Who's your favorite democrat hopeful?

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


Bush is indeed horrible at schmoozing other political leaders (foreign) but he's quite adept at telling the American public what they want to hear regardless of its veracity.

You don't know how right you are...

That's almost as bad as me linking off newsmax or rushlimbaugh.com

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


Bush is indeed horrible at schmoozing other political leaders (foreign) but he's quite adept at telling the American public what they want to hear regardless of its veracity.

You don't know how right you are...

That's almost as bad as me linking off newsmax or rushlimbaugh.com

Almost...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


Bush is indeed horrible at schmoozing other political leaders (foreign) but he's quite adept at telling the American public what they want to hear regardless of its veracity.

You don't know how right you are...

That's almost as bad as me linking off newsmax or rushlimbaugh.com

"Here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers....I hold a copy of..."
Is the ditto cam on yet?
CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


Bush is indeed horrible at schmoozing other political leaders (foreign) but he's quite adept at telling the American public what they want to hear regardless of its veracity.

You don't know how right you are...

That's almost as bad as me linking off newsmax or rushlimbaugh.com

Here's a link to retropoll, the org that conducted the survey. Do you have problems with their methodology?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


Bush is indeed horrible at schmoozing other political leaders (foreign) but he's quite adept at telling the American public what they want to hear regardless of its veracity.

You don't know how right you are...

That's almost as bad as me linking off newsmax or rushlimbaugh.com

Here's a link to retropoll, the org that conducted the survey. Do you have problems with their methodology?

Yes I do...

In so doing so, Retro Poll reveals how the government and corporate media distort information in order to manipulate, confuse and disorganize the public's will.

surprised they did not have a poll on the lunar landing being a government conspiracy perpetrated by the government in an effort of showing up those Commie Reds...

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


Bush is indeed horrible at schmoozing other political leaders (foreign) but he's quite adept at telling the American public what they want to hear regardless of its veracity.

You don't know how right you are...

That's almost as bad as me linking off newsmax or rushlimbaugh.com

Here's a link to retropoll, the org that conducted the survey. Do you have problems with their methodology?

Yes I do...

In so doing so, Retro Poll reveals how the government and corporate media distort information in order to manipulate, confuse and disorganize the public's will.

surprised they did not have a poll on the lunar landing being a government conspiracy perpetrated by the government in an effort of showing up those Commie Reds...

So what in particular in their methodolgy do you object to? They conducted a poll, what about it is incorrect. Do you have a problem with the questions they asked? Or perhaps it is the way they assemble their stats. Just because you object to the idealogical objectives of the survey does not mean the survey is flawed. This survey is as valid as any poll conducted by gallup or whomever. Their sample size is smaller, so they have larger margins or errors, but everything is statistically significant.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think the basic truth being exposed is that people like Bush but do not necessarily like his individual policies on education, the environment, domestic security, or international relations. Reagan had very little understanding of sustainable public or international policy but he always took credit for anything perceived to be good and passed the buck on anything considered bad.

Clinton is of a similar vein but he typically had his grubby hands into everything b/c he knew something about everything or his wife taught him something about everything.

Bush is not particularly honest or deceitful. He's just another pol. But his handlers have mad skills, the media's primary function has become entertainment, and the public is too lazy to search for insight. Last but not least . . . the alleged opposition party (Dems) have essentially no message with a semblance of coherence.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King . . . or in this case one-eyed man with myopia, glaucoma, macular degeneration, partially detached retina, hypopyon, and a cataract.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So what in particular in their methodolgy do you object to? They conducted a poll, what about it is incorrect. Do you have a problem with the questions they asked? Or perhaps it is the way they assemble their stats. Just because you object to the idealogical objectives of the survey does not mean the survey is flawed. This survey is as valid as any poll conducted by gallup or whomever. Their sample size is smaller, so they have larger margins or errors, but everything is statistically significant.

Anyone can create a poll.

Anyone can create a poll with a slant

Anyone with an agenda is likely to create a poll with a slant

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So what in particular in their methodolgy do you object to? They conducted a poll, what about it is incorrect. Do you have a problem with the questions they asked? Or perhaps it is the way they assemble their stats. Just because you object to the idealogical objectives of the survey does not mean the survey is flawed. This survey is as valid as any poll conducted by gallup or whomever. Their sample size is smaller, so they have larger margins or errors, but everything is statistically significant.

