Fred Stone wrote:

magilla <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1178461649.458954.46850@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On May 6, 7:38 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote
innews:Cf6dnbELxd_ewKDbnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

magilla <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1178398973.896384.296680@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

In a Newsweek poll May 5, every Democratic presidential candidate
seemed to beat every GOP presidential candidate. When asked which
president they associated with moral courage, 14% said Ronald
Reagan...and the same percentage named Bill Clinton. GW Bush
apparently didn't make the list.

Bush's approval rating has sunk to 28%, a figure not seen since
Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

It's not hard to slam a Republican in a poll when you give
Democrats a 17 point bias advantage in your sampling.

Seventeen-point bias?
Interesting. Where are you getting this information, Fred?

From MSNBC's own poll data. You did examine their data, didn't you?

In fact, Fred, I would question the 17% figure. There's a very vague
question about "leaning" Republican or Democrat. Most people would
take that to mean are you leaning toward voting for a particular
party. This is especially true if you look at the question that
immediately precedes that one: "Do you consider yourself more a
Republican or a Democrat?" That one shows about 12% more Democrats
than Republicans, not 17%.

But that's not a bias Fred. If the polls sampled randomly, there is
no way anyone, even you, can call it one. It might mean people have
changed party affiliation, as I said.

That's a mighty big "if", Chris. If the MSNBC/Newsweek polls weren't
notable for being several points to the left of every other poll in
the country on a regular basis, I would agree with you.

Yet, you provide no examples of this "several points to the left"
questions.

The problems of party identification bias are well known in the
polling business, and they lend themselves to conscious manipulation
of poll numbers by operators with an agenda.

Yet, you provide zero evidence of this. But, I guess that we should
have faith that everything Fred says is 100% accurate 100% of the
time.

Riiiiight...

On May 6, 10:40 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

magilla <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote
innews:1178461649.458954.46850@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On May 6, 7:38 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

DanielSan <daniel-...@myrealbox.com> wrote
innews:Cf6dnbELxd_ewKDbnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

magilla <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1178398973.896384.296680@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

In a Newsweek poll May 5, every Democratic presidential
candidate seemed to beat every GOP presidential candidate. When
asked which president they associated with moral courage, 14%
said Ronald Reagan...and the same percentage named Bill
Clinton. GW Bush apparently didn't make the list.

Bush's approval rating has sunk to 28%, a figure not seen since
Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

It's not hard to slam a Republican in a poll when you give
Democrats a 17 point bias advantage in your sampling.

Seventeen-point bias?
Interesting. Where are you getting this information, Fred?

From MSNBC's own poll data. You did examine their data, didn't
you?

In fact, Fred, I would question the 17% figure. There's a very
vague question about "leaning" Republican or Democrat. Most people
would take that to mean are you leaning toward voting for a
particular party. This is especially true if you look at the
question that immediately precedes that one: "Do you consider
yourself more a Republican or a Democrat?" That one shows about 12%
more Democrats than Republicans, not 17%.

But that's not a bias Fred. If the polls sampled randomly, there is
no way anyone, even you, can call it one. It might mean people have
changed party affiliation, as I said.

That's a mighty big "if", Chris. If the MSNBC/Newsweek polls weren't
notable for being several points to the left of every other poll in
the country on a regular basis, I would agree with you.

Truth to tell, I haven't noticed that they were particularly left
leaning. It seems you've made the same claim, though, about most of
the mainstream media outlets in the past six years, at one time or
another, but most often about CBS.

The problems of party identification bias are well known in the
polling business, and they lend themselves to conscious manipulation
of poll numbers by operators with an agenda.

Do you have evidence of such manipulation? Just curious.

It might mean people who are
registered Republicans are not identifying themselves as such. The
card in someone's wallet is the least identifying factor in this
mix; the Democratic Congress has racked up some impressive approval
ratings since they took over and people might identify with that
success. Even Republican representatives are seeming to enjoy the
legislation that's been passed since they took over. One memorable
quote from a Republican rep is: "It's a lot easier to vote your
conscience now." Rather revealing, I would think.

If you consider approval ratings that are even lower than President
Bush's to be impressive, I guess I can hardly disagree.

Those that are voting their conscience might actually retain their
seats. The one I quoted had been reelected, obviously.

Fred Stone wrote:

DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:asadnWOnqor__6DbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

magilla <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1178405156.714700.12580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On May 5, 5:49 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

magilla <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote
innews:1178398973.896384.296680@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

In a Newsweek poll May 5, every Democratic presidential candidate
seemed to beat every GOP presidential candidate. When asked which
president they associated with moral courage, 14% said Ronald
Reagan...and the same percentage named Bill Clinton. GW Bush
apparently didn't make the list.

Bush's approval rating has sunk to 28%, a figure not seen since
Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

It's not hard to slam a Republican in a poll when you give
Democrats a 17 point bias advantage in your sampling.

Give?

