Congress at 25% - Bush at 29%

[Edward]

Last I checked, 19% (Reid) is lower then 29% (Bush)

Okay, the last I checked 26% (Bush) is lower then 34% (Pelosi) and 20% (McConnell) is lower then 26% (Bush) and 19% (Boehner) is lower then 26% (Bush) and if my last check is correct 20% (Boehner) and 19% (McConnell) are both lower then 34% (Pelosi). We already know the reason Reid's rating is so low and their caucus goes by the name Republican and his rating falls into the same category as theirs because he is ineffective because of Republicans in the Senate.

 

[Edward]

then why do the folks continue to rank them higher than congressional republicans? why do the folks continue to trust democrats more than republicans on the key issues?

I find it ironic that you take this idiot seriously. The answer to your question is obvious yet he won't admit it. Instead he wants to blame the Democrats in Congress for fuckers like him in the Senate who choose to obstruct Congress and who are generally assholes. It's like saying, "we will do everything we can to stop you from accomplishing what the people want and then we will blame you for not doing what they want." The American are far to intelligent to fall for that shit and that is why Republicans in Congress have an rating of only 21% as compared to Democrats in Congress who have a 31% rating and that is why McConnell and Boehner have a rating of only 19% and 20% as compared to Pelosi who has a 34% rating. He grasps at straws and says, "uh huh, look at how low Reid's ratings are" when in fact it is assholes like him who he votes for and who represents him in the Senate who have directly caused that approval rating to be equal to theirs.

 

[maineman]

I don't really take him "seriously".

I find him good for my ego.... verbally bitchslapping RSR is kind of like mercilessly beating up on a kid much smaller than you are - with none of the attendant guilt!

 

[Edward]

I don't really take him "seriously".

I find him good for my ego.... verbally bitchslapping RSR is kind of like mercilessly beating up on a kid much smaller than you are - with none of the attendant guilt!

I understand since I also get a kick out of bitchslapping RSR to and I laugh my ass off at his lame responses to my posts since all he has in response is more nonsense and it is like a cycle where he posts something stupid and I respond and he post something even more stupid and then I respond and then he goes on about how I am a kook liberal. So to be honest it is actually kind of amusing to watch you show everyone what a fool RSR is. So, keep it up since I enjoy reading his retarded and circular responses to you where he says the same thing in about every post. It is no wonder he likes George Bush so much since Bush is as retarded as he is. It must make him feel good to think that a retard like him was able to become President of the United States. It must give him hope.

 

[trobinett]

maineman posts:

when hacks like RSR continue to say how much the public dislikes the democrats with the implication that they will, therefore, want to remove democrats from control of congress, I feel compelled to post poll data such as the Harris poll as a clear indication of just how ridiculous such an assertion really is.

Sorry, but I find THAT response just as "ridiculous" as any that you ascribe to RSR and his assertions againts the democrats.

Polls serve NO decisive purpose, they are made to order for those that request them. If one uses polls to make a point, then their point is weak, AND suspect.

Might I suggest you post REAL data to back up your assertations, for instance, if you are saying, that the dem's are better for the economy, show some economic figures that back up that claim. If your saying the dem's are better peace keepers, then back THAT up with facts and verifiable figures.

Polls bring nothing to the table, except endless arguments.

 

[maineman]

Sorry, but I find THAT response just as "ridiculous" as any that you ascribe to RSR and his assertions againts the democrats.

Polls serve NO decisive purpose, they are made to order for those that request them. If one uses polls to make a point, then their point is weak, AND suspect.

Might I suggest you post REAL data to back up your assertations, for instance, if you are saying, that the dem's are better for the economy, show some economic figures that back up that claim. If your saying the dem's are better peace keepers, then back THAT up with facts and verifiable figures.

Polls bring nothing to the table, except endless arguments.

Polls serve the purpose of taking a snapshot of public opinion. As far as real data, I would suggest that you examine stock market performance over the past 100 years in republican administrations and then in democratic administrations. As far as peacekeepers are concerned, the democrats will always have Vietnam hanging around our necks like an albatross, but republicans will always have Iraq around their necks and, for now, anyhow, the still wet blood of 28K dead and wounded Americans on their hands. How does one QUANTIFY peace keeping, anyway?

