Marymarg
(773 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 08:55 PM
Original message |
|
I am almost certain that I read this before Katrina that his handlers were very concerned because Bush's poll numbers were so dismal and the "inside poll numbers" were even worse.
Does anyone know anything about "inside poll numbers?"
|
MojoXN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 08:56 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Shrub doesn't pay attention to polls, why should we?
:sarcasm:
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. That's a REAL useful invention!
MojoXN
|
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. All I have is a B.S. detector |
Rude Horner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 09:14 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Can't help ya with "inside poll numbers" |
|
but if you go to freeperland, they must be getting completely different polls than the rest of the country. In fact, I saw one thread over there today that talked about Shrub's approval rating being 56%. On what fucking planet, I don't know.
:wtf:
|
FSogol
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. 56% is his approval rating in his family. nt |
FreedomAngel82
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
FloridaPat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 09:20 PM
Response to Original message |
4. A lot of rumors that the big polls are "fixed" to a certain extent. Some |
|
have more republicans then the general population. People really have to dig for that information. So you can figure another 5-10% disapprove of the way things are going, which are the "inside poll numbers". These are polls done by the administration using real poll requirements, not the fake ones that most of the rest use.
Several years ago there was a poll done in Georgia. I think it was by the Atlanta Journal. They polls numbers on * were so bad, they threw the poll away because they didn't want the hassle from the White House.
|
Marymarg
(773 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
cliss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 10:54 PM
Response to Original message |
7. In the case of the "real" numbers, |
|
we don't have to look to the polling organizations. For the unvarnished truth, look to Bush.
Bush will tell us how he's doing.
Because his advisers know. Now, take the hurricane and its aftermath. Notice, how he snapped into action. A little late, but boy did we see some action. Notice the sweaty desperation of his attempts to "buy love" with his little photo-op token blacks.
Notice the high-pitched desperate attempts to rouse the Americans "this is just like 9/11", isn't it? Isn't it? (sweaty forehead). Americans are furious. He tries again, "We must rebuild this country TOGETHER, just like after 9/11". The public won't go for it.
Next, a tentative admission of failure.
ALWAYS look to Bush to see the real numbers. And it's not looking good for the old boy.
|
Proud Liberal Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 11:10 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I'm happy but......... |
|
As much as I am happy as a clam that Bush's poll numbers are bad, I'm still depressed about the fact that Dems aren't polling extremely well either, most of them are still not "growing a spine" and really going for the jugular right now (at least not consistently), and I'm really upset at how well *ush was able to keep a lid on all of his various problems until the election so that he was able to stave off a stiff election challenge (which for all of Kerry's liabilities coming within 2% of unseating a President who appeared as though he could've won in a landslide following 9-11 wasn't too shabby-IF the voting results were accurate that is). The worst part of it is that we are going to have endure *ush for another three years. How can *ush endure another 3 years let alone 3 months with such low poll numbers? The only good thing that COULD come out of this is that *ush won't be able to cause any more serious damage and won't get anything major done and, assuming that there is no massive turnaround, he will continue to be an albatross around the necks of the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 IF the Dems can exploit it properly.
|
category5
(62 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-13-05 11:25 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Too bad Bush is not running in 2006...he would have his head |
|
handed to him. We are stuck with the shrub until 2008.
|
FloridaPat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. If the Dems take back the house and if the Dems get a backbone |
|
maybe we can have * running for his life.
|
npincus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-05 09:49 AM
Response to Original message |
12. qood question: what the hell are "inside poll numbers"? Anybody? |
|
I'm going to guess that it means WH does their own polling privately (do they contract out this work or do it themselves?). That's how they know they're in the shitter now.
But that's a guess.
|
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message |
13. My take on "inside poll numbers" means |
|
looking at the rating on the individual issues vs. overall rating (e.g. terrorism, domestic policy, foreign policy, environment, education, etc.).
:shrug:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 10:42 PM
Response to Original message |