug 24, 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by K4NN4B15
And the funny thing is Id bet that all of the problems that bush has created will be blamed on whoever follows him. Even if it is another republican.

Bush has a very very few good points but mostly, at least to me, seems to have no charisma, no intelligence, no common sense, and no ideas of his own. He has cheated his way into office, ruined our economy, raped the bill of rights, payed off anyone rich enough to contribute to his campaign or otherwise, sent us to a pointless war on false pretenses and will probably send us to at least one more if he can get away with it, and taken a big steaming dump on ALL of our foriegn allies... Yet people STILL love him.

I sincerely hope that it is only part of the giant mass A.D.D. we seem to be inflicted with in this country. If i remeber correctly it seems to me that everyone loved bush sr. as well while he was president, but still let clinton wipe the floor with him and hated his guts the minute he was gone.

Bush sr. lost the support of his base, both by breaking his "no new taxes" pledge, and by not pandering to the religious right. Bush jr. has not made either of these mistakes.

In addition, there was the Ross Perot factor to split the conservative vote in the same way Nader was a spoiler for Gore in 2000.

I actually agree with you by and large, but there were reasons Bush I lost and it wasn't because Clinton wiped any floors with him.

K4NN4B15
Aug 24, 2003, 10:26 AM
Well, bush v2.0 hasnt made those exact mistakes.. He has made much bigger ones.

I wasnt exactly big into politics at the time when bush and clintion were running.. However i remeber the saturday night live sketches "who will be the to be the canidate to loose to Bush" where everyone was trying to argue why they would be a horrible president and push a different democratic canidate to avoid being humiliated by Bush sr. So He must have seemed pretty unbeatable at the time.

However, its still not too big of an insult to be underdoged by Clinton like that.. Even if you dont like him you still have to admit that he is one slick charismatic mofo.

and hey, wasnt that the election where Perot was actually making good sense? He really went off the deep end for the next one though.. lol.

pseudobrit
Aug 24, 2003, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How could you vote for a person that is against the use of military action even against the Taliban, and Al Queada?

How could you vote for a person whose reaction to a terrorist attack is to invade a nation that had nothing to do with it?

Backtothemac
Aug 24, 2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
How could you vote for a person whose reaction to a terrorist attack is to invade a nation that had nothing to do with it?

Well, as we all know, I think that Iraq was part of the war on terror, but seperate. Still, that did not answer the question. How could you vote for someone that wanted NO military action to 9/11, not even against Afghanistan?

Ugg
Aug 24, 2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, as we all know, I think that Iraq was part of the war on terror, but seperate. Still, that did not answer the question. How could you vote for someone that wanted NO military action to 9/11, not even against Afghanistan?


Well, I don't think we've been faced with that question yet and I sincerely doubt that any serious presidential candidate would make such a claim.

Who made up the majority of the 9-11 bombers? Saudis. Who was (is?) at the head of al Qaeda? bin Laden, a Saudi. Who did the 18 blacked out pages refer to in that report? The royal family of Arabia, the Sauds. So, with all that and coupled with the most tenuous links between Saddam and al Qaeda and the fact that even mentioning their names in the same sentence is like saying Molly Ivins and Bill O'Reilly are bosom buddies. Why did we attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? Why didn't we go after the terrorists themselves instead of merely throwing up a smokescreen?

pseudobrit
Aug 24, 2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How could you vote for someone that wanted NO military action to 9/11, not even against Afghanistan?

I wouldn't.

Backtothemac
Aug 25, 2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I wouldn't.

What aurthorize force? You would not have went after Al Queda, and the Taliban?

zimv20
Aug 25, 2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What aurthorize force? You would not have went after Al Queda, and the Taliban?

i think he meant: "wouldn't vote for that person"

pseudobrit
Aug 25, 2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i think he meant: "wouldn't vote for that person"

Indeed.

actripxl
Aug 25, 2003, 07:11 PM
Blame Bush all you want for everything going on but you can't put the election on him. There were a series of blunders starting right here in Florida, U.S. Supreme Court, but the biggest is the outdated Electoral College. Why has this not been changed yet, the whole notion of one man one vote is a total lie under this system. How can any one justify that their vote is worth more than mine or anybody else's.

IJ Reilly
Aug 25, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by actripxl
Blame Bush all you want for everything going on but you can't put the election on him. There were a series of blunders starting right here in Florida, U.S. Supreme Court, but the biggest is the outdated Electoral College. Why has this not been changed yet, the whole notion of one man one vote is a total lie under this system. How can any one justify that their vote is worth more than mine or anybody else's.

Because the Electoral College is provided for in the Constitution, and it would be impossible for two-thirds of the states to agree on an amendment to change it. It's a terrible system, but we're stuck with it.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 07:19 PM
pure bull, the fact is the best democratic candidate is Al Gore, all of the others will come up short . Dean is way way to liberal and clinton won because he was a moderate. There will be no democrat in the white house unless Big Al runs.

pseudobrit
Aug 25, 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
pure bull, the fact is the best democratic candidate is Al Gore, all of the others will come up short . Dean is way way to liberal and clinton won because he was a moderate. There will be no democrat in the white house unless Big Al runs.

