42% of voters favor impeachment

[Vyce 0]

When I saw this thread title, Jobber, I thought to myself, there goes C-Bacon with another one of his usual bullshit threads.

 

And then I saw it was started by you.

 

That's not a good thing, in case you haven't figured it out yet. That I can so easily confuse you with C-Bacon based on your post content.

[Guest JMA]

You just know that the media is praying to their god (the Almighty Dollar) that another President gets impeached. It doesn't even matter what his politics are to them.

[Art Sandusky 0]

What is John Zogby talking about?

 

Zogby International, the polling firm of John Zogby, announced its latest poll yesterday with a press release headlined "No Bounce." The release states that "President Bush's televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll."

 

But if you read the details of the poll, you will find out that it was conducted from June 27-29. Bush gave his speech during the evening of June 28. So how could Zogby tell if Bush got a bounce when a substantial portion of his respondents were interviewed before the speech? This seems like another example of Zogby's questionable professional ethics to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it's putting too much faith in a mediocre speech to give him a public boost.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

When I saw this thread title, Jobber, I thought to myself, there goes C-Bacon with another one of his usual bullshit threads.

 

And then I saw it was started by you.

 

That's not a good thing, in case you haven't figured it out yet.  That I can so easily confuse you with C-Bacon based on your post content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I find a Zogby poll (even a disputed one) to be more "news" than some peacenik editorial

[The Robfather 0]

His poll is meaningless and is not news.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

[MrRant 0]

Don't you think you should ignore it consider the guy said that the television address that the president hadn't even done yet didn't do anything to his poll?

 

How can you say that when you take the poll before the FUCKING address?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Because the address didn't do anything to quiet the critics at all. It was, like I said, mediocre. Had he delivered a rousing call to arms for America to stick this conflict out until its conclusion instead of referencing 9/11 five times (only the most deluded citizens at this point associate the war in Iraq with 9/11) and saying "it's hard work" over and over and over and over and over and over again. We know it's hard work, it's fucking armed conflict and we've suffered nearly 1,800 deaths. I think we know by now that it's hard work and is going to take a while. The speech was nothing more than a public declaration by the administration of all the things we've surmised from watching the news every night. Nothing new was said, nothing was presented to inspire us or get us on his side, and not even the crowd was compelled to applaud during the speech more than once, not a good indication considering that that crowd and setting were probably chosen for the most supportive effect.

 

Not that I relish in all of this. I really wanted to hear him pull off a great address that would at least give the most ardent critics reason to think twice with the 4th of July around the corner, but I doubt most of the citizenry remembers any of it.

[MrRant 0]

That's not the point.

 

 

The point of the matter is the poll was supposed to be the reaction of people to the address, but it was done BEFORE the address so the poll is inaccurate for better or worse.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Argue semantics all day if you'd like, but polls conducted since the speech will show a minimal improvement at best, and no change at all at worst. That's the fortunate part, just enough "new" (read: things the administration has been reluctant to admit) things were said to improve their image of blissfully ignoring what's happening over there. The quicker those in charge get real with the American people, the faster their image will improve. Don't just use platitudes of truth and all that, actually practice them.

[MrRant 0]

WTF?

 

Semantics? You are completely disregarding the fact that these people are releasing a poll saying this is a result of "this particular thing" when the fucking thing hasn't even happened yet. It's irresponsible and shady.

[Art Sandusky 0]

But it's ignoring that it really doesn't matter, because there isn't going to be some groundswell of support all of a sudden. It simply won't affect things enough to bitch about when it was conducted.

[MrRant 0]

You...

 

 

Idiot.

 

 

No one is debating whether the polls would be up or down, but that you can't say that this is the result of this action when it (in bold now so your mind can handle it) HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yes, I understand that, but the indignation shown is as if it would have mattered. That's what my argument is. I think we're trying to argue two different things against each other thanks to Zogby's brainfart.

 

A fun little Iraq-related poll factoid: South Carolina is the state that favors a reinstatement of the draft most, with nearly a third of the state supporting it according to results shown on local broadcasts tonight.

[The Robfather 0]

John Zogby said John Kerry would win 311 electoral votes.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Okay, and? That wasn't too far-fetched. After all, the guy didn't exactly get rocked in a landslide.

[The Robfather 0]

Ok, let me put it this way: He's nothing but a shill for Democrats and Arabs.

[Justice 0]

Holy Christ, that had to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen debated.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Don't you think you should ignore it consider the guy said that the television address that the president hadn't even done yet didn't do anything to his poll?

 

How can you say that when you take the poll before the FUCKING address?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, the context that it was written in about his speech is incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out and I wish I had noticed that before. Zogby's numbers are still considered trustworthy enough that the media spouts them off, so they certainly can be posted and dissected here as such.

[Vyce 0]

You...

 

 

Idiot.

 

 

No one is debating whether the polls would be up or down, but that you can't say that this is the result of this action when it (in bold now so your mind can handle it) HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't argue with him, it only costs you brain cells.

 

Zogby's numbers are still considered trustworthy enough that the media spouts them off, so they certainly can be posted and dissected here as such.

 

Zogby's numbers also predicted John Kerry would win by over 300 electoral votes, and we all saw how well that one turned out.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Hey look, all you did was repeat what someone else already said and spit out a pointless insult. Y'all suckas need to start facing reality and stop esconcing yourselves in an endless quest to find silver linings when there are few, and those are far between. We're not totally beyond repair yet, but as I said, in a couple of years we might be. I don't think it's nuts to expect a radical change after continuing this current course.