Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 21, 2003.
someone new: 48%
I've heard there is some weirdness with this particular poll, but I bet it's keeping Karl Rove up tonight.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Here you go!
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 article that talks about why Zogby is considered "among the best" by many people.
I hope this clears up some of your questions.
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?
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 far I like Dean, but whoever comes out on top for the Dems, VOTE REGIME CHANGE IN 2004!!
Isn't it nice that we vote for regime change here instead of killing people? Freakin amazing when you really think about it.
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.
So the only one complaining is Bush and the only one gloating is an unidentifiable Democrat?
How could you vote for a person that is against the use of military action even against the Taliban, and Al Queada?
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!
Wow Gore got 15% in Fla? Good job Jeb.
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
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?
I saw this one the other day and thought it worth repeating...
No more Bu__sh__ in 2004!
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.
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?
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:
lies and more lies
deficits where once there were surpluses
tax cuts designed to benefit the vice-president
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.
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.