That's why any poll, whether this one or one about the standing of the Republican candidates, is meaningless. Besides, with all the bullshit in DC re the debt ceiling, most people (me included) are more pissed at government than ever. I'll bet current polls put the standing of Congress near an all-time low. Pri, I don't think this poll tells us anything we didn't already know.
Conservatives don't like Obama because they think he is a Maoist/Stalinist/Black Kenyan Hitler. Democrats don't like Obama because he campaigned as a progressive and has governed as a conservative.
You can always find one somewhere that will say what you want to hear.
The only poll that will count is the one that happens on Election Day in November of 2012.
It is true that the only one that counts is on election day. However, I don't think you can dismiss them that quickly. (If you can, why do both major parties conduct their own polling?)
You say that you can always find one somewhere that supports what you want to hear, and that is true. It is like experts. There is always one.
HOWEVER, when all respected polls show the same trend, even though they may disagree on specific numbers, it does indicate something is happening. Thus, if Pew, Gallup, CNN, Rasmussen, Fox, Reuters, Bloomberg, and six others show a trend, it is not "finding one person somewhere."
True, things may change. Obama was going slowly but consistently down in the polls before the financial crisis. Then the focus of the election shifted.
No one knows what events will happen in 3, 6, or 9 months that may impact people's views. It could go either way, depending on the news.
But that said, if for 6 months people are trending in a certain way, it isn't meaningless.
(PS. Look at the times that Obama jumped up in th polls and see what was happening. The shooting AZ and bin Laden, both gave him a temporary boost, the biggest jumps he had. But those are temporary in nature and an easy chance to be "presidential.")
The only poll that will count is the one that happens on Election Day in November of 2012.
but my point was not about long-term trends but about how people grab one poll and post its findings. I'm sure I can find a poll out there that says whatever I want it to say.
The parties do the polls for many reasons. Sometime just to prop up their own standings or to tear down their opponents' stances.
I dismiss most of them until we get to the final few weeks of the election cycle. And, even then, I take them with a grain of salt.
Recognizing the flaws in polls, how do you determine what "The People" are thinking?
For example, if you are discussing whether to raise taxes, cut services, fire workers, build a new park, or anything that depends on public support, do you ever say, "Well, most people ....."
Do you ever consider "popular opinion" as part of either your arguments or beliefs?
If so, and you dismiss polls, is there anything you believe in, other than the people at the coffee shop or locker room?
Polls are like psychiatrists. I have a totally skeptical view, but at times its the only game in town.
The parties do the polls for many reasons. Sometime just to prop up their own standings or to tear down their opponents' stances.
I dismiss most of them until we get to the final few weeks of the election cycle. And, even then, I take them with a grain of salt.
I agree polls aren't completely meaningless. They are the best we have at any given time. Each party does its own polling and I've actually worked with a guy whose firm is big in that area. He's very good. But polls will only take you so far. The risk is that politicians are led by the polls to do what they think people want, instead of actually leading people where they need to go.
that indicate who someone will vote for in an election. Not the polls that try to gauge interest of lack thereof in a topic or an issue. Those tend to be a little less doctored and may carry more truth.
I just have little faith in many of the Presidential polls. I know that the science behind them has gotten much better over the years, but I remember a late poll -- a day or two before the election -- that had Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan too close to call in the 1980 election. Needless to say, that poll was way off. I guess that instance sort of tainted my view of polls since then.
that put Kerry ahead. Didn't quite work out that way, did it?
the Reagan ass-kicking of Carter.
to be director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proves Obama has no backbone. Up to two weeks ago, President Obama was sure to nominate Elizabeth Warren. It is a wonder, why feminist groups, Ralph Nader, consumer protection activists etc. have not spoken their outrage. Dr. Warren was the one who has been front and center in coordinating the efforts to institute the CFPB. The biggest problem I have with Obama is that he is a fraud. As I have said in previous posts Obama lies.
