...the largest "nonpartisan" pollster is Rasmussen, who now works for Fox News. While Fox is theoretically a news organization, it has a definite slant on the world, that say, ABC News does not have. There is no evidence that Rasmussen makes up numbers, but there are other issues here. In particular, most pollsters, including Rasmussen, have a model of the electorate and normalize their polls to it. Very briefly, suppose Rasmussen believes that the set of likely voters (which is very different from the set of registered voters and very, very different from the set of people over 18) is 40% Republican, 30% Democratic, and 30% independent. If an actual poll turns up 200 Republicans, 200 Democrats, and 200 independents, he will weight each Republican respondent by 40/33, each Democratic respondent by 30/33 and each independent by 30/33 to compensate for the bad mix in his small sample.
So, when you see the daily Gallup poll, for example, running Obama's approval at about even (46-45 percent with 9 not sure. BTW, how can you be not sure? This country really sucks.....can't people just have a fucking opinion?) and Fox News has it at 47-45 yet Rasmussen has it at 45-55, we now know why. Rasmussen weights their demographics differently than other polls do with more people Republican in their eyes. Add in the fact that they ask question differently than other polls do to elicit a more conservative response. Here is an example.
Suppose that Democrats agreed on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress. Should the Democrats pass that bill or should they change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans?
Wow, that's cool.
I think it's a safe bet to say that Obama's approval rating is below 50 percent and will stay there until people start to feel better about their lives. There is nothing he can do about this. Our economy is seeing only minimal gains and probably will for some time. Again, there is nothing he can do about this because, as I have mentioned many times of late, the government is neutered.
33 comments:
BFD Marko. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that polls are WORTHLESS. I can pose a question with intent in mind and get the answers I desire.
Anyhow, I came here to make a request. Could you please give us the liberal slant on why the DOJ isn't pursuing charges against the New Black Panther party for their attempts at voter intimidation in 2008?
And help me understand (through a liberal prism) why the head guy at NASA said this on Al Jazerra TV- "When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.
Well, here's another take on the NASA thing?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/right-wing-freaks-over-nasa-chiefs-suggestion-that-us-space-program-will-work-with-muslims-video.php
Honestly, I haven't looked into it all that much but TPM is a liberal site so there's your prism for you.
As for the NBP thing, classic "War on Christmas" type fodder for the Cult. Any chance the Cult has to catch black people behaving the way they do is like pure catnip, isn't it? As I see it, the government started the suit and then dropped it when the NBP suspended the Philadelphia chapter.
I certainly think the NBP is despicable but to say that they are representative of the Democrats the way Glenn Beck is of the Republicans is pretty hilarious. Or to draw a correlation between them and Eric Holder. I guess what I'm wondering is are you worried that our attorney general is now going to subjugate all us white folk?
I certainly think the NBP is despicable but to say that they are representative of the Democrats the way Glenn Beck is of the Republicans is pretty hilarious. Or to draw a correlation between them and Eric Holder. I guess what I'm wondering is are you worried that our attorney general is now going to subjugate all us white folk?
I haven't seen anyone say, or even suggest, that the NBPP is representative of the Democrats, and for that matter I don't consider Glenn Beck representative of the Republicans. To be fair, unlike you I've never watched Glenn Beck, so I could be wrong. However, to say that the NBPP is representative of Democrats is about as accurate as how you paint Tea Partiers. After all, you use the exact same tactic, find the most on-the-fringe people possible and declare them to be definitive of the whole group.
No, the one who is representative of Democrats here is Holder himself. It's the usual tactic of declining to obey or enforce laws if they don't like the result. That lines him up perfectly with
Obama
Pelosi
Geithner
Rangel
Daschle
Dodd
Frank
Sotomayer
Murtha
and that's just the glaringly obvious ones on the national level. It also coincidentally puts him perfectly in line with you.
Do I think he's going to "subjugate all us white folk"? No. I think he's going to be a corrupt piece of shit racketeer, just like those who surround him. Further, I think the Democrats are going to defend him for that, probably up to and including you.
Are you suggesting anything other than that will happen?
Any chance the Cult has to catch black people behaving the way they do is like pure catnip, isn't it?
And after a statement like this, where you declare a belief that that's the way black people act, you dare to accuse anyone else of racism?
Let's take a friendly trip down memory lane. This blog, Nov 8, 2006, Markadelphia in comment section of blog entry titled A Brief Letter...
