Will Bush Drop into the 30s?

[Roybert]

The point is that you have 10 polls, all of which are saying basically the same thing and all of which release the methodologies showing how they arrived at their results, and you have 1 other poll that doesn't match the others and doesn't show how they arrived at their results, and you choose to say that the 1 is the "Champagne of Poll takers".

Call me cynical, but I tend to think you say this because this 'Champagne' releases results that tend to reinforce your personal beliefs.

To be even more cynical, I tend to think this makes you look like an idealogue.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Answer the question.
****************************************
I'll think about it.
But why should I your answer your question when you don't answer my questions.
And yes, I still think you were blowing smoke about poll expertise. You could have answered my question about your credentials (if any, which I doubt) with out revealing any personal info.

[Grey]

What question have I failed to answer.

Yes, I could tell you what experience I have with polls without giving away my identity ... if I hadn't already posted a ton of information about myself. Put it all together and you can figure out where I live, the school I go to, my past jobs (which are not common ones), and probably who I am already. This particular information combined with the poll stuff would make it very easy to figure out who I am probably only with some well thought out google research.

Answer the question.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
would make it very easy to figure out who I am probably only with some well thought out google research.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your concerns, but "well thought out" and Felix aren't concepts that are seen together very often.

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
And more polls are done when Bush goes up in approval rating so the "biased liberal media" line doesn't play.

[/ QUOTE ]Weee look at me. I'm faster than the blogs:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/10/10/14731/769

[ElliotR]

NBC/WSJ now at 39:


Even Rasmussen is down to 43 approve/55 disapprove.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? He could drop to 1%. He's a lame duck. It doesn't matter.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]You could not be more wrong. It affects the '06 and '08 elections a great deal, and elections beyond that to a lesser degree. To pretend it doesn't is a rejection of proven political reality.

I'm not trying to gloat, and I'm trying to be objective- this is a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you're saying the approval ratings of a second term president during the FIRST YEAR of that term are strong indicators for how his party will do during the next election?

Sort of like how Clinton had great approval ratings all through his presidency, including his second term, and then Gore wiped the mat with his opponent in the 2000 election?

natedogg

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who cares? He could drop to 1%. He's a lame duck. It doesn't matter.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]You could not be more wrong. It affects the '06 and '08 elections a great deal, and elections beyond that to a lesser degree. To pretend it doesn't is a rejection of proven political reality.

I'm not trying to gloat, and I'm trying to be objective- this is a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you're saying the approval ratings of a second term president during the FIRST YEAR of that term are strong indicators for how his party will do during the next election?

Sort of like how Clinton had great approval ratings all through his presidency, including his second term, and then Gore wiped the mat with his opponent in the 2000 election?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

a) For the first time in something like 50 years, the party in control of the WH picked up seats in Congress in 1998 -- due in part to Clinton's popularity. Likewise, GWB was popular in 2002 and his party picked up seats during a mid-term for the 2nd time in 50 years.

b) Al Gore ran away from Bill Clinton, which almost certainly hurt him. Remember how much Clinton was marginalized at the LA convention and how much Gore loved to say that he was his own man

c) Even though Al Gore lost the electoral college, he still got more popular votes than George W. Bush. I suspect that if he had sent Clinton to Arkansas, Tennessee, or Florida just one more time he would have won the electoral votes of one of those states and would have been elected president.

Anyway, GWB's unpopularity hurts him in other ways. Do you think the wacky-cons would be revolting on Miers this way if he was as popular as he was in 2002 or 2003? And then he probably wouldn't have nominated Miers, he would have nominated a more overtly conservative person because he could have gotten away with it more easily. So if Miers is partly a result of his unpopularity, are you saying that Miers isn't a drag on the GOP at this point?

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
Sort of like how Clinton had great approval ratings all through his presidency, including his second term, and then Gore wiped the mat with his opponent in the 2000 election?

[/ QUOTE ]I wouldn't call winning the popular vote by 1.5 million "wiping the mat", but yes.

Generally when one President holds office for 8 years, his party will lose the White House the next term (3 out of 4 in the 20th century ... and the one time GHWB won, the Dems put forth a pretty weak candidate).

Also, only twice since 1934 has the President's party picked up seats in Congress during an off-year election: Once was during Clinton's term, when he had high approval ratings, and the other time was right after 9-11 when Bush's approval ratings were astronomic, and we were buildling up to Iraq.

Also Clinton didn't have great approval ratings all through his presidency like you state. He was anomaly whose approval ratings rose (from a pretty low beginning) throughout his presidency instead of staying even or dropping. Since polling has come out, he's the only President to do that.

Edit: Damn you Jedster.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Damn you Jedster.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least they won't think we are the same person. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]