Well now! Surprise surprise...

[MaggieMae]

76% Prefer Free Market Economy - Rasmussen Reports™

Gotta hand it to ol' Scott Rasmussen. He runs a conservative website and asks questions specifically designed FOR conservatives. Do conservative posters ever look at any other polls? Probably, but they don't confirm their agenda the way Rasmussen does so unless other polls represent perceived bad news for Obama, they pretend they don't exist.

And liberals are different? Oh of course they are. They are different in that the unless would be "unless other polls represent perceived good news for Obama, they pretend they don't exist."

Come on Maggie, that is just human nature.

Immie

I don't ever post a poll unless someone plucks an outrageous number out of his arse and expects everyone to believe it. I then turn to pollingreport.com which has ALL the polls forever. You can even archive back to the 90's within each category. I've generally found Rasmussen's basic questions to be consistently off either several points higher or lower depending on the same question asked by all those other polls. So my point is his audience is generally biased to the right begin with.

 

[MaggieMae]

Reports from journalists and the Government Accountability Office last month about problems with the data on Recovery.gov cast doubt on the site’s claim that more than 640,000 jobs had been created or saved by the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Meanwhile Obama upped the ante, putting the figure at more than 1 million. On Nov. 12, for example, in announcing this month’s jobs summit, he said that the stimulus had “created and saved more than a million jobs.”

Now some good news for the White House: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the actual number may be more than twice what Recovery.gov says, and as much as 50 percent more than what Obama has been saying. The nonpartisan agency found that:

CBO, Nov. 30: n the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.

Read ----> Stimulus Jobs, Re-revisited | FactCheck.org

I wonder how much they were paid out of the stimulus money to write that report??? It's laughable though and good entertainment for the time being.

I wonder how many qualified analysts who don't have ties to the President or key members of his cabinet/organization would come to the same conclusion as FactCheck? I am not saying that their information is biased or 'cooked', but they are an arm of the Annenberg group who does have strong ties to Obama and who have received huge amounts of funding through his efforts. Again, though they may in fact be reporting with good information, the prudent would want their numbers supported by a group without such ties.

That bullshit was debunked during the campaign. The Annenberg Foundation is HUGE, with diverse interests all over. Walter Annenberg was a personal friend of Ron and Nancy Reagan, for God's sake. The Bill Ayers issue was the trigger for accusing Annenberg of favoritism, simply because the Ayers grant for Chicago schools came from Annenberg. So???

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Search Engine

I suppose you also think Snopes.com is biased too. You people think the truth is biased. How amusing.

I subscribe to Factcheck.org, and I can guarantee there are at least two reports in my in box every week which call out Obama or members of his staff for misleading information. You would be wise to also subscribe, so that at least you don't make THAT mistake again.

 

[Misty]

If you want to work for the government that's great.

But don't wait around for the government to provide jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder how much they were paid out of the stimulus money to write that report??? It's laughable though and good entertainment for the time being.

I wonder how many qualified analysts who don't have ties to the President or key members of his cabinet/organization would come to the same conclusion as FactCheck? I am not saying that their information is biased or 'cooked', but they are an arm of the Annenberg group who does have strong ties to Obama and who have received huge amounts of funding through his efforts. Again, though they may in fact be reporting with good information, the prudent would want their numbers supported by a group without such ties.

That bullshit was debunked during the campaign. The Annenberg Foundation is HUGE, with diverse interests all over. Walter Annenberg was a personal friend of Ron and Nancy Reagan, for God's sake. The Bill Ayers issue was the trigger for accusing Annenberg of favoritism, simply because the Ayers grant for Chicago schools came from Annenberg. So???

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Search Engine

I suppose you also think Snopes.com is biased too. You people think the truth is biased. How amusing.

I subscribe to Factcheck.org, and I can guarantee there are at least two reports in my in box every week which call out Obama or members of his staff for misleading information. You would be wise to also subscribe, so that at least you don't make THAT mistake again.

I specifically said I didn't know that the report was 'cooked' but you plowed right in there and drew a conclusion that I was saying that didn't you.