And again.... you assume a level of overwhelming rationality on the part of the voters, as if FACTS play any significant role in their decision making. Voter perception is the only thing that really matters and opinion polls help measure that perception and help to determine, over time, the effects of various events and policies.

I know that republicans like to rail about how democrats rely on polls, whereas republicans rely on their core values. That is crap. Everyone relies on polls to see how they need to change their sales pitch as they attempt to "sell" their core values to the voters and to the citizens. Republicans will pretty much always be pro-life, anti-gay, small government self reliant people...those are their core values...they use polls just as much as democrats do to judge how they need to modify their message to sell those values. Democrats do the same. To that end, polls have definite value to public policy makers.

 

[trobinett]

Polls serve the purpose of taking a snapshot of public opinion.

Ok, lets say your right on that point, how does that relate to either helping the party in question or the general public?

As far as real data, I would suggest that you examine stock market performance over the past 100 years in republican administrations and then in democratic administrations.

Fair enough, and MY point exactly.

As far as peacekeepers are concerned, the democrats will always have Vietnam hanging around our necks like an albatross, but republicans will always have Iraq around their necks and, for now, anyhow, the still wet blood of 28K dead and wounded Americans on their hands. How does one QUANTIFY peace keeping, anyway?

Quite right maineman, and I certainly wouldn't know how to quantify peace keeping. I couldn't even tell you who's job that should be, or if its a job any nation or alliance of nations can take on, can you?

And again.... you assume a level of overwhelming rationality on the part of the voters, as if FACTS play any significant role in their decision making. Voter perception is the only thing that really matters and opinion polls help measure that perception and help to determine, over time, the effects of various events and policies.

I DO in fact assign a level of rationality to our voters, maybe thats where party lines are truly drawn.

I know that republicans like to rail about how democrats rely on polls, whereas republicans rely on their core values. That is crap. Everyone relies on polls to see how they need to change their sales pitch as they attempt to "sell" their core values to the voters and to the citizens. Republicans will pretty much always be pro-life, anti-gay, small government self reliant people...those are their core values...they use polls just as much as democrats do to judge how they need to modify their message to sell those values. Democrats do the same. To that end, polls have definite value to public policy makers.

First, I don't think republicans "rail" about how democrats rely on polls, the media does a danny job of that.

Democrats are famous for changing their minds with the shifting of the wind, or the changing of the seasons, fact, not fiction. Polls therefor, are important to get the "snap shot", as you so rightly put it, the democrats need.

Of course both parties, and the rising third parties will use many different resources to gain an edge in an election. My point, was that its dilutional, not truly helpful, and shallow. They truly DON'T have any lasting value, and policy makers that rely on them are making a truly terrible mistake.

Polls have ruined this election process in our fair land, they only add to the confusion, and misdirection, that has become the talking points of the MEDIA.

 

[maineman]

Ok, lets say your right on that point, how does that relate to either helping the party in question or the general public?

Effectively communicating the message is essential to the success of the party. Understanding the message is essential to the general public

Fair enough, and MY point exactly.

good. so we agree on that.

Quite right maineman, and I certainly wouldn't know how to quantify peace keeping. I couldn't even tell you who's job that should be, or if its a job any nation or alliance of nations can take on, can you?

No. But in a way it is kinda like the reverse of the old Potter Stewart definition of pornography. I can't clearly quantify or define "peace keeping" but I know when an administration is doing a lousy job of it.

I DO in fact assign a level of rationality to our voters, maybe thats where party lines are truly drawn.

I never said that voters were devoid of rationality...I just suggested that its existence and its impact on voting behavior is overrated

First, I don't think republicans "rail" about how democrats rely on polls, the media does a danny job of that.

on here, RSR does all the fucking time - yet he uses them. Which is the ONLY reason I bring up the Harris poll...to shove the results down his throat

Democrats are famous for changing their minds with the shifting of the wind, or the changing of the seasons, fact, not fiction. Polls therefor, are important to get the "snap shot", as you so rightly put it, the democrats need.

