Redstate

First it was Mad Max Cleland. He chose unions over national security and the good voters of Georgia exercised their rights and vote him out of office for it....but really he lost because we questioned his patriotism, not because of his record in office.

Then it was Kerry. He reported for duty and tried to ignore his 20 year voting record and his 'anti-war' record, running his whole campaign on his tour in Nam....but really he lost because we questioned his patriotism, not because of his record in office nor current issues.

More recently it was Paul Hackett. He didn't serve in some war that happened 30 years ago, he ran on his veteran status of the current war, almost a redo of the Kerry campaign last year. Publicly he tried to obfuscate who he was by running ads showing him and President Bush in the same ad (conveniently omitting that he opposed the current war)..... but really he lost because we questioned his patriotism, not because of his stand on the issues.

Now the time has passed for Cindy Sheehan. How dare anyone question her, she had absolute moral authority! She didn't change anyone's mind, so you nailed it Erick....

....the question is who is next?

Not strength, or ideas, but Victimhood. From the "mean-spirited" drivel bandied about in 1994, to Chuckie Schumer's whining about being called a "Putzhead", to Gorelick saying she was "threatened" after Ashcroft's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, the left is increasingly incapable of anything other than playing the victim.

When they think they have a REAL victim, who has actually suffered loss (like Cindy Sheehan clearly did, or the family of Sen. Wellstone), they quickly use up any moral capital on bizarre behavior and sickening rhetoric.

They have reduced themselves to nothing, a meaningless parody of a failure, far more quickly and effectively than we ever could. The proud party of my Grandparents is gone, reduced to a pathetic echo chamber at cocktail parties and editorial board meetings.

Their prophecy has been fulfilled, and their fondest wish has been granted - they are all powerless victims, shut out of any meaningful role in events. The drug of Victimhood is now too seductive for them to stop using, and their path is terminal.

Bush's approval rating has dropped to 40. I think there will be something signifigant about a dip into the 30's, if it happens.

Support for the war is on the decline.

Pretty much most of America knows who Cindy is, regardless of their opinion of her, so she certainly got her message out.

And you're proclaiming victory? Granted Bush didn't see Sheehan on his front porch and tearfully resign the presidency on national tv, but what exactly are you happy about here?

She wanted to meet Bush and he didn't meet her. I think this works better for her, in the long run.

I wouldn't mind a few more 'failures' like this, personally.

Who says 40?  Rasmussen says 48.

She galvanized many parents of those who have fallen in Iraq to stop being ashamed of their support for this war and for President Bush. They were browbeaten into silence by the media, by the judgments and scorn of the elites, but seeing Sheehan being presented as the only parent who mattered pushed them into showing America just how out of touch the Cindy Sheehans of the world are.

She began her stay in Crawford with worldwide media attention. She ended with Al Sharpton and Martin Sheen. 'Nuff said.

in the hurricane disaster, it's this: Ms Sheehan and her flying circus have been routed from the front pages.

Shhh ... it's REALLY the Karl Rove Weather Machine, patented by Haliburton ...

And, meanwhile, Cindy has turned into a topical depression ... languishing from lack of media attention ...

;)

for demonstrating, in essence, the central point of this piece.

Do you believe rasmussen over the trend all the other polls seems to be showing?

Heres a plot of Bush's approval rating, granted the operator of the website is Liberal, but the plot does not seem biased to me.

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.
gif

Was that when Sharpton's driver was finally stopped after his 110 MPH car chase and the vehicle was impounded, Sharpton apparently was able to hitch a ride from a passing motorist and still made his flight.  His driver was charged with a felony and a misdemeanor, but Sharpton claimed not to know if they were speeding.  I guess Sharpton and his entourage are used to driving 110 MPH and weaving in and out of traffic whenever they're in Texas.

Rasmussen has proven to be fairly reliable.

It called the 2004 election Bush: 50.2% - Kerry: 48.5%. The actual result was Bush: 50.7% - Kerry 48.3%.

Make your own judgements but don't discount a very good poll because you don't like the results.

There is some reasons why rasmussen approval rating poll is so vastly different then the rest of the polls right now.

One difference in methodology is rasmussen weights there poll by party ID.  It is not clear to me how often they readjusts the party ID weights.  So I suspect the reason rasmussen differs from the "poll of polls" (as some people like to call the aggregate of polls) is because people are changing which party they identify themselves with.  If thats true, rasmussen poll would have a hard time detecting changes in bush's public opinion.

With regards to the 2004 election, does anyone happen to know what the average of the media polls predicted the few days before the election?

a poll of polls for the 2004 election, which had bush leading by 0.8%, while less accurate that rassmusen prediction, is still fairly close to rasmussen.  So I personally suspect, since now rasmussen disagree by a fairly wide margin with the aggregate of the other polls, that currently rasmussen is wrong.

before the '04 election: should you weight a sample for party identification. I held then, and do today, that if you don't you don't have a poll. What you have is a self-selected sample of people who answer... or even have... a landline telephone.

