New polling- Page 2

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 12:47pm

Good god.
Seriously, where do people like this come from? I know they exist but how do they manage to stumble into the internet?

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 12:55pm

Still working on that publilshing thing...

How the schooling going with Maureen Loud over at the Treason Times...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 12:58pm

Do you actually have a little file of bumper stickers that you rifle through before making a post like that?

You're intellectually bankrupt, and if that makes me "elite" (which in your mind is a synonym for "smart person") then so be it.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 1:09pm

My god. That crap is tiresome when it's just Rush Windbag (see how easy it is to do, namo?! It's fun and easy and makes you feel better when you're a fat, closeted, racist queen in BFE with nasty crushes on your students!) doing it, but you have to come here and spill Cheetos all over your keyboard while you regurgitate it, too?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 1:31pm

LOL!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 2:43pm

back to somewhat reasonable discussion...

chris bowers from mydd.com takes a look at what effect the president's approval rating will have on the fall elections.

a snippet:

* 2004. seats won by reps: 232. bush approval index just before the election, according to pollkatz: 47.4.
* 2002: seats won by republicans: 230. bush approval index just before the election, according to professor pollkatz: 61.7

read the whole thing. it's interesting.

oops, i forgot to title the link Updated On: 9/22/06 at 02:43 PM

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 7:59pm

good points.

What will the spin be when the republicans so much better than the liberal media allows?

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/22/06 at 11:28pm

From Jimmy Carter: The worst Ex-President in US History by Jack Kinsella

And, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Chavez isn't going away anytime soon.

Venezuela's opposition party finally forced a recall election, with opinion polls showing that voters favored his recall by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

When there were questions about possible vote tampering by the Chavez side, the opposition called for election monitors. Chavez agreed to let Jimmy Carter oversee the election, and the Carter Center headed for Caracas.

Under Jimmy Carter's watchful eye, Hugo Chavez defeated the recall attempt by a wide margin -- reflecting almost a mirror-image of the opinion polls.

While two out of three Venzuelans polled before the election wanted Chavez out, when the ballots were counted, Chavez was declared the winner by an almost exact opposite margin. "About 58 percent said 'no' to a recall, while 42 percent said 'yes,'" wrote the Washington Post.

Carter ignored a press release from the polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland Assoc. that reported, "Exit Poll Results Show Major Defeat for Chavez." The release, dated 7:30 p.m. on election day, said, "With Venezuela's voting set to end at 8 p.m. EST according to election officials, final exit poll results from Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, an independent New York-based polling firm, show a major victory for the 'Yes' movement, defeating Chavez in the Venezuela presidential recall referendum."

One of the most effective ways to monitor the fairness of an election is to employ the use of exit polls. In a nutshell, here's how exit polls work. After somebody has finished voting, a pollster will ask them how they voted. In emerging democracies, about 90% of voters participate.

By contrast, in America, where exit polls are widely used to call elections before the votes are all counted, less than 40% of voters participate.

Statistically, exit polls should mirror the actual vote, within a relatively thin margin of error.

The margin of error between Carter's certified fair-and-square ballots and the independent exit poll results constituted a swing of almost forty points -- a statistical impossibility. Chavez counted on Carter leaning his way -- Carter's history of promoting anti-American dictators is no secret.

The Carter/Chavez/Michael Moore Alliance is ripe with political opportunity for Karl Rove and Company.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/23/06 at 10:19pm

Hell, with Chomsky's book at #1, Chavez, Pelosi, Murtha and Company should vault to #1 in the polls too!

Even Karl Rove couldn't have developed such a wonderful victory strategy.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 1:13pm

""But here's the point. He was on FOX News. When you're being goaded by one of their toadies, "fine statesmanship" isn't called for. It would be an insult to fine statesmen everywhere.""

Namohood on 9.24.06, trying desperately, blithely, hilariously, to defend the Clinton meltdown today.

Now, that's funny.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 1:32pm

With his favorite author, Chomsky, at the top of the charts, how could "he" be having a meltdown?

But read the quotes for yourself they are all over the board:

""But who's the better/bigger person? The one who goes in and faces whatever the "opposition" throws at them or the ones that ONLY preach to the biased choir?""


Namohood on 9.24.06 trying to make Clinton sound like a statesman.

That's really truly funny...

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 3:45pm

With over one million hits on YouTube and growing, it seems like Clinton's meltdown will be the story of the week.

Also, those Clinton and Chavez connections should have Jack Murtha screeching to send the troops "over the horizon" to Okinawa. LOL


""But who's the better/bigger person? The one who goes in and faces whatever the "opposition" throws at them or the ones that ONLY preach to the biased choir?""


Namohood on 9.24.06 trying to make Clinton sound like a statesman.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 3:52pm

Bush is a liar and those who still believe his lies and support his failed policies are either fools or idiots.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 4:43pm

Clinton Meltdown on Fox...
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27268585.shtml?ref=rss

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 8:28pm

"Yeah, there's one goose-stepper on this site (and really, just one) whom I'd like to hear denounce corruption in ALL parties and to offer any ORIGINAL thoughts on participatory democracy. For example, voter suppression. It's an awful thing when any party does it. That would seem to be pretty common ground. A thinking person would think."

Namohood on 9.24.06 expressing his unending tolerance, and refusal to call names. ("He" thinks these thoughts of his are original, never mind that he is parroting Arianna Huffington)Isn't it interesting how these progressives are for free speech and tolerance until it applies to Fox News and all conservatives?

Only cave "men" think that we are all Nazis. Well, cave "men" and Hugo Chavez.

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 9:02pm

"But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror."

Byron York, Genius

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 9/24/06 at 9:26pm

Andy, do you repeat the same message over and over again in different threads?

I think you may want to see someone for your short-term memory issues.

Good luck with that...

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 10:53am

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 10:58am

None of that "comedy" answers Mr. York

"But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror."

Byron York, Genius

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 1:44pm

Of course it is the height of hypocrisy for the (allegedly) pro-tolerance crowd to start questioning someone's sexual preference. It's a strange and twisted tactic for those who are allied with the gay rights movement to try to make an issue out of someone supposedly being gay.

Who cares?

Well, that's just the point: they think we do. They think that they can undermine support for someone among conservatives if they can dredge up some sort of homosexual connection -- or, in this case, just the manufactured whiff of a question.

If it weren't so cruel and small, it would be funny. (It's not just the plaid pants. Some of the commenters on these other sites have been questioning the Roberts' marriage, and even referencing their adopted children. That's just beyond the pale.)

The Left didn't learn their lesson when they tried this with Mary Cheney and it backfired. John Roberts may have played Peppermint Patty back in the day, but here and NOW, the Left is playing Lucy with the football . . .
It's a pity

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 1:48pm

Using the same tactics as his "publishing idol"

Wannabe...

I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea. Just look at the series of photographs they chose: young John in plaid pants, young John with his boys' school pals, young John in a wrestling suit with his fellow wrestlers, John with footballers, and -- the final pic -- John smiling in an all-male wedding photograph.
It's A shame

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 2:08pm

with over 400 views who's worried about "bumping"

just another moonbat conspiracy theory...

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 2:11pm

Seriously. Exodus cannot help you. Jesus is not going to make you burn in hell to admit you like another guy.
You can deny all you want, sad little man, but just because you're the only one who doesn't believe won't make it any less true.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 2:13pm

Does anyone else think he masturbates while he types here?

[Chanticleer148]

Posted: 9/25/06 at 2:30pm

B'Way thanks for the sage advice...

Why not publish it...



and that's one more for the road