I disagree that your characterization it any more or less "factual" for democrats than for republicans. You should avoid using the word "fact" when "opinion" is more appropriate

Of course both parties, and the rising third parties will use many different resources to gain an edge in an election. My point, was that its dilutional, not truly helpful, and shallow. They truly DON'T have any lasting value, and policy makers that rely on them are making a truly terrible mistake.

policy makers that don't rely on polls to determine the effectiveness of their message or the impact of events and actions on the public doom themselves to minority status

Polls have ruined this election process in our fair land, they only add to the confusion, and misdirection, that has become the talking points of the MEDIA.

your opinion. I disagree

 

[red states rule]

More bad news for the libs and the liberal media

Any good news for America is bad news for the Dems

Record Dow a Downer on the Networks
Posted by Julia A. Seymour on July 13, 2007 - 18:16.
A new stock market high is good news, right?

“In stock market terms alone, this is now the longest consecutive uninterrupted stock market rally,” said Lawrence Kudlow on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on July 13.

“It started in early 2003, so that’s four and a half years. And it’s incredible how much wealth is being created out there and it’s unfortunate, really – almost tragic – that the president just doesn’t get any credit for it at all because he’s got a lot to say on the economy.”

While Kudlow found the record worth cheering, the three major networks supplied "some worries" and "some dark clouds" to viewers on July 12. Each one offered its own spin of gloomy news following the record high closings of the Dow and S&P 500.

"There are still some dark clouds looming over this market," said correspondent Dan Harris on ABC’s "World News with Charles Gibson." "The housing market is in a slump, interest rates are rising and gas prices are ticking back up."

But of course, CBS had its own take on the news and could not be outdone.

"There are still some worries out there," said CBS correspondent Anthony Mason on "Evening News." "The housing market is still slumping. We’ve had close to a million foreclosures since January."

And not wanting to be left out was NBC "Nightly News."

“[W]e’ve heard this good news on Wall Street,” said “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams. “It is despite the fact that a lot of homeowners in this country are under tremendous stress right now. According to RealityTrac (sic) [RealtyTrac], that’s a company that sells mortgage data, foreclosures across the country are up a staggering 87 percent over this very same time last year.”

All this bad news accompanied the stock market's largest gain in nearly four years.

Downplaying good economic news, especially the stock market is nothing new to the network news. Reporters have a history of pressing other economic factors like gas prices and housing, then threaten these pressures would sink the economy.

Fox News Channel host Neil Cavuto devoted a portion of his July 13 program to viewers complaining about media outlets that had ignored or downplayed the historic stock market high
http://newsbusters.org/node/14086

 

[maineman]

still running away from the Harris poll, I see.

not surprising, really...you wave the white flag all the time!

 

[red states rule]

still running away from the Harris poll, I see.

not surprising, really...you wave the white flag all the time!

Not running away. As long as your Dems continue to runnign to the left - their numbers will continue to tumble

I have alot of confidence in your party

 

[maineman]

Not running away. As long as your Dems continue to runnign to the left - their numbers will continue to tumble

I have alot of confidence in your party

you ARE running away. Why don't you ever acknowledge that the republican's numbers are falling as fast and DEEPER than the democrat's?

 

[red states rule]

you ARE running away. Why don't you ever acknowledge that the republican's numbers are falling as fast and DEEPER than the democrat's?

Libs have dropped freom around 45% to the teens

 

[maineman]

Libs have dropped freom around 45% to the teens

actually, I have repeatedly shown you that the congressional republicans have consistently polled lower than congressional democrats since before the last election...but you keep running away from that FACT.

 

[red states rule]

actually, I have repeatedly shown you that the congressional republicans have consistently polled lower than congressional democrats since before the last election...but you keep running away from that FACT.

The Dems were oh so cocky back in January - now they are down to a wimper

 

[maineman]

keep running away.

 

[red states rule]

keep running away.

If I am running away - you are crawling away

 

[maineman]

If I am running away - you are crawling away

republicans in congress consistently poll 10 points lower than congressional democrats.

why?

 

[red states rule]

republicans in congress consistently poll 10 points lower than congressional democrats.

why?

I am sure the gap has narrowed - considering how they are moving further to the left

 

[maineman]

I am sure the gap has narrowed - considering how they are moving further to the left

the facts show otherwise.

If you are so sure, cite your figures.

And in any case, you still fail to answer the question: WHY?

Why have the republicans in congress consistently polled lower than the democrats since before the last election?