President Obama by not selecting Dr. Warren to be head of the CFPB, had the opportunity to be a Franklin Roosevelt when FDR selected Francis Perkins to be Secretary of Labor. Earlier in the year, Obama let down the American people when his adminstration approved the Comcast and NBC merger. With his instigation of the "Health Care Bill" , approving mergers such as Comcast/NBC and by not nominating Elizabeth Warren, President Obama has shown his colors. President Obama is lackey for big government and big corporations. If liberals and progressives cannot see the fraudulent attributes of Obama; then willywonka, incky, priapus et al have their heads up where the sun does not shine. No! instead willywonka, INCKY, priapus want to talk about BUSH and WMD. BFD.
-- Modified on 7/21/2011 11:12:38 PM
Now speaking of outrage, have you checked out the Rep West (R-FL) vs Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) middleweight fight? West is black and Wasserman is female. Well, the women are out in force on this one. So far, West has been called a misogynist, angry black man, and his email is tantamount to sexual harassment, and fostering a hostile work environment. The email from West to Wasserman was pretty funny.
Is it a double standard, absolutely. The guy Obama nominated to replace Warren is just as liberal.
-- Modified on 7/21/2011 10:45:11 PM
Now I hope you know that I respect you, but you've gone off the deep end on this one.
I was pretty pissed that Obama passed on Warren, but when GOP Senators are putting holds on nominations, there's not much he could do besides a recess appointment, and he's already had to do that plenty. This doesn't mean that I don't blame Obama for pussying out of that fight. There was some outrage from Obama's base, but as Warren herself said, this agency was more important to her than the job.
Congressman West, on the other hand, well that was a different story. West called her "vile", "unprofessional", a "coward", and that Schultz was "not a Lady".
That's a little different then not going ahead and doing a recess appointment when Congress has been in session for weeks working on the debt limit.
Between the endless bills these Tea Partiers have passed to put government regulation on every woman's vagina in the name of being "pro-life", Wisconsin Republicans choking their female coworkers, running candidates that plead no contest to domestic abuse, and West going on this passive-aggressive tirade, I'd say this brand of Republicans have a very serious problem with women.
Ambassdor Bolton could not win nomination. So what, Bush put Bolton on an interim basis. BUsh did what he said he would do.
Obama could have repeated the tactic with Elizabeth Warren. Damn, how can you not see Obama is pissing all over the progressives and liberals. It's not just not nominating Warren, it's the Comcast/NBC merger, reneging on single-payer health care, Gitmo, the mortgage relief program, not prosecuting Wall Street swindlers etc. Obama is a fraud. Why do you, incky, priapus keep defending his failures?
Now as a conservative I am glad he did not advocate single-payer health care or removing Gitmo. However the current health care bill is a fiasco.
Obama did virtually the same thing when he made her a Presidential advisor. In that role she has assembled the entire agency and accomplished exactly what she would have had she gone through what would have been a political farce. If she thought it was so degrading, why'd she do it? In fact, she's done such a good job that the banking industry, her main detractor, has praised her efforts. I'd say Obama and Warren succeeded in doing what they needed to do. It's called pragmatism.
Bush did the same thing with Bolton, who served a year as UN Ambassador. For you to not see the parallel, and instead to cite the Bolton example is making your own point is truly amazing. It just proves you're so partisan you can't see straight.
PS: Oh,well, at least you hate the Red Sox.
-- Modified on 7/22/2011 8:23:54 AM
that Obama reneging on his promise on NOv. 4, 2008 to fundamentally change we govern. If cannot see the fraud Obama is, you are blind. The Bolton analogy may be a poor one but the point is, Bush was loyal to his man. How can you expect Obama to be loyal to the principles of he progressive movement when he cannot manage to be loyal to his people. Presidential advisor does not require senate confirmation, so that is no good.
Why was it important to have Warren as director of the CFPB? I'll tell you, your a bureaucrat and you should know this, by having Warren as the first director of the CFPB should could define the role and responsibilities for the CFPB for years to come. She could hire managers, rank and file who believe in the mission she outlines for years to come. Listen I could care less about the CFPB and now without Warren the agency has now become irrelevant. Just another bureaucracy with eternal life.
