Powell "Bounce" Fades [But Bush Job Approval Still Sky-high]

Gallup News Service ^ | Friday, February 21, 2003 | by David W. Moore and Frank Newport

[B4Ranch]

I heard an interesting piece on Rush this morning about the San Francisco antiwar march. One of the newspapers hired a private company that does aerial filming to estimate how many people were in the march. The plane flew at 2000 feet above the marchers om Market Street around noon and took the pictures. Final estimate was 65,000 (+/-7%)marchers, not the 200,000 they had been claiming.

[kesg]

These people are notorious for overestimating their turnout. I tend to discount just about everything they have to say.

[cake_crumb]

"The plane flew at 2000 feet above the marchers om Market Street around noon and took the pictures. Final estimate was 65,000 (+/-7%)marchers, not the 200,000 they had been claiming."

The national media didn't pick it up...doesn't fit the agenda. I've heard other stories about reporters being ordered to take only close up pics at certain angles, to make the crowd seem larger...so a little over a third of the actual turnout reported by the media doesn't surprise me.

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with you. Good question to ask the President!

Weighing opinions from world leaders wouldn't be in our best interest probably 99.9% of the time IMO!

[VRWC_minion]

I believe there is a multiplier that needs to be usd to factor for folks who come and go so that at any point in time the total who show up will exceed the total present.

[VRWC_minion]

It just occured to me that its normal for folks that are against something to be more intense than those for something, especially when it comes to something that should be entered into reluctantly like war.

[Cosmo]

I uh, think you just nailed it. I read the article and asked myself how they came up with the methodology to guage fervor, then I saw your post and realized the poll revealed the "duh" truth.

Feel the gin

[cyncooper]

This seems much closer to reality than the Harris Poll earlier this week!

Thank you! I think so, too.

[cyncooper]

Bush's job approval ratings are healthy by historical standards, but clearly much lower than they were throughout 2002. The current 58% rating remains about three points above the historical average for all presidents since World War II. Bush received the highest job approval rating in Gallup Poll history -- 90% -- in September 2001.

I thought you might find this interesting.

[Williams]

except that the questions and analysis are still biased. Unilateral? When most of Europe supports us? When many countries will join us? The pivotal role of the UN my ***. And this shows Bush is just like Clinton! facinating except Clinton never put himself on the line to protect us like this.

What it shows is liberal media feeding the citizenry a bunch of nonsense about the UN, World Opinion, and International Law (which is mush).

[cyncooper]

I am sick to death of the lie being bandied about that we will have to "go it alone".

Good points you make.

[CedarDave]

Which newspaper? Since they're all leftist anyway, why would they want undermine the overestimates necessary to bolster their position?

[My2Cents]

I think the Harris Poll has a margin of area, +/-55%.

[My2Cents]

Agreed. God forbid that we ever have another "leader" (like Clinton) who consults the polls before he does what's needed to protect this nation.

[cake_crumb]

"It just occured to me that its normal for folks that are against something to be more intense than those for something, especially when it comes to something that should be entered into reluctantly like war."

Ah...but those people who are fervently against war must be as fervent as those of us who are fervently against allowing Saddam to continue as a terrorist paymaster who methodically murders his own people when they disagree with him....therefore, both sides equal out in the end for fervence.

Likewise, those who are fervently against war should be equally as unfervent those of us who are fervently against leaving Saddam to continue his atrocities, and so should be equally equal in lack of fervence to those of us who are for military action against Saddam, since those who are against military action must therefore be for a lack of war....therefore, both sides should equally equal out in the end for lack of fervence...

Puff...puff...puff...

[VRWC_minion]

Your post reminds me of the Princess Queen scene where the good guy asks the bad guy to choose which drink has the poison.

[RobFromGa]

[Once-Ler]

"In September 2002, with 58% of Americans giving general support for the war, the intense public tilted toward war by 34% to 26%, compared with the 29% to 30% standoff that currently exists."

I’m not surprised that all the left...that 30% who are vehemently against war...are vehemently against the war. So frigid what? Half of them will never admit opposing the war 1 year from now.

This just means the left realizes that they will be ostracized when this war goes into the history books as the greatest military victory of all time.

This war is not predicated upon opinion polls. The decision to remove Saddam was decided long ago. There is one superpower in the world and its leader is Dubya. The flock will follow the shepherd were he leads.

[cake_crumb]

That was the "Princess Bride"...one of my favorite movies. LOL...and I know which scene you mean: the one where Wesley challenged Vincini to a battle of wits. WHen Vincini can't figure out which goblet the poison is in...he drinks one and goes into a tirade that has something to do with 'land wars in Asia' and ends with 'Never go against a Sicilian, when DEATH is on the line!! BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAA...BWAAAHAAAAHAA...BWA -" then keels over dead <G>

Actually, the movie never crossed my mind while trying to unravel the logic of illogic...but it DOES fit!