Bush would lose if the elections were held this year

[starang21]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ush/index.html

interesting....


*waiting for someone to say*

"those people who voted are idiots, and aren't real americans. they don't know the REAL truth behind everything"

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by starang21
[url]
*waiting for someone to say*

"those people who voted are idiots, and aren't real americans. they don't know the REAL truth behind everything"

Not really sure who would say that, but whatever.

I'm not shocked by the poll numbers; the President's approval rating is pretty low now. It's interesting that 10% less people think it was a mistake to go into Iraq, and 49% feel that Republicans are better at fighting terrorism than Democrats.

As far as the President's rating, it's kind of a moot point in that he's never running again anyway.

[Kevin]

If he ran against Kerry, I think he'd have a fighting chance. The poll said if he ran against "A Democrat". Kerry, as you know is a Democrat, but was a pretty weak candidate. Frankly, Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for voting for him just because his people put out press releases saying that they he had "momentum" and that a vote for Kerry was a vote for "Party unity".

[hoosier]

I glad someone pointed out that Bush is not running for anything - ever again.

It should also be pointed out that CNN and the mass media - often referred to as the "media wing of the Democratic Party" - now use polls as editorials. They decide, and then find a poll to say it.

All recent (since WWII) presidents have had low points in the "polls" - all as low as Bush with one exception, I think.

George Bush #41 had a "poll" rating above 90% shortly after the start of the of the first Gulf War, and lost the next election to Hillary's husband.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
It should also be pointed out that CNN and the mass media - often referred to as the "media wing of the Democratic Party" - now use polls as editorials. They decide, and then find a poll to say it.

Unbelievable.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by hoosier
I glad someone pointed out that Bush is not running for anything - ever again.

It should also be pointed out that CNN and the mass media - often referred to as the "media wing of the Democratic Party" - now use polls as editorials. They decide, and then find a poll to say it.

All recent (since WWII) presidents have had low points in the "polls" - all as low as Bush with one exception, I think.

George Bush #41 had a "poll" rating above 90% shortly after the start of the of the first Gulf War, and lost the next election to Hillary's husband.

I'm not about to call it a conspiracy or bias. I do attribute to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Pole a great deal of validity. As to why they ran it? A President's approval rating has always been newsworthy no matter who the president was. When it was Clinton, his sagging numbers (and the subsequent rebound due to his administration's masterful handling of his perjury) were very newsworthy.

Conspiracy though? The media wing? Surely not.

Is there bias in the news? Certainly no more with CNN than with Fox (who doesn't even try to be covert about parroting Republican talking points).

If you want to further people's respect for conservatives and our ideas, please dispense with the black helicopter rhetoric. It's tired.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Unbelievable.

But still true.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by ktsnake


Is there bias in the news? Certainly no more with CNN than with Fox (who doesn't even try to be covert about parroting Republican talking points).

There's a challenge out there, and maybe you can prove it: Give one example of FOX being biased in news coverage. Just give one.

You may be confusing the FOX talk shows (O'Reilly, Hannity, Greta, etc.) which are clearly identified as talk and opinion, and FOX news shows commonly listed in my TV section as "Fox News Live".

[hoosier]

Here's a minor example of CNN's bias, if you read intelligently:

1 - there are three sentences with "good news" for Bush and his fans, and they happen to be the LAST THREE in the story. An accurate headline would be "Bush, Dems, GOP would lose an election if held this year"

2 - this USAToday/CNN/Gallup poll is covered on the front page of USA TODAY today, and shows that while only 42% of the pollees approve of Bush, only 41% approve of "Democrats in Congress." Conveniently omitted from the CNN story.

(P.S. I know the USA Today story also says only 38% approve of "Republicans in Congress.")

============================================

The whole story linked above:

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Posted: 6:52 p.m. EDT (22:52 GMT)


President Bush would not get re-elected if an election were held this year, according to a CNN poll.

(CNN) -- A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

The latest poll results, released Tuesday, were based on interviews with 1,008 adults conducted by telephone October 21-23.

In the poll, 42 percent of those interviewed approved of the way the president is handling his job and 55 percent disapproved. In the previous poll, released October 17, 39 percent approved of Bush's job performance -- the lowest number of his presidency -- and 58 percent disapproved.

However, all the numbers are within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, so it's possible that the public's opinion has not changed at all.

More than half, 57 percent, said they don't agree with the president's views on issues that are important to them, while 41 percent said their views are in alignment with those of Bush on important issues.

Democrats preferred on issues

On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).

Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.

In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better.

The only issue on which Republicans came out on top was in fighting terrorism: 49 percent said the GOP is better at it, while 38 percent said the Democrats are.

And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.

This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month.

[starang21]

right on cue.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by starang21
right on cue.

Actually, he didn't say that the people who voted were idiots. He just mentioned the other parts of the story.

No one is disputing the fact that Bush's approval rating and "re-election" chances are at all-time lows right now.

I do disagree with the media bias statement though; I agree with ktsnake that the CNN/Gallup poll is one of the better ones out there. It would be difficult to find any poll that would put the President's approval rating all that high.

[starang21]

Originally posted by KSigkid
Actually, he didn't say that the people who voted were idiots. He just mentioned the other parts of the story.

No one is disputing the fact that Bush's approval rating and "re-election" chances are at all-time lows right now.

I do disagree with the media bias statement though; I agree with ktsnake that the CNN/Gallup poll is one of the better ones out there. It would be difficult to find any poll that would put the President's approval rating all that high.

uhhhh, that had nothing to with my comment. but coming from someone who constantly makes blanket statements about race like it's going out of style, i find it quite ironic that someone with his mental capacities would take the time to actually try and analyze the article.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by hoosier
But still true.

Not even close.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by starang21
uhhhh, that had nothing to with my comment. but coming from someone who constantly makes blanket statements about race like it's going out of style, i find it quite ironic that someone with his mental capacities would take the time to actually try and analyze the article.

The first person to mention race in this thread is you sir. The argument that Hoosier is trying to make is that CNN is the media wing of the vast left wing conspiracy.

I believe I and others have proceded to say that we are highly skeptical as to his allegation, and further, we find that the story you origanally posted would be news no matter who posted it. Such polls are taken on a regular basis (relevant in this case because the poll was most likely not funded by Moveon.org), and when one dips to historical or notable lows, it's news.

Since CNN pays part of the cost in conducting the poll on a regular basis no matter who the President is, who could possibly make a case for them not publishing this information?

[LightBulb]

Originally posted by hoosier
2 - this USAToday/CNN/Gallup poll is covered on the front page of USA TODAY today, and shows that while only 42% of the pollees approve of Bush, only 41% approve of "Democrats in Congress." Conveniently omitted from the CNN story.

(P.S. I know the USA Today story also says only 38% approve of "Republicans in Congress.")

Yes, the Congressional Democrats' approval rating was omitted, but as you said, so was the Republicans'.

Why did they omit this from the front page? Probably because the president's approval rating (as opposed to the Congressional ratings) was more of a selling point, rather than because of a political bias - hell, if the editors were just trying to push the Democratic party, why wouldn't they try to show that the Democrats' approval rating was higher than the Republicans'?

Democratic approval rating conveniently omitted? Conveniently placed where it belongs - next to its match, the Republican approval rating.