home

A New Low

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:14:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

When President Bush's approval rating hit 38 percent, we asked: "How low can he go?" The latest answer, courtesy of CBS News: 34 percent.

Cheney's numbers are so low it's a wonder he isn't pelted with eggs whenever he leaves the White House.

Just 18 percent said they had a favorable view of the vice president, down from 23 percent in January.

< U.S. to Pay Detainee in Abuse Lawsuit | Supreme Court Declines to Extend Hobbs Act to Cover Abortion Protest (Again) >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A New Low | 39 comments (39 topical)
    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:34:12 AM EST
    Quail eggs?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:41:29 AM EST
    Mainstream?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#3)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:41:29 AM EST
    ...now, if I typed "I want to pelt Dick Cheney with eggs" (not that there's anything wrong with that) would that typing be a threat according to TalkLeft policy?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#4)
    by theologicus on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:55:59 AM EST
    How low did Nixon's numbers go? As low as Cheney's?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:01:31 AM EST
    BUSH VS. OTHER PRESIDENTS: APPROVAL RATINGS DURING SECOND TERMS Nixon, Gallup Poll, 11/1973 Approve 27% Disapprove 63%

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    Darryl Who's Blog is it anyway. By the way. TL was presenting a Rhetorical statement and was not a threat. Your example was and should be construde as a threat. IMHO

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#7)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:20:17 AM EST
    It's okay, Ed. I respect and enjoy TalkLeft. It's just my mind is reeling in its enviousness and frustration while I cope with being part of a "workforce reduction." What's my new job going to be? My outplacement counselor calls me "bitter." ...on that, I can concur.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    Tom Watson (the blogger, not the golfer) calls Bush the Bode Miller of Presidents. Sounds about right to me (h/t Wolcott).

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:23:32 AM EST
    I'm not going to claim that Bush has high numbers, but I will say that this is manufactured data. Go to the PDF file that details the survey construction: They polled 1018 people: Democrats: 409 (weighted down to 381) Republicans: 272 (weighted up to 289) Independents: 337 (weighted up to 348) So even with the weighted sample, we have 37.4% Democrats, 28.4% Republicans, and 34.1% Independents. Wow, slanting the space that way (most demographics have both parties between 30% and 34% of the voting public) will yield funny results. That's not a poll - it's fabricated data that was intended to create a news story. And TL, along with the MSM, fell for it. If Fox created a poll that weighted the other way, I'm sure that you would object. I await any sign that TL notices the utter bogosity of this poll.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#10)
    by aw on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:25:22 AM EST
    Darryl, I've been through that twice. It is a horrible, bitter feeling, being discarded like a used tissue. I wish you well.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:40:24 AM EST
    JR - I am not a polling expert, so I don't know if this is right, but I remember hearing somewhere that when a party isn't doing so hot, people stop saying they are with that party and start saying they are independents. This was the excuse given to me by republicans when many pre-election polls had very low numbers of democrats. Just something to consider before saying it is a conspiracy of the media. Does anyone know Spiro Agnew's approval ratings before he resigned? That seems like a better comparison for Cheney than Nixon, because VPs are often very unpopular, or at least less popular than the prez (think Quayle!).

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:44:19 AM EST
    Look, the numbers stink for Bush even if you weight them the way I think they ought to be - around 37% favorable in that case. Have a look here - the Republican pollsters know that this is not good news in any way, shape or form. What I object to is the obvious mathematical manipulation. Why is CBS doing it? Had they played straight, the numbers would still be bad for the administration.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 09:37:15 AM EST
    34% and 18% - why that's lower than a couple of sidewinder turds in a wagon rut.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    Well, its official-Dick Cheney is pathetic. (And I thought it was only me.)

