87% want Bush impeached - MSNBC poll

[26 X World Champs]

I did read the link and I stopped after I saw this:

according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports for AfterDowningStreet.org. 32 per cent of

so it's you who looks the fool if you believe a word off of that sight or any group associated with it;

So then this poll has no validity to you?

Polling Data

If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Rodham Clinton the Democrat and John McCain the Republican for whom would you vote?

Dec. 2005 Mar. 2005

John McCain (R) 44% 43%

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) 40% 41%

Source: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,230 registered American voters, conducted from Nov. 28 to Dec. 4, 2005. Margin of error is 3.2 per cent

BTW - Here's a link to the Rasmussen website page that reported the actual findings of the poll.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Impeachment.htm

furthermore, by scientifically accurate perhaps they asked the questions similar along the lines of the continuosly biased polls that ask misdirecting and two pronged questions and then try to claim they say something that they don't I don't trust any poll unless I see the exact questions being asked and not what the poll takers say the results mean . . .

You asked to see the exact question from the poll, no problem, here it is:

Should President Bush be Impeached and Removed from Office?

Seems like a pretty straight forward question IMHO. Does it sound manipulated by you?

Plus, if you read the page from the link provided you will note the demographic (I like that word, much better than repubographic :smile: ) breakdown by party affiliation AND how people would be swayed by a candidate who runs vowing to vote to have Bush indicted. Nothing that I read sounds bogus, prejudiced or biased in any way. Actually, it seems spot on to me.

oh and look at the bottom of this page not only is it a poll conducted by AfterDowningStreet it is a telephone poll with a research group of only 1,000 people that is nowhere near enough for an accurate polling sample what was the methodolgy in selecting said people did they call up a thousand people in Boston Mass.? Where's the link to the research methodology involvede? Seriously dude don't believe everything you read.

The science of polling is quite well established as is the methodology. Rasmussen is as respected as any other organization. Do you know what their final poll looked for the 2004 presidential election? Here's a reminder:

Presidential Tracking Poll: Bush-Kerry

Election 2004

Final Projection
Bush 50.2%
Kerry 48.5%
Other 1.3%

President George W. Bush won the popular vote on November 2 by a 50.7% to 48.2% margin over Senator John Kerry. The final Rasmussen Reports projection had shown the President winning 50.2% to 48.5%.

Our final polling state-by-state polling results were also validated by actual election returns. We correctly showed Florida and Ohio breaking for the President while Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota were heading for the Kerry column.

The Wall Street Journal named Rasmussen Reports one of the "big winners" of Election 2004. Later this month, we will release a special report on Election 2004 and what it means for the country over the next four years

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Polling, to me, can be extremely accurate (hence the "margin of error") when conducted using 1000 people can be right on. If you read the bottom of the page of the last link I provided it says:

The final Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projection showed Bush with 222 Electoral Votes and Kerry with 186. For the second straight Presidential Election, every state that we projected for a candidate was won by that candidate. Additionally, each of the Toss-Up states was won by the person leading in our final poll.

Oh and P.S. Bush has gone up in the Polls because the people are not swayed by the liberal media

That's one valid point of view. Another valid point of view, one that I subscribe to is that each time after an election in Iraq Bush's numbers have temporarily spiked up only to fall again 30-60 days later as the fighting and dead increased and after the actual results of the election became clear.

The next important poll is in November 2006 and no one knows at this time what the results will be. Shall we take a poll?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

So then this poll has no validity to you?
...
That's one valid point of view. Another valid point of view, one that I subscribe to is that each time after an election in Iraq Bush's numbers have temporarily spiked up only to fall again 30-60 days later as the fighting and dead increased and after the actual results of the election became clear.

The next important poll is in November 2006 and no one knows at this time what the results will be. Shall we take a poll?

:applaud :rock :yt :clap:

Beautifully said. Yer pretty smart, even if you are a fan of the Evil Empire
(yeah, that's right, I'm a Bosox fan, ya Steinbrenner-kisser)

As for impeaching Bush: I find I cannot support it at this point; the issue of his lying is just not provable, not without a credible witness that Bush was told something that he then intentionally altered. Exaggeration for the purpose of whipping up nationalistic fervor is not lying. He had to say an intentional falsehood, fully cognizant of the truth contrary to his statement, to Congress or in a court. Otherwise, it's just political BS, which is not an impeachable offense.
I would like to see Bush's entire cabal defeated in the next election, and ridden out of town on a rail; I would like to see his replacement end the war in Iraq on the day of his or her inauguration. But I fear we are stuck with our current despot until then, regardless of the results of polls. Bush can not be convicted of a crime, not unless some information has come out that I have not heard of. And I think, if anyone had proof of a criminal action, that we all would have heard of it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So then this poll has no validity to you?


