Congressional republicans continue to slide!

[maineman]

national command authority is a phrase which equates to the President and the civilian chain of command down to the JCS.

 

[Annie]

national command authority is a phrase which equates to the President and the civilian chain of command down to the JCS.

Ok, explain that.

 

[Bern80]

again: it is apples and oranges, not big apples and little apples. the opinion of congress has a lot to do with how the people preceive the two parties getting along and getting things done - together. the polls about individual parties do not contain that component and have a lot more to do with agenda. pretty basic.

How is it apples and oranges? one measured the approval of the body and one measured the approval of the parts of the body. Your apples and oranges analogy really isn't accurate.

You have a major contradiction on your hands also. What you say above is contrary to what the question is in the pole you cited as well. You say the approval of congress overall has to do with how well the groups worktogether. Well, take a look at teh quesition of the pole you cited:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the REPUBLICANS in Congress are doing their job?"

There is nothign about agenda in that question. That is asking the same thing you said the overall approval of congress is about; how the people perceive the parties getting things done.

 

[maineman]

How is it apples and oranges? one measured the approval of the body and one measured the approval of the parts of the body. Your apples and oranges analogy really isn't accurate.

You have a major contradiction on your hands also. What you say above is contrary to what the question is in the pole you cited as well. You say the approval of congress overall has to do with how well the groups worktogether. Well, take a look at teh quesition of the pole you cited:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way the REPUBLICANS in Congress are doing their job?"

There is nothign about agenda in that question. That is asking the same thing you said the overall approval of congress is about; how the people perceive the parties getting things done.

Ah well.... the lower rated poll measures how the body is doing in terms of getting things done for america. the other polls have to do with what people think of particular party performance. I would suggest that the significantly higher ratings for both parties individually when compared to the low ratings for congress as a whole is an indicator of the incredible polarization in America. People who self identify with democrats or liberals will tend to see the problems in congress occuring in the republican caucus and think that THEIR party caucus is doing a pretty good job... and vice versa. It is similar to the phenomenon of people - as a whole - being supportive of something like term limits for congressmen, but yet, wanting their own congressman to stay in office.

The two polls ARE indeed apples and oranges. But I know you are too fucking stubborn to ever admit it, so let's drop it.

 

[maineman]

Ok, explain that.

The legislative branch is not a part of the national command authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

 

[ReillyT]

If I'm misunderstanding your take, please fix. From what I'm reading, you agree that Congress should be deciding our war decisions, beyond their ability to withdraw funding. i.e. ignoring or changing the Constitution?

Yes, of course Congress should have a role in deciding questions of war, if the question is whether we continue a war, or (obviously) whether we declare war. This role has just lapsed as a practical matter because generally there is a modicrum of Congressional support for the war and/or the political costs of "failing to support the troops" would cow any legislature from attempting to fully exercise its authority.

The conduct of the war may rest primarily with the Executive branch and the military, but the basic question of whether we should be at war has always rested with the Congress. US Const. Art. I, Sec. 8(11). There is no reason to think that, given the sole power to declare war, Congress is powerless to use its powers to extricate the US from a war (especially when it is not even technically a war, but merely a military action supported by an act of congress). Why would anyone think differently?

 

[Bern80]

The two polls ARE indeed apples and oranges. But I know you are too fucking stubborn to ever admit it, so let's drop it.

and i know you're too fucking arrogant to entertain the notion that you're wrong

 

[Gunny]

oh come on...

you may not want to bet the farm on them, but they are hardly "worthless"....that is just plain rhetorical hyperbole. They all have a margin of error, but they all do, in fact, measure how the public perceives people and events. And in politics, perception is reality because it will more often than not translate to a vote.

No, IMO they are pretty-much worthless. Where is that poll that says 65% of "somebody" thinks Repulbicans are responsible for global warming?

I rest my case.

 

[maineman]

and i know you're too fucking arrogant to entertain the notion that you're wrong

I'm not. I sometimes am, but I am not here.

It is like asking folks in boston in the late fifties and early sixties what they thought about the boston red sox, and then asking them what they thought about ted williams. apples and oranges.

 

[maineman]

No, IMO they are pretty-much worthless. Where is that poll that says 65% of "somebody" thinks Repulbicans are responsible for global warming?

