Bush suddenly an interesting character again

[sugarpop]

Thanks Redux for pointing all that out.

[TheMercenary]

OH LOOK! a Poll!

[classicman]

Redux, Do you have the actual questions to that poll? Who was defined as "leaders" Were they local, national, not specified? I'm seriously interested. Polls fascinate me. I am one of those people that answer them and surveys all the time. Problem is they mostly offer some really bad choices which virtually force an answer that is usually what the pollster or their backers wanted in the first place.
Many times I have given alternate answers as the options were not accurate enough that the pollster stops in the middle, thanks me and moves on.
I do find it strange that the congressional approval ratings nearly doubled in the last few weeks/months according to the poll you posted.

[classicman]

Hmm...

I decided to look them up myself -
CONGRESS – Job Rating in national polls

The first column is .......date..app..disapp..unsure...+-

Ipsos/McClatchy...............2/6-9/09 37 59 * -22


CNN/Opinion Research........2/7-8/09 29 71 - -42


CBS.................................2/2-4/09 26 62 12 -36

FOX/Opinion Dynamics.....1/27-28/09 40 46 14 -6

FOX/Opinion Dynamics.....1/13-14/09 23 68 10 -45

NBC/Wall Street Journal....1/9-12/09 23 68 9 -45

USA Today/Gallup 1/9-11/09 19 76 5 -57

I must be looking at different data than you.
CNN/Opinion Research ..2/7-8/09.....29.....71.....-.....-42
CNN/Opinion Research 10/3-5/08.....23.....76.....1.....-53

with approval ratings consistently in the 20's over the last two polls I ail to see how suddenly the ratings are jumping into the 50's and 60's as in your poll by the same organization.

Originally Posted by classicman

Hmm...

I decided to look them up myself -
CONGRESS – Job Rating in national polls

The first column is .......date..app..disapp..unsure...+-

Ipsos/McClatchy...............2/6-9/09 37 59 * -22


CNN/Opinion Research........2/7-8/09 29 71 - -42


CBS.................................2/2-4/09 26 62 12 -36

FOX/Opinion Dynamics.....1/27-28/09 40 46 14 -6

FOX/Opinion Dynamics.....1/13-14/09 23 68 10 -45

NBC/Wall Street Journal....1/9-12/09 23 68 9 -45

USA Today/Gallup 1/9-11/09 19 76 5 -57

I must be looking at different data than you.
CNN/Opinion Research ..2/7-8/09.....29.....71.....-.....-42
CNN/Opinion Research 10/3-5/08.....23.....76.....1.....-53

with approval ratings consistently in the 20's over the last two polls I ail to see how suddenly the ratings are jumping into the 50's and 60's as in your poll by the same organization.

Yep...you are looking at different data.

Merc and I have been through this....polls of Congress as a whole are vastly different and have many more variables than polls of 1-2 individuals or polls of the parties.

Congress' low number as a whole (a body of 545) over the last two years are attributed to many factors:

some democratic voters rated Congress very low for not impeaching Bush, some republicans voters because of all the talk of impeaching Bush and holding so many oversight hearings

some democratic voters rated Congress very low for being rolled over on Iraq funding, some republicans because Democrats tried to block Iraq war funding.

some democratic voters rated Congress very low because of all the Republican filibusters in the Senate, some republican because the republicans didnt filibuster enough

When you are rating a person or a party, you are generally rating an easily identified ideology and voting record. When you rate Congress as a whole, there is no single ideology or voting record.

The polls asking the public (of both parties and indys) to rate Congress by party rather than as a single body are one means of addressing some of these questions....and the term "Congressional leaders" would generally be explained by the pollsters.

Job rating - Democrats in Congress

Job rating - Republicans in Congress

Perhaps you understand the difference.....Merc doesnt.

I wont bet my house on poll numbers but results of a poll or poll trends do represent a reasonably valid snapshot of public opinion at and/or over a defined period of time.

There is a reason why both parties spending $millions on polls...it does provide that snapshot.

[TheMercenary]

Bottom line, if you are going to use the most popular polls, is that Congress has had approval ratings well below Bush for over 2 years. Maybe they can ride the coat tails of Obama and gain some ground on his positive energy, but even that appears to be slipping.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I wont bet my house on poll numbers but results of a poll or poll trends do represent a reasonably valid snapshot of public opinion at and/or over a defined period of time.