BTW - Here's a link to the Rasmussen website page that reported the actual findings of the poll.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Impeachment.htm


You asked to see the exact question from the poll, no problem, here it is:

Seems like a pretty straight forward question IMHO. Does it sound manipulated by you?

Plus, if you read the page from the link provided you will note the demographic (I like that word, much better than repubographic :smile: ) breakdown by party affiliation AND how people would be swayed by a candidate who runs vowing to vote to have Bush indicted. Nothing that I read sounds bogus, prejudiced or biased in any way. Actually, it seems spot on to me.

The science of polling is quite well established as is the methodology. Rasmussen is as respected as any other organization. Do you know what their final poll looked for the 2004 presidential election? Here's a reminder:

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Polling, to me, can be extremely accurate (hence the "margin of error") when conducted using 1000 people can be right on. If you read the bottom of the page of the last link I provided it says:



That's one valid point of view. Another valid point of view, one that I subscribe to is that each time after an election in Iraq Bush's numbers have temporarily spiked up only to fall again 30-60 days later as the fighting and dead increased and after the actual results of the election became clear.

The next important poll is in November 2006 and no one knows at this time what the results will be. Shall we take a poll?

First of all I wouldn't trust a poll from afterdowningstreet.com if you payed me as far as the question you proved my point it's a two pronged question. See you in 06. I'm taking bets that we win even more seats this year.

 

[Dogger807]

First of all I wouldn't trust a poll from afterdowningstreet.com if you payed me as far as the question you proved my point it's a two pronged question. See you in 06. I'm taking bets that we win even more seats this year.

First of all the poll was commissioned by afterdowningstreet.com not done by them or influenced by them. Point to fact, you simple will not believe any poll that doesn't say what you want it to say. Your argument is moot and childish.

Oh and 26 X World Champs no fair ..you beat me to the punch. Good post.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

First of all the poll was commissioned by afterdowningstreet.com not done by them or influenced by them. Point to fact, you simple will not believe any poll that doesn't say what you want it to say. Your argument is moot and childish.

Oh and 26 X World Champs no fair ..you beat me to the punch. Good post.

A poll based on a two pronged question and a test population of 1,000 means absolutely jack ****.

 

[Billo_Really]

There are two big reasons Bush will not get impeached:
1) There's not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. They
both answer to the same class of people.
2) Congress is a bunch of ******s.

 

[26 X World Champs]

A poll based on a two pronged question and a test population of 1,000 means absolutely jack ****.

With all due respect, ignoring the truth, ignoring the science, refusing to accept reality does not make you correct, IMHO.

Rasmussen is a quality organization with a solid reputation and as I pointed out in my last post was spot on for the 2004 Presidential election. The question asked in the poll cited in this thread was straighforward and clearly asked. You wrote in an earlier post that you do not trust the way pollsters ask questions, even citing that question asking is one main reason you cannot accept the findings of the poll. In fact, the question was clear and not prejudicial in anyway whatsoever so your premise has been debunked in my mind.

You've also written several times that a test population of 1000 makes it invalid. Please prove to us through a link what you've written? I can provided lots of links proving the authenticity of Rasmussen, their methodology and that using 1000 screened participants is extremely accurate. Please prove through links that Rasmussen is full of it, that their methodology is bogus, and that any poll that uses 1000 participants is invalid, OK?

Thank you!

 

[kal-el]

lmfao a poll conducted on the AfterDowningStreet.com website

That's a blatant misrepresentation. The poll in question was commisioned by AfterDowingSteet.com, not performed by them. Did you even read the link I provided?

a site frequented by ravid anti-Bush haters and a site dedicated to the task of impeaching the president, I wonder why their poll would be skewed, :roll:

It probably would be if AfterDowingStreet.com conducted the poll, but this isn't the case. Stop being so obtuse.

you people are really laughable when you try to pass this stuff off.

What laughable when we try to pass off what you don't agree with?

These polls you are submitting are un-scientific and amount to jack **** in my book or in the book of anyone else who understands empirical analysis.

Unscientific? Here's the exact link Champs posted, I suggest you read it:
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Impeachment.htm

Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Dec. 9 and Dec. 10, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

 

[Dogger807]

A poll based on a two pronged question and a test population of 1,000 means absolutely jack ****.