"Fact is"? I think Kerry could be a stronger candidate than Gore ever was.

zimv20
Aug 25, 2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
pure bull, the fact is the best democratic candidate is Al Gore, all of the others will come up short . Dean is way way to liberal and clinton won because he was a moderate. There will be no democrat in the white house unless Big Al runs.

got a poll to back that up?

pseudobrit
Aug 25, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
got a poll to back that up?

You heard the man, it's a fact, not an opinion. ;)

mcrain
Aug 25, 2003, 09:25 PM
I like Dean, but I recognize that he's not a perfect candidate. But, he is far more charismatic than Bush Jr.

All I know is that whoever is the Dem candidate, I'm voting...

REGIME CHANGE IN 2004

Sayhey
Aug 26, 2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How could you vote for a person that is against the use of military action even against the Taliban, and Al Queada?

B2TM,

Where did you get your information on Dean? As far as I know he supported both the actions you mention. Here is a link to a speech by Dean on foreign policy in which he mentions his postions on Afghanistan and the war on terror:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_cfr

I would point out, in particular the part of the speech in which he states,

Let us turn our attention to postwar Afghanistan. I supported the President's invasion of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was and continues to be an imminent threat to the United States.



However, insufficient security assistance and economic investment are opening the door to civil strife and tribal warfare, again the very conditions that bred the Taliban in the first place. Our repeated assurances of aid and reconstruction have resulted in lost hope and empty promises for the people of Afghanistan once again.



The U.S. must redouble its effort to garner aid from the donor community and to increase to 30-40,000 the number of military troops our friends and allies commit to help us rebuild Afghanistan. For the United States to rely on warlords to keep peace in Afghanistan nearly two years after a successful military operation demonstrates an extraordinary lack of thoughtful vision.

I haven't decided who I will support in the next election, although I should say I'm considering Dean, but I think it does no one any good to misquote a candidate on his positions.

IJ Reilly
Aug 26, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
I haven't decided who I will support in the next election, although I should say I'm considering Dean, but I think it does no one any good to misquote a candidate on his positions.

Sure it does -- it helps Republican party loyalists. One of the cardinal rules of politics is to prevent your opponent from defining himself. The political cartoonist for the LA Times, who over time has proven himself to be essentially an operative for the RNC, has already pictured Dean morphed into George McGovern. The oh-so-clever caption was "George Dean" (or was it "Howard McGovern"?). Subtlety was never this guy's strong suit. Anyway, I suppose we should be grateful for the tip-off -- at least we now know the Republican strategy for running against Dean, should he be nominated.

Oh, and welcome back, Sayhey.

mactastic
Aug 26, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sure it does -- it helps Republican party loyalists. One of the cardinal rules of politics is to prevent your opponent from defining himself. The political cartoonist for the LA Times, who over time has proven himself to be essentially an operative for the RNC, has already pictured Dean morphed into George McGovern. The oh-so-clever caption was "George Dean" (or was it "Howard McGovern"?). Subtlety was never this guy's strong suit. Anyway, I suppose we should be grateful for the tip-off -- at least we now know the Republican strategy for running against Dean, should he be nominated.

Oh, and welcome back, Sayhey.

Gasp.... but I though the Times was a paper so liberal as to be worthy of scorn and ridicule by the right?;)

You mean the right made that up?

Sayhey
Aug 26, 2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Sure it does -- it helps Republican party loyalists. One of the cardinal rules of politics is to prevent your opponent from defining himself. The political cartoonist for the LA Times, who over time has proven himself to be essentially an operative for the RNC, has already pictured Dean morphed into George McGovern. The oh-so-clever caption was "George Dean" (or was it "Howard McGovern"?). Subtlety was never this guy's strong suit. Anyway, I suppose we should be grateful for the tip-off -- at least we now know the Republican strategy for running against Dean, should he be nominated.

Oh, and welcome back, Sayhey.

Now, IJ, I was trying to appeal to our better natures and what's good for everyone in the "grand scheme of things." I know I should be more of a realist, but the down and dirty of politics gets a little too gruesome even for me some times.

Thanks, I took a short trip to the big island of Hawaii and subsituted volcanos and rain forests for the computer for a week.

IJ Reilly
Aug 26, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Now, IJ, I was trying to appeal to our better natures and what's good for everyone in the "grand scheme of things." I know I should be more of a realist, but the down and dirty of politics gets a little too gruesome even for me some times.

Thanks, I took a short trip to the big island of Hawaii and subsituted volcanos and rain forests for the computer for a week.

Beats a long trip to the small island...

M'ahalo! :cool: