71% Approval Rating

Nuttinbutnet · 03-19-2003, 01:36 PM

Polls taken today show The Presidents approval rating has climbed to 71 since his speech Monday night. Members of the other 29% have already laid plans for Civil Disobedience at the start of the war. Some have announced going further as in trying to shut down major financial centers and Government offices. Some (BLACK BLOC) have proposed to infiltrate certain military facilities in order to disrupt military coordination of the war effort. Looks to me like things could get real hot here at home. I think that anyone who would intentionally do something that puts our troops at further risk than they are already taking, should be viewed as a Domestic Terrorist and should be dealt with accordingly!

1pump · 03-19-2003, 02:07 PM

71% according to who? I doubt if he has that high a rating on ifish.

I'm against this war, but I'm for supporting our military. Once we've gone past the point of no return, there's no use continuing divisive protests here at home. Get 'em in, do the job, get 'em out, and get 'em home.

Snapset · 03-19-2003, 02:27 PM

Focus groups and making decisions based on approval ratings are some of the reasons I had no respect for Clinton. So I can't very well jump up and down saying for "Hooray for Bush's popularity", now can I? :whazzup:

lofty · 03-19-2003, 02:30 PM

I second what 1pump said. Couldn't have said it better myself.

GutZ · 03-19-2003, 03:06 PM

I saw the poll also. It had 326,000 responses. That is a pretty good sample, although it was only by those with access to the internet ...

The link was on MSN this morning. Where did it go?

Stratocaster · 03-19-2003, 03:28 PM

The link was on MSN this morning. Where did it go? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Maybe speyfly is the MSN webmaster.

Cool Texan · 03-19-2003, 03:30 PM

All the terrorist, Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, etc aside... I think we should realize that it is quite likely that innocent people in Iraq are going to die because of this. I know the arguments, the "justifications", etc...and I fully support our troops. But innocent people will die, and that should sadden EVERYONE on this board, and on that poll. I know there are arguments that the population, as a whole though, will be better off once this is done and all that...but look at it this way. Would you be that cheery if it were your husband/wife that had to die? :depressed: I would not. A lot of those people are just like us...caught up in this wild ride. Unfortunately, they are on the receiving side.

My prayers go out for the innocent people over there.

God bless America...and Iraq, Afghanistan, UK, France, and ALL people on this earth.

Sorry, guess I am just getting to be a bit somber as the "countdown" is at 30 minutes. :depressed:

MasterCaster · 03-19-2003, 04:22 PM

It is very sad that innocent people will die but innocent people have been dieing all along as Saddam has had rule over Iraq. I dont get into the types of threads for a reason so Ill make this short and sweet. IT ABOUT DAMN TIME HE IS TAKEN OUT! He had his chance to leave and he made his choice. Now he has to live/die with that choice. With that said I feel very bad that more innocent people will die as this is done. I support out troops all the way.

I dont agree with the way it has been handled by Bush but I hope it is completed this time.

Just my .02

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

Gus Orviston · 03-19-2003, 04:33 PM

Although I like the numbers, that isn't a real statistical poll. It is only a measure of those who had access and volunteered their opinion. In a real pole, you don't volunteer and a specific sample size of the population is predetermined and includes things like diversities in; demographics, fiscal, political, etc...

This is the kind of stuff our local news channels feed us every day. There isn't any substantiative conclusion you can draw fom it.

gus

Silver Hilton · 03-19-2003, 04:37 PM

Bush said recently that he wasn't going to run his government via focus groups. So, if opinion against him doesn't matter, then opinion for him is equally irrelevant, dontcha think?

I don't think one should give much credence to any of these polls, whether you agree with them or not. A recent (January) poll found that that 78% of Americans believed that Iraq and Hussein were directly responsible for 9/11. Not assisting Al Queada, directly responsible. When the broad public has such a poor knowledge of the facts, what does it matter what they think? A long time ago, 95% of the people in the world believed the world was flat. Didn't make it true.

This problem is compounded by the Bush administration's spin-meistering of the situation, and the american media's sheeplike trumpeting of the administration's press releases as hot new news. It's hard to know what to think when we likely only have half the story.

Rip'N'Lips · 03-25-2003, 09:32 AM

I heard of a report that is saying over 40% of American's believe we are fighting Sadaam/Iraq for his involvement in September 11th.....

Really makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Thanks,

Rip'N'Lips

OldRedSled · 03-25-2003, 10:43 AM

polls are only accurate if they follow a very specific cryteria.

1)The Sample must be geographically diverse enough

2)those polled must be selected randomly enough to ensure a proper cross-section of US population.

3)accurate polls must have a sample size of at least 1500 people

these first three are pretty easy to achieve but the most important aspect of polling is the wording of the question. The adding of a few words in a question can schew the results dramatically. Example:

do you support the war in Iraq?
or
do you support the president's posistion for the need to go to war in Iraq?

the first question will proably yeild much higer numbers of support because you are asking if someone supports those fighting in the war ,american military personell, along with the war itself.

the second question may yeild much lower support because you have assigned the idea to president Bush and a War. Not everyone supports Bush's stance, but may support the troops. Bush is a politicized figure and other political circumstances may cause one to disagree with Bush. ANd so on and so on.

SO when looking at polls notice the sample size ,which is always published with the results, if its less than 1500 be suspicious. Look who its coming from Like a respectable polling firm like Zogby or Reuters who would be not willing sacrafice their standing to schew results. Finally look at what the poll is asking versus what its results are being applied too.

internet polls are very very unreliable, they require internet access and accessability. A poll on the republican national web sight will yeild dramatically different results than one on the Anarchists of AMerica.

ORS [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img]

AND Oh yea, If tortured enough STATISTICS will confess to anything.....

foxer · 03-25-2003, 03:39 PM

Hook ya beat me to it. I would like to see a poll of people to see what they think of the so called peace protesters. That would be fun. I dont start with the "its only a small group"

speyfly · 03-25-2003, 03:49 PM

Ya know foxer, hook and the rest of you that thinks that george is gawd�s gift to this country should really do some research. With the war going on, yes the country will support any boob that is in office but if you read the polls on elections, any un-named democrat will beat him like a stepchild right now. Just by supporting the guy that occupies the White House with a war going on right now says nothing about the job he has done, is doing and will do. This country won't take another chance on someone that is not qualified to hold the top office of the United States of America.

King Fisher · 03-25-2003, 04:27 PM

Let's not get overheated especially when it comes to fiction. Please do not make accusations not based on fact speyfly. We need to support our troops and back what is going on. Harsh words are not going to help-it's too late. The war has begun. My brother in law is being deployed this week, I wish he didn't have to- but he has the guts, like all of our other armed forces to fight for our country and non of them would have it any other way. We didn't lay on our backs for freedom-we fought. Unfortunately it has to go that way, but it does, and we need to support it. Our President is only looking for the protection of our country.That's my 2 cents. God Bless America!!!

Stratocaster · 03-25-2003, 05:25 PM

The democrats need a canidate with conviction i.e. backbone, in order to beat Bush (depending on the outcome of the war)not just some no-namer.And no, im not a republican.

Silver Hilton · 03-25-2003, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Capt. Hook:
So Silver Hilton, what you are saying is that if the public was 70% against Bush you would disregard that also? Polls may not be totally accurate but even with the error factor figured in they still show a majority in favor. Of course they are all uneducated masses and not nearly as informed as you or I, Right?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, Bush has as much as said that he doesn't care if public opinion is against him, right? His supporters tout that as a strength, and while I don't agree with him, I actually agree with that. We elect representatives to go and figure out what the right thing to do is, and then do it, not to serve as a simple conduit for the last poll. Or at least that's what I want. However, the American people seem to have forgotten about that element of our government. Now they want people who will simply vote as we wish them too, rather than to lead us to what is right for us.

The fallacy of polls is that they measure opinion. They do not measure any expertise on the subject. A poll taken last fall, when this drumbeat was happening, showed that 78% of Americans believed that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. NOt partly responsible, not involved, directly responsible. Well, anyone who has done any reading at all knows that this is simply not true. It is debatable whether Iraq supported Al Quaeda, but it is clear that Al Qeada and Bin Laden are highly separate entities from the Iraqis and Hussein, and that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the prime actors.

So, since in at least one poll the vast majority of americans showed themselves to be pretty uneducated on an issue of major importance to forming an intelligent opinion about our policy in Iraq, I tend to view results of subsequent opinion polls as measuring mostly the success of the Bush administration's PR machine. So, those polls are intersting if you are trying to analyse US politics, but they have pretty low information value when it comes to trying to understand what is really going on in the world. These people are just parrotting what they last saw on CNN or Fox News.

To more directly answer your question, what 10% or 50% or 90% of americans think on any topic is interesting, but irrelevant to what I think on a topic. I form my opinions for myself from the data available. I care a lot about what experts on a topic think - they often know something. I like data about the topic - facts. What the man in the street thinks about, say, nuclear fusion, really doesn't matter much, because, he/she doesn't know anything about nuclear fusion. So why should I care about their opinion as I am trying to form my own? And why should you?

Joe Schwab · 03-25-2003, 11:06 PM

So Silver Hilton, what you are saying is that if the public was 70% against Bush you would disregard that also? Polls may not be totally accurate but even with the error factor figured in they still show a majority in favor. Of course they are all uneducated masses and not nearly as informed as you or I, Right?

[ 03-25-2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

foxer · 03-26-2003, 08:00 AM

Well spey, if any demo would beat him now why are they not falling all over themselves to get the demo bid? Wheres Hilary? Why dont you just admit that if the military finds WMD and the war is over fairly swiftly then Bush's rating will soar! Now, I dont know where you got the idea that I think Bush is god's gift. Bush is no Reagan, but he is a hell of a lot better than Gore woulda been.

Cool Texan · 03-26-2003, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by foxer:
Bush is no Reagan, but he is a hell of a lot better than Gore woulda been.

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Stratocaster · 03-26-2003, 09:52 AM

Ill totally agree with that one. But speyfly will want your source. :grin:

Joe Schwab · 03-26-2003, 07:57 PM

Lessee, We got Joe Lieberman, Al Sharpton, some lawyer who made millions suing people, by golly I think we'll beat ol GW this time around.

Why don't we just throw out all those uneducated voters ballots and then maybe Al will get back in? After all they don't know what they voted for and we could just go with Silver Hilton and those he approves of.

Silver Hilton · 03-26-2003, 08:05 PM

You mean George Bush Senior? He's the last candidate that I liked voting for. Did it twice, as a matter of fact.

Oops, I forgot, you think i'm a liberal.

[ 03-26-2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]