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    Whatever Bush's numbers are it doesn't matter. He isn't running for re-election and he isn't pushing any controversial reform that goes against his own party. I wish his numbers would have been low when he dreamed up his package on Medicare. Unfortunatlely they weren't low enough and he and the Hammer got it through. Democrats need to stop obsessing with Bush...sound familiar?...and start going after Republicans that are actually going to run for another election. Bashing Bush isn't going to win elections that don't involve him when it doesn't work in elections that do. Bush will go up and go down but it won't matter because unlike Clinton he doesn't make policy decisions based on Poll data. Instead he keeps campaign promises and does things he thinks are right no matter how much the left and sometimes the right dissaprove. Let me ask the poll watchers this. If Bush ran again against Kerry tomorrow who would win? You know the answer, you don't have to tell me.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#17)
    by Punchy on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    JR-- You obviously know nothing about polling and statistics, so feel free to just spread the BS. Let me enlighten you and your ilk. A polling company calls people AT RANDOM. It collects their info AT RANDOM. It CANNOT just keep calling, keep calling, keep calling...until it reaches a Republican (just to "even out" the numbers). That's called BIAS. That would systematically negatively bias the Dem/Indy response while unfairly giving more weight (read: opinion) to the Republicans. Take a class is statistics before you run your mouth, please. It's not our problem if more and more people ID themselves as independant rather than Repub. It's not the pollsters' fault when during a random sampling of 900+ people, a vast pluarity declare themselves non-Republican. That's the way this country is moving--so please stop crying about it.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    Slado-
    Whatever Bush's numbers are it doesn't matter
    Dream on..... The Republicans will have to start distancing themselves from Bush/Cheney. He is sinking the party's boat and fast. The Republican party has its work cut out as it has shown a consistent top down level of deep corruption. The negative polls numbers are reflected across the board with Republican incumbents, not just Bush.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    Squeaky see post on other thread. Highlights: Bush 100 Dems 0. Eventually you'll figure out that Bush always, in the end, beats the democrats. How many times does Bush have to beat them before you stop predicting failure? Fortunately for Bush it isn't a fair fight when it comes to democrats. Yawwwwn, I just read the poll and I'm as worried about it as I was about the other bogus story CBS pushed 2 years ago.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    Slado-Dream on.....Awww...such heartfelt love for dear leader and fascism is nostalgic. Seems like your fellow rats are quickly distancing themselves from your imperial master though.... 34% will look high in not too long. Don't worry there are other countries you can move to that will suit your brownshirt fever all too well.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    Punchy, Actually, I know a fair bit about statistics - I graduated with a BA in Math. In the last election, the breakdown was: 37% Republican 37% Democrat 26% Independent So when calling a sample, you weight the respondents to get back to that ratio. You'll note that CBS did weight, but badly. Secondly, they polled general adults, not "likely voters". The poll results between the two groups differ, and the latter actually comes closer to election results. So the data was bogus on two levels. Using that kind of weighting, they should have leveled Republicans up to 376, and Democrats down to the same number - and Independents to 266. That would have yielded data as follows, using the responses percentages they reported would have gotten a value of 37.5% approval. Then you need to look at the second flaw, the fact that they didn't use "likely voters" as the pool. That skewed the results down as well. The bottom line is, CBS created a bogus set of data.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    Then you need to look at the second flaw, the fact that they didn't use "likely voters" as the pool. That skewed the results down as well.
    "Likely voters"? What are you talking about? Do you think there's a presidential election coming up?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    JR - I'm a registered dem, but if a pollster asked me I'd say I was independent. The reason? In my state you can't vote in the primary if you aren't registered as a dem or repub. I think you are confusing a breakdown of election results with the actual percentages of people affiliated with parties. It's hard to tell because the poll, as far as I could tell, doesn't say how they IDd party affiliation. Also, I really wouldn't say a BA in math qualifies you as competent in stats. I work with folks who apply it on a daily level to real world data and there always more disagreements about statistical methodology than any other part of our research. If you're so sure the poll is skewed, why not write the authors with your concerns?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:18:49 PM EST
    Also, 'likely voters' has zero meaning when you are talking about how Americans feel about their president.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#25)
    by Punchy on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    JR-- There is no scientific reason to weigh the numbers according to an election that was 16 months ago. There's absolutely no way to know if that's still valid; the poll instantly becomes as accurate as those 16-month old numbers. A truly random poll (i.e., not calling just Utah or Rhode Island) serves to both deduce that new "breakdown" and the view of that new demographic therein. One can look at this poll (although you seem not inclined to), and aside from the weak support for your King, it appears as another poster has stated, that fewer and fewer people feel comfortable declaring themselves "republicans". 2) Likely voters vs adults? Who cares? CBS never stated this to be anything more than an approval poll. They never made allusions that this would reflect voting trends. Pundits may conclude that, but CBS surely does not. For that reason, there's really no reason to restrict this to just adults, aside from being up to date on current events... FYI--and if you're wondering why such the precipitious drop, maybe it's because he's fighting a ports deal that is unpopular with SEVENTY PERCENT of Americans. What ever happened to elected officials serving the people?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    The RCP average is 40% including this poll. It'd be higher if it wasn't included. Funny how CBS is 5 to 7 pts worse then every other poll. For libs to deny the obvious shows that they wish it was true. Meanwhile beloved CBS is going after my man Stern. What a crock of %h%t. Stern & CBS

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    I had not realized that the 34% represents his job approval rating. His favorability rating is down to 29%. Who are these 29%? Are they on his payroll or something.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:34:54 PM EST
    Punchy - Given that people tend to vote their party, I would say having a balance would be extremely important.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:31:23 PM EST
    The poll was about Americans, not voters. Voters are an all too small subset of Americans.
    Meanwhile beloved CBS is going after my man Stern.
    Ahh, the standard of discourse, if a poll shows bad news for 'my man' it must be suspect. BTW, Stern HATES bush. Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Speedo, oops, I meant slado, it is so hard to tell one low hanging fruit from another. speedo, check out the methodology of the polls, they can easily account for 7 points. Tho I have to admit, it gives me warm fuzzies to hear bushlickers claim, 'wait a minute, he's not at 29 he's at 38%!' PT Barnum had it right.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    Sailor - The poll also uses registered voters, not likely voters.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    From The National Review
    An observation or two about the methodology and integrity of the CBS poll is in order. I frequently speak about the good, the bad and the ugly of polling before audiences across the country. The battlefield is teeming with examples of shoddy methodology, inartfully constructed, incomplete or leading questions, some of which are downright humorous. In too many instances, it seems that polls are being used to manufacture or manipulate public opinion rather than to measure or reflect it.

