Saturday, June 09, 2007 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views. Reid has been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform. The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress than among voters may have hurt public perceptions of the Democratic leader. His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senator. Reid’s highest ratings were 30% favorable in February. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...bles_fall_to_19 So who has lower poll ratings? Not Bush. That would be Paris Hilton and her ilk . . . 12% for Paris. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...favorably_by_71 So where does Bush stand? Compared to Reid . . . Reid could only hope for a 34%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...sh_job_approval
A phone survey of 800 "likely voters"? I'd be startled if even 20% know who Harry Reid is. Might have thought he was the shoe bomber. :huh:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jack Kelly @ Jun 14 2007, 10:31 PM) [snapback]462137[/snapback]</div> I think the people at Rasmussen know how to take a poll and . . . Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.†Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome. During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. Wildkow
Well - Harry ISNT a good leader - at all. Hes actually HORRIBLE.. Just like that total DITZ nancy P - what an IDIOT.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 14 2007, 09:34 PM) [snapback]462065[/snapback]</div> Looking at their ratings of Congressmen, being under 19% or under is not uncommon: ROY BLUNT ® JOHN BOEHNER ® JAMES CLYBURN (D) JOHN DINGELL (D) RICHARD DURBIN (D) STENY HOYER (D) JON KYL ® MITCH MCCONNELL ® HARRY REID (D) HENRY WAXMAN (D) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...or_u_s_congress You'll note also that in most cases, the results don't come close to totalling 100%. So while a 19% favorable implies an enormous 81% unfavorable, that is not in fact the case. In Reid's case, evidently 36% did not know who he was or were neutral -- I couldn't access an actual copy of the poll question (i.e., 19% fav, 45% unfav, 36% just missing). Bush's approval rating of 34% comes out of a full 100% sample, 34% approve, 66% disapprove. Furthermore, if you look at their story on ratings of congress "19% Say Congress Doing Good or Excellent Job" it sounds pretty damming. The actual results of their poll are 3% excellent, 16% good, 37% fair, 41% poor. Fair would seem to me a positive answer to give on the phone, but here in the headline is excluded from the positive result, i.e., "19% say good or excellent" compared to "56% rate congress positively." I would be curious to know the questions asked for the congressmen ratings, but couldn't find them on the site (many of their links require a subscription). I'm not saying their results are in any way invalid; but I imagine polls conducted in the home districts of these congressmen where people knew who they were would have a markedly different result. For anyone running a national campaign, results like this would be terrible (and hence of worry to Sam Brownback (18%) and people I haven't even heard of like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel (12%). Then again, if ratings of "Fair" have been lumped into a negative rating for these people or simply excluded as a "neutral" result, the results would seem a bit squewed to me.
Reid is NOT the President of THE UNITED STATES EITHER , BUSH IS So as far as presidents go Bush is the lowest rated !!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Jun 15 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]462242[/snapback]</div> I believe you are not correct. I recall President Jimmy "lets overthrow the Shah of Iran and replace him with Islamofascists" Carter had an approval rating of 21% during his one term. What is interesting is that the democratic congress also rates lower than the President - lets see: The most ethical congress? - Ms Pelosi please comment of Rep Jefferson A clear accounting of earmark spending? - tell me nancy and harry - how are you hiding your pork spending now. what has the democratically controlled congress done???? NOTHING baby nothing - spending taxing spending taxing - hope they are wearing steel shoes Hey while you are at it, ask Jimmy"anti-semite" Carter if had a chance to see how his friend Mr Chavez and his people are doing and has he placed a call yet to his brothers at Hamas. Damn those Israelis - that "aparteid state" - i wonder why they dont trust Hamas - perhpas because whatever Jimmy does or likes or believes in is the opposite of what should be??? :lol: And he was President - Jeeez.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jun 15 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]462235[/snapback]</div> It would be interesting to know whether a congressman's political affiliation was known to the individual being surveyed, as well. If so, I can see a significant portion of the respondents disapproving of a particular congressman on that basis, alone, whether they knew anything else about them or not. The fact that a full 36% was unaccounted for (i.e., did not even know who Reid was or were neutral) would seem to bear that out. There are, however, no such unaccounted percentages in any of Bush's poll numbers. Taken in that context, I would say that Bush's 34% approval rating in this poll (a more recent MSNBC/WSJ poll now has him at 29%, his worst approval rating yet on record) is far worse than Reid's 19% approval rating. Were Cheney's poll numbers listed? IIRC, the last approval ratings for him were approaching single digits, which is really saying something considering that he would most assuredly be as well-known as Bush.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Jun 15 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]462393[/snapback]</div> They list Cheney as 38% fav, 58% unfav, 4% missing or neutral. Frankly, that data seems like it must be really old. I can't imagine Cheney polling higher than Bush. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...litical_figures
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jun 15 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]462413[/snapback]</div> Frankly . . . I think your bias is getting in the way of you accepting facts. "Surveys of 800 Likely Voters June 4-5, 2007 and June 6-7, 2007" It's right there on the left side of the page I linked in my OP. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...bles_fall_to_19
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jun 15 2007, 12:45 PM) [snapback]462413[/snapback]</div> Well, considering the VP's job is to break senate ties (and not much else), I don't really see how he could be doing any worse than Bush... Unless you take that hunting accident into account... :blink:
In an attempt to bolster junior in their minds, republicans who voted him in look for ANYONE with lower ratings to compare him to. Once again, their strategy is a race to the BOTTOM. How about comparing your hero to others who are HIGHLY regarded? It's almost incomprehensible, I know, to race to the TOP instead of the bottom. What a pathetic strategy. Dig to the bottom of the barrel and find some piece of rotten s**t and then say 'see, he's not THAT bad. Your thinking is mind numbing. I need a drink and a line of cocaine like your hero's coping mechanisms to accept such a strategy. In my world we compare to the best, not to the worst.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 15 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]479109[/snapback]</div> So, are you saying that Harry Reid is a "piece of rotten s**t? :huh: Hey, you are the one doing the implying. I just mentioned Reid has a lower approval rating than W. I did so because liberals love to point out W's low ratings. Goose, meet Gander. :lol: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 15 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]479109[/snapback]</div> And if it takes a double and two lines in order for you to feel good about yourself, Go for it! <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 15 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]479109[/snapback]</div> Is this more Marin County snobbery rearing its ugly head? :blink: Marin County . . .</span> . . . highest per capita income in the country at $44,962. . . where BMWs are known as "Basic Marin Wheels." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marin_County,_California . . . where Habitat for Humanity volunteers in the county grew so frustrated with neighborhood opposition in the 1990s that they disbanded their chapter of the international organization. Habitat is trying again with four proposed houses just outside this upscale town along San Francisco Bay but is meeting more hostility. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-0...mes-marin_x.htm <span style="color:#009900"> At the same time, Marin County established its own record with a median home price of $1,010,000 -- the first county in California to pass the million-dollar mark, DataQuick said. The median price for a single-family home nationally was $215,300 in March, a 0.9 percent drop from the previous year, according to the National Association of Realtors. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NGM6PS7LE88.DTL People in Marin County need "think locally and act locally." The Marin County slogan should be, "People's Republic of Marin County - we know what is best for everyone else."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 15 2007, 05:58 PM) [snapback]479292[/snapback]</div> Can you do me a favor and keep singing that song for the next year and a half? Because that kind of thinking lost the GOP the last election, and it's going to lose them the next election if they Stay The Course.
It's brewin up to be an interesting 2008. Seems the democrats are trying to out stink Bush in the run up. I was surprised to find 19 of every 100 people think reed is alright. The dude is insane on his good days.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Jul 15 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]479310[/snapback]</div> Gladly! If, within the next year or so, the Iraqi government and military stabilize itself and complete the remaining benchmarks - and then asks the United States to start withdrawing troops . . . what will the Democrats campaign on? "Bush is bad." "It's the economy, stupid." "Our calls for immediate withdrawal worked the way we planned!" "It would have turned out the same no matter how long our troops stayed, so they should have left earlier." :lol: :lol: :lol: Right now, the dems are a seen as a one trick pony. The democrats biggest worry IS the war in Iraq - that President Bush's strategy proves to have been the "correct course." If that happens, the democrats end up looking like crass, politiking, whining, defeatist boobs who only cared about maintaining their own political power. Things which would hurt the democrats in the next election: * Congressional poll numbers remain low. * The US military starts leaving Iraq victoriously - because the mission was completed. * The economy stays strong. (DOW 1300+, low unemployment rate, deficit rate continues to fall, etc) * No major terrorist attacks on US interests. These things are out of the control of the democrats. If they hold true, I will continue to sing about the democrats . . . Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye.
do you think anywhere along the campaign trail someone will say.. "Iraq is going to be screwed up when the next president takes office... How will you (sir/maam) fix that?" We're 5 years in right now and so far not one answer from any of the candidates on anything that would begin to make that situation better. Are they going to whip out some good ideas at game time?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(FiftyOneMPG @ Jul 16 2007, 09:29 AM) [snapback]479671[/snapback]</div> There is no secret 'good' answer. There never was. That is what MILITARY PLANNING is all about. Entrance AND exit strategy. The only answer is immediate withdrawal, apology to Iraq for impinging on their sovereign rights, bring the troops home to lick their wounds, then send them out to 'get' bin Laden as should have been done in 2001. Now, by the tone of some posts here, when Hillary wins the election and starts something unwinnable, you will rally her opposition to 'stand blindly behind their duly elected president', with no back talk, defeatism, or other disparaging remarks. When she sends your loved ones off to the slaughter you will lead the charge. When she is forced to severely raise taxes to pay for the republican party's previous mess, you will write an extra amount just to support her. You will not grumble that she is taxing you into oblivion to cover the nice person of the revered junior and his war and his huge deficits. When China calls it's financial chits in you will lead the private fund raising to buy back the bonds they helped us out with in junior's time of 'need'. I look forward to reading your posts in 18 months! There are no 'fixes' for Iraq. However, there are fixes for a ruling party out of control. It is generations of oblivion, being marginalized, and taxed to death to pay for their prior f**k-ups. It also must entail a two-party budget with lock boxes during years of 'off duty'. nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, when regan was going down that road his party had the good sense to rally around him or he, too would have been forced out of office for his direct involvement in Iran-Contra. Junior will leave in disgrace whether he is run out on a rail or not. I say, I see a pattern here!
