Poll: Bush in Strong Position With Voters (Update)

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 01/09/04 | Will Lester (A.P.)

[alloysteel]

But does this mean that Bush is going to take any delegates to the Democrat National Convention?

Could happen, you know. If ya can't lick 'em, join 'em.

George W. Bush, nominated as candidate for President on the Democrat ticket. In the voting booth, vote for Bush the Republican, or Bush the Democrat.

Well, what the heck? As long as we are talking about parallel universes....

[cardinal4]

"I don't like the way he's represented the United States to the rest of the world," she said. "We're really hated. He embodies the stereotype of Americans the rest of the world may have."

Hmmmm. Thats one of the many things that endears me to him. US Foreign Policy shouldnt be based on the Worlds opinion of us. Thats how Clinton governed.

[Savage Beast]

And why not? President Bush represents the cure for the near fatal disease of decadence that afflicts the West. The reason he represents the cure, aside from his considerable personal qualities, is that he is the quintessence of the American Heartland, and the Heartland is the greatest, the healthiest, and the strongest bastion of Western Civilization in the world today--still ascendant--and is itself the cure.

President Bush and the American Heartland will drag the "Liberal" slugs of the decadent "Liberal" enclaves of America, Europe, and outlying regions, kicking and screaming, into the coming Renaissance, whether they like it or not!

"Those who will the gods will lead, and those who won't they'll drag."

They hate The Hero, who has come to lead them out of the darkness of decadence and into the light--such is the nature of their sickness--but he'll lead them nevertheless, in spite of themselves.

[Savage Beast]

"Why are these scumwads so worried about what other people think of us?"

Because they are stupid.

[Savage Beast]

I hope he's not dumb enough to choose Hillary for vice president.

[cubreporter]

Amen!!!!!

[Wolfstar]

There is no way to objectively determine if the results of any poll are genuinely accurate for the population as a whole. All that can be said objectively is that any given poll MAY be accurate within its sample population for the questions asked, in the order asked, on the day and time asked. Therefore, I always am skeptical of polls, whether or not they are positive for my candidate or issue.

That said, Gephardt's best chance to advance his candidacy is to win Iowa. Anything less, and his candidacy is almost certainly doomed. The media will feed the "expectations" game with Dean and Clark, saying Dean didn't win by enough (if he wins), and Clark "did better than expected" if he comes in 3rd or better. Real votes don't matter to the media except insofar as they can manipulate public perceptions of the results.

I'm certain other FReepers have noticed that Clark is CNN's favorite candidate. He also seems to be the favorite of some NBC luminaries like Couric. He seems to fill the same role for the media this year as John McCain filled in 2000 — the dark-horse candidate who adds a dramatic plot-line to the early presidential primary season.

[My2Cents]

the dark-horse candidate who adds a dramatic plot-line to the early presidential primary season.

Clark is the "dark-horse's ass" candidate. I agree that the media loves manipulating the thinking of the "stoopid" wing of the electorate. Bill Clinton lost in NH in '92, but the media proclaimed his finish a "moral victory," and anointed him as the candidate with "momentum." The way the media robs the majority of voters of their choice and the significance of their vote is offensive.

You're right, of course, about the way the media spins and promotes poll findings. I remember Chris Matthews still citing an LA Times poll of the recall election showing Bustamante a couple of points ahead of Arnold, even AFTER two other more recent polls came out showing Arnold with a comfortable lead over Bustamante. These polls have one purpose: as propaganda fodder for the media. This is why I think it's delicious when, say, a CNN poll, or an ABC poll comes out showing Bush increasing his lead over all candidates, or support for our effort in Iraq growing. It leaves the media with little to spin. It's like they spent all that money to conduct a poll, and the results blew up in their faces.

Another point on opinion surveys -- As a statistician friend told me recently, "If you bludgeon the data long enough, you can make it confess to anything."

[Wolfstar]

If you bludgeon the data long enough, you can make it confess to anything.

Wonderful, concise way to put it. If you also bludgeon the people enough...it's no accident that polls immediately after an event say one thing, while polls about that same event some time afterwards say something entirely different. Marketing and public relations works. What passes for "news" and "entertainment" these days, is little more than marketing for Leftist dogma.