Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: Bush Approval Down to 24%, Congress at 11%

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poll: Bush Approval Down to 24%, Congress at 11%

    it figures! with morons like these, no wonder the US citizens, in their collective wisdom start to have such low opinion of the congress and pres. was there ever a lower poll???

    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...edName=topNews


    snips:

    The Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures the mood of the country, also fell from 98.8 to 96 -- the second consecutive month it has dropped. The number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped four points to 66 percent.

    Bush's job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month's record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month's record low.

    "There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them," pollster John Zogby said. "They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don't believe they are going to get it."

    The dismal assessment of the Republican president and the Democratic-controlled Congress follows another month of inconclusive political battles over a future path in Iraq and the recent Bush veto of an expansion of the program providing insurance for poor children.

    The bleak mood could present problems for both parties heading into the November 2008 election campaign, Zogby said.

    "Voter turnout could still be high next year, but the mood has turned against incumbents and into a 'throw the bums out' mindset," Zogby said
    "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

  • #2
    It figures that the media would want to emphasize Bush's ratings - never mind that he's doing twice as well as the Congress.

    Comment


    • #3
      Again, polls are like a$$holes...ANYONE can put whatever they want into them, but they also know what's coming out in the end...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by CPangracs View Post
        Again, polls are like a$$holes...ANYONE can put whatever they want into them, but they also know what's coming out in the end...
        Again, polls that are taken by established polling companies have no business interest in rigging the polls results. That simply results in less business and revenue for the company.

        The RZI started in July of this year and will run until the Election in 08. The same questions will be asked every month. July was the first time the poll was given and represents the Baseline score of 100. The other months will compare to this baseline. What we will get is a trend line of poll respondents mood about the country and the political leadership.

        The Reuters site for the poll:

        http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/rzi

        Here's the Zogby site. It list the question asked (this is Sept's data).

        http://www.zogby.com/wfrzi.pdf

        You can easily see if they asked loaded question etc.

        Do any questions seem loaded? It's time to show why it's BS......
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Combatengineer View Post
          Again, polls that are taken by established polling companies have no business interest in rigging the polls results. That simply results in less business and revenue for the company.

          The RZI started in July of this year and will run until the Election in 08. The same questions will be asked every month. July was the first time the poll was given and represents the Baseline score of 100. The other months will compare to this baseline. What we will get is a trend line of poll respondents mood about the country and the political leadership.

          The Reuters site for the poll:

          http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/rzi

          Here's the Zogby site. It list the question asked (this is Sept's data).

          http://www.zogby.com/wfrzi.pdf

          You can easily see if they asked loaded question etc.

          Do any questions seem loaded? It's time to show why it's BS......
          There are polling companies, and then there's polling companies. Why are the Zogby figures so much lower than those of Gallup or Ramussen, I wonder? I take reference from the Realclearpolitics average - at least that helps to alleviate the skewing to either side of politics.

          Comment


          • #6
            Congress, as a whole, almost always has low approval ratings...But 11% is tough to achieve.

            It would have been interesting if the poll also asked people what they thought of their own Senators and Representatives...People generally dislike Congress; but are OK with their own representatives.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
              There are polling companies, and then there's polling companies. Why are the Zogby figures so much lower than those of Gallup or Ramussen, I wonder? I take reference from the Realclearpolitics average - at least that helps to alleviate the skewing to either side of politics.
              As long as they publish the actual questions asked, which they do in this case, the onus is on the person claiming that the poll is skewed. Which question skews the result? Why?

              You need to compare what Zogby is asking compared to the others. The other thing to get from these polls is the trend itself. They ask the same questions monthly, where is the trend line going. Much more IMO important then the actual numbers for a given month.....
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
                It figures that the media would want to emphasize Bush's ratings - never mind that he's doing twice as well as the Congress.
                Congress and the President were in a race. The President came in Second the Congress next to last. SPIN it what ever way you want.

                They can't go much lower, at least not in the polls.

