<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
Well Joan, as you know, I am a poll junkie. I also can claim a certain
level of knowledge about polls
having spent a great part of my career doing market research involving
polls and having also earned many credits in quantitative analysis at
the
graduate level (although I don't hold myself out to be an expert in
statistics or QA.) <br>
<br>
There is no dispute that W & Co. have taken a political hit from
the events in the early days past Katrina's wrath. One however, must
be cautious of reading polls. For example, Ronald Reagan was in the
high 20"s in early 1983 moving to win by a historical landslide in
1984. Bill Clinton was in the low 30's in 1993. So it is true that
American's are sour on Bush at present, but things may change.<br>
<br>
The biggest indictment seems to be in the <a
href="http://people-press.org/files/Sept05Katrina.pdf">Pew Poll</a>
poll showing Bush at
40%. I say this because Pew was the only poll to accurately predict the
2004 election. If, however, we look at Andy Kohut's methodology, he
made some
statistical assumptions that bring his work into question. First, he
over samples African-americans intentionally to make sure he had a good
reading on the differences in perceptions between blacks and whites.
As <a
href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_04_corner-archive.asp#075952">John
Podhoretz</a> points out:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"<b>THEY SKEWED THE POLL ON PURPOSE</b> [<a
href="mailto:jpod@sprynet.com">John Podhoretz</a>]<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Pew has a <a
href="http://people-press.org/files/Sept05Katrina.pdf">new poll</a>
out with very bad news for the president -- 67 percent say he could
have done more, and he has a 40 percent approval rating with a 52
percent disapproval rating. But wait a minute. Because Pew wanted to
gauge racial attitudes, they deliberately oversampled African-Americans
in order to get a sufficient number of blacks to respond so that their
attitudes could be credibly gauged. But though Pew claims to have
ironed out its data in other categories besides racial questions using
census figures, the poll numbers remain wildly skewed. Those polled
identify themselves as 33 percent Democrat, 33 percent independent, and
27 percent Republican. Last November, Republicans numbered 37 percent
of the electorate -- which means Pew's Republican sample is a full 33
percent smaller than it was less than a year ago. There may be fewer
Republicans now than then, but not 33 percent fewer. (The poll is only
of American adults, not registered voters or likely voters, which is
why the independent number is so large.)<br>
<br>
Bottom line: The data here aren't trustworthy, though they do harmonize
to some degree with the findings in the CNN-USA Today poll -- with 42
percent of those surveyed saying the president did a bad or terrible
job while only 28 percent saying he did a great or good job. Bush has
taken a hit, and there's no sense disputing it.</font><br>
<font face="ms sans serif" size="2" color="#999999">Posted at <a
href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_04_corner-archive.asp#075952">05:03
PM</a>"</font><br>
-----------<br>
<br>
We also know that wording and question order have a great deal to do
with responses. I'm a big fan of Scott Rasmussen's work with his <a
href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm">automated
polls</a>. Rasmussen has Bush at 47% today. <br>
<br>
The AP/Ipsos poll, which gives Bush 38% approval, also oversampled
Democrats by 8%. As for SUSA, those guys are hacks and still use 2000
demographic selection criteria which seems to be the largest
contributor
to the fact that they were the worst predictors of the 2004 election.
I discount them completely.<br>
<br>
Neither Newsweek or the CBS poll have reported their methodology (at
least I cannot find it and would appreciate if anyone could send me
their links) so I have no opinion on their work.<br>
<br>
So for you poll junkies you should go to <a
href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html">Real Clear Politics</a>
for links if you want to follow polls. <br>
<br>
Remember, however, that most polls are pretty meaningless.<br>
<br>
Regardless of the poll numbers, I can't defend Bush & Co for their
part in this SNAFU. Notwithstanding the many
screw-ups of state and local governments, I too hold the administration
accountable. It will surprise none of you that I have little faith in
government and I see this as simply another example of incompetence
institutionalized by political patronage, cronyism and corruption - at
all levels in this case. I also want to mention that Ted and I are on
the same page as for the $51 billion. This is another example of
government playing "big shot" to assuage an antsy constituency with
willful disregard for both waste and fraud. I say, throw 'em all out
and start over in 2006 and 2008. <br>
<br>
In the short run this does portend poorly for both tax relief or SoSec
reform for Bush. It will have no impact on his SCOTUS appointments
however. Conservatives, even if they are angry with Bush, still want
"originalists" on the bench. Bush cannot and will not further alienate
his core by compromising his appointments. He has the votes in the
Senate and they will use the nuclear option if pushed. <br>
<br>
Now a word about impeachment, Joan. Impeach Bush and you get Cheney.