Maybe more people are identifying themselves as Democrats. I would
venture that reasonable people are becoming more and more ashamed
to align themselves with this administration. The presidential
candidates certainly acted that way.

You saw what it got them, too.

But no, other polls don't skew nearly as much toward Democrats on
party identification as MSNBC's.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

And no, before you go there, RCP is not a right-wing blog.
They're about as neutral as you can get.

I don't see a "skew". Where do you see the "skew"? Which figure?

You see *nothing*. You hear *nothing*.

Look at the total identification by party, Daniel.

And how is that a bias?

Let's say that you have a group made up of 41 Janitors and 58
Machinists, and 1 Payroll Associate.

You poll them all and find that 41% of the people want new mops, 58%
want more precise machining equipment, and 1% don't want either mops
or machining equipment.

You'll find, in this case, a 17 point bias. Tell me, though, is it
wrong to "skew" the numbers according to the amount of certain types
of people in the group?

You may be sorely ignorant of the fact that there are MORE Democrats
in this country than Republicans.

This is why I don't believe in news media polls, Chris. Especially
not "noosertainment" media like MSNBC, that could line up a
Republican debate with Chris Matthews as "moderator" and then have
Olbermoonbat doing the post-debate commentary.

And you libruls applaud the Democrats for running away from FOX,
which would never have had the gall to line up Rush Limbaugh for
moderator and Ann Coulter for post-debate commentary.

Just as convictserviles applaud the Republicans for running away from
Air America, which would never have had the gall to line up Thom
Hartmann for moderator and Randi Rhodes for post-debate commentary.

See how it works, Fred?

No, the Democrats aren't scared of Fox. They just can do better than
debase themselves for the idiots at Fox.

When Air America has ratings and coverage like FOX then you might
have something to talk about, Daniel. Until then STFU.

Sorry, but I will not. Air America has BETTER ratings than Fox in the
same time frame.

Remember, Fox has been on for FAR longer than Air
America, and their shows are kicking ***** in the markets, beating out
O'Reilly, Limbaugh and others.

However, you didn't deny that the Democrats aren't willing to debase
themselves for Fox. They've better things to do... :-)

Fred Stone wrote:

DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:asadnWOnqor__6DbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

magilla <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1178405156.714700.12580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On May 5, 5:49 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:

magilla <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote
innews:1178398973.896384.296680@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

In a Newsweek poll May 5, every Democratic presidential candidate
seemed to beat every GOP presidential candidate. When asked which
president they associated with moral courage, 14% said Ronald
Reagan...and the same percentage named Bill Clinton. GW Bush
apparently didn't make the list.

Bush's approval rating has sunk to 28%, a figure not seen since
Jimmy Carter in 1979.

Here's the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505030/site/newsweek/

It's not hard to slam a Republican in a poll when you give Democrats
a 17 point bias advantage in your sampling.

Give?

Maybe more people are identifying themselves as Democrats. I would
venture that reasonable people are becoming more and more ashamed to
align themselves with this administration. The presidential
candidates certainly acted that way.

You saw what it got them, too.

But no, other polls don't skew nearly as much toward Democrats on
party identification as MSNBC's.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

And no, before you go there, RCP is not a right-wing blog.
They're about as neutral as you can get.

I don't see a "skew". Where do you see the "skew"? Which figure?

You see *nothing*. You hear *nothing*.

Look at the total identification by party, Daniel.

And how is that a bias?

Let's say that you have a group made up of 41 Janitors and 58
Machinists, and 1 Payroll Associate.

You poll them all and find that 41% of the people want new mops, 58%
want more precise machining equipment, and 1% don't want either mops or
machining equipment.

You'll find, in this case, a 17 point bias. Tell me, though, is it
wrong to "skew" the numbers according to the amount of certain types of
people in the group?

You may be sorely ignorant of the fact that there are MORE Democrats in
this country than Republicans.

This is why I don't believe in news media polls, Chris. Especially
not "noosertainment" media like MSNBC, that could line up a
Republican debate with Chris Matthews as "moderator" and then have
Olbermoonbat doing the post-debate commentary.

And you libruls applaud the Democrats for running away from FOX,
which would never have had the gall to line up Rush Limbaugh for
moderator and Ann Coulter for post-debate commentary.

Just as convictserviles applaud the Republicans for running away from
Air America, which would never have had the gall to line up Thom
Hartmann for moderator and Randi Rhodes for post-debate commentary.

See how it works, Fred?

No, the Democrats aren't scared of Fox. They just can do better than
debase themselves for the idiots at Fox.

When Air America has ratings and coverage like FOX then you might have
something to talk about, Daniel. Until then STFU.

Sorry, but I will not. Air America has BETTER ratings than Fox in the
same time frame. Remember, Fox has been on for FAR longer than Air
America, and their shows are kicking ***** in the markets, beating out
O'Reilly, Limbaugh and others.

However, you didn't deny that the Democrats aren't willing to debase
themselves for Fox. They've better things to do... :-)