Bush may not be so unpopular after all

You people are blinding yourselves. The polls are accurate. Because, for every 41 Bush supporters not polled, 59 non-supporters were not polled. Come the hell on.

And it is not well to hate. Bush isn't the one pulling the strings anyway. But hating others is hating yourself, because we're all one. You must leave behind all emotions but love in order to reconnect with the Infinite One. If you feel yourself beginning to hate or feel anger, tell yourself that it's only you that is feeling the brunt of those emotions. I admit I give in to it sometimes, but now I always realize the futility of it within minutes, rather than hours or days.

 

I wasn't polled either...I can't stand the man...


Doesn't mean their polls are inaccurate. JustWow, you'd be loving the polls if they showed Bush over 50%

 

that does not make them accurate
as many have already said 2000 out of 300 million is not very much. We are talking .000666 percent of the population. The higher percent of the population, the higher accuracy and .000666 is not much at all. Not even considering that you don't know how firly each grouping is being represented.

 

Like Duck said, with only 2000 people, it could very easily be flawed, as much as I'd like to believe hte poll, with 2000 people, it probably doesn't do justice to the feelings of the country.

 

The way I feel, it's not that accurate of a system, but it still does give you a good idea (an estimation I guess) of the situation. So whereas Bush may not be as unpopular as the polls state (which I really doubt is the case), it still shows us that a majority of the country does not agree with Bush. It should also show Democrats that they need to get their shit together because, even though the (majority of) the country disagrees with Bush, they trusted him over Kerry.

 

There's results of 14 different polling groups in the following graph. The points cluster fairly close together.

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif

The times that Bush did have peaks in his approval rating were due mainly to external events and not attributes about himself (911, invasion of Iraq, capture of Saddam, fervor of the 2004 campaign). Those type of events invoke a patriotic fervor in people which tends to get reflected in job approval ratings, even though they may have nothing to do with someone's job performance or abilities. The approval after such events is usually not sustained.

Just about every president would have enjoyed a 90% approval rating after an event such as 911, so it's not something attributable to GW in particular. Bush's dad also enjoyed a 90% rating after invading Kuwait and Iraq but wasn't re-elected. In general, GW has never had a high approval rating that could be attributable to his own merit.

.

 

Approximate baseline without external events:

http://home.flash.net/~lauras34/pollk1.jpg

.

 

PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent news media/nonpartisan national polls

plain and simple: if you support bush after knowing just half of the bad things he's done, you have no conscience. and if you say that you're a hippy bush supporter, you're most likely to be either a psyops agent, or a troll.

a tip: bush is a media puppet that is smarter than he appears, but he is not the guy running the show. so yeah, officially you can blame him for everything, but unofficially you can only blame him for a lot.

 

I think you're right.

Most mainstream america's disaproval is soft, and that can be reversed during a political campaign.

Especially since mainstream america seems to continue to disaprove of Mr. Bush's opposition as well.

However, how will they spin: why Mr Bush allowed a leak-source investigation to continue all this time when Mr Bush knew all this time that he was the source of the leak?

How are they going to retract Mr. Bush's original declaration that: 'the source of the leak, when found, should be fired'?

I know it sounds like a tough sale, but mainstream america are chronic consumers who impulsively buy if the packaging is pretty.

 

yeah, they're fucking retarded like that; like people who drive hummers in a flat urban area.
makes me question the intellect of people who support a very dumb president.

www.idiots4bush.com


"because only an idiot would support such a moron"

I guess all the illiterate hicks who couldn't read the poll question didn't get counted either.

 

And most anti-Bushers would rejoice if Bush was brutally murdered, imo. If he was over 50%, I'd STILL doubt the polls, because my argument would still hold: I was not polled, therefore I must conclude others like me have not been either.

I'm saying that in my opinion we cannot know how popular Bush REALLY is if we dont know the opinion of EVERY person in the country.

 

Those polls only further back up my argument. Not everyone participated in them. And as for my conscience, let's say it's more at ease knowing I actually stand by the man for what is right!

 

Look, Justwow, those polls are very accurate-they're scientifically conducted. Let's face it-if there was indisputable evidence that Bush had sex with animals, and that he'd never told the truth in his life, you'd STILL support him-you just need to live in an absolute monarchy with Bush as your king!

 

And probably just as many people haven't been polled that DO NOT support Bush. What's your point?

 

uh...no he is.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060424/ts_nm/bush_poll_dc

he makes Nixon look like Kennedy

 

Even if this statement weren't complete nonsense and entirely unprovable, the idea that you think that those who dissent have no respect for the office of President of the United States is galling.

Besides, those of us who disagree with Bush's policies would never want to see him killed; Dick Cheney would be president [gasp].

 

I CONCUR!!!!!

Cheney would definitely be the worse of the two...I think I read somewhere that Cheney's support rating was around 15%...now THAT'S even WORSE!

 

Political managers, advertising buyers and statisticians would disagree with you. Those who employ pollsters want accurate information and pay a lot to get it. Polling a sample of a population is not a major source of error.

But if thinking Bush is popular (or not that unpopular) gives you joy, go for it.

So, you think Bush is popular, do you think his policies are right?

 

That's really fallacious reasoning, it's like saying that I haven't died of a herion overdose, so therefore no one (or atleast people like me) has died of a herion overdose...
Just because you weren't polled doens't mean that everyone who thinks/acts like you wasn't...
Do you see where your argument is flawed. We're doing truth tables in math class and i could draw one up for you if you want.

Look, we could debate endlessly about how polls aren't scientific (they aren't always), but the fact of the matter is that they give a good indication of how someone is percieved, every now and again you get a "dewey defeats truman" but those are a rarity, and now thanks to the multitude of polling agencies, they are lost in the aggregation (the sum of all the polls).

lookit those sites where it shows the different polls done by all the agencies, and how they generally follow the same line. I'm pretty sure that they all aren't asking the same people, but they tend to be grouped close together anyways. This means that each poll's 1000 or so people respond along the same lines, if polls weren't accurate they would be scattered across the graph in a random fashion...

You lost, get over it, move on.