Presenting Even MORE Evidence That Gallup/CNN Are Untrustworhty Scum

[Beetwasher]

As if I needed anymore.

"But there are some signs in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that Bush may have turned a corner.

A majority of respondents give a poor rating to Bush's "initial" response to the hurricane, but 58 percent have a positive view of Bush's actions "in the past few days."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/12/bush.footing/index.html

This is why Gallup gets paid. They become the basis for this propoganda. This latest poll by them bucking the trend is part of an ongoing pattern that they've followed for the past few years that I have been following and paying attention to. I've wrote about in the past here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=534560

[ktowntennesseedem]

1. In other words,

Bush sucks just a little less than he sucked this time last week. Still sucks, but according to Gallup he's ready for another man-of-the-year award.

[Beetwasher]

2. Yeah

Notice how every other poll has him dropping, but instead of thinking their poll may be a statistical anomaly, they ASSUME he's turned a corner. Pure, unadulterated, propoganda.

[lancdem]

3. And by breaking the Katrina question into two parts

(which no other poll has done) they inflated his numbers. KKKarl probably sent CNN a memo.

[Beetwasher]

10. Yup

Exactly.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Only after bush started writing checks.

Remember, they "gave" everybody a three hundred dollar check prior to the Iraq invasion, everybody was happy.

[oasis]

5. Bush must revive the dead from the Superdome since he didn't lift a finger

to rescue them. He's doing good on the New Orleans recovery right now but he must correct the fatal consequences of his criminal neglect.

If Mr. Bush can accomplish a mending of the lives he has shattered, it will lend creedence to his rising poll numbers.

[achtung_circus]

6. Don't pay undue attention to any one poll,

especially one that seems to be at odds with your sense.

Look at this, a site which does not receive nearly as much attention as it deserves:

<http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/#anchor_44>

and this analysis
Regarding poll bias

30 June 2004
I, like many others, have long suspected that some pollsters may have their thumb on the scale, favoring Bush, in their polls. This would be foolish, of course, because the real bread and butter for the pollsters is in market research, where accuracy is more important than politics. Even so, that was my suspicion.

I was mistaken. I finally rolled up my sleeves and tested the hypothesis directly; not only were none of the results significant, none of them even suggested the swings I expected.

Pollingreport.com posts several "approval" polls from Bill Clinton's second term. I used this data to construct a "Clinton Index," similar to my Bush Index. To my wonder and amazement, I discovered that the rankings of the individual pollsters were not much different: Fox and Zogby at the extremes, everybody else clustered around one or two points. Most important, none of the ten pollsters in the database exhibited a significant, or even conspicuous, swing from Clinton low to Bush high (or vice versa). I'm convinced. The pollsters are honest, or at least deserving of the benefit of a doubt.

and pay attention to the scatters, like this:



which are far more telling than any one poll for any one time point.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[achtung_circus]

11. Wow. Was it something I said? nt

[StefanX]

8. Yeah, he did a great job "in the last few days"

He resurrected the people he starved to death.