I loved that one!
And 32 percent that crop designs are messages from alien spacecraft, 20 percent in the Loch Ness Monster, and 18 in Big Foot.
That means there are only 10 percent that are trying to keep our republic intact?
Posted on 03/10/2006 3:32:47 AM PST by GRRRRR
WASHINGTON - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency. ADVERTISEMENT
Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.
"I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."
Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.
I loved that one!
And 32 percent that crop designs are messages from alien spacecraft, 20 percent in the Loch Ness Monster, and 18 in Big Foot.
That means there are only 10 percent that are trying to keep our republic intact?
I agree. I quit answering polls a long time ago- why cooperate with an enemy?
They're just prepping for the "MSM Impeach Bush Run". In the article they once again mention Nixon as the negative one, who was never impeached and Clinton as the positive One, who was impeached.
Because Poll methodologies vary - 37% is the lowest for that poll series. Y'know, like 104% was the lowest I got in Statistics, even though I got a 85% on my test in Calculus, each teacher would say "X is the lowest he got in my classes", and X would be different, yet neither of them was deceiving you when you asked the question.
Almost as if My calculus techer didn't feel I deserved credit in his course for how well I was doing in statistics. I tried to talk him into your theory on this, but he wasn't buying it.
And no, I don't have the foggiest notion how people could blame Bush for telling people the levies were covered in private, then blaming people under him when they were overwhelmed, or appointing crony's to FEMA and DHS, or promising funding that never came through for rebuilding.
I mean, it's not like these people were having an ongoing crisis like, say, Terry Schiavo. If he had known that it might be politically important, I'm sure he'd have been right on top of the issue.
CD
What a load of kr@p!!!!..excuse me ms "GOP" not..but last time I checked, Bush was not the mayor of new orleans or governor of louisiana..get all of your info from msm and this is what you get..jeez..
Well I think if you checked "registered voters" you would find that the percentage breakdown by party nationwide is pretty close to that. Republicans win because their voters get off their asses and show up at the polls. Thanks to Motor Voter law, the Dems have a lot of people registered that are too lazy or dumb to find their polling place, unless someone is paying them for their vote and buses them to the polls.
I don't recall Reagan saying he regretted his immigration bill. I'm not doubting you, but if you have a source I'd be obliged if you post it.
The biggest problem with illegal immigration is the American businesses who hire them. Reagan's bill had penalties for businesses hiring illegals, but to my knowledge, these penalties have never been rigorously enforced, despite whichever party is in power. The problem with politicans is they ARE listening to their constituents, just the ones with lots of cash, i.e., businesses who hire illegals.
In any case, my point is that all the presidents have ignored the Mexican border and let illegal immigration go on. Only Reagan and now Bush have tried to fix it.
What changed from last month's AP/Ipsos poll in February of 2006? Now their March sample of Republicans and Democrats are now seperated by 12 percentage points vs last month's sample where the difference was 8 percentage points... In a defensive move, AP-Ipsos reveals in this months polling results that their initial screen of poll respondents consisted of 29%R, 35%D, 20%I, 14%None, 2%NotSure. Now maybe its just me, but if someone does not identify as a Republican or Democrat - they are by these poll definitions an Independent (it does not matter if they are communist, socialist, vegan, green, etc). So what AP-Ipsos has done is to start with a sample that was 29%R, 35%D, 36%I - then they push for leaning Republican or Democrat, or if the person is a hard core Independent. Looks like AP has salted the sample again...
Just to add to the media polling bias, here is the recent history of the "ever-reliable" AP/Ipsos polls (January 2005 - March 2006) and their political Party ID sample composition for each poll. The AP/Ipsos polls push Independents to identify with either Republicans or Democrats, only the 'hard-core' remain as self-identified 'Independents'...
This is an mixed ADULTS and Registered Voters poll, not just registered voters. Note the consistant gap in the party ID between Democrats and Republicans, strange given the the 2004 Presidential Election exit polls identified 37% Republicans, 37% Democrats and 26% Independents among the voting American public. The Republicans have achieved voter self-indentification parity with the Democrats for the first time since the late 1920s.
This series of AP/Ipsos poll result on Presidential job approval and the American public views on the 'direction of the country' was as always based on a skewed demographic sample that averages 41% Republican, 49% Democrat and 10% Independent composition. I think that when the AP poll fails to get the results they desire, they 'play' with both the registered voters composition and vary the un-registered voter portion of the poll sample. Since the Registered voter portion of the poll averages around 78% and the 'breathing' voter averages around 22% you can see they have quite a bit of "statistical slack" to play with to get the results they require...
Note: The AP/Ipsos polls are published in PDF format and become unavailable after one month. You must be a 'premium' member to access those PDF files on their web site. No consistant links are provided for that reason.
Source: AP-Ipsos Poll, March 6-8, 2006 Project #81-5139-81
Hope this helps,
dvwjr
What will help is the repeated use of the words "unexpected" and "surprising" as anchor and reporter responses to GOP victories on Election Night 2006.
In an election where turnout is key, there is nothing better than an overconfident and undersized Democrat base that thinks they have certain victory in the face of an assumed demoralized GOP voter base.
Sorry, we're at war, Stevens-Ginsburg are on life support, and the libs are pushing for impeachment.
With these parameters, no conservative will stay home and not vote. To do so would be unAmerican and an insult to ever soldier who has served.
Does anyone else find it kind of ironic that Bush's drop in popularity is coming at a time when conservatives in the West are getting into power in liberal strongholds(Merkel, Howard)?
Awesome post!
The media's hatchet-jobs, coupled with Bush's PR ineptitude, will carry the day every time. For a while it looked like W could overcome the machinations of the Left and their official organs. It's becoming less and less likely.
As for ILLEGAL aliens, you and I differ on what fixing the problem is about.
Amnesty is not fixing the problem, if it is then Bill Clinton was our biggest fixer by not only having ammesty but allowing those that couldn't pass the citizenship test to become citizens, thereby insuring Clinton many votes from ILLEGALs and legals who could not vote before. I suppose you don't remember that either!
Amnesty will not fix anything and, indeed, has already made the problem worse by encouraging ILLEGALS to come here in the hopes they can stay long enough to get in on the amnesty program.
As for your thoughts on the employers of these law breakers, I agree. We need to clamp down on them in conjunction with rounding up as many ILLEGALS as we can and deporting them. Tent cities would do fine to house them until they can be sent back home, where ever home may be for them.
AFTER we get the problem under control, with as many ILLEGALS gone from here as possible, we can then UP the legal quota of legal migrants allowd in the country, IF that is really called for. I don't think we do, we have plenty of labor available in this country, if we would just ultilize it, but if we do, then uping the quota of legals would solve the problem. If we wanted to make some of them temporary, that would be ok also.
The bottom line is this: Unless we actually fix the problem, which is employers hiring ILLEGALS simply for cheap labor, and get the millions of ILLEGALS that are now in the country, out of the country, no so called "fix" such as amnesty will work, it will merely serve to inspire the next round of ILLEGALS to come here the same way Reagans amnesty did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.