RE: The first speech from a preacher I've liked in nearly 10 years
RebelKev Wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk, can't believe you guys are still giving so much credit to f'n polls.
Scientific Polls are worth looking at in political races, push polling isn't as easy as other polls. In those RP still gets 0%, however sometimes 2%. in 2004, most of the polls had Bush winning by 3% and they were right on the money
Iowa is the only real straw poll the candidates actually participate in.
(This post was last modified: 08-20-2007 09:35 AM by GGniner.)
RE: The first speech from a preacher I've liked in nearly 10 years
GGniner Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk, can't believe you guys are still giving so much credit to f'n polls.
Scientific Polls are worth looking at in political races, push polling isn't as easy as other polls. In those RP still gets 0%, however sometimes 2%. in 2004, most of the polls had Bush winning by 3% and they were right on the money
Iowa is the only real straw poll the candidates actually participate in.
Here recently, the "science" behind polls seems to be as flawed and as partisan as the person employing them. ALL polls can, and many times are, skewed to fit someone's political agenda.
RE: The first speech from a preacher I've liked in nearly 10 years
RebelKev Wrote:Here recently, the "science" behind polls seems to be as flawed and as partisan as the person employing them. ALL polls can, and many times are, skewed to fit someone's political agenda.
I agree, just saying the candidate polling closer to the election is usually accurate.
With "approval polls" and war opinions, etc, you have to look at the questions given and the make up of the respondents. The reason the MSM bush Approval Rating polls are so different than say Rasmussen is because they sample around 40% dems and 27% repubs. in most cases and then the questions in other cases. They definitely are in many cases trying to create opinions not report them.
RE: The first speech from a preacher I've liked in nearly 10 years
GGniner Wrote:With "approval polls" and war opinions, etc, you have to look at the questions given and the make up of the respondents. The reason the MSM bush Approval Rating polls are so different than say Rasmussen is because they sample around 40% dems and 27% repubs. in most cases and then the questions in other cases. They definitely are in many cases trying to create opinions not report them.
Local talk show host here in Augusta was called by a polling agency. The question was "Are you happy with the Bush Administration?" He said, "No". Before he could qualify the statement, or get another word in edgewise, the phone call ended. So, he was a statistic in Bush's "Approval" rating. This is used by people like TOGC, Mach, and RobertN to say, "See, Bush's approval rating is low as hell." The talk show host, a conservative, finally qualified his statement on his show. His contention was one that many conservatives believe. We don't like how Bush is handling the immigration issue, think he should be more hawkish on this war on terror, and stop pandering to Liberals. Does this mean we don't approve of Bush and will vote for a liberal in the future? No no, but HELL no, and, as seen from a post earlier, some of us may have voted for Bush again if he was surrounded by the same idiots as '00 and '04. Dynamics change.
RE: The first speech from a preacher I've liked in nearly 10 years
GGniner Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk, can't believe you guys are still giving so much credit to f'n polls.
Scientific Polls are worth looking at in political races, push polling isn't as easy as other polls. In those RP still gets 0%, however sometimes 2%. in 2004, most of the polls had Bush winning by 3% and they were right on the money
Iowa is the only real straw poll the candidates actually participate in.
I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree. Straw polls are generally useless.
/
The first speech from a preacher I've liked in nearly 10 years
