Stoid, let’s be honest. If the poll numbers indicated that people were not in favor of Bush, or in favor of your candidate, you’d be dancing in the streets right now.
You’re just upset because Bush’s numbers are up. Why, I don’t know. It’s still 11 months until the election. If this happens in October, though, then I’d say that you have reason to worry.
Then again, it’s not like the Democrats don’t try to do stuff like this when they’re in office, either. Think LBJ and the bombing halt where he tried to throw the election to Nixon.
Anyway, relax. It’s early yet. Nothing to worry about. At least until Howard Dean wins the nomination. Then you can worry.
Hey, Airman, I said right up there that I’m happy when they bend left, but it doesn’t make me respect them any more.
And yes, I’m upset because there is no good reason for it! If his numbers were up for a REASON, I wouldn’t be thrilled but I wouldn’t be anywhere near as pissed off.
And what do yo umean when you say:
What is the “stuff like this” you are talking about? Are you implying that the Pubbies are *doing something to deliberate manipulate these malleable minds to their will? *
If ALL the people who voted * made it a point * to seek out information, educate themselves, read and listen to multiple sources from different parts of the political spectrum, and make sure they had a reasonably good grasp of the issues and the candidates before they went to the voting booth, our country would do fine in the end, and lots of the current problems with our political system and our government would be solved on the spot. Money would largely cease to mean power, because it couldn’t buy all that much.
The most important single factor in the (potential) electorate is that the vast majority are satisfied. Those that don’t vote largely do so because they’re content with the current framework of society and wish to instead get on with their lives.
That doesn’t make them stupid…just disinterested. And yet it’s these people (along with everyone else) who comprise the polled universe.
One thing I learned doing political polls way back when was this…a minority actually admits to pollsters that they won’t vote. We know from experience that more than 50% of the potential voters won’t. Yet when we tallied up ‘extemely likely to vote’, ‘very likely to vote’, and ‘slightly likely to vote’ that figure would be 75% of the polled universe.
Take polls with a grain of salt.
And Stoid? Learn a little marketing will you? How many potential left-leaning voters have you just forced away by yelling ‘YOU’RE STUPID!!!’. One? Three?
Who knows? The only thing certain is that you’ve just created a negative impression of yourself, your party, and your politics in some undecided voter’s heads.
Really, this bugs me about many of the more vocal democrats. FDR might have thought the people were dumb…but he never said it. And he didn’t encourage anyone else to, either. Nor did Bill Clinton. You know what those guys did?
They won elections.
The best way to win the hearts of people is to show them some respect. And that’s what you’re not doing.
Want to influence votes? Be respectful of people’s doubts about the left and politely attempt to make your case. That’s the absolute best you can do.
Of course they are. You say that like it’s an accusation. It’s just doing business as usual, kinda like the Democratic candidates’ radio and television onslaught going on right now in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The irony of that statement is that I WAS thinking in 2000 when I voted for Bush. There are some thinking people at the polls, believe it or not. That Bush didn’t follow through on what he said he was going to do is the reason why he won’t get my vote. But back in 2000, I honestly thought he was the better candidate. So what’s my point? No matter how much you exhort people to use their heads, ultimately they have to trust their candidate to do what he said he would do. That’s the bottom line. And when they don’t, well then, you made a bet on the future and lost. It has happened before, and it will happen again. All of my thinking never gave me the indication that Bush would have some designs on Imperialism when he ran as an Isolationist. The guy we have now is nowhere near the guy I voted for. Oops. So in 2004, I get to correct that misjudgment.
I’m sorry, Stoid, but I am completely unable to see this as anything but a “people aren’t thinking unless they’re thinking like me” thread. Your “If people thought, all of our problems would be solved” paragraph is self-serving. Would you think that way if the people thought and still elected a Republican? I doubt it. Then you’d accuse them of not thinking.
Still, you’re entitled to rant and rave all you want, but after the countless rounds we’ve gone and our more recent correspondence, I think we know each others’ views pretty well. And I think in this case you’re being a bit transparent in that you’re just upset because Bush’s numbers are up and that really torques you off because you hate the guy. That’s just how I see it.
