Bush's Approval Rating Higher than Hillary's (1 Viewer)

[RightinNYC]

President Bush's approval rating is currently at 43%

Hillary Clinton's favorable rating is currently at 40%

While the two aren't exactly comparable, they're pretty darn close.

Just to put things in perspective...

 

[millsy]

President Bush's approval rating is currently at 43%

Hillary Clinton's favorable rating is currently at 40%

While the two aren't exactly comparable, they're pretty darn close.

Just to put things in perspective...

That's a beautiful apple, it's not as nice as my orange though.

Hilary is getting beaten up by conservative pundits nationally right now, but she can't fight back without being accused of "abandoning her current position and forgetting about her constituents". Her numbers will come up when she officially kicks off her national campaign (I know she's started already, but she's only about 10% throttle right now) and can start giving her message to combat the ENORMOUS amount of negative press from those pundits on the right.

 

[aps]

President Bush's approval rating is currently at 43%

Hillary Clinton's favorable rating is currently at 40%

While the two aren't exactly comparable, they're pretty darn close.

Just to put things in perspective...

President Bush is President of the United States, which emcompasses 50 states.

Hillary Clinton is a Senator from New York, which encompasses 1 state.

Putting things in perspective? I guess if someone I supported was getting kicked in the a$$, I would try to change the subject., too.

 

[Schweddy]

This was a national poll - New York is only a piece of the pie about Hillary.

There is no way she would ever get elected. Personally, I hope Dems choose her as a canidate. If we thought the Vet Boat PAC was bad, wait until they get like 30 of them on TV all day against her.

 

[GarzaUK]

This was a national poll - New York is only a piece of the pie about Hillary.

There is no way she would ever get elected. Personally, I hope Dems choose her as a canidate. If we thought the Vet Boat PAC was bad, wait until they get like 30 of them on TV all day against her.

I have heard about these bitchfest commericials in America. Whatever happened to a sporting fair clean fight??

 

[teacher]

You all friggin libs do backflips over a low Bush poll. Then make excuses when it come to a low Democrate poll. Way to be consistent.

Polls are useless. People that put real stock in polls are just as useless. People who change their minds from day to day are twice as useless as those people that that put real stock in polls, and the only reason polls change. People who look to polls that change everyday because of these people that are twice as useless as polls themselves and try to point something out because of them are just as useless as those who change their minds everyday.

I like that, I'm gonna make it my sig for a while. Maybe follow danarhea and kidrocks around dropping that everytime they do another poll thread.

 

[millsy]

You all friggin libs do backflips over a low Bush poll. Then make excuses when it come to a low Democrate poll. Way to be consistent.

That's a huge generalization. There are plenty of democrats that are polling very lowely (how about democratic congress as a whole) that nobody makes excuses for.

My analysis of this poll is legitimet

Polls are useless. People that put real stock in polls are just as useless. People who change their minds from day to day are twice as useless as those people that that put real stock in polls, and the only reason polls change. People who look to polls that change everyday because of these people that are twice as useless as polls themselves and try to point something out because of them are just as useless as those who change their minds everyday.

Heaven forbid that as information changes people might change there mind instead of changing their reasoning to fit the facts:
"it was WMD ......................no WAIT it was the link to Al Queda.........NO WAIT it was, it was the liberation of the Iraqi people and the march of democracy!!!!

vauge
This was a national poll - New York is only a piece of the pie about Hillary.There is no way she would ever get elected. Personally, I hope Dems choose her as a canidate. If we thought the Vet Boat PAC was bad, wait until they get like 30 of them on TV all day against her.

You're right it is a national poll, and since she isn't campaigning nationally yet, but everyone is campaigning against her nationally, the numbers are skewed downward.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The latest Fox News Poll has Bush at 33%. Being that this poll is considerably higher than any of his recent polls, its stands to reason that its just an anomaly.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

Just get rid of the two party monopoly system and you need not worry about Shrub or HillWilly.

 

[Captain America]

The latest Fox News Poll has Bush at 33%. Being that this poll is considerably higher than any of his recent polls, its stands to reason that its just an anomaly.

Hmmmm, I find it unusual that FOXNews would broadcast such low ratings for President Bush. I can see CNN or MSNBC shouting it from the mountain top but that's something FOXNews usually sweeps under the rug.

Has hell frozen over?

 

[Gill]

Hilary is getting beaten up by conservative pundits nationally right now, but she can't fight back without being accused of "abandoning her current position and forgetting about her constituents".

Hillary is also lambasted from the far left. Would you like me to post some quotes from leftwing websites?