Like I said.. your looking the fool here.

 

[Stinger]

Actually, here is another one that says 1/3 of Americans favor impeachment. This was before the big brother gone wild scandal.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/10294

And 58% disagree.

 

[alphieb]

Why are we even dicussing this? Bush will never get impeached.

 

[tecoyah]

And 58% disagree.

I think many are missing the BIG picture here, and I would hope we can discuss it:

If even 33% of the population, 1/3 feel so strongly about the leadership qualities of the President....that they are willing to support something as drastic as removal from office....there is something terribly wrong. Either with the population, or with the leadership. regardless of the right or wrong of the opinions people hold....there are MAJOR issues that need to be confronted at some point.....the Polls just add an ounce of weight, to the tonnage.

 

[cnredd]

Why are we even dicussing this? Bush will never get impeached.

Wishful thinking...

I've always said there are two ways to win a campaign...

1) Make yourself look better...

2) Make your opponent look worse...

The Left has lost the last three bi-annual elections...It seems that this is a combination of the country swinging to the Right(most likely due to the issue of National Security), and the Left losing their voice...It has been hi-jacked by the radical wing...

The two ways that the Left can recover would be the Moderate Left to "reign in" the extreme factions of their own party(much like Clinton did during the 90s), or to point out every misstep, real or not, that the current Administration or anyone connected to it has done, in the hopes that the country will "hate us less"...

We haven't seen any evidence that the first will ever happen...The Moderates(example - Lieberman) get marginalized by the radicals, who, instead of bringing forth solutions of their own on any issue, they decide to attack their opponents in the hopes that they win the 2006 election simply by making the opposition look bad...

Their campaign slogan?..."We suck, but they suck more"...:shrug:

 

[MSgt]

87% have neglected to study the Middle East for themselves and are still relying on reporters and politicians to feed them their opinions.

For the most powerful nation in history, we certainly are one of the most naive and ignorant.

 

[26 X World Champs]

or to point out every misstep, real or not, that the current Administration or anyone connected to it has done, in the hopes that the country will "hate us less"...

Is it NORMAL for the opposition party to "point out every misstep"? Is anyone so naive as to believe that the loyal opposition is not going to be waiting in the weeds to pounce on any issue that gains them political favor?

Do you think that the Bush Crime Family didn't pounce on every misstep made during the Clinton years? Republicans and Democrats are the same on this issue...open the door, stick your foot in and go for the upper hand.

 

[cnredd]

Is it NORMAL for the opposition party to "point out every misstep"? Is anyone so naive as to believe that the loyal opposition is not going to be waiting in the weeds to pounce on any issue that gains them political favor?

Do you think that the Bush Crime Family didn't pounce on every misstep made during the Clinton years? Republicans and Democrats are the same on this issue...open the door, stick your foot in and go for the upper hand.

Two points...

1) I'm not naive enough to believe that...

A) It's not done by the opposition...

B) It has been done for years on both sides of the aisle...striking while the iron is hot is the norm...

But in alot of these cases in recent times, the "hot iron" is nothing more than trumped up charges which do not have legitimacy(Rathergate) or is outright lunacy(Bush knew about 9/11...He blew up the levees in N.O.)...

It's become a situation where some want to throw all of the crap on the wall and then cross their fingers HOPING something sticks...

Look at the recent NSA seal...People ON THIS VERY WEBSITE have insinuated that Bush could be(!) eavesdropping on political groups, have intentionally or unintentionally taken his 2004 comments on wiretapping out of context, totally negating his second paragraph, totally disregard the fact that the President has had 12 meetings with the Senate Intelligence Committee about this(which includes Democrats), all in the HOPES that this goes downhill...

This isn't a "hot iron" situation...This is a situation where, in this case, the New York Times held on to the story(through a leak, which SHOULD be prosecuted when found out) and made the iron heat up for either political purposes or to sell papers...

We have people here that have called various officials "guilty" before they're even convicted...some before they're even indicted for anything!...We have people here who still INSIST that the 2000 & 2004 elections were "stolen"...We have people here that believe Abu Gharib is the norm instead of the anamoly, even though prosecutions and actual convictions have been made to those who have clearly done wrong...We have people here that believe his languistic missteps are somehow related to intelligence and flaunt these publicly like it's supposed to matter...

All "cold iron" issues where they take out the blowtorches to make it hot...Their only goal is to make the Administration look bad...even if there is no reality-based information...

If GWB did everything he was accused of, he'd be in prison for life...You've done it yourself..."Bush Crime Family"...snide remark with little based in reality...

