New polling

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 5:53am

Next weeks polls should be interesting after the charade put on by Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Rangel, Pelosi and Company. The far left of America has been joined by their brothers in hatred from around the world.

Even Karl Rove could not have developed and implemented such a phenomenal strategy for Bush and the republicans.

Pelosi tried a CYA news conference, but Chavez said nothing any different than what she has been saying for months.

Hugo, Nancy, and Cindy should have their broadway debut next week. It would be quite a show.
That Crazy Pelosi

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 9:02am

Gas prices fall, and Bush is called the devil by a maniac, and suddenly he's back at ....oooh ... 45% (today's TODAY show). 55% of the populace, no small number of Americans, are still not fooled.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 9:08am

MEanwhile, Rasmussen, who updates daily, has him at 40% approval, 57% (!!!!!!!!) disapproval.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 9:10am

I'll go with that, bway.

And yesterday he was at 37% in the Times.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 9:14am

i don't trust the times polls as they consistently oversample democrats, but i do trust rasmussen and he showed a post 9/11 bounce that dissipated quickly. basically dubya's still pretty darn unpopular with a majority of the amereican people. how that relates to the coming election and whether the many gop pundits who are currently trumpeting the new poll numbers will have to eat their hats remains to be seen.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 9:17am

YOu know it, Papa. I think Rasmussen (how impartial is he, anyway? I always hear conflicting things but I chalk it up to how pundits are reacting to his "treatment" of their politicians at the time) has a pretty good running assessment of the Senate race particularly as he focuses on the individual races.
he currently has it 48 Dem, 49 Rep, 3 toss up.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 9:34am

his numbers in '04 were ridiculous on target, at least in the presidential race. the thing that rasmussen does differently than a lot of pollsters is he doesn't use live persons to conduct the polls. that makes a lot of sense to me because a lot of folks who are reticent to share their true views with another human being for whatever reasons are more likely to be truthful when they feel that there's no chance of being judged for their opinion. of course, rsmussen was off by a mile in 2000 calling it 49%-40% for gore, but back then he did not weight for party id. so it's still a crapshoot, but i like him better because of his methodology.

as far as his impartiality? i think the fact that i see as many attacks against his numbers by the gop as i do from the left side puts him in the impartial camp to me. some argue that his running hillary polls put him to the right side along with the fact that his bush approval rating was consistently higher than most (even though it's now lower than a lot) so ya never know. i saw in some places allegations that he has strong ties to the gop, but saw no proof of them. in the end, the guy's running a polling service and if he's inaccurate no one takes him seriously so it's in his best interest to be as accurate as possible despite whatever his political leanings may be. it's one thing for established media to run slanted polls, because it's just one part of their business, but for a guy whose business is polling to do so is pretty much career suicide.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 9:36am

Good point. Makes me trust him a bit more, especially since most of his movement in recent weeks has been decidedly in the Democrat camp.
I'm glad I bookmarked that site. It's scary how much politics has become a watchable sport as much as horseracing and football, though.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 10:35am

i don't know that it's "become" that as much as it's just become easier to do so.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 10:42am

"basically dubya's still pretty darn unpopular with a majority of the amereican people. how that relates to the coming election and whether the many gop pundits who are currently trumpeting the new poll numbers will have to eat their hats remains to be seen."

Ah, see, this is how grown-ups talk. No giant leaps of logic, no over-determined wishful thinking presented as a definitive roadmap. When we think of all the things that the American Public has ignored in the past five years, to decide that what was, for all intents and purposes, a mini-blip on the non-Fox News radar in the form of some speech from some guy who lives in some country that most Americans wouldn't be able to point out on a globe is in fact the one single thing that is going to influence the mid-term elections to the delight of talk radio extremist fans everywhere, is to not be applying a particularly astute analysis.

"...remains to be seen..."

How can one wait and see when one can put on a foam rubber "We're Number 1!" finger and stamp his feet and go on and on and on about it? There's yelling to do!

Posted: 9/22/06 at 10:47am

Namo got it right-- it's fun to debate politics with Papa-- he's got his own opinions (that don't always jibe with talking points) and he can hold an opposing view in his mind and consider it without necessarily agreeing. Unlike some others who think any view other than right wing doctrinaire is 'evil, crazy, insane" or whatever Newt Gingrich buzz word has been deemed the official response.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 10:59am

Well, fortunately for America, Newt has been right, and his people have won many elections since 1994. This year will not be so different. It's just like all the NYC people who never met anyone who voted for Nixon until he won his LANDSLIDE in 1972.

By the way, it's always easy entertainment to debate politics with those who basically agree with you. Papa is no conservative. He echos the elite "liberal speak" of most of the posters on this board. Anything conformist to fit in.

Any slight moderate on this board is conservative by comparison to the Marxist philosophy cheered on here.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:01am

green is so not a good color on you, chantytown.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:01am

One has a functioning brain capable of analysis, the other is basically a parrot with over-active cut and paste fingers.