Again with Warren, President Obama could have been like FDR when he nominated Francis Perkins to be Secretary of Labor. This is not a partisan issue this is a character issue. If I was of the minions that worked day and night to elect Obama I would be pissed and I am surprised you are not.
It is impossible to argue with someone who thinks black is white and white is black. "Bush was loyal to his man" by not putting him through the nominating process. But Obama was a liar for doing the same thing? She created the agency and hired all the top people. Did you not know this? That's what she's been doing for the past six months. If the agency becomes irrelevant it will be because the Republicans in the House, a/k/a lackeys for the banking industry, defund it. If you have to go back 70 years to find the Perkins example it shows how bankrupt your thinking is
-- Modified on 7/23/2011 12:00:34 AM
Certain organizations are very selective on who they go after. One organization in particular is NOW, or any feminists organization for that matter. Why didn't they go after Obama for not supporting Warren. I mean, didn't she build this new consumer agency from the ground up? Obama didn't even attempt to fight on behalf of Warren.
Where were the feminists on Anthony Weiner? They basically said boys will be boys. Re West, well West is black, but he is a conservative black, and from that email he hates women, it's sexual harassment, It's a hostile workplace environment, blah, blah, blah. Shit man, where the fuck is the NAACP, Urban League, the NBA and NFL defending West. OK, the last 2 were a joke.
Wasserman has been poking her fingers in West's chest the past few months. He finally punched her in the mouth.
-- Modified on 7/21/2011 11:39:57 PM
Jackson, Paris Hilton, Suzanne Somers, real Jersey housewives et al. Excellent point Croix, disagree with Warren or not, why didn't Obama and the feminist organizations fight for her. Again, no outrage from the liberals or progressives, or Pelosi, Barbara Boxer et al.
Saint, maybe the reason why feminists didn't go after Obama for passing on Warren was because of Elizabeth Warren herself. Warren herself said: "We would not have a consumer agency if not for President Obama."
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/07/elizabeth-warren-we-will-not-let-republicans-rip-arms-and-legs-off-of-consumer-agency/
The Weener didn't do anything to upset feminists. He just showed his cock to some ladies. Besides, I think feminists are a little busy these days. Why? Because of this:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/13/7076379-chart-record-number-of-abortion-bills
Wasserman hasn't been poking anyone's chest. She was simply telling the truth. She called the GOP "cut, cap, and balance" plan, and I quote:
"yet another thinly veiled attempt by our colleagues across the aisle to end Medicare as we know it"
and that: "Incredulously, the gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries."
In response to this, Congressman West said she was "vile", a "coward", and "not a Lady". Meanwhile, he said, in an e-mail mind you, that next time Schultz ought to say this to his face. Sound like a threat to you?
You know what I noticed? West didn't refute any of Schultz's claims that he had voted to fuck over his own constituents.
-- Modified on 7/22/2011 5:07:05 AM
They illustrate how daffy the right is. What was so inflamatory about them? Nothing. Did they justify West's intemperate response? Nope. Did the left predictably jump on him? Sure. The right does it's version of this whenever a conservative gets into a public spat. In fact, I'd say the conservatives do a better job of it. But both parties play the same game of point/counterpoint. It's sad and unproductive, but a fact of life in this partisan day and age.
As for Warren, give me a break. Obama's nomination of someone else is a non event. Once the Republicans made it clear they would never support her nomination, Obama and Warren decided to take the very successful approach they have executed. Warren knew she was not gettng the appointment but got to do what she truly believed in: put together the agency she'd fought for. She's a casualty all right -- a casualty of partisan politics-as-usual. And in this case, the bullet she took was fired by the Republicans, with help from the banking industry.
-- Modified on 7/22/2011 8:32:25 AM
while these kind of spats might be considered grist for the mill, they do serve a real purpose. What Schultz did was demonstrate just how reactionary and mean-hearted West really is.
In regards to Warren, I agree that while it's a disappointment, it is largely a non-event. Many Dems are hoping that she'll run against Scott Brown to take Ted Kennedy's old seat.
however his response made him look like a thin-skinned narcissist, and she was able to hoist him with his own petard.
-- Modified on 7/22/2011 12:15:21 PM