Anyone can create a poll.

Anyone can create a poll with a slant

Anyone with an agenda is likely to create a poll with a slant

So how is this poll different than, say, a gallup poll or whatever poll you would believe?

 

[CaptnKirk]

At present I see no viable candidate emerging from the Democtatic Machine

Gore, who was their last BIG deal, was handicapped by not having a personality, but he almost won.
If he had been paired with a more appealing running mate - not Leiberman - he most likely would have.

Leiberman was appeasment that didn't work for the package concept. The same ones who he was
expected to carry - in Florida of all places, could't figure out how to place thier mark in the appropriate box,
and any one of about 8 different stupidities played out to deny Gore the win.

Kerry looks like Death Warmed Over. Sharpton is not as skilled or appealing as Don King.
The others are too bland and are fresh from the Spay and Neuter Clinc.

Ted Kazinsky is not going to be released in time to run, and O.J. can't hack his running mate.

Wouldn't be suprised to see Bush replace Cheney with Ashcroft or Frist to further screw the nation.
Expect Frist to be groomed for the 2008 elections with Ashcroft as the matched pairing.

Gebhardt with either Dean or Kerry may be the disfunctional default here.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So what in particular in their methodolgy do you object to? They conducted a poll, what about it is incorrect. Do you have a problem with the questions they asked? Or perhaps it is the way they assemble their stats. Just because you object to the idealogical objectives of the survey does not mean the survey is flawed. This survey is as valid as any poll conducted by gallup or whomever. Their sample size is smaller, so they have larger margins or errors, but everything is statistically significant.

Anyone can create a poll.

Anyone can create a poll with a slant

Anyone with an agenda is likely to create a poll with a slant

So how is this poll different than, say, a gallup poll or whatever poll you would believe?

How is a poll on foxnews different from one created at Berkeley? A poll is a poll. The only way to get an unbiased poll is to get one created from an unbiased author and presented in an unbiased way by an unbiased source. something in this day and age that is next to impossible. Polls have only as much integrity as their creators. This is why i would trust gallup anyday before one that is based in California or one associated with Rupert Murdoch.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So what in particular in their methodolgy do you object to? They conducted a poll, what about it is incorrect. Do you have a problem with the questions they asked? Or perhaps it is the way they assemble their stats. Just because you object to the idealogical objectives of the survey does not mean the survey is flawed. This survey is as valid as any poll conducted by gallup or whomever. Their sample size is smaller, so they have larger margins or errors, but everything is statistically significant.

Anyone can create a poll.

Anyone can create a poll with a slant

Anyone with an agenda is likely to create a poll with a slant

So how is this poll different than, say, a gallup poll or whatever poll you would believe?

How is a poll on foxnews different from one created at Berkeley? A poll is a poll. The only way to get an unbiased poll is to get one created from an unbiased author and presented in an unbiased way by an unbiased source. something in this day and age that is next to impossible. Polls have only as much integrity as their creators. This is why i would trust gallup anyday before one that is based in California or one associated with Rupert Murdoch.

I think what jahawkin is asking is which parts of this poll's actual polling do you find biased and unacceptable? Which questions or methodology leads the target to a certain response?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So what in particular in their methodolgy do you object to? They conducted a poll, what about it is incorrect. Do you have a problem with the questions they asked? Or perhaps it is the way they assemble their stats. Just because you object to the idealogical objectives of the survey does not mean the survey is flawed. This survey is as valid as any poll conducted by gallup or whomever. Their sample size is smaller, so they have larger margins or errors, but everything is statistically significant.

Anyone can create a poll.

Anyone can create a poll with a slant

Anyone with an agenda is likely to create a poll with a slant

So how is this poll different than, say, a gallup poll or whatever poll you would believe?

How is a poll on foxnews different from one created at Berkeley? A poll is a poll. The only way to get an unbiased poll is to get one created from an unbiased author and presented in an unbiased way by an unbiased source. something in this day and age that is next to impossible. Polls have only as much integrity as their creators. This is why i would trust gallup anyday before one that is based in California or one associated with Rupert Murdoch.

I think what jahawkin is asking is which parts of this poll's actual polling do you find biased and unacceptable? Which questions or methodology leads the target to a certain response?

I have not looked at the questions just the mission statements for both.