False. Most of these polls are determined on the opinions of 1000 people give or take. Now given that at any given time the recent population of the United States is 305 million, what you are saying is that you believe that 0.0000327% speaks for the other 99+% of the total US. That would be false.

Was it a telephone poll? Who did they call? Who took the time to answer the questions? What is the demographics? How do you extrapolate that to 305 million people? You can't. Anyone who studies statistics knows that the poll is the weakest form of statistical measure. Straw Poll = Straw Man.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

False. Most of these polls are determined on the opinions of 1000 people give or take. Now given that at any given time the recent population of the United States is 305 million, what you are saying is that you believe that 0.0000327% speaks for the other 99+% of the total US. That would be false.

Was it a telephone poll? Who did they call? Who took the time to answer the questions? What is the demographics? How do you extrapolate that to 305 million people? You can't. Anyone who studies statistics knows that the poll is the weakest form of statistical measure. Straw Poll = Straw Man.

Straw polls, like what you may find on many websites, are not scientific polls like those used by polling organizations.

In a straw poll, anyone can participate.

The credible polling organizations use representative samples to predict the larger universe of voters with a relatively small error of margin.

They are widely accepted in politics, economics, sociology, statistics, and any field of research.

Objective observers know the difference.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

You mean like the Republicans did for six years...running wild, rubber stamping everything Bush wanted,

Running wild? Not at all: discommoding the Left is hardly "running wild" among wise persons. The "rubber stamping" was bipartisan, I'll have you recall and henceforth keep in mind. Keep your memory good, or I'm likely to embarrass you.

giving Bush unprecedented 'war powers' (warrantless wiretaps of citizens, circumventing US treaty obligations...)w/o a Congressional war powers resolution,

Trying to tell somebody who remembers the Congress did authorize the President to do whatever he had to to win the war, and did authorize the President to prosecute the conflict that matters were otherwise, doesn't say a lot for your understanding of recent history, Redux. See how very badly served hewing to liberal-left opinion leaves you? Congress' resolution did tell GWB "go to it." Nobody responsible or thoughtful (in other words, the left-liberals aren't in the picture) says otherwise.

The war powers are by no means "unprecedented." Compared to war powers during declared states of war, the Bush Admininstration's are somewhat reduced -- check what Roosevelt did with strikers during WW2. Granted, what we saw was a try at assuming war powers without the legal aegis of a Congressional declaration of war, which would have completely smoothed the President's road. Those exact war powers are still held by the Obama Presidency, by the way.

politicizing the Dept of Justice,

Here you seem to be mistaking the Bush Administration for its unfortunate predecessor. Watch your sources -- the Left is full of shitheads who assume their audience either has always had bad memories -- or convenient Memory Holes.

nearly doubling the national debt to over $9 trillion

A fiscal sin that is totally bipartisan, so I say you're throwing a null at me. Besides which, the present Administration is on track to double that nine trillion, no? Bipartisan idiocy, helloooo... no wonder I profess a third party. One that hasn't had a chance to run the deficit up or down.

I guess we shall see if the Democrats meet that lofty standard, but people w/o an agenda, by that I mean most Americans, will probably wait beyond one month before making that judgement.

We are gathering data. These data will be reflected in the judgement we make -- now, or ninety days from now. I'm still quite without reasons to trust the Democratic Party.

The Republicans did things I wanted done, that I really wanted done, which I think will ring down the decades as heroic, wise things. The Democrats haven't managed that in any particular since 1991, and I think the last time I voted for a Democratic candidate might have been well before that year. That's a long time for a national party to be consigned to the "Idiots" box.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Running wild? Not at all: discommoding the Left is hardly "running wild" among wise persons. The "rubber stamping" was bipartisan, I'll have you recall and henceforth keep in mind. Keep your memory good, or I'm likely to embarrass you.

Feel free to embarrass me by posting the roll call votes on the initia lPatriot Act or the Iraq war AUMF. I dont think a majority of Democrats voted for either. You might even add the Bush $1.5 trillion tax cuts that mostly benefited the top wage earners.

