Pangloss Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 This may not mean much to our international guests -- sorry about that. But I think some here might find it interesting. Last week all three networks reported the Gallup poll numbers showing that the President's approval rating had dipped to 40%. I thought it might be interesting to see if the networks reported the new poll numbers from Gallup today, which showed a 5 point bump to 45%. A five point bump in a single week is actually quite a story -- generally anything over four points is considered to be a major change, and entire initiatives have been tossed out or shuffled to the back burner over less dynamic poll results. I didn't get to watch NBC News, having only one Tivo, but I did watch CBS and ABC. Neither reported the new poll results. Shocker, eh? You can read about the new poll here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/bush.poll/ (Waits for the obligatory post from Nevermore.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Yet another reason why http://news.google.com is better than TV... you can stop worrying about "agendas" whatever they may be and get the news you're interested in. And yes, obviously liberals dominate the teevee... if this bothers you, I'd fall back on my argument of "TV sucks... stop watching it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 perhaps the staunchly conservative media has decided that it wouldn't look good if a huuuge increase in support would bring bush only up to 45% approval Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 perhaps the staunchly conservative media has decided that it wouldn't look good if a huuuge increase in support would bring bush only up to 45% approvalBud, I'm sure you hit the nail right on the head...........staunchly conservative media... ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 1, 2005 Author Share Posted October 1, 2005 LOL Bud! Classic! That's a great point Basc. Google News has become a central focus for me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 perhaps people like the concept of tom delay illegally financing republican campaigns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 1, 2005 Author Share Posted October 1, 2005 God, I would hope not. But I would also hope they remember that it was similar activities by Democrats that lead to those laws being passed in Texas. (And it's an oh-two count to the Yankee slugger!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 yeah but that was back when the dems were still jackasses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 especially if youre referring to elbridge gerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 More confirmation that I'd right about this poll business came out today. They were all over the story three weeks ago when the polls plummeted to 40%. A week later they were dead silent when the numbers climbed 5% to 45. Now a new poll is out that says something bad, and it's all over the place. My guess is that all three networks will carry this story tonight. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5342094,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1210653 <-- ABC News, ready to go for tonight's show http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9672058/ <-- clearly set up for a video story for tonight's broadcast http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-10-13T211741Z_01_DIT376639_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-POLITICS.xml (And 92 more here:) http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5342094,00.html ("Why do my eyes hurt, Morpheus?") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 elbridge gerry Do you mean the guy in the Constitutional convention (and vice president under...Monroe or Madison or something)? Dude from Massachusetts? Or are you talking about someone else, because he was a member of the democratic-republican party, which is not equatable to the modern democratic party, more to the republican party. The democratic-republican party isn't the same as the democratic party. Martin Van Bren is largely responsible for the democratic party, but borrowed a lot of ideas from Jefferson's democratic-republican party. It's kind of a spin off of the democratic-republican party. The modern democratic party has little in common with the old democratic party. Anyways, what did Gerry do? I imagine it has something to do with district making, gerrymandering (or something like that)? I must admit I don't know much about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 "More confirmation that I'd right about this poll business came out today. They were all over the story three weeks ago when the polls plummeted to 40%. A week later they were dead silent when the numbers climbed 5% to 45. Now a new poll is out that says something bad, and it's all over the place. My guess is that all three networks will carry this story tonight." perhaps news sources are sensationalist and only report things that are more drastic? nobody cares if approval ratings increase a little, but people do care if approval ratings "dramatically plummet to an all-time low!" "The democratic-republican party isn't the same as the democratic party. " furthermore, the republican party isn't the same as the republican party, say, 35 years ago. but what about the reflexive property? change as a function of time? zounds! "The modern democratic party has little in common with the old democratic party." once again, we have [math](delta things)/time[/math] and that sort of ties in with my whole "that was when the dems were still jackasses" statement. anyway, gerry was a jackass for gerrymandering. he tried to help his party by re-drawing district lines in favor of his party. and do i see 39% approval rating? so much for the mandate of heaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 14, 2005 Author Share Posted October 14, 2005 Lol, is that where that word comes from? I always wondered about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 furthermore, the republican party isn't the same as the republican party, say, 35 years ago. but what about the reflexive property? change as a function of time? zounds! Yes but the republican party directly evolved into the future Republican party, whereas the democratic-republican party was only an influence to Martin's Democratic party, just like it was an influence to the whigs and the whigs (and some Federalist) were on the future republican party. So, if the democratic-republican party is just like the democratic party, it's also like the whig part (and part of the republican party), and all parties are pretty much the same everywhere and we can't make much distinction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now