Interesting results.
What’s the debate? Whether or not we should take the poll?
One non-debate about online “poll” results of Bush/Iraq is not enough? Gotta have at least two going at any one time…
Great debates is the place for all things political.
Two problems with that poll, off the top of my head, that make it useless (and I haven’t seen the poll’s results, btw)
-
It’s an internet poll, and people who are on the internet don’t neccesarily have the same views as the voting public or the general public.
-
The big one…It’s self selected. Anybody can take it, and there’s no way to make sure the people who take it represent a cross section of the public. So, for example, people who either like or dislike Bush a lot could swamp the poll with their responses, thereby skewing the results.
CNN is doing something similar on Wolfman Blitzer: should there be a formal investigation into Bush’s use of “intelligence”. Latest unscientific results are 91% in favor, 9% opposed. In my most fervent partisan dreams, I would not have imagined such a lopsided result!
What is this odd sensation stirring within my breast? Could it be hope?
Well, and looking at the poll’s results compared to the Newsweek poll confirms what I thought. For example, in the internet poll, 22% approved of Bush’s job as president, while on the national Newsweek poll (asking the same questions), 55% approved of Bush’s job. 21% in the internet poll approved of Bush’s job in Iraq, and 53% in the Newsweek poll did. 21% in the internet poll and 47% in the Newsweek poll wanted to see Bush elected to a second term as president.
So, the internet poll doesn’t really seem to have any value. I’d stick with the Newsweek poll as a more accurate reflection of the country’s views.
The Newsweek poll does have one interesting result…saying that 42% thinks that the administration’s reluctance to cooperate with the September 11 investigation is due to an attempt to coverup embarrassing information.
So you are saying people who use the net don’t fit in with the voting or general populace?
What bunk.
I take it you are including yourself?
Don’t get too excited. It’ll probably turn out to be heartburn.
I’m saying that the population that uses the net differs from the general populace. For a really simple example, a higher percentage of those people who use the net have computers than among the US population as a whole.
And even if the two populations were identical, you’d still have selection bias.
…And internet polls before the last election showed the Libertarian candidate running close behind the two major challengers, polling something like 25%.
One internet poll showed the Libertarian candidate actually leading the race.
In the real election, the Libertarians got something like 1.5% of the vote.
Repeat after me: Self-selected internet polls are worthless.
Well…duh.
And that means what?
I agree that a poll from a small narrowlt targeted website could have skewed results. But polls from wide spread sites like CNN and MSNBC do have a broader reader base to draw from.
Or have CNN and MSNBC suddenly become leftist hotspots?
Well, ok, but selection bias still comes into play…or else, how would you explain such a large difference between the online and Newsweek polls?
Oh, goody!
Well, for one thing the 55% approval rating(which had dropped about 5 points) came right before this whole Niger thing.
Now a 30 point drop is near impossible, but I haven’t found too many people who approve of the way Bush handled the Niger lie. So I’d say that the MSNBC poll is self selected, but it probably has some value.
CNN on the other hand gets those 90% things from things like www.deanforamerica.com and www.dailykos.com. “Hey lets get Blitzer to say that 95% blamed Bush”(he did and he actually repeated it because he was so suprised)
That last paragraph is a bit confusing. CNN is a bona fide member of the Vast Lefty Conspiracy? Pre-arranged sampling? Please clarify.
I mean that websites like that had links to the poll and probably made up like 60% of the people in the poll.
Moderator’s Note: As we already have one thread going about non-scientific Web polls purportedly showing Bush’s unpopularity (CNN poll says Bush is to blame for the uranium “mistake”), I’ll direct further comment on that topic to that thread.