Hmmmm, I find it unusual that FOXNews would broadcast such low ratings for President Bush. I can see CNN or MSNBC shouting it from the mountain top but that's something FOXNews usually sweeps under the rug.

Has hell frozen over?

This is an absurd statement. You, like many others that lean left, confuse Fox NEWS with Fox COMMENTARY.

 

[KCConservative]

You all friggin libs do backflips over a low Bush poll. Then make excuses when it come to a low Democrate poll. Way to be consistent.

Agreed. I love how it matters when dan or aps or kidrocks post their pol numbers and blather on how important the data is, but when a national poll such as this emerges, they blow it off and make excuses. The hypocracy is the ultimate irony.

 

[Captain America]

Agreed. I love how it matters when dan or aps or kidrocks post their pol numbers and blather on how important the data is, but when a national poll such as this emerges, they blow it off and make excuses. The hypocracy is the ultimate irony.

I know EXACTLY what you're talikng about as I have made the same observation, and commented on the same techniques, on numerous occassions throughout the internet.

The right, having to face mounting negative poll numbers almost on a daily basis, repetitively dismiss them as irrevellent UNTIL one like this comes out, then all of a sudden, polls suddenly matter to them.

It's good give them a taste of their own medicine now and again.:mrgreen:

 

[aps]

I know EXACTLY what you're talikng about as I have made the same observation, and commented on the same techniques, on numerous occassions throughout the internet.

The right, having to face mounting negative poll numbers almost on a daily basis, repetitively dismiss them as irrevellent UNTIL one like this comes out, then all of a sudden, polls suddenly matter to them.

It's good give them a taste of their own medicine now and again.:mrgreen:

LOL Captain America, you're right on the money.

KC, I am not dismissing the poll on Hillary. As we all know, I don't like her, and I will be depressed if she is the nominee. She could have a 2% popularity, and I wouldn't care. But I think it's rather weird to compare Hillary to Bush. Even if she runs, it won't be against Bush. The comparison gives her too much importance, if you ask me.

 

[Deegan]

I don't trust any polls, the reason being, if I get a call, and it's not someone I know, or important, but an obvious poller, I hang up. I really don't trust the opinion of people who have enough time to take these polls, they are probably watching Oprah.:rofl

That said, Bush is in trouble, and it's because of the war, they love it when it starts, but the longer it goes on, and the more we hear about the deaths, and cost........it does not matter who is in the W.H.

 

[The Butcher]

Agreed. I love how it matters when dan or aps or kidrocks post their pol numbers and blather on how important the data is, but when a national poll such as this emerges, they blow it off and make excuses. The hypocracy is the ultimate irony.

You do realize that a senator from a single state is not the same as the president of the entire country right? I am going to go ahead and assume that you do in fact have a grasp on this complex logic and are just trolling.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

A few things I would like to share.

1. GW is no longer eligible to be President after this term. A side by side comparison with Hillary at this point is not applicable at this time-----or ever for that matter.

2. GW's approval ratings fluctuate anywhere from 33% - 40% depending on the poll and the date it was taken at this present time.

3. Polls do not elect our next President. Perharps, George's performance over the next 2-years will.

4. A military campaign in Iraq, which has no apparent end in sight, continues daily-----and neither one of these two people seem to have a plan for when and if that day is ever to come out of our wishes, and land in the realm of reality.

Woe is me.

What the hell has happened to my country?

 

[millsy]

I don't trust any polls, the reason being, if I get a call, and it's not someone I know, or important, but an obvious poller, I hang up. I really don't trust the opinion of people who have enough time to take these polls, they are probably watching Oprah.:rofl

That said, Bush is in trouble, and it's because of the war, they love it when it starts, but the longer it goes on, and the more we hear about the deaths, and cost........it does not matter who is in the W.H.

I don't understand where this mistrust of polls comes from. The last two presidential elections the polls were pretty much bang on. Can you guys who are ripping on polls provide a single example of when the polls have been way off?

 

[Gill]

I don't understand where this mistrust of polls comes from. The last two presidential elections the polls were pretty much bang on. Can you guys who are ripping on polls provide a single example of when the polls have been way off?

How about the exit polls during the last presidential election. They were not even close.

The simple truth is that any poll can be weighted statistically so that any desired result can be obtained.

 

[Kandahar]

President Bush's approval rating is currently at 43%

Hillary Clinton's favorable rating is currently at 40%

While the two aren't exactly comparable, they're pretty darn close.

Just to put things in perspective...

