Posted on 11/04/2005 10:18:16 AM PST by manwiththehands
whats the difference the media is gonna lie and make everything anti bush anyway so why not have a little swagger it infuriates the msm weasels
'Doing something' as a response to low "popularity #'s" would make him no different than Clinton or any finger-in-the-wind pol.
History has often been very kind to the presidents who've stood fast to their beliefs in the face of widespread criticism and unpopularity (Reagan comes to mind). On the other hand, the presidents who've labored to win the popular approval of the moment have largely been forgettable.
There's been a 15 point swing in party ID since November 2004? Not bloody likely.
No, I just offered it as an example of why there is no need to stick to a 35-35-30 breakup, especially if party identification starts to deviate from that.
OK. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is deviating from the 35/35/30 right now, as there is no data to back up changing the weighting. Changing the weights without documetnable reasoning to back it up can only be done for one reason - to get the predetermied outcome.
I've been complaining about the poor communications strategy for months:
1) What is the White House communications strategy
2) how can it improve?
The newspapers (mass media) want the President and us to believe we have to curry their favor -- as their hold on influence in American life and thought. (Think the Wizard of Oz.)
That's the only power they have -- making us think they have any. Most of their manipulations are of this sort now. They don't have anybody in their organizations with any intellectual substance. So they have to rely on this kind of peer pressure/coercion and immature insults, intimidation and manipulations.
The Associated Press needs to go out and hire some intellectual heavyweights. I know their union shop stewards won't like it but it's getting to the point where they have no choice -- and goon tactics aren't going to get it done.
I agree. This is a good time to be at the lowest. What do you think the personnel changes will be.
You're double counting if you're calling that a 15 point swing. All it takes is for 5% of Americans to decide that they like one party more than the one they used to like for what looks to many people like a massive swing in party preference to occur.
There are people who latch on to a certain party only because of a personality or one issue. As that person leaves or the issue changes, people swing to the other side. On top of that, lots of people want to be with the "winner."
It's eminently plausible that a lot of Americans decided they were Republicans when it meant opposing gay marriage and supporting the troops but have drifted away since it came to mean bearing media responsibility for New Orleans or funding a bridge to Alaska.
If you lose 3 Senate seats to the other party, they call it a 6 seat swing. I am being consitent.
There are no numbers to back that up, ie registration changes. Here in Ohio one can only change their registration during primaries. What should happen in your scenario is a drop in approval among Republicans. Hey, if you want to believe the AP and the rest of the MSM feel free.
Please read post seven. When CBS uses a poll that has a sample of only 24% Republicans, the value of the poll is similar to the value of Dan Rather's forged documents.
While your main point is that Bush's poll numbers are low, the bigger question is....with this kind of treatment by our media, should you have expected anything else.
A large portion of the President's poor numbers, besides totally rigged poll result, is the fact that he gets absolutely the worst treatment by the press of any public figure I have ever seen. The have absolutely gone to the dark side and care not for their credibility among those that know the truth. Their only goal is to convince the morons that pay little attention how awful GW Bush is.
It is a pitiful, disgraceful, scandalous performance by our
traditional media.
PresidentFelon
They don't use registration. They use self-identification. That's how the exit polls work, too--the 37%-37% from last year's election was all how people identify themselves to pollsters.
Numbers by registration vary widely by state, and some states don't even have party registration.
Everything you say is true and I agree with it.
That being said, the president's approval numbers are clearly down (though the number may be debated). What does he do about it?
That the media is disgraceful might be a reason, but its not an excuse.
The fact of the matter is that most people are not as schizophrenic as the polls make them out to be -- changing their feelings with every decision, every week. Most people are content to go to the polls every four years and entrust the office to the person they think is best qualified at that time -- and revisit that decision in four years hence.
They're not a nation of news junkies -- weighing in and second-guessing every decision the President is making. That's a dying breed of dysfunction -- of those who have nothing better to do with their lives besides minding everybody else's business but their own.
But the news organizations like to hold up their polls as proof that the President needs to be doing what the editor of the newspaper is demanding he do. I don't see any editors of newspapers running for public office, confident in their mandate. Just once, I'd like to see one of them have the guts to run for office as proof that they speak for the people.
It's not schizophrenia. People can and do change their minds about politics, sometimes for very stupid reasons, and sometimes quite frequently. People here are much better educated about politics and parties than the average American. Don't lose perspective.
Instead of telling the President how to run the country (world), I'd be happy if these editors just produced a world-class newspaper -- and if they can do that, we might consider them for a higher office. But giving advice on running the world while producing the disgrace that has become mainstream media, is not going to get them there.
I can already hear every editor in this country saying, "But, that's not my job..."
When Iraq is a self-directed and free democracy devoid of Islamo-fascists, and peace and democracy is the norm in the Middle East, yes, historians will be very kind to President Bush.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.