Trying to tell somebody who remembers the Congress did authorize the President to do whatever he had to to win the war, and did authorize the President to prosecute the conflict that matters were otherwise, doesn't say a lot for your understanding of recent history, Redux. See how very badly served hewing to liberal-left opinion leaves you? Congress' resolution did tell GWB "go to it." Nobody responsible or thoughtful (in other words, the left-liberals aren't in the picture) says otherwise.

Please read the Authorization of Use of Military Force...it does not give the president the authority to do "whatever he had to to win the war" which is how it differs from a Congressional "war powers" resolution. In fact, there were two AUMFs - one immediately following 9/11 (wide bi-partisan support) and a second to authorize the invasion of Iraq (not as bi-partisan).

The war powers are by no means "unprecedented." Compared to war powers during declared states of war, the Bush Admininstration's are somewhat reduced -- check what Roosevelt did with strikers during WW2. Granted, what we saw was a try at assuming war powers without the legal aegis of a Congressional declaration of war, which would have completely smoothed the President's road. Those exact war powers are still held by the Obama Presidency, by the way.

The difference that you fail to recognize from previous presidents (FDR). Congress declared war with a "war powers resolution". They did not for Bush's "war on terrorism"....there was no Congressionsal "declared state of war" as in WW II.

Many (most?) constitutional scholars, conservative and liberal, would suggest that an AUMF is not equal to a War Powers Resolution or Declaration of War.

Next- politicization of the Department of Justice

Here you seem to be mistaking the Bush Administration for its unfortunate predecessor. Watch your sources -- the Left is full of shitheads who assume their audience either has always had bad memories -- or convenient Memory Holes.

Please read the latest report (one of several) by Bush's own DoJ Inspector General (a liberal shithead?) on the politicization of the Dept of Justice over the last eight years. (Report slams politicized hiring process at DoJ) (DoJ Internal Report - pdf)

UG...I am still waiting for you to explain your Republicans = integrity assertion in another discussion in light of what I posted in response.

Originally Posted by Redux

UG...I suggest you start here:

A report on corruption investigations of members of the 109th Congress..the last Republican majority Congress:

Below is a rundown of all 21 lawmakers, current and former. Ten of them are no longer in office. Investigations of seven are part of the Abramoff investigation. Seventeen are Republicans, four are Democrats.

http://www.propublica.org/article/po...gation-wrap-up

You might also want to read about the K Street project.

The Grover Norquist/Tom DeLay/Karl Rove plan of influence peddling with the hope of creating a permanent Republican majority.

Kinda backfired on them after Abramoff's arrest and Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress under an ethical cloud.

You went silent after that...perhaps you were embarrassed?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

They are widely accepted in politics, economics, sociology, statistics, and any field of research.

Objective observers know the difference.

Fail. Widely known as the weakest forms of statistical measure.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Fail. Widely known as the weakest forms of statistical measure.

Cite please! From a reputable source!

That polling using random samples to reflect the larger universe, along with including margins of error, and review of questions for bias, have little validity.

Sorry, but you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Cite please! From a reputable source!

That polling using random samples to reflect the larger universe, along with including margins of error, and review of questions for bias, have little validity.

Sorry, but you are blowing smoke out of your ass.

Anyone who hangs much validity on polls is the smoke coming out of my ass. So far you have not proven a damm thing.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Fail. Widely known as the weakest forms of statistical measure.

Cite please....from a reputable source!

You might start with this publication from the American Statistical Association:

What is a Survey

Today the word "survey" is used most often to describe a method of gathering information from a sample of individuals. This "sample" is usually just a fraction of the population being studied...

In a bona fide survey, the sample is not selected haphazardly or only from persons who volunteer to participate. It is scientifically chosen so that each person in the population will have a measurable chance of selection. This way, the results can be reliably projected from the sample to the larger population...

...When it is realized that a properly selected sample of only 1,000 individuals can reflect various characteristics of the total population, it is easy to appreciate the value of using surveys to make informed decisions in a complex society such as ours. Surveys provide a speedy and economical means of determining facts about our economy and about people's knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and behaviors...

http://www.whatisasurvey.info/

National polling organizations like Gallup, Harris, Zogby, etc have the policies and practices in place to ensure that they meet or surpass the accepted standards of reliability....or they would be out of business very quickly.

Polls you see on the Drudge, CNN.com, etc where anyone can click and submit have no standards.