This entry was posted
[…]

Oliver comments about polls and the reaction to them. It’s rife with a good deal of sophistry and blanket accusations, so I’ll cover it piece meal.There has been a familiar refrain from the cons ever since Bush began his post-election

Oh definitely into the public’s mood - depending on how the basic question was asked etc. In fact a fair and well done poll could quite accurately catch the public’s mood and over time would show amore mature public perspective. And it would and does concern me as a partisan Republican. But it makes zero impact on my thought processes, on my anlayses etc. Could care less about how pouplar a certain postion is or isn’t (though I might worry about what attitudes are revealed about the public).

Dugger

duros62, You are correct and probably Bush’s political advisors are worried about those polls Maybe the RNC is concerned. But they have almost nothing to do with an analysis of say the war and whether its right, wrong or in between. We all have to actually think about that and not rely on polls to justify our thought processes - as much as it hurts.

Dugger

You could show me a poll that says 99% of the responders say  Bush lied and I will still think it is a piece of cr*p - other than reflecting the view points at a certain point in time of those surveyed.

Sigh.

I thought we were making progress. We’re back to “all polls can be gamed” are we?

What if you had a long series of polls in which the same questions were asked time after time? The number of people who say that Bush lied rises from 20 percent to 80 percent.

Do you think that would provide any insight into the public’s mood? Would it be predictive of Mr. Bush’s chances of success in implementing new policies? Would it concern you at all if you were a Republican member of Congress facing re-election?

The Bush administration, with all of its photo-ops, town hall meetings, and hired consultants, seems to care a great deal about public perception for some reason. These “pieces of cr*p” are the way the perceptions of the public are measured.

I guess the prevailing sentiment then is that Bush is not doing so good. At lest among those surveyed, right?

Some polls ARE suspect, but polls per se, are not worth that much, even if legit, in that they are a non-serious, no consequences snapshot- whereas an election is all the marbles. Polls can be useful, but they are kind of like thinking about sex as opposed to having sex: good idea to not confuse the two.

And yes comparative, time staggered results from multiple polls asking the same questions definitely provide more info, but theys till have the above inherent limitations of polls (snapshots, consequences, audience etc).

Dugger

Since the pollsters haven’t been able to change public opinion, they just change their definition of the public. Ingenious, really.

Obviously Mr. Rove hasn’t shared the secrets of the inner circle with you yet.

Polls can be useful, but they are kind of like thinking about sex as opposed to having sex: good idea to not confuse the two.

I’ll accept that analogy, but I’d alter it a bit. Polls are kind of like asking about sex as opposed to having sex. They’re not the same thing, but asking lets you know your chances of success.

All previous poll results used registered voters. This latest CBS poll uses Americans.

Hunh?

Where you getting that?

I can find plenty of bloggers quibbling over the validity of polling adults instead of registered voters. I can’t find anyone else making your claim that the methodology changed for this poll.

So your initial assumption is correct:

you ll agree the results would change if you change the population being sampled.

However, I see no indication that has occurred. Further, one can only speculate how the results would change. I doubt it would change by more than a few percentage points either way.

I ll say it again: tell me the opnion you want and I ll fix the polling questions so that you get the spinnable answer you want.

Because poll results can be gamed, the results of all polls are therefore suspect?

In this case, Dugger, we’re dealing with comparative results of poll questions that have been asked repeatedly over time. Whatever bias exists in the current question set also existed in last month’s question set, last year’s question set, and the question set from years past.

In other words, the questions haven’t changed, but the results have. Thus, we have an accurate reflection of a change in public opinion.

FOX, AP, Ipsos, WSJ, Pew, ABC, WaPo all had him at 35-39 in late Oct/Nov, when the Miers nomination shook the foundation of his right-wing base.

Guess they must have all been “oversampling” the same sample then too, right?

The loss of credibility Bush suffered with this same base last week over this Dubai Ports thing has yet to be measured. There is no Dem and Independent support left to lose; but his support with Bush-cult faithful was rock-solid in the low 80’s throughout Katrina, NSA, Libby, Plame, Iraq, nothing shook them up like Miers, and now this.

Keep screaming “Media Bias” all you want, the pattern to we the reality-based is clear. Bush is now down to his most fervent cultists again, except now even they are whispering to each other.

You know, for the Democrats to  overplay their hand, they d have to ever play a hand. They haven t, not for 6 years now.

Finally, Oliver admits the Democrats don’t have a platform!!!

Lately, there s been a lot of whining around the blogosphere about polls.  Since Bush s latest nosedive, the wingnuts have been out in force, claiming that the media is out to get Bush yet again.   30% of the people in this country …

Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top!

If there is anything the Democrats do well, it’s run to the left and trip on their own johnsons as they go. The farther left they run, the more they alienate the middle.

Everyone assumes that the GOP will lose seats in November on the president’s lack of a coattail.

Just like everyone assumed that like every other off-year election, the GOP would lose seats in 2002.

Oops.

Just like everyone assumed that like every other presidential election year, the undecideds would break against the incumbent in 2004.

Oops.

The Angry Left suffers from a collective and selective hearing loss. They only hear what they want. Exactly what they complain and accuse the GOP of doing - and not without merit.

But the simple fact is, if you want to change something, you better win some elections first.

In plainer terms: Physician, heal thyself.

It’s been a pretty bad time for the Dems since ‘94 - in order: lost the House, lost the White House, lost the Senate, lost the Supreme Court.

The strategery ain’t working, gang. Back to the drawing board… but if you want to set yourself back 20 more years, go ahead and work that impeachment angle.

Self-destructive politics are just about the most fun to watch.

As for the Dems overplaying it, turnabout is fair play. Isn’t it?
Has there been any national issue that he hasn’t overplayed when
he could? (9/11?)

Lets say you want to get Harry Reid:

Duggerby Polling question:

Should there at least be some investigation of the powerful senate minority leader’s extensive dealings with the corrupt, criminal Abramoff empire?

Headline: Public Demands probe of Reid Dealings with Criminal Empire

Easy as pie.

Polls count only insofar as how important the emotion of the moment is.

Elections count for four years.

Dugger, Think people!