    This latest CBS poll is not a model of perfect polling, and it is legitimate to question the weights it applied to the raw results from the actual interviewing (see last page here), as was noted on The Corner last night. Still, the poll should not be dismissed out of hand.

    It is typical to repeat a survey statistic when it reinforces one's own opinion or hope and to attack a statistic (or polling generally) when the opposite is true. In this case, it does conservatives and Republicans no good to ignore the evidence and attack the messenger.
    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 04:40:31 PM EST
    Here are some more historical comps from Froomkin:
    To find other numbers that low in the CBS poll, you have to go back 14 years to Bush's father. Bill Clinton never had it so bad.
    To find numbers even lower, you have to go back to Jimmy Carter's disastrous 1979 -- or to Richard Nixon in 1974, who Gallup-polled as low as 23 just before he resigned.
    Looks like Bush is out to set the record. 7% to go. and he finally will accomplish more than just being a historical footnote. What a legacy. via fdl

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:00:13 PM EST
    jim, for once you didn't lie ... exactly. The poll was a random selection, of course it will include registered and likely voters. Duh! Like I said, the poll was about Americans, the superset of the subsets you tried to distract the discourse from.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 05:02:16 PM EST
    well, here is how CBS described their polling data! Number of Dems vs Repubs doesn't matter ! Some will no doubt seize on the fact that the latest CBS News sample is a few points more Democratic on party ID (37%) than on their last three surveys (34% in late January, 33% in early January and 32% in December), although the Republican percentage (28%) is about the same as the last three surveys (27%, 29% and 28% respectively). However, the difference in the party results does not explain the drop in the Bush job rating, which occurs across all three categories. In fact, even when MP recalculates the CBS job approval results for the most recent survey using the average party composition reported on their last three surveys (33% Democrat, 28% Republican, 39% independent or other), the Bush approval percentage still rounds to 34%. The reason is that my recalculation just increases the number of independents at the expense of Democrats. However, Bush's rating is now so low among both subgroups as measured by CBS that the adjustment makes little difference.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    sailor - It does when you consider that if you don't vote, you really don't matter. It also matters in that all the talking heads will be trying to use this to forecast the future. PamB - I don't know where your quote came from, but it is wrong. If you don't know the bias of the people, then the party ID must be known because in the real world, bias does matter.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 08:21:20 PM EST
    if you don't vote, you really don't matter.
    The title of the post was right.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    Given that people tend to vote their party, I would say having a balance would be extremely important. Balance? Like on FOX News? If you are suggesting that equal numbers of Dems and Repubs should be polled, how do you achieve that when you are calling at random? The percentages are not going to change much with more respondents. However the selection was made, the trend suggests that more and more people are changing their minds about Bush. Since I have always known that he was an incompetent, corrupt coward, I haven't had to make any adjustments. Everything he does reinforces that view. As a veteran, I have nothing but contempt for a coward who deserted his unit, in spite of the fact that he was in no danger. The $12 million bribe he took while governor of Texas (described as "smart business" in a fawning biography) demonstrated his corruption. As for incompetence, well, look at everything he has touched. Was there ever anything to like about this arrogant sociopath?

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 07:24:41 AM EST
    RePack - As a veteran I think you are wrong in your comments re Bush's military service. Now, what's your point? And what does Fox News have to do with a CBS poll? And tell me again how, unless you have equal numbers, can you get around the bias people have? You can't.

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#39)
    by Johnny on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 05:50:07 PM EST
    "Hello?" "Hello, this is CBS news calling people at random for a survey." "Ok..." "Are you a democrat?" "Yes" "Sorry, in the interest of forming an illusion of 'equalness', we regret to inform you that we have not met our quota of the minority party. In order to prevent potential embarassment to the president and hi supporters, randomness is no longer good enough for a survey. We need to deliberately cook the results" "Ummm... ok. I really don't care." "Have a nice day sir, and may all your dreams come true."

    Re: A New Low (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:36:30 AM EST
    New poll results from Times/Bloomberg show that a majority of Americans have lost faith in Bush.
    In the Times poll, majorities disapproved of Bush's performance in dealing with each of four issues measured: the economy, the federal budget deficit, Iraq and terrorism.
    As far as party affiliation it seems as if many Republicans are not using the R word anymore. Bush gave it the cooties.
    "Party identification is a dynamic variable that changes with the popularity of the party in control," Pinkus said. "The proportion of people who identified with the Republican Party was higher when Bush had more positive approval ratings."
    link

    A New Low | 39 comments (39 topical)