                HP
                "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Combatengineer View Post
                  Again, polls that are taken by established polling companies have no business interest in rigging the polls results. That simply results in less business and revenue for the company.

                  The RZI started in July of this year and will run until the Election in 08. The same questions will be asked every month. July was the first time the poll was given and represents the Baseline score of 100. The other months will compare to this baseline. What we will get is a trend line of poll respondents mood about the country and the political leadership.

                  The Reuters site for the poll:

                  http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/rzi

                  Here's the Zogby site. It list the question asked (this is Sept's data).

                  http://www.zogby.com/wfrzi.pdf

                  You can easily see if they asked loaded question etc.

                  Do any questions seem loaded? It's time to show why it's BS......
                  Sure...what constitutes "a good job" or "poor performance"? If you look at all of the other questions and try and balance those answers with "poor performance", it doesn't work...

                  Overall, how would you rate the performance of U.S. economic policy? FAIR/GOOD/EXCELLENT (71.8&#37

                  How would you rate your personal financial situation? GOOD/EXCELLENT (56.1%)

                  How proud are you of the United States? FAIRLY/VERY (87.2%)

                  Thinking about threats to America from abroad, how safe do you feel? FAIRLY/VERY (80.8%)

                  How secure do you feel in your current job? FAIRLY/VERY (64.1%)

                  How confident are you that your children will have a better life than you? FAIRLY/VERY (64.5%)


                  Let's take a look at the question about Job Security - A FULL 30 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE POLLED WERE EITHER NOT SURE OR NOT EVEN EMPLOYED!

                  Even deeper than that, to see so much domestic satisfaction is completely opposite to the Presidential job performance rating, and is driven by emotion and rhetoric instead of logic and attention to the important indicators of how our President is doing.

                  We, as a nation, are constantly bombarded with the negative aspects of any and all polls, only to have the good stuff omitted on purpose, whether it be by the polling companies or the media...this has a cascading effect with the masses and their collective consciousness. "Even though my life is going great, there MUST be something wrong with the President's performance with such low approval ratings!"

                  Polls are bogus anyway, especially when only 1011 people are polled. Who are they? What is their political affiliation? What is their income and job status?

                  Ever wonder why people who are conducting polls rarely approach you when you have your high 'n tight haircut for drill? I majored in Sociology...there was almost an entire semester that addressed nothing but polls. While we weren't outright told to form questions and select respondents who fit a certain profile, it was painfully obvious to all of us how easy it would be to entirely skew any poll we wanted.

                  Lastly, a poll presumes intellectual honesty on the part of the respondent. Even though any outward motivation may be indistinguishable, there is always something I like to call the "appearance" factor...and it is ALWAYS greater than +/- 3%! This is when a public poll is conducted face-to-face. I have, since retiring and growing a beard, been asked to participate in polls conducted at malls and such. I participated once, and I won't do it again. I was approached by a college student who asked me questions about the war in Iraq. I was candid and honest to her queries, and she was shaking her head, saying "Are you SERIOUS!", etc. She quickly ended the interview after I told her that I was an Army veteran, and that I felt her questions were leading and based not on reality, but on what she had already perceived the results were going to be.

                  If it were someone else, say, a young man the same age as the pollster, he may have answered in ways he thought would ingratiate himself with the pollster.

                  As for Zogby or any other polling body, they too have an agenda...they get PAID. If that's not a motivator to at least phrase questions or leave them ambiguous enough to completely invalidate the results, I don't know what is.
                  Last edited by CPangracs; 18 Oct 07, 10:50.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wonder how this factors the US into the Freedom House classifications. When your government only represents 11-24% of it's people, shouldn't FOXNews's claim that Bush is 'the leader of the free world' be predicated on our membership to it?
                    Last edited by macgregr; 18 Oct 07, 12:24.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by CPangracs View Post
                      Sure...what constitutes "a good job" or "poor performance"? If you look at all of the other questions and try and balance those answers with "poor performance", it doesn't work...