And here's another very key element and he'll probably punch me and call me a big fat liar, but papa actually likes people. The other one, well, he positively drips with contempt for his fellow human beings.

ETA And you're right about the green, papa.

Updated On: 9/22/06 at 11:01 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:01am

"many gop pundits who are currently trumpeting the new poll numbers will have to eat their hats"



Would you like Worcestershire sauce or ketchup with that?

Updated On: 9/22/06 at 11:01 AM

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:03am

Another thread posted by Chianticleer that has brought the posse out!

They are sreeching again Moonbat man!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:08am

since i had sense enough not to trumpet them and since i wouldn't be caught dead in that hat, i'll pass, pj. questioning is not trumpeting. for examples of trumpeting, see any post you've made in reference to a poll that shows low approval ratings for the president. btw, since he's not at nixonian numbers as you repeatedly and breathless and loudly predicted, shouldn't you be breaking out the dijon for your beret?

Updated On: 9/22/06 at 11:08 AM

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:13am

Back on topic, I have lost all faith in polls. I don't read 'em and I don't believe 'em when someone tells me about them.

What I do wonder about is why polls like "Bush Popularity" fluctuate. Do people really change in their opinion of him day to day? Did 10% plus of the population say "It cost me $37 to fill my gas tank! Damn that Bush!" and then decide he wasn't so bad when gas prices dropped from "Outragous" to merely "ridiculous"?

It was the same thing with all the "Undecideds" in the 2004 election. What was making them change their minds day to day?
Updated On: 9/22/06 at 11:13 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:17am

well, it's different people, joe. it would be interesting to see a poll that stayed with a specific group of people and followed their reactions to news to see what made them change their opinions and why.

as far as '04, if i were a conspiracy theorist, i'd suggest that to some extent the talk of the power of the undecideds went to their heads and they were sending messages through their responses to polls in an effort to influence policy decisions.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:35am

The most trustworthy polls as far as politics go are the exit polls on election day. Instead of asking people to speculate on what they "might do" or to describe something abstract like "what they think," exit polls grab people on their way out of a place where they've just done something and ask them what they just did.

What's odd is, of course, that they work like perfect science in the rest of the world and are a time tested and honored practice in elections monitoring. And they've suddenly not worked here since the mid to late '90s.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might look toward Diebold.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:42am

i think exit polls have lost their ability to accurately predict election results due to the polarization of voters that's been running rampant since the 90's. started by the gop during their feverish attempts to run bubba out of town, carried on by tom delay and perfected by the netroots of the 21st century, i think that the people that they call the undecideds or the independents are unwilling to say how they voted in exit polls for fear of being lambasted by one side or the other. what you're getting in exit polls now are the more strident folks on both sides who are unashamedly partisan and who have no qualms about sharing their views.

it's the same reason why i favor rasmussen's robots over more traditional means of polling.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 12:19pm

Yes, Namo, the exit polls (the most reliable form of scientific polling) have been so wrong. What do you think took Gore and Kerry so long to accept their defeats? They believed that their liberal friends at the Networks just couldn't be wrong.

That made me laugh out loud.

Oh the tangled webs she weaves...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 12:24pm

What's out loud laughable is that all you do is cut and paste other people's quotes and you still managed to get what I said about exit polls wrong even though it was just two posts above yours.

And still with the feminine pronouns? It's okay, gay man, you can use "he."

To borrow your strategy:

Chanticleer, the long and colorful history of gay men like yourself calling other males "she," as documented by the historian George Chauncey, grew out of the dark period in the country's history when gay men like yourself were unable to even talk about the homosexual experiences like the ones you yourself have for fear of being overheard by someone and having their lives ruined, be they people connected to their employers or even law enforcement.

As a gay man who is also a teacher and who proudly locates himself (even if only in his imagination and online life, such as it is) in a hyper-talk radio extremist universe where people talk in bumper sticker slogans and mock anyone they perceive as being from somewhere else, it is understandable that you act like the poor homosexual men who were trapped trying to express their true selves in the first half of the 20th century but were reduced to calling other men "she."

It's the 21st century now, and even though you avoid it, the simple fact is that you as a gay man can actually use masculine pronouns. You don't have to hide it, or suddenly pretend to be another poster using the Chanticleer account. You can say "he" when talking about other men. Even though it's clear your use of "she" comes from a place of deep oppression within you, it could be read that you are trying to demean me by comparing me to a woman, something you think is insulting. I know you couldn't possibly mean that, and it's really all about your being a gay man. But still, you might want to be careful when you traipse so close to misogyny.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 12:27pm

I honestly thought that Namo was a woman.

My sincerest apologies, SIR.

lol.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 12:41pm

The 2004 exit polls were further off than the exit polls of 2000. Still, the liberals believed their friends at the networks.

I can't wait for election night 2006, and "HE" will still believe them!