And yet Foxnews polls the President at 33%. Not unlike any other pollsters out there. If these people were so biased, wouldn't their poll be indicating a more positive number? Seems to me they're lower than the others. Would your take be that means the President is at an even lower percentage than ALL those other polls indicate.
Maybe in the twenties. Are all those other pollsters in cohoots with each other trying to keep this administration positive? I think not.
Someone at FOX NEWS accidently spilled a coke on the Fox Diebold Master Polling Computer 666, temporarily throwing it into reverse.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 28, 2006 07:38 AMMaybe in the twenties. Are all those other pollsters in cohoots with each other trying to keep this administration positive? I think not.
Posted by at April 28, 2006 07:21 AM
*****
Apparently their polling is not restricted to their viewers.
I've got no doubt that the group of people who watch FOX"news" and the group who still approve of BushCorp are comprised of the same people.
Those fuckstains at FOX are determined, though. They keep shoveling that bullshit in spite of the dwindling number of willing shiteaters.
Posted by God Of War at April 28, 2006 07:59 AMIf Foxnews polls are in line with the others, why do you view them as an outlier? They were the first pollster to place the Presidents numbers at 32. They sure seem to be somewhat balanced.
Posted by peter at April 28, 2006 08:48 AMIf Foxnews polls are in line with the others, why do you view them as an outlier? They were the first pollster to place the Presidents numbers at 32. They sure seem to be somewhat balanced.
Posted by peter at April 28, 2006 08:48 AM
*****
As I stated previously, they probably poll beyond their viewing audience.
Duh. What the fuck is so hard to understand?
Posted by God Of War at April 28, 2006 09:02 AMWhat a find strange is the assumption that "bias" and "balance" are to be found primarily in polls. The problem people have with Fox news is not its polling, which one presumes is largely contracted out to pollsters who don't wish to end up so out ofline with reality/other polls that any scrutiny is brought to bear on them, but with all other aspects of the news and opinion gathering and disseminating that goes on at Fox. How hard is that to understand? The polls can't be used as evidence of "balance" just because they show that the President is tanking at this point in public opinion--the polls are the polls. What is "unfair and unbalanced" about Fox is the way they skew their talking heads, and their news coverage, to demonize and delegitimize the views of the 50 percent of the country who*never* voted for Bush and whose opinions are increasingly reflected in the polling but not at Fox's coverage of the news.
aimai
Posted by aimai at April 28, 2006 09:21 AMSorry, that should have been "what I find" not "what a find" and it is directed at peter and the anonymous poster who first pointlessly brought up Fox's polls as a sign of that they are not unbalanced.
aimai
Posted by aimai at April 28, 2006 09:22 AMIt amazes me that 20 to 30 percent of those polled still think Bush is doing a good job.
Posted by Cookie Monster at April 28, 2006 09:24 AMSnow’s appointment may finally cause the media to confront the power of Fox News and openly hold it accountable for pushing propaganda packaged as news. We can only hope that the media notes finally that there are millions of Americans who never watch Fox because they know it for the Goebbels operation that it is.
Comments like these are hard to take seriously. Bizzare.
Posted by muckdog at April 28, 2006 09:30 AMIt amazes me that 20 to 30 percent of those polled still think Bush is doing a good job.
Bush isn't doing a good job. But he's had an extremely challenging 5 years.
The problem is, that many think the Democrats would be doing a worse job. Remember that many folks go to the polls and vote against the other guy. "Well, Gore2000 or Kerry2004 would be a disaster, so I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush."
I think that's what many do. That's what I did. If the Democrats would put up a viable alternative, many would think about it. But they haven't done that.
Posted by muckdog at April 28, 2006 09:34 AMComments like these are hard to take seriously. Bizzare.
...said the troll who still thinks the average American owns more of his house, has less debt, is generally better employed, and loves this booming (cough) economy because it's made him so much freer, safer, healthier, and wealthier than he ever was during the terror that was the Clenis in the White House.
after 5 years of the Veep, Rove, Condi doing Rush and Hannity and FNS and ignoring the bigs......now they get pissed???????
Posted by Zappatero at April 28, 2006 09:52 AMHow do you say 'Fox News' in Russian? Pravda!
Posted by DW at April 28, 2006 10:12 AMMucktroll speaks as if George's "extremely challenging 5 years" is everyones fault but George's. That, of course is the mindset of the remaining 32% of citizens that have bought the Admins "it wasn't us" excuse for all the absolutely failed actions the Bush Admin has excreted on the American public for 5 years. Extremely challenging - a massive understatement muck - but the challenge is for 70% of Americans and the rest of the world to live through the Bush years. The challenge is for the world's environment to survive the Bush Admin. The challenge is to go to the polls and rid ourselves of this plague and the crime-ridden vermin that have brought it on.
Posted by T2 at April 28, 2006 10:24 AMBut he's had an extremely challenging 5 years.
Fuck, he created the nightmare!!
Thanks Muck; I'll take that remark as a badge of honor, and you can leave now.
Posted by Steve Soto at April 28, 2006 10:34 AMBush isn't doing a good job. But he's had an extremely challenging 5 years.
The problem is, that many think the Democrats would be doing a worse job. Remember that many folks go to the polls and vote against the other guy. "Well, Gore2000 or Kerry2004 would be a disaster, so I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush."
Comments like these are hard to take seriously
Posted by at April 28, 2006 11:11 AMThat's what I did. If the Democrats would put up a viable alternative, many would think about it. But they haven't done that.
Of course they have. You just have a different opinion about what is "viable." What is the Republicans' plan? What is Bush's plan? I've never heard him articulate it. But then, the concept of Bush articulating anything is, well, bizarre. "Make the tax cuts permanent" and "stay the course" aren't what I'd call a plan.
Since we know your only requirement for a political candidate is to cut taxes, regardless of the systems and services destroyed by the lack of funding, it's hard to take you seriously.
Posted by ann at April 28, 2006 11:23 AMmany think
many folks
many do
many would
Just how many manies is that, muckmany? Do you have a resource you can site (none from the NPOOMA category, I hope - they smell bad). (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at April 28, 2006 12:17 PMYes going on a brush cutting vacation while the CIA director runs around with his hair on fire is challenging. As is invading the wrong country, not finding any WMDs, getting thousands of people killed and wounded, screwing up the rebuilding and not actually catching the guy that did 9/11.
Posted by Daryl at April 28, 2006 02:46 PM"But he's had an extremely challenging 5 years."
You betcha. Destroying a Democracy isn't easy work, and the challenges have been many.