                      Overall, how would you rate the performance of U.S. economic policy? FAIR/GOOD/EXCELLENT (71.8%)

                      How would you rate your personal financial situation? GOOD/EXCELLENT (56.1%)

                      How proud are you of the United States? FAIRLY/VERY (87.2%)

                      Thinking about threats to America from abroad, how safe do you feel? FAIRLY/VERY (80.8%)

                      How secure do you feel in your current job? FAIRLY/VERY (64.1%)

                      How confident are you that your children will have a better life than you? FAIRLY/VERY (64.5%)


                      Let's take a look at the question about Job Security - A FULL 30 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE POLLED WERE EITHER NOT SURE OR NOT EVEN EMPLOYED!

                      Even deeper than that, to see so much domestic satisfaction is completely opposite to the Presidential job performance rating, and is driven by emotion and rhetoric instead of logic and attention to the important indicators of how our President is doing.

                      We, as a nation, are constantly bombarded with the negative aspects of any and all polls, only to have the good stuff omitted on purpose, whether it be by the polling companies or the media...this has a cascading effect with the masses and their collective consciousness. "Even though my life is going great, there MUST be something wrong with the President's performance with such low approval ratings!"

                      Polls are bogus anyway, especially when only 1011 people are polled. Who are they? What is their political affiliation? What is their income and job status?

                      Ever wonder why people who are conducting polls rarely approach you when you have your high 'n tight haircut for drill? I majored in Sociology...there was almost an entire semester that addressed nothing but polls. While we weren't outright told to form questions and select respondents who fit a certain profile, it was painfully obvious to all of us how easy it would be to entirely skew any poll we wanted.

                      Lastly, a poll presumes intellectual honesty on the part of the respondent. Even though any outward motivation may be indistinguishable, there is always something I like to call the "appearance" factor...and it is ALWAYS greater than +/- 3%! This is when a public poll is conducted face-to-face. I have, since retiring and growing a beard, been asked to participate in polls conducted at malls and such. I participated once, and I won't do it again. I was approached by a college student who asked me questions about the war in Iraq. I was candid and honest to her queries, and she was shaking her head, saying "Are you SERIOUS!", etc. She quickly ended the interview after I told her that I was an Army veteran, and that I felt her questions were leading and based not on reality, but on what she had already perceived the results were going to be.

                      If it were someone else, say, a young man the same age as the pollster, he may have answered in ways he thought would ingratiate himself with the pollster.

                      As for Zogby or any other polling body, they too have an agenda...they get PAID. If that's not a motivator to at least phrase questions or leave them ambiguous enough to completely invalidate the results, I don't know what is.
                      The polls that are conducted face to face in malls etc are commercial marketing polls or are being conducted by the issue group itself. Nothing like the Zogby's and the international political polling companies. Those are random telephone numbers spread across the country etc. That's why they do it that way, to reduce the very factors that you point out.

                      The countries satisfaction about there own lives (being high in the poll) vs the Presidents approval rating (low) are not out of line. The President's policy's have very little to do with an individual's situation at the current time......

                      We are polling the peoples opinion and feelings, not their knowledge of the economy etc. It makes no difference if they are informed or not, the poll is seeking to see how they feel about the issues.

                      Only 1101 people polled,... you need to go back to stat class.....
                      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                      “To talk of many things:
                      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                      Of cabbages—and kings—
                      And why the sea is boiling hot—
                      And whether pigs have wings.”
                      ― Lewis Carroll

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The sad fact of the whole bit is that neither the Congress nor the President seem concerned as to how they are perceived. When the representatives of "the people" don't care what the people think about them....... we have a serious problem here.

                        I'm telling you, three elections running, starting now, reelect no one! In six years we will have a totally responsive Government as it pertains to the needs and wants of the people.

                        That is never going to happen. Why? Because this country has been polarized, folded, spindled and mutilated into conflicting little "blocks" of voters all with their selfish needs placed in front of the country's.