But seriously, unless and until the House starts ignoring him or a major scandal hits this approval rating stuff is nonsense. We'll see after '06 if it matters.

If the Party ID numbers are stable then weighting by

party ID certainly makes the poll more accurate.

But that assumes Party ID is stable.

Maybe someday, someone will figure out a truly intelligent way to insure representative sample in a poll, but it definetly is a tricky task.

I believe a polling firm with a track record that over some of those on that chart, including:

• CBS
  
• NBC
  
• ABC
  
• CNN

These organizations have a known bias against the President.  If they said the sky is blue, I'd look out the window.

And squinting close at that chart, it looks like some of those in there are closer to 50 than 40.  Gallup is one, and that's another polling firm I'm inclined to pay attention to.

The thing is, she's even claiming victory in that, saying that she's glad now that President Bush didn't meet with her (a second time).

Snuggling up to read Chapter 2 of "Mein Kampf."  Alone.

down?

And for this she sacrificed her marriage?

What kind of "values" is the left trying to push now?

Beat Bush at all costs!

But wait, isn't it too late to be focusing on beating Bush?

Never mind, focus on beating Bush.  He's term-limited.   This way the Republicans can't later claim that the American people are on their side.  Bush's popularity can only be measured by poll numbers now, not by votes.  And we all know that IT'S THE POLL NUMBERS THAT REALLY COUNT.

are skewing their results in my opinion.

But never mind, let the dems focus on pushing Bush's poll numbers down.  It's all that they can do now.  

We'll focus on the future.

Do you think that Bush's approval rating actually matters?

Have you ever heard of the 22nd Amendment?

Probably not.  You should look it up sometime.

Share it with your liberal friends.

Do Bush's polls still matter even though he is term limited?

I don't know, I guess we will find out in 2006, how much an effect the president's approval rating has on congressional election.

I guess we will also find out over the next three years, how much the president's approval rating effects congress's willingness to work with the president.

While FWIW Gallup's last poll had Bush with an approval rating of 40.

by the way you might find the following table interesting.  It is basically a statistical analysis showing how much various approval polls are biased in comparison to each other.

Unfortunately there is no way, at least know way I know of, to know which poll should/could be used as the "objective" poll.  Also it's not clear how much of poll disagreement is due to systematic bias.

but anyway I thought you would find this comparison of polls useful, sadly they don't include rasmussen :(

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/bushindexprobushtable.htm

While I agree that 2006 will be the telling year on the Bush Presidency, it appears to me that the Democrats are fighting the last war.

A lot can happen in the next 14 months that could tilt the congressional elections one way or another.  I am personally of the opinion that opinion polls in the 40% for Bush will not significantly alter the voting patterns for most voters.  Yeah, it could cost the Repubs a few seats in the house, but not enough to cost the party either house (of course, that's just my speculation... which I'll allow has all the authority of Harry Potter in Divination class).

Approval ratings go up and down pretty easily.

Bush 43's approval ratings weren't so hot last January and February.

On the other hand, Bush 41's approval ratings were great a year out.

She also said: the president's absence "galvanized the peace movement."

They are going on a 25 state tour, now with huge celebrity status due to all of the coverage and the attention paid to her.

Not a victory, huh?

What would victory have been? Immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

I can hardly wait for the Democrat Underground and their Kossack Comrades to accuse Bush of personally steering Katrina through Louisiana and the oil fields to ensure a skyrocketing price.

Why do you focus on the fringe, radical left who do not represent the majority of liberals when launching your attacks?

No Cindy did not run home to read Mein Kampf (she probably brought it with her). Instead she charted a path in our direction. Tonight she is speaking on the captial steps here is Little Rock. Trying to appeal to the bleeding hearts that just love their native son. Never fear there were protests in advance of her arrival. I am like a long tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs to know she is in the same city I am in.. I am hoping that my buffer holds and I do not head out to give her a piece of my mind.

Does the country not have enough going on now... especially this area that we need her treasonous talk here as well? Could she not be a good human and put aside her differences and allow the country to heal? Nope she is a liberal with her own agenda... spreading hate and dispair.

Did you not know Clinton made it so that the country is pretty much run by polls.

Comment #28.

They are going on a 25 state tour, now with huge celebrity status due to all of the coverage and the attention paid to her.

Not a victory, huh?

Because the kooks are the media darlings.  If the MSM focuses on them, why wouldn't we?  When was the last time you saw a daily running, front page segment on the latest utterings of Evan Bayh or Joe Lieberman?  Never.  The kooks make the news, set the agenda, and drive us crazy.

Hence, we comment on them.

Who is the chair of the DNC? None other than the same Howard Deam MarKOS "Screw them" Zuniga helped out and Keith Olbermann is considered legitimate by the Dems.