Hillary Clinton isn't on the front page of the newspaper every single day like George W Bush is. Public opinion of her is based almost entirely on eight years as first lady, plus the caricatures of her that pundits occasionally mention.

Furthermore, you failed to mention that while Hillary's favorables are only 40%, her unfavorables are only 44%. That means 16% of people have no opinion at all, which also indicates that many of the ones who DO offer an opinion don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Can you find me the 16% of the population that is undecided about George Bush?

 

[Deegan]

I don't understand where this mistrust of polls comes from. The last two presidential elections the polls were pretty much bang on. Can you guys who are ripping on polls provide a single example of when the polls have been way off?

Just ask John Kerry what he thinks of polls, or in this case, Al Gore.....





Can you trust polls?
The erratic numbers this election season have many -- including pollsters -- wondering whether there's some "fuzzy math" going on.

By Anthony York

Oct. 16, 2000 | When Gallup, the godfather of American polling organizations, released poll numbers showing a 19-point swing in the presidential race three days after its previous poll, journalists and pollsters alike scratched their collective heads. Though the polls have been volatile in the last two months of the presidential campaign, the notion that there could be such a dramatic swing in public sentiment in such a short period of time was difficult for many to believe.

On Oct. 4, Gallup released numbers that showed Al Gore with a 51-40 lead. On Oct. 6, Gallup had George W. Bush up, 48-41. Tracking polls survey their respondents over a three-day period (some organizations even use shorter tracks), and are used to show the day-to-day evolution of a political race. They differ from regular polls in the number of people polled (tracking polls use samples that can be up to 20 percent smaller) as well as the amount of time used to gather the sample.


But Gallup's two sets of numbers illustrated what some in the profession say is leading to the deterioration in polling credibility. "I have a bone to pick with the national polls," says Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, a nonpartisan polling organization that focuses exclusively on California. "They're destroying the image of our profession. Take Gallup -- they're the granddaddy of polling. For them to bring the profession down is the ultimate irony."

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/16/pollsters/

 

[teacher]

I know EXACTLY what you're talikng about as I have made the same observation, and commented on the same techniques, on numerous occassions throughout the internet.

The right, having to face mounting negative poll numbers almost on a daily basis, repetitively dismiss them as irrevellent UNTIL one like this comes out, then all of a sudden, polls suddenly matter to them.

It's good give them a taste of their own medicine now and again.:mrgreen:

I say both sides do it. Bush could go up to 60 percent tomorrow and I wouldn't put anything to it, except bad polling or retarded people who were polled. Both sides get all happy when a poll goes their way. On THIS poll the left is trying to dismiss it as irrelevant. Yet you decided to point out the right? Who are these on the right that suddenly feel this way? Not me. Careful Cap, your partisan is showing, and you don't have the gams to pull it off.

 

[Kandahar]

I say both sides do it. Bush could go up to 60 percent tomorrow and I wouldn't put anything to it, except bad polling or retarded people who were polled. Both sides get all happy when a poll goes their way. On THIS poll the left is trying to dismiss it as irrelevant. Yet you decided to point out the right? Who are these on the right that suddenly feel this way? Not me. Careful Cap, your partisan is showing, and you don't have the gams to pull it off.

I, for one, am not trying to dismiss the poll itself as irrelevant. I'm sure that the raw data is approximately accurate. However, I will say that the conclusions some people here have drawn from it are inaccurate, since Hillary Clinton is not in the news every day like George W Bush and has 16% undecided.

 

[teacher]

That's a huge generalization. There are plenty of democrats that are polling very lowely (how about democratic congress as a whole) that nobody makes excuses for.

I was refering to the people here. Specifically those KC indicated.

My analysis of this poll is legitimet

Well, I'm The Warden and I say not.

Heaven forbid that as information changes people might change there mind instead of changing their reasoning to fit the facts:
"it was WMD ......................no WAIT it was the link to Al Queda.........NO WAIT it was, it was the liberation of the Iraqi people and the march of democracy!!!!

The swings days apart. Then back again. Get real.

You're right it is a national poll, and since she isn't campaigning nationally yet, but everyone is campaigning against her nationally, the numbers are skewed downward.

You're making excuses.

 

[Gill]

I, for one, am not trying to dismiss the poll itself as irrelevant. I'm sure that the raw data is approximately accurate. However, I will say that the conclusions some people here have drawn from it are inaccurate, since Hillary Clinton is not in the news every day like George W Bush and has 16% undecided.

I would find it difficult to believe that there is a single American that does not know Hillary Clinton.