Yes there are admirable attributes to a lot of the work of the various Annenburg groups and I didn't say that it was a bad organization either. But Annenburg, like ACORN, has a gazillion different arms and fingers and various aliases, and there is no getting around that FactCheck.org is one of them. And the fact that Barack Obama and varous of his cohorts have been closely connected to various Annenburg fingers and arms, including Obama sitting on one of the boards in Chicago, it is only prudent that FactCheck not be the only source used for information re the Obama administration.

I probably use FactCheck more than you do as a source for certain kinds of information, but I don't use it as my only source.

I suggest that you don't either.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Gotta hand it to ol' Scott Rasmussen. He runs a conservative website and asks questions specifically designed FOR conservatives. Do conservative posters ever look at any other polls? Probably, but they don't confirm their agenda the way Rasmussen does so unless other polls represent perceived bad news for Obama, they pretend they don't exist.

Maggie it has been shown on this forum that Rasmussen is one of the most if not the most accurate. Or at least he was for the last Presidential election.

Their tracking polls and basic polling questions are fine. But they go all out asking just "the right" questions which keep their conservative base reading everything on the site. If that weren't the case, why do you think it's the ONLY polling place conservatives ever link to when there are so many others?

I don't speak for anyone else but I go to it because it proved to be the most reliable last November. If that changes this next coming November I'll link to another polling site instead. Go with who has been proven to be most accurate. Simple I would think.

 

[saveliberty]

I suggested last week that since Rasmussen requires an approval/disapproval response, it may be a predictor of future polls. The others allow for no opinion which makes the percentages less than 100% totals. Last week it seemed to indicate more dispprovals coming and that seems to have happened.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Poll question......"When did you stop beating your wife?" I challenge EVERY married man here to answer this question and then tell me how "acurate" polls can be.

 

[JW Frogen]

I have never hit a woman in my entire life. (I have hit a lot of men, and I still kick ass at Wii boxing.)

I have been hit by women, women have thrown hot irons at my head, female fists of fury been flung at my best freinds, my two amigos, my family airlooms, women have come at me with sharp objects; I have been scratched, punched, burned and urinated on by passionate women out of control, and that was just in consensual sex, but I have never hit a woman.

Don't do a Chris Brown thing young men, just take a deep breath and walk, limp, or run away.

That is what a real man does.

Go somewhere and get drunk.

 

[MaggieMae]

I wonder how many qualified analysts who don't have ties to the President or key members of his cabinet/organization would come to the same conclusion as FactCheck? I am not saying that their information is biased or 'cooked', but they are an arm of the Annenberg group who does have strong ties to Obama and who have received huge amounts of funding through his efforts. Again, though they may in fact be reporting with good information, the prudent would want their numbers supported by a group without such ties.

That bullshit was debunked during the campaign. The Annenberg Foundation is HUGE, with diverse interests all over. Walter Annenberg was a personal friend of Ron and Nancy Reagan, for God's sake. The Bill Ayers issue was the trigger for accusing Annenberg of favoritism, simply because the Ayers grant for Chicago schools came from Annenberg. So???

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Search Engine

I suppose you also think Snopes.com is biased too. You people think the truth is biased. How amusing.

I subscribe to Factcheck.org, and I can guarantee there are at least two reports in my in box every week which call out Obama or members of his staff for misleading information. You would be wise to also subscribe, so that at least you don't make THAT mistake again.

I specifically said I didn't know that the report was 'cooked' but you plowed right in there and drew a conclusion that I was saying that didn't you.

Yes there are admirable attributes to a lot of the work of the various Annenburg groups and I didn't say that it was a bad organization either. But Annenburg, like ACORN, has a gazillion different arms and fingers and various aliases, and there is no getting around that FactCheck.org is one of them. And the fact that Barack Obama and varous of his cohorts have been closely connected to various Annenburg fingers and arms, including Obama sitting on one of the boards in Chicago, it is only prudent that FactCheck not be the only source used for information re the Obama administration.

I probably use FactCheck more than you do as a source for certain kinds of information, but I don't use it as my only source.

I suggest that you don't either.

So what WAS the purpose of attempting to make the connection? Subtle or not. I appreciate your honest backpedaling, however.