I find it ironic that you call them a "Crime Family" even though they're out on the loose in public and actually hold office, but you're more than happy to point out how unfair it is to call Clinton a rapist even though there's no convictions there either...

A little partisan hypocracy perhaps?...

Now the second point...

From what I've written earlier...

I've always said there are two ways to win a campaign...

1) Make yourself look better...

2) Make your opponent look worse...

You reinforcing the second option is further proof that the Left in power have no intention of doing the first option...saying "Hey! Everybody tries to make their opponent look worse!", though true, does not confront the fact that the Left in power has done vitually nothing to makes themselves out in a better light...only to make the opposition's light darker...

 

[26 X World Champs]

Two points...

1) I'm not naive enough to believe that...

A) It's not done by the opposition...

B) It has been done for years on both sides of the aisle...striking while the iron is hot is the norm.

So you mean when the Swift Boat slanderers took out ads last yer they were not in the category that you put the "left" into? PLEASE!

I'm at least honest enough to accept that both parties are dogs, and that they do resort, all the time, to tactics that are, in a word, political. I'm not naive enough to think that my party is so virtuous while Republicans are the only evil doers in the world of politics.

The TRUTH is that for every sordid remark made by Democrats I can find an equally sordid remark made by Republicans.

BTW - The Bush Crime Family 2007 Reunion will be held in California, San Quentin I believe and all your favorites will be there:

George W. Bush convicted for war crime against humanity, perhaps?

Karl Rove - convicted for LYING to a GRAND JURY and OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE.

"Scooter" Libby - See Karl Rove.

Don Rumsfeld - Convicted for being Don Rumsfeld

Tom DeLay and his best bud Jack Abramoff and all of their good friends in Congress and their aids. Plus some of your favorites from Bush I and the first 4 years.

Should be quite the reunion. I heard it's going to be on Pay Per View.

 

[tecoyah]

*snip*

All "cold iron" issues where they take out the blowtorches to make it hot...Their only goal is to make the Administration look bad...even if there is no reality-based information...

If GWB did everything he was accused of, he'd be in prison for life...*snip*

Agreed....but, if GWB has done Half of what he is accused of....he should be out of office.....

 

[alphieb]

Wishful thinking...

I've always said there are two ways to win a campaign...

1) Make yourself look better...

2) Make your opponent look worse...

The Left has lost the last three bi-annual elections...It seems that this is a combination of the country swinging to the Right(most likely due to the issue of National Security), and the Left losing their voice...It has been hi-jacked by the radical wing...

The two ways that the Left can recover would be the Moderate Left to "reign in" the extreme factions of their own party(much like Clinton did during the 90s), or to point out every misstep, real or not, that the current Administration or anyone connected to it has done, in the hopes that the country will "hate us less"...

We haven't seen any evidence that the first will ever happen...The Moderates(example - Lieberman) get marginalized by the radicals, who, instead of bringing forth solutions of their own on any issue, they decide to attack their opponents in the hopes that they win the 2006 election simply by making the opposition look bad...

Their campaign slogan?..."We suck, but they suck more"...:shrug:

I would agree with your first statement, I believe National Security played a role in the left losing elections. The same will happen in 2006, due to the war in Iraq and the slow Katrina response. Even though I am a moderate left, I don't actually believe Bush was responsible for the Katrina delay. Blanco, Nagin and FEMA are much more to blame, however people are shallow and don't see it that way.

You mentioned in another post that the left have done nothing to benefit the country, however Clinton tried to impose some very important issues, such as National Health reform, http://www.wikipedia.org and Social Security reform http://www.socialsecurityreform.com or org can't remember. Perhaps, you are talking about the radical liberals. Can I ask how you define a radical from a moderate and give me an example.

 

[cnredd]

So you mean when the Swift Boat slanderers took out ads last yer they were not in the category that you put the "left" into? PLEASE!

I'm at least honest enough to accept that both parties are dogs, and that they do resort, all the time, to tactics that are, in a word, political. I'm not naive enough to think that my party is so virtuous while Republicans are the only evil doers in the world of politics.

The TRUTH is that for every sordid remark made by Democrats I can find an equally sordid remark made by Republicans.

BTW - The Bush Crime Family 2007 Reunion will be held in California, San Quentin I believe and all your favorites will be there:

George W. Bush convicted for war crime against humanity, perhaps?

Karl Rove - convicted for LYING to a GRAND JURY and OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE.

"Scooter" Libby - See Karl Rove.