I rest my case.

you don't really "rest your case" as much as you "restate your opinion"....IMHO.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Actually I'm waiting for several questions that have not been asked, to be asked. Here's 2:

1. Should the US withdraw from Iraq regardless of the recommendations of the generals on the ground?

2. If the Surge is succeeding, but may result in US troops remaining in Iraq for the forseeable future, should it continue?

Your going to be waiting for a very long time, because no scientific poll can use leading statements or qualifiers. That's a fundamental law of the science of polling and statistical probability.

A pro-bush or anti-bush leading statement or caveat can't be included.

Its either do you prefer withdrawl, or do you prefer staying in iraq. Polls aren't in the business of educating people what Patreus, or Jack Murtha are saying. That's up to people to educate themselves.

 

[DeadCanDance]

oh come on...

you may not want to bet the farm on them, but they are hardly "worthless"....that is just plain rhetorical hyperbole. They all have a margin of error, but they all do, in fact, measure how the public perceives people and events. And in politics, perception is reality because it will more often than not translate to a vote.

Polls are the only scientific and empirical way to measure public opinion. Anything else is a guess pulled out of one's ass. Anecdotal at best. Empirical data trumps guesses and anecdotes, 99 times out of 100.

I've found that when people dismiss the significance of polls, its generally because they don't like the empirical results.

 

[Gunny]

you don't really "rest your case" as much as you "restate your opinion"....IMHO.

I think they're worthless, and you don't EVER see me using them to support ANY argument.

Since no one can ever answer the questions of what exactly was asked, who was asked and their political affiliation, they are just uncorroborated numbers.

 

[maineman]

I think they're worthless, and you don't EVER see me using them to support ANY argument.

Since no one can ever answer the questions of what exactly was asked, who was asked and their political affiliation, they are just uncorroborated numbers.

of course pollsters can answer those questions. Reputable polling firms ask the questions about party affiliation and then normalize the data.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since a poll can be manipulated by the questions ( how they are worded), what base is selected to ask and the manner in which the poll is conducted, they are no better than propaganda.

 

[Gunny]

of course pollsters can answer those questions. Reputable polling firms ask the questions about party affiliation and then normalize the data.

Again, if the actual questions are not presented, and who was polled and their party affiliation, then posting polls is meaningless. Doesn't matter if the pollsters have the info. The people being presented the poll do not.

 

[maineman]

Since a poll can be manipulated by the questions ( how they are worded), what base is selected to ask and the manner in which the poll is conducted, they are no better than propaganda.

simply not true. the wording of thse poll questions is transparent and non-partisan...and as I said, reputable pollsters normalize data to insure that their sample is representative of the political affiliations of the general populations.

 

[Gunny]

simply not true. the wording of thse poll questions is transparent and non-partisan...and as I said, reputable pollsters normalize data to insure that their sample is representative of the political affiliations of the general populations.

Then you can present these poll questions for examination by us?

 

[maineman]

Again, if the actual questions are not presented, and who was polled and their party affiliation, then posting polls is meaningless. Doesn't matter if the pollsters have the info. The people being presented the poll do not.

if the pollsters - Gallup and Harris, for example - who have been fixtures in American public opinion polling for decades - were caught fudging the data, they would be out of business. when they say that the data is normalized, it is. YOu can chose to disbeliever them, I guess...but do you disbelieve the newscast when it reports the DJIA? If nothing is trustworthy, then neither are you. In this thread, the actual questions are there to see.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Since a poll can be manipulated by the questions ( how they are worded), what base is selected to ask and the manner in which the poll is conducted, they are no better than propaganda.

Credible, national polling firms, with decades of experience, hire professionals to design the questions, and almost certainly the poll questions go through a series of internal iterative peer reviews.

Companies like Harris and Gallup rely on their credibility to sell themselves. They don't just do political polls. They do work for private entities, corporations, and universities.

Their credibility is their bread and butter. Without it, they don't have clients. Corporate, or otherwise.


If you want to conclude that there is this massive conspiracy in these well-established polling companies, to twist the data to "bash bush", then go for it. And loosen that tin foil hat on your head while your at it, so you don't loose blood circulation.