                        Kennedy was very clairvoyant when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you...." A democracy begins to fail when the voters realize that they can vote more money for themselves out of the public coffers.

                        Lastly, despite the fact that many of the professional politicians running for President claim to be "unifiers" and blather about "bringing the country together", the fact remains that we, the voters, are much more managable when splintered into warring camps than when we speak with one voice.

                        Divide and conquer doesn't only work in warfare, it works for Government supression of their population too.

                        GG

                        P.S. That any party would offer for the Presidency members of that 11% approved group..... defies logic.
                        "The will of a section rooted in self interest, should not outweigh the vital interests of a whole people." -Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-

                        "Fanatics of any sort are dangerous." -GG-

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Can't add anything at all to Mort's characterization and the facts presented...

                          Polls Aside, Bush Is 'On Offense,' White House Says

                          By Mort Kondracke
                          President Bush's approval ratings are still in the low 30s, but White House aides insist that he's now on policy offense across the board.
                          From Iraq to SCHIP to the budget, energy policy, trade, terrorist surveillance, the mortgage crisis and even prescription drug costs and student test scores, top Bush aides say that events are turning in his direction -- and that they are trying to get the word out more effectively.
                          Indeed, there is some truth in what they say. For sure, developments in Iraq have taken a distinctly favorable turn, opening up the possibility that Bush could claim success for his policies by the end of his term.
                          GA_googleFillSlot("RCP_Article_Middle_300x250");
                          Legislatively, Democrats have all but declared defeat in their effort to stop the war. At a luncheon with reporters last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) admitted that "when we said we would end the war, we never said that we had the veto pen or the signature pen. ... I don't disagree with the public evaluation that we have not done well in ending this war."
                          With Republicans sticking by him, Bush has won the running room to pursue his policies at least until next March -- and probably through 2008.
                          On the ground, Gen. David Petraeus' "surge" strategy seems to be working, with Sunni Arabs decisively turning against al-Qaida and Shiites beginning to reject the Mahdi Army militia of Muktada al-Sadr.
                          U.S. casualty levels are down to their lowest levels since 2003, Iraqi security force deaths are at their lowest level ever, and civilian deaths in September were down 77 percent below the level of last year.
                          "Democrats are stuck in the negative" on the war, a White House aide said in a session with columnists last week. "They are without a positive narrative," although he said -- this was last Friday -- that the media had yet to catch up with favorable developments.
                          But the administration's "good news is no news" problem eased significantly this week when two of Bush's harshest journalistic critics -- Tom Ricks and Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post -- wrote a front-page story headlined, "Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled."
                          That Democrats are still "stuck in the negative" was demonstrated by the fact that their frontrunning presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is still quoting the ill-timed charge of Army Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, a former U.S. commander in Iraq, that the war is an "unending nightmare."
                          If the war proves not to be an unending nightmare, after all, it would certainly be a boon for Bush -- and would raise the question of whether Democrats can ever be relied upon to pursue a foreign policy endeavor if the going gets difficult.
                          Of course, the war is far from won -- Iran is still fomenting mayhem -- and, as yet, there is little indication that the public has caught up with the good news from Iraq. Bush's approval rating on the war hung at only 30 percent at the end of last month.
                          Getting the word out about White House initiatives is now the job of longtime GOP operative Ed Gillespie, one of several remarkable hires -- for the waning years of an unpopular presidency -- overseen by White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.
                          One of Bolten's other recruits, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, has been fashioning strategies to avoid allowing the subprime mortgage crisis to damage the whole U.S. economy. And Bush's choice as attorney general, Michael Mukasey, is virtually assured of confirmation.
                          Part of Bush's tactic for regaining the initiative is to use his veto pen aggressively -- starting with the $35 billion bipartisan children's health bill and continuing with various appropriations and Congress' energy bill.
                          There is considerable demagoguery in the administration's arguments against SCHIP and proposed Democratic spending -- such as the Bush claim, repeated in his press conference on Tuesday, that families with incomes up to $83,000 would be covered by SCHIP.
                          Sponsors of the bill, including Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), have repeatedly denounced the claim, pointing out that while the measure allows New York state to pursue that level of funding, the administration is empowered to reject it, as it has.
                          The SCHIP veto and Bush's threats to veto appropriations bills as "fiscally irresponsible" -- even though they come in at only 1.8 percent above his own budget -- are designed to encourage a demoralized GOP base.
                          Bush also is trumpeting the facts that the federal budget deficit is half of what it was two years ago and that in September job growth had continued for 49 months, a new record. He is using the fact that exports are now the prime driver of economic growth to push for Congressional approval of trade deals with Peru, Colombia, Panama and Korea.
                          In addition, White House aides point out, Bush's Medicare prescription drug program last year cost $4 billion less than forecast owing to competitive forces that Democrats oppose and some school test scores are up, assertedly thanks to No Child Left Behind.
                          Bush evidently has convinced House Democrats not to complicate relations with Turkey by passing an Armenian genocide resolution, and the White House thinks it can win a battle over terrorist surveillance policy.
                          Add it all up and, as Bush said Tuesday, he's far from irrelevant. But he's still a long way from being a popular president whose record will help his party.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Combatengineer View Post