"Actually, I personally witnessed Republican voting tactics at my polling place, as did Cheryl Youakim of the Hopkins City Council. There was a group of men standing around waiting for the first person...mostly minority...to come up with a utility statement. As you know, this is the only proof of identity you need to vote if you are not registered. You do not even need an ID if you are registered.
I watched as these folks came up with their utility statement and were brow beaten by these men into thinking they couldn't vote without an ID. The 350 year old polling volunteers didn't know what to do and sat there like dumb asses. I spoke up and said that didn't need anything other than that statement from Xcel Energy. One of the people trying to vote was a Muslim and I saw my own bias and ugliness in these assholes that were trying to intimidate her. She and the others got to vote and the "protesters" weren't happy about it.
Cheryl told me that conservatives had people stationed all over Hopkins doing the same shit. So, it wasn't rigging in Hopkins but it was tampering."
----------------------------------
Those morons in Hopkins no doubt know that, going forward, they just need to stand outside the voting facility with clubs and bats. It was tampering in 2006, now it gets a free pass from "the people mark, jeffc, torch, downtown, and vheights voted for".
Mark,
Did you notice that your link also quoted Bolden as saying exactly what Anon quoted?
"third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"
It must be a silly Köö1t thing, but I could have sworn that NASA's primary purpose was to explore space and develop technologies for use in space, not doing the State Department's job.
"Has anyone noticed that none of the 3 things Bolden has been charged to do involves actually launching things or flying in space? Is it too much to ask that NASA be charged with space exploration. Why is making Muslim nations feel good about themselves, NASA’s mission? Shouldn’t that be up to the Muslim nation. Obama is US president and NASA is US agency, shouldn’t they do something to make thier own citizens feel good?"
—from here
On topic. So this is post-partisan eh?
Juris,
A wise man once said
"Perhaps people should stop calling polling a science and consign it to the ranks of phone-in fortune telling."
This same wise man also said...
"That polling so often produces such idiotic results ought to call into question the practice. Even more, it should put many grains of salt onto the palate of whoever is consuming the results - particularly when trumpeting one and discounting another. Yet rarely do you see such perspective on the part of some partisan hack claiming how such-and-such poll validates their ideology."
Wait a minute...
The entire MSM went after Rep. Wilson, and you right there along with them, claiming he was "obviously a fucking racist" for daring to say "You lie!" to a black man who was lying. A Democrat Congressman claimed it was equivalent to putting on the white hoods and riding through South Carolina, and you had nothing to say.
And now, because the opposition finds it unacceptable that this man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw
is allowed to walk from a case already decided, and dares to note what an extreme racist who is being protected here (worse than Jeremiah Wright even), it's "Any chance the Cult has to catch black people behaving the way they do is like pure catnip"?
Fuck you Mark.
Nicely played M.
Since you were complaining about Rasmussen, I thought you might be interested in Gallup.
But if you are going to swear off polling entirely, bravo!
Actually I do agree with you, juris...in both ways. Polling is complete shit, considering your comments, which are quite accurate. You are also correct in stating that his support has fallen off considerably amongst independents. Why this has happened is a matter of opinion. I think it is because people just don't feel better about their lives or have horrible lives so they blame him. I also think it's because they were expecting substantive change (e.g. more "liberal" policies) and President Obama isn't liberal...even though 55 percent of our country now thinks he's a socialist.
But I still can't give up polling. It is part and parcel to social studies-flawed though it may be.
Anon (who I'm assuming is Scrap because of her complete belief in anything Cult leaders tell her and this is just the kind of War on Christmas malarky that would get her panties in a bunch), I know this will be pointless to say this but I'm going to try anyway.
Do some research into the case. Stop listening to the Cult media on this one and find out exactly what is going on. And enough with the "Muslims are Taking Over Space" nonsense. That's just going to help the Dems hold on to more seats in the fall.
Oh, and just out of curiosity...do you find this statement to be racist which was the second comment down in your YouTube link?
"Haha, this is funny. I'd LOVE to see that scrawny little nigger stand outside MY polling station. I'd take that baton of his and beat his little ass so bad he'd beg me to send him home on a slave ship. Take a good look here, folks. This is the top nigger."
Just wondering...
But I still can't give up polling.
At least the ones that tell you things you want to hear, right? What is that phrase you are so fond of - "confirmation bias"?
No, it's not that. Polling is a research method at the very foundation of my discipline. I can't simply chuck it on the window because I like or don't like them.
