General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAh yes, the famous CNN/ORC poll with 69% of Americans...cough...cough
http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-69-of-americans-viewed-obamas-syria-speech-positively-61-favor-his-approach/What was your overall reaction to President Obama’s speech tonight?
Very positive? 35%
Somewhat positive? 34%
Somewhat negative? 22%
Very negative? 8%
Mixed? 1%
No opinion? 1%
A total of 361 adults were polled and their party affiliation broke down this way.
Democrats: 37% 134 people.
Republicans: 20% 72 people.
Independents: 43%: 155 people.
A total of 249 voted for very positive or somewhat positive.
That's right. 249...out of 300+ million Americans.
But wait there's more.
Yes. 47%
No. 50%
No Opinion. 3%
I can appreciate that some were too busy to post this, or perhaps they wanted to omit something that might not fit so well into their narrative.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM USATODAY
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
gopiscrap
(23,760 posts)70% are dumbasses.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I mean, clearly, we know what their answer is but that sampling doesn't look representative of US's demographics so it will naturally lean toward more positive feelings.
I didn't watch the speech. Just read the content. I like it better that way (eliminates personality bias IMO)
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)speeches were rated with far more Republicans.
Far fewer self identified Republicans would have watched the speech. They just waited until they were told what to think on Fox and Rush.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)themselves independents out of embarrassment.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)More of this war shit and the independent number might swell some more
RC
(25,592 posts)
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I bet the next polls will show the big majority of Americans still oppose a military strike.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)47% is a pretty large jump from what I've seen lately ~30% at best. Although the question is poorly phrased for a yes or no answer which makes me suspect the results are nonsense.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)It doesn't ask if Americans support a military strike, it asks if they think he made a good case in his speech. My prediction is the upcoming polls will still show a big majority opposed to this, but maybe I'm wrong. We will see.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The science of polling is based on statisics. What was the MOE, (Margin of Error?)
Yes, you can actually tell where people are in a well designed poll. It is called statistics.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)those percentages are really not that far off from what people self-identified during 2012 election:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151943/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)What does that have to do with this? This isn't a poll question - it's about what people self-identify as. Something tells me you wouldn't be happy unless you saw 80% hated the President.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)361 respondents is really not that many people to be doing high fives over.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)This is not a poll I'm talking about. You were bitching about the breakouts between Dems/Reps/Ind and I simply pointed out that those percentages used by CNN were pretty close to what people self-identified in the 2012 election. Is that simple enough for you or do I need to go to a 6th grade level?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023646364
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Esp. any polls by MSM.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)they understand that polling a political speech in any case is going to swing the results toward the view that supports the speech.
It's not rocket science, fewer Republicans would have watched the speech than Democrats because they don't like the guy.
It's the same reason I never watched a speech given by George W. Bush, I hated him and wasn't going to give him the time of day.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Math is math. The power of a sample to represent conditions in a whole is indisputable science stuff.
One can argue that a sample is not a valid sample, which would invalidate a sample of a million people, but there is nothing at all suspect about a 249 person sample.
In this case, the poll is only of people who watched the speech, which is a self-selected group and thus not representative of the general public, but that isn't secret. It is a poll of who it says it is a poll of.
A sample of 24,900 people would be more reliable, but not greatly more reliable.
Polling is a science and it works precisely as well as the method claims to work. It is counter-intuitive how mathematically reliable seemingly small samples are, but there's no way around the math.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)or maybe some here are predisposed to Grasp for Straws no matter HOW ridiculous (like a Post Speech CNN Poll of 361 people) to advance their narrative.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
unblock
(52,221 posts)especially if those 361 teaspoons were taken from random locations.
i don't know what the exact margin of error is in this case, but suffice it to say that if they found 69% "positive", then it's extremely unlikely that america as a actually had a "negative" reaction to the speech.