                            ...The countries satisfaction about there own lives (being high in the poll) vs the Presidents approval rating (low) are not out of line. The President's policy's have very little to do with an individual's situation at the current time......
                            I don't trust people who are paid to do a poll - they know exactly what is desired by the people who hire them. They truly have just as much reason to skew as anyone else...maybe more so.

                            As for your claim above...Really? And where are YOUR stats to back that up? You don't have any because it's a bogus argument. You are trying to tell me that the economic and domestic policies set forth by the US government have no effect on me?

                            Why ask the questions then? What relevance at all could it have? Why ask me about my personal economic or job views if they aren't tied to my overall happiness with MY situation? Again, this goes back to poll motivation and ambiguous or intentionally broad questions.

                            Even more, what you claim then tells me that the country has no use for the poll, simply because "The President's current performance has no effect on any one person's life."

                            I think someone needs to go back to logic class. No smilies on that one.
                            Last edited by CPangracs; 18 Oct 07, 12:07.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CPangracs View Post
                              I don't trust people who are paid to do a poll - they know exactly what is desired by the people who hire them. They truly have just as much reason to skew as anyone else...maybe more so.

                              As for your claim above...Really? And where are YOUR stats to back that up? You don't have any because it's a bogus argument. You are trying to tell me that the economic and domestic policies set forth by the US government have no effect on me?

                              Why ask the questions then? What relevance at all could it have? Why ask me about my personal economic or job views if they aren't tied to my overall happiness with MY situation? Again, this goes back to poll motivation and ambiguous or intentionally broad questions.

                              Even more, what you claim then tells me that the country has no use for the poll, simply because "The President's current performance has no effect on any one person's life."

                              I think someone needs to go back to logic class. No smilies on that one.
                              There are only 4-5 national and international political polling companies, and very few large customers (news org, political parties, candidates for national office) that will pay them to conduct polls like the one we are discussing it's a very competitive business. If they were to give the customer "the answers" that they are looking for and time and again the information was incorrect, they'd soon be out of business. Come on, market forces drive the need for good information from a information delivering businesses. Hows that logic for you, our don't you believe in Market Forces? Isn't that what a good right winger believes?

                              The US President has very little effect on the day to day, month to month micro economic picture. The executive branch has very little to do with it either (The Federal Reserve is not a part of the EB). A couple times a decade we get large tax cuts or tax increases (Clinton in 94, Bush in 01-03) or important trade agreements (NAFTA in 9x) that effect a large portion of the US economy. The US economy is to large for a single source to influence me at the micro-micro level.

                              The country doesn't have a need or use for any poll. News companies and polling companies do them because groups and people will read them, i.e. paying customers are interested in them. Market forces once again.

                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X