Believe me, I don't want to hear that 55% of our country thinks that Obama is a socialist. It means that the film Idiocracy is more true than I thought.
Polling is a research method at the very foundation of my discipline.
Really? I thought you were an educator.
Polling is irrelevant to economics.
Polling is irrelevant to history.
Polling is irrelevant to geography.
So, I guess you are a sociologist or political "scientist" (if EVER there was a misappropriation of the word).
I have found out what's going on. It's quite simple.
According to the Democrat leadership (and you as well), expecting an Obama supporter to obey the law is petty, unfair and probably racist.
Expecting an Obama supporter to actually enforce the law is ludicrous, definitely racist and probably paranoid.
'Nuff said.
Juris, You don't have to be sociologist or a political scientist to have polling be a research method of statistical analysis. I'm sure you know there are a variety of ways to research something (field experiment, unobtrusive methods, controlled experiment etc.) and a variety of vocations that do that research. Social Studies has at its core polling or surveys as one method to analyze political and economic trends.
Anon-How's Beck University treating you these days?
Anon-How's Beck University treating you these days?
I wouldn't know, you watch him more than I do. But:
When GM was bailed out, Barack Obama did not conform to bankruptcy law. You're apparently okay with that.
Tim Geithner's games with tax law got him "a promotion and a pat on the back." Any idea whose words I'm quoting? You're apparently okay with that.
The Attorney General dropped charges on an open and shut, already won case of voter intimidation against one of his boss' supporters. You're apparently okay with that.
Sonia Sotomayer helped a city government flout its own regulations because the results didn't agree with her prejudices. She also got "a promotion and a pat on the back". You're apparently okay with that.
The Obama DoJ is suing the state of Arizona over its immigration law. Not on the basis that it is discriminatory or will cause profiling, you understand. They've already de facto admitted they have no case there. Their suing on the basis of "pre-emption", in short, for daring to enforce Federal law. You're apparently okay with that.
You can claim all you want that Rangel is corrupt and should be put in jail, but the reason he and others like him still walk free and still hold Congressional seats is because Nancy Pelosi stonewalls investigations into the ethics of her allies. Everyone knows this. You're apparently okay with that.
Don't whine to me. The thing that says you knowingly support a party that is no more or less than an organized crime syndicate is their actions, and yours.
Let's take these one at a time with this preface: all of your talking points are straight from Cult leaders. Stop insulting me with your child with their hands in cookie jar bullshit by saying you don't listen or watch Beck or someone similar since they all say the same thing.
1. Well, what does GM have to say about it?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0701/Is-Obama-a-socialist-What-does-the-evidence-say
"They forced changes in management that should more properly have been left to the company's private shareholders," says Johns.
Not true, according to GM. The US did not exert pressure to close the 1,100 shuttered dealerships, says spokeswoman Noreen Pratscher. "The government has taken a very hands-off approach."
2. I'm not OK with that. Remember, though, he is innocent until proven guilty. That's how we roll in this country so if he was somehow convicted and I don't know about it, please share.
3. The government dropped the charges because there was insufficient evidence. Again, this is a WOC thing so please manage your mics of Cultade.
4. I guess I need to repeat myself: Nice Rove.
5. Wow. I don't even know what to say to this one. Your complete lack of understanding reality probably makes it impossible for me to debate this point with you. Unfuck yourself and tell me how you would solve the immigration issue given the current and actual situation on the ground, not the one that says that all the spics are coming to kill us.
6. I'm not OK with Rangel walking. He broke the law, should resign and should be punished. Again, if and only if he is found guilty in a court of law.
or someone similar since they all say the same thing.
You mean like you borrowing from TPM. At least you do usually point to there, and if not, the lineage is pretty clear for everyone to see. In fact, "the cult" is a Markos invention that endlessly fascinates you, and provides you excuse after excuse to avoid discussing what the GOVERNING party is doing.
Sure, you fool yourself, but do you really think you fool other people?
Well, what does GM have to say about it?
That wasn't the question - did the Obama Administration circumvent bankruptcy law in executing the bail-out was the question. You don't want to, or simply can't, answer that, so you try to change the question (aka moving the goalposts).
Remember, though, he is innocent until proven guilty.
Not in tax law, but thanks for playing. Not to mention he admitted it, after his nomination, and then paid up. Pretty funny for the nation's top fiscal policy guy, huh?
Wow. I don't even know what to say to this one.
OK, how about this - why is it okay to sue Arizona for a law not yet in effect and ignore Rhode Island that already is enforcing essentially the same law? Unfuck that one, if you can.