Don Rumsfeld - Convicted for being Don Rumsfeld

Tom DeLay and his best bud Jack Abramoff and all of their good friends in Congress and their aids. Plus some of your favorites from Bush I and the first 4 years.

Should be quite the reunion. I heard it's going to be on Pay Per View.

It was the perfect setup for you to start debating in a normal fashion and not throwing out whiney crap...

What was I thinking?...

 

[hipsterdufus]

If 87% want him impeached, why have his approval ratings climbed to around 50% as the latest polls have shown?

And, I may be wrong, but I've heard our good buddy Ted Stevens is next in line for the presidency after Cheney, based on seniority. I've also heard the Speaker of the House and Secretary of State too so I have no idea. Can anyone confirm this?

I think - Mr. Bridge to nowwhere and his hulk tie are in at #4 after Jabba the Hastert.

 

[26 X World Champs]

It was the perfect setup for you to start debating in a normal fashion and not throwing out whiney crap...

What was I thinking?...

How muchyou love me? :yes: :bright: :kissy:

 

[cnredd]

I agree with you on most of this (on prosecuting the leak, I'm not so sure, because if there's one thing that we DON'T need to discourage it's governmental transperency), but you've got to admit that it's a tad odd that you don't come out and say these things so passionately when they are in the republicans' favor.
I'm all about promoting taking the high road, and chastising those who take the low road, but what you are doing is the very definition of taking the low road, because in criticising the democrats for doing this so passionately, and not recipricating this passion against the republicans you're essentially saying "This is wrong...unless my side does it."
Both sides are equally to blame for this, as are us all for tolerating it, and yes, this includes you through your tacit support of the republicans acting like this.
I say that as a society we shouldn't tolerate this **** at all. When the Swiftboat Jackasses spoke out against Kerry, instead of treating it as legitimate, we should've run those bastards out of the country. And we should've done the exact same with Moveon.org. And you're half way there, but you need to come the other half, because as far as this goes, it's all or nothing, so you're just as bad as them.:2wave:

I would agree, except for the fact that you're wrong...:2wave:

Could you site me some examples, because it seems you're asking me to prove a negative, or more specifically, if I don't say anything AGAINST something, that must mean that I am FOR it...

I don't agree with that logic...

When did you see me approving of things you say are "dirty tactics"?...Show me my "tacit support"?...

Swiftboat?...Do an Advanced Search with my name and the term "swift"...Here's the only one made in humor...if you read above, you can see how it was a play on dirty tactics...AND it was a thread on DP T-shirts...It actually shows how I would be (jokingly) willing to use such distasteful tactics to get what I want...

Since I've never debated the Swiftboat Vet issue, according to your logic, that means I approve of it...You would be wrong...

Any others?

Would you like a simple commentary on the radical right noisemakers?

How about my Conservative take on where Pat Robertson will end up?...How about another one?...

How about my thoughts on Karl Rove?...Pay attention to the bolded words...

And after all was said and done, this is how YOU, galenrox, repsonded...

It seems you're doing it again...

And here's the bigger question...two-fold...

1) Why is the burden placed upon me?

2) Why point me out when you said yourself that I'm not a typical Conservative?...(Read what you're responding to...Very relevant isn't it?)...

I don't see how I've responded "so passionately"...and the only reason this was brought up was because of a question which related to a Liberal attack(the default "impeachment" line)...

If you believe that I won't attack Republicans and their cohorts(which I've already disproved), all you had to do was ask me about a topic in particular...you know, instead of making assumptions and all...

 

[alphieb]

I think the warrentless wiretaps and email surveilance was the smartest thing Bush has done. What is the fuss, it was an excellent war on terror tactic. If someone is plotting an attack on the US, why should they deserve rights? This just tightens our security and is a good "war on terror" technique.

Off the subject, I think my computer is infected. Don't be surprised if you don't hear from me for a while.

 

[aps]

I think the warrentless wiretaps and email surveilance was the smartest thing Bush has done. What is the fuss, it was an excellent war on terror tactic. If someone is plotting an attack on the US, why should they deserve rights? This just tightens our security and is a good "war on terror" technique.

Off the subject, I think my computer is infected. Don't be surprised if you don't hear from me for a while.

alphieb, I am surprised to see you say this. Personally, I think it shows the hubris of this adminstration--See, I can do anything I want. I am so sick and tired of Bush using "national security" for his reasons to do anything he wants. If he was truly concerned about national security, he wouldn't have taken the ball off of Osama bin Laden and placed it on Saddam Hussein.