Impeach Cheney and you get Hastart. Impeach Hastart and (it's getting a
bit fuzzy here) you get Rice (I think.) From your vantage point you
can't win. Better drop it or you just might get what you're wishing
for.<br>
<br>
In the mean time, throw a few more bucks to the charity of your
choice. It's really up to us to watch out for our neighbors.<br>
<br>
db<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Joan Opyr wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid15796578.1126472070404.JavaMail.root@elwamui-karabash.atl.sa.earthlink.net">
<pre wrap="">Dear Visionaries:
In a post last week, I said that George W. Bush's pre-Katrina poll ratings were at 38%. My friend, Dave Budge, suggested that I needed to check my poll data. In a private email to him (one that I managed not to accidentally forward to this list), I said that I got my polling information from the American Research Group, and that Bush's 38% was a rough average of his scores on the economy, the gas crunch, the war in Iraq, and a host of other issues. I stick by that figure.
Now, here are a few more figures for my fellow polling junkies to consider. (If you're not a poll junkie, please delete.) From Salon.com's War Room, posted by Farhad Manjoo:
"The nation takes to the blame game.
Throughout the week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan assured the nation that it was only Democrats and troublemakers in the elite news media who delighted in playing that long-lost American sport known as the blame game. Every other American wasn't inclined to point fingers, he said, because we all know that kvetching about whether the federal government might have saved lives or eased suffering by doing more than it did, faster and more competently than it did -- well, Americans are better than that. We're not a nation of glum, hard-to-please, sad-faced, finger-pointing blame-gamers.
The thing is, though, it turns out we are! A slate of new polls released in the last couple days shows that when something goes catastrophically wrong, Americans, like people everywhere else, apparently want to hold someone accountable for the mistakes. In other words, the blame game has caught on. What's more, the White House is losing.
A poll by the Pew Research Center shows that 67 percent of Americans believe George W. Bush "could have done more" to aid hurricane victims. The picture is roughly the same in other surveys: A Zogby poll shows 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's hurricane response, CBS has 58 percent disapproval, Associated Press-Ipsos finds 52 percent, and Newsweek says that 40 percent of Americans think the federal government's hurricane response was "poor," while 32 percent say it was "fair." When SurveyUSA asked Americans to rate Bush's hurricane response on a scale of 1 to 10 --1 being a miserable failure, 10 being awesome -- 34 percent gave him a 1. More than half rated him a 5 or less. (But 24 percent of respondents -- call them blame-game-player-haters -- gave him a 9 or 10.)
All these polls show that Bush's poor hurricane response has damaged his overall approval rating. In some polls, Bush's unpopularity is breathtaking: Newsweek shows just 38 percent approve of the job he's doing. The poll also shows that what was once seen as Bush's greatest strength -- his capacity to convince Americans that only he could keep us out of danger -- has fizzled. The magazine reports that 52 percent of Americans "say they do not trust the president 'to make the right decisions during a domestic crisis' (45 percent do). The numbers are exactly the same when the subject is trust of the president to make the right decisions during an international crisis."
We could go on and on with the bad ratings -- we could tell you about the staggeringly high number of Americans who believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, or who disapprove of everything from Bush's handling of gas prices to the war in Iraq.... But maybe that's enough blame-gaming for one Saturday afternoon.
-- Farhad Manjoo
Permalink [16:37 EDT, September 10, 2005]"
Pat wondered how low poll numbers could possibly hurt Bush, as he can't run for the presidency again. (Wow. I just felt the strongest urge to drop to my knees and thank God Almighty. Hmm.) Anyhow, the answer is that low polls will make it difficult for Bush to continue to push the more radical elements of his agenda. More tax cuts. Controversial judicial nominations. The administration's continued failure to adequately fund, support and/or restructure those agencies responsible for emergency disaster relief. Already, the nation looks ahead to the mid-term elections of 2006 and the presidential race in 2008.
Ever heard of a lame duck, Pat? Bush's poll numbers suggest lame duck a l'orange.
Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.auntie-establishment.com">www.auntie-establishment.com</a>
PS: I'm not in the habit (I hope) of hyping my New West work here on 2020, but I would like to draw your attention to a piece I posted today. An odd thing happened on Thursday afternoon, when I flew from the Moscow-Pullman Airport to Sea-Tac. The fellow behind me in the security line had a fully-loaded automatic pistol clip in his carry-on. No pistol; just the clip. What ensued was very interesting, and something, perhaps, to ponder on this sad anniversary. If you're interested in reading more, go to <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.newwest.net">http://www.newwest.net</a> and follow the Northern Idaho link. The piece, which is rather wide-ranging, is called "Rich Man, Poor Woman or Of Thrift Stores, Airports, and Pistol Clips."
Also, Nick Gier has an excellent piece up on American anti-intellectualism that I encourage you all to read. It's posted in New West's Citizen Journalist section. Much to think about on this rainy day -- well, it's rainy in Olympia. Perhaps it's bathing suit weather in Moscow.
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>