Again, if and only if he is found guilty in a court of law.
It is YOUR party that impedes an ethics investigation that could lead to dismissal from the House and/or criminal charges. Nice Rove indeed!
...all of your talking points are straight from Cult leaders. Stop insulting me with your child with their hands in cookie jar bullshit by saying you don't listen or watch Beck or someone similar since they all say the same thing.
And all of your talking points are the same that can be found on Daily Kos, which you claim not to read, even though you link to it. And your point is?
1. See juris' comment below.
2 and 6. Talk is cheap, Mark. You can claim all you like now that you're not okay with that, but what you choose to blog about says you consider Sarah Palin's facebook page and Glenn Back's latest rant to be a higher priority. Geithner's lawbreaking and Pelosi's refusal to investigate the racketeering of her colleagues gets silence here, but a Republican daring to call a liar a liar is front page news.
A tree is known by its fruit.
3. Bullshit. They had already won the case.
4. Fuck you. Your refusal to answer is eloquence itself. Instead of taking your usual tactic of "I don't have to actually address the issue, all I have to do is sneer at it and I can 'deem' it as addressed", why not answer the fucking question?
5. Unfuck your own self and explain how any amount of fixing immigration law makes it okay to refuse to secure the border. And more to the point, refuse to even allow those whose lives are at risk to secure it themselves. There are several million illegals in this country. I don't think they are all coming to kill us (your straw man is burning). But in any group so large, there will be some whose purposes are not friendly, regardless of where they are from. The Obama DoJ thinks we should be prohibited from even finding out which ones those are, much less sorting them out from the "keepers". And you're okay with that.
...innocent until proven guilty. That's how we roll in this country...
And if a white southern sheriff refused to investigate a black family being burned alive on crosses, you'd be okay with that? After all, the KKK is "innocent until proven guilty. That's how we roll in this country." Pelosi's and Holder's refusals are no different, but somehow they aren't worthy of comment from you.
Bigot.
Pardon, I got sidetracked on #5.
You can say all you want that immigration law needs to be changed, and I'll agree with you. But that's not what the Democrats are doing. The Democrats are refusing to enforce existing law, and you're okay with that.
I read the Daily Kos on occasion but I spend most of time writing on here and read TSM. I read the Strib, the New York Times, and The Christian Science Monitor--the latter of which is where I get most of my in depth news.
My point in bringing up Beck is this: any time I hear about a topic from a conservative commenter or friend, I head about it from all of them. And they all have the same point of view. It's at the same time and sometimes verbatim or fairly close to it. Your complaints about NBP and Muslims taking over space were the same ones I heard from virtually all my conservative friends. It's almost as if some leader is feeding you information...:)
If you have been reading my blog awhile, you will see that is not the case with me. I recently wrote a critical piece on Paul Krugman, a man whose views I normally agree with but in this case I thought he was wrong. So far, there has been one comment from a fellow critical thinker-juris. If you are going to rip me for being a Kos zombie, then you better take posts like this into account.
In regards to the rest of your comments, there's not really much wiggle room in your world, is there? Sotomayor, for example, is a racist. Well, that's what your leaders tell you so more power to you! Or to them, actually. Did you ever stop to think that the reason why she has been painted a racist is because of the same 7 year old boy mentality (see: hand in cookie jar) of which I continually speak? "Well...she did it too!!!" is the classic excuse I hear all the time by CHILDREN who are too ashamed to admit their own fault.
I'm not OK with Congress (D's and R's) not doing anything to change immigration law. Try to sit for a moment and ask yourself why they are sitting on their hands. Hint: it has something to do with the business lobby that hires illegal immigrants. Hmmm.....where could that take us? Reflect for a moment....
"refuse to secure the border."
"are at risk to secure it themselves. "
"There are several million illegals in this country."
"there will be some whose purposes are not friendly, regardless of where they are from."
What exactly are you afraid of, anon?
Muslims taking over space
M, I am pretty sure those are YOUR words, not anyone elses. Obama's head of NASA said part of his job was to reach out to Muslim nations (not just to share space with ALL countries). I know your larynx would've exploded from the screaming, if it had been Bush's NASA reaching out to Christian countries.
So rather than address what he said, or what ANYONE else has had to say about this, you instead rail against something that NO ONE has said.
Doesn't that seem a bit odd?
As for Beck, Rush, etc. - I hear about what they've said from you more than anyone else, by far.