The limitations of your perception are your limitations, not mine.
You can jump to any conclusions you like, (and frankly, I’m a little offended, given…) doesn’t mean you’re right.
Not all Republicans are alike, by any stretch of the imagination. Neither are all Democrats. Contrary to popular (and extremely limited) perception, I do not equate all Republicans with George W. Bush. Far from it. I do not believe that any and all Republicans spell disaster for our country.
I do believe it of Bush, and I have plenty of evidence to back it up. And I’m hardly alone. Many, many people, (including some conservative Republicans) see him precisely the same way I do.
My “self- serving” paragraph is the truth. I have a tremendous amount of faith in education. I also have a tremendous amount of faith in the idea that if you have a thoroughly informed electorate, voting from a educated, informed place, * we’d have better politicians to choose from. * It would be a natural consequence.
There would still be conservatives and liberals, there would also be room for other parties. The best people, with the best ideas, would come out on top more often than not.
Just my belief, true, and it is terribly sad I will never have it tested.
I used to work in survey research, and just for future reference, any story about a poll from a reputable source should have an explanation of the methodology: a list of the actual questions asked, the choices offered, the sample size, the margin of error (which is determined by the sample size), and who designed/conducted the poll. See the very bottom of that page for a link.
Oh jesus… I’m watching some pubbie strategist on TV lying again… “Does Sddam Doom Dean?” is the headline. If he does, the electorate really ARE idiots. (and I say that being no great fan of dean’s, btw. It’s just that it should have zero to do with it.)
But back to the lying strategist: The Dems have been bitching about the fact that we haven’t found WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Lying fucks.
Say it often enough, just enough people start to believe it. The people I talk about in my OP.
Guys, how many people self identify as twits who change their mind with every news report? Cause that’s the same number who should take personal offense. Throw them a fish next week and all will be cool.
This poll could mean that when “good news” happens, like Saddam’s capture, the hawks are more likely to sit through a phone poll (and vis versa “bad news” reports for doves). This falls in line with my general thinking that polls are crap.
And in case some of you forgot: this is the Pit. For ranting about shit that’s bugging you. I am not the leader of the DNC, I am not a congressperson, I’m not anybody’s speechwriter. I did not open this thread in the futile hope that I was going to have a magical effect on the sort of person I am annoyed with. I opened it to bitch publicly at the existence of such people.
Furthermore, any influence I might accidentally have on such people would almost certainly be fleeting. It is the very nature of the beast.
So admonishing me that I’m not winning friends or influencing people completely misses the point. (And I echo the poster on the previous page: do any of you self-identify as the sort of people I’m talking about?)
And by the way… I’m curious: what the hell would be the way to “reach” such people? I’m not bitching that they don’t see what I’m seeing; I’m infuriated that they aren’t even bothering to look. So how do you do battle with that? Seems tome it’s a matter of choice.
There is a good-sized chunk of the electorate that feels relief at the capture of Saddam and evidence that something has gone right for America in Iraq. This has translated to an uptick for Bush’s poll numbers, even though it’s highly doubtful that the added support means all those people will vote for Bush next year. Polls have been compared to a snapshot in time. Some bad things will no doubt happen between now and the election and negatively affect Bush’s poll numbers. When that happens, some Bushophobes will be jumping up and down, gleeful that the “dumb middle” has seen the light.
There are voters who I think make dumb choices. They are just as likely to be found at the extremes as in the middle. For Left or Right to openly show contempt for the middle* is even dumber. OK?
*and the Left seems to be guilty of this more often than the Right, which would follow the reported trend for left-leaning views to be held more commonly among more educated people, some of whom have an exalted sense of their own intelligence.
There is a reason. We got Sadaam. That’s good news. So, it’ll make people more likely to think positively of Bush and us being in Iraq in general. Why is that a problem?
Oh Stoid… why so angry at all the poor little middle people just trying to get by? You frighten me so badly me with all your spittle flecked, choleric anger, it makes me want to run into a dark little spider hole and never come out. Are you hurting?