What exactly are you afraid of, anon?
Getting shot, you moron.
There are between 10 and 20 million illegals in this country. Let's split the difference and call it 15 million.
Now let's do the math.
Let's say for the sake of argument that 1 in 10,000 of those illegals is a hardened criminal, a threat to everyone around him. I doubt there has ever been a group of people in human history that was that free of criminal elements, but let's stipulate that it's so.
That means there are 1500 hardened criminals in this country that are not identified, not detained, not investigated, not reported, not deported. Why? Because in Markadelphia World it would be "racist" to dare hold "Mexican looking" people to the same standard as everybody else in the country, that's why.
Now plug real world numbers, you know, assuming that "Mexican looking" people are no more or less likely to be criminals than everyone else, into that formula and see how many tens of thousands of criminals you are enabling by refusing to sort them out from those who simply want a job.
"Getting shot, you moron."
Ok, well...what about this?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264432463469618.html
"The incidence of violent crimes such as murder, rape and aggravated assault was down 5.5% from 2008, and 6.9% in big cities. It fell 2.4% in long-troubled Detroit and plunged 16.6% in Phoenix, despite a perception of rising crime that has fueled an immigration backlash."
"In Phoenix, police spokesman Trent Crump said, "Despite all the hype, in every single reportable crime category, we're significantly down."
Combine this with looser restrictions on gun laws and one would think you would be happy. And then we have this.
http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/arizona%E2%80%99s-punishment-doesn%E2%80%99t-fit-crime-studies-show-decrease-arizona-crime-rates
Scroll down to:
“High immigration” states have the lowest crime rates.
and
Unauthorized immigration is not associated with higher crime rates.
Unlike your "data," this data shows the exact opposite of what you assert here. Of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm fairly sure that you won't change your mind that they are "comin to gin ya." You are not, however, entitled to your own facts.
So, given these facts that I have presented, are you still afraid of getting shot?
And because of that we should cease having a border at all, at least in practical reality. You are a piece of work, Mark.
“High immigration” states have the lowest crime rates.
Unlike your "data," this data shows the exact opposite of what you assert here.
No it doesn't. It shows that “High immigration” states have the lowest crime rates.
AIDS is less common in nations with TV, less common still in countries with cable, and least common in countries with broadband internet. To claim that "unlike your 'data', this data shows the exact opposite of what you assert here" is no different from claiming we could wipe out AIDS by giving away Netflix accounts to poor people in Africa.
There are a number of possible causes for those conditions, the most obvious being that the more intelligent of hypothetical criminals crossing any border are less likely to get caught and more likely to move out of the border state entirely. Obviously I'm not counting the ones who aren't criminals because the context is crime statistics, the ones who come here, get a job and raise a family are not part of that equation.
You, on the other hand, are assuming that there is only one possible reason for those figures. Thus you assert that while there may be a predictable, reliable percentage of white, black, red and yellow people who commit crimes (as in fact there is), there is no such factor in "Mexican looking" people. Therefore any effort of any kind to screen "Mexican looking" people at or near a border, trying to weed out the criminal percentage, is prima facie evidence of racism, since it dares to assume such a percentage exists, just like it does in everyone else.
They get some really incredible weed where you live, huh?
Unauthorized immigration is not associated with higher crime rates.
Aside from the crime of being in the country illegally in the first place.
Funny how Mexico can enforce that against Central Americans, but we're all racist fuckers if we do the same to Mexicans. Calderon is a lying sack of shit (which puts him on par with most of our politicians) when he denies how Mexico treats illegals on THEIR southern border.
Now seriously M, are you gonna fess up on your wig out about "Muslims taking over space"? Or are you just going to pretend that you didn't rant against something that no one ever said - save you?
No, I'm not. That was the subtext of the complaint...Muslims are Taking Over Space. I'm sure there were some people on the right that hated the "feel good" meme but the whole point as to why this is a "story" in Cult land is the same reason why it always is...inciting hate, fear, and anger.
That was the subtext of the complaint
In YOUR mind. That really is pathetic. I guess I should just give up that you will ever actually debate real, live people - when you are so much more engaged with the voices in your head.
That was the subtext of the complaint.
I must not have seen that complaint. All the ones I saw had a very obvious subtext of "Sadly, 'space exploration' isn't about exploring space anymore, it's about 'outreach' and 'self-esteem'... hardly surprising I guess, since that's what 'justice' and 'finance' and 'healthcare' are about anymore as well."
Post a Comment