The Testing of a New President

[barracuda]

Then I guess it will REALLY make you feel all warm and fuzzy to know that NBC and WSJ run their polls together. That's pretty daring of WSJ, for such a strict conservative outlet, wouldn't you say ?

So, you are saying that somebody who used to work for the Clintons is capable of jumping ship. Perhaps that is the "hope" and "change" that Obama was speaking of.

Keep turning that blind eye, It has to pay off at some point 'Cuda.

Schoen is as Democrat as they come my ill-informed friend.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Douglas_Schoen

Hmm, I couldn't find the work "democrat" anywhere on that page.

You've completely missed my point about the Schoen and Rasmussen article. It seems a little too convenient that two "independent" pollsters use their own poll data to write negative partisan op-ed articles. Isn't that a conflict of interests? And isn't it especially questionable when other independent polls refute the entire basis your argument?

[TJones]

Hmm, I couldn't find the work "democrat" anywhere on that page.

You've completely missed my point about the Schoen and Rasmussen article. It seems a little too convenient that two "independent" pollsters use their own poll data to write negative partisan op-ed articles. Isn't that a conflict of interests? And isn't it especially questionable when other independent polls refute the entire basis your argument?

So you would accept it if they had just lied about their poll data in order to further a left-wing agenda ? Sure, why not, most Dems. sell their souls everyday, just like Chris Dodd did to get a P.O.S. bill passed.

Let me ask you this. Seeing some of Schoen's resume there, have you come to the conclusion that he is in someway a Conservative, and just some kind of "mole" in the Demorat machine ? I highly doubt that anyone else here, looking at Schoen's background and who he's worked for, would think that he is anything OTHER than a Dem. If you think differently, then you are a bigger fool than I already thought you were, as I see you would let your vanity guide you over your common sense just to try and save face. You should try some humility, accept and admit it when you are wrong.

[barracuda]

So you would accept it if they had just lied about their poll data in order to further a left-wing agenda ? Sure, why not, most Dems. sell their souls everyday, just like Chris Dodd did to get a P.O.S. bill passed.

Let me ask you this. Seeing some of Schoen's resume there, have you come to the conclusion that he is in someway a Conservative, and just some kind of "mole" in the Demorat machine ? I highly doubt that anyone else here, looking at Schoen's background and who he's worked for, would think that he is anything OTHER than a Dem. If you think differently, then you are a bigger fool than I already thought you were, as I see you would let your vanity guide you over your common sense just to try and save face. You should try some humility, accept and admit it when you are wrong.

TJones, I see that when the Republican party is down on it's knees, you resort to denigrating those who disagree with you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I also feel that you're putting down an extraneous argument in that, because he worked for Clinton over a decade ago, Schoen can't possibly be anything but a flaming liberal democrat who admirably writes independent, non-partisan "op-ed" articles trashing President Obama.

Interestingly enough, his partner in this, Scott Rasmussen, is widely known as a conservative who's polling results consistently favors conservatives when compared to other national poll results. Rasmussen polling system, which use a less expensive automated computer system rather than a human who can clarify questions, words questions to increase the chance of answers that favor conservatives.

From John Marshall of Talking Points Memo:

The difference, obviously, is question-wording...

...On the question of the quality of Rasmussen polls in general...the toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls.

...But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind."

So again, back to my original point that you've consistently disregarded, the most conservative poll results available were used to paint a picture of waning popularity for Obama, all based on approval ratings compared to the previous two presidents at this point in their first terms. Yet, all the other national mainstream polls show Obama has higher approval ratings than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton at this point in their presidency. So can you admit that Rasmussen and Schoen might be a bit unfair and incorrect in their argument when the other national polls paint the opposite picture?

And call Schoen what you want, but he's clearly working for those who favor the Republican party (or rather, despise President Obama). If he really is a Democrat, as you claim, he's part of a very small minority.

[TJones]

Thanks for the laughs 'Cuda. Seeing as how Rassmussen's polls are the most consistent and accurate, according to Fordham University, where it ranks No.1 and your Gallup poll comes in at No.17. SO, you gonna go to the number 1 doctor in the country to open your eyes, or the number 17 doctor ?

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/gr...%20election.pdf

[barracuda]

Thanks for the laughs 'Cuda. Seeing as how Rassmussen's polls are the most consistent and accurate, according to Fordham University, where it ranks No.1 and your Gallup poll comes in at No.17. SO, you gonna go to the number 1 doctor in the country to open your eyes, or the number 17 doctor ?

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/gr...%20election.pdf

Lol, another poll ranking pollsters. What's even funnier is that same pollster (Pollster.com) lists Rasmussen among the least reliable pollsters.

The pollsters receiving the lowest scores are Zogby International, the American Research Group and Rasmussen Reports.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_poll...ating_the_i.php

Good try though.

[TJones]

Lol, another poll ranking pollsters. What\'s even funnier is that same pollster (Pollster.com) lists Rasmussen among the least reliable pollsters.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_poll...ating_the_i.php

Good try though.

Still doesn\'t hide the truth of which poll was more accurate to the actual numbers in a Presidential race, now does it.

I will still go with a University study over a Blogger's poll.

Apparently Gallup is so untrustworthy that it couldn't even make your little list. I don't see how this bolsters your point ? Was Gallup not around in 2007 when your poll was done ?

Keep pluggin' away and turning that eye.

[barracuda]

TJones, are you related to Norm Coleman?

Still doesn\'t hide the truth of which poll was more accurate to the actual numbers in a Presidential race, now does it.

I will still go with a University study over a Blogger's poll.

Apparently Gallup is so untrustworthy that it couldn't even make your little list. I don't see how this bolsters your point ? Was Gallup not around in 2007 when your poll was done ?

Keep pluggin' away and turning that eye.

Okay then. Let's take the second pollster on your special Fordham list, the Pew Center. They're probably one of the most trusted, independent pollsters in the country. They recently pinned President Obama's approval ratings at 59%. Guess what? That's still higher than both Bush (58%) and Clinton (53%) at this point in their first terms.

How about another poll. Newsweek published an article just two weeks ago with the subtitle, "Amid all the gloom, Obama gets high marks in the latest NEWSWEEK poll, with the GOP in the doghouse." They polled his approval ratings at 58%, matching Bush and beating Clinton.

Admit it, the WSJ argument is flimsy and sensationalist, with a large amount of conservative spin. And I'll admit that this whole discussion is pretty silly, considering that most people already take WSJ op-eds and Rasmussen polls with a large grain of salt. Besides, the mid-term elections are still a long way off. The Republicans can act flustered and angry all they want about the problems their party and President had a big part in causing, and they don't have to offer any alternative solutions. But that doesn't bode well for their prospects in '10 and '12.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Jesus sevfiv or somebody, please start a thread for the best pollsters and let this one get back to something else. ALL Polls are rigged to reflect a certain agenda, by those doing the polling. That's what pollsters do. Jesus get a clue will you. Why not just hurl Yanni LP's at each other at 30 paces or something.

[TJones]

Jesus sevfiv or somebody, please start a thread for the best pollsters and let this one get back to something else. ALL Polls are rigged to reflect a certain agenda, by those doing the polling. That's what pollsters do. Jesus get a clue will you. Why not just hurl Yanni LP's at each other at 30 paces or something.

Because you are the only one that actually OWNs any Yanni albums on this forum. Right there with all the Kenny G also, so how are 'Cuda and I supposed to do that, we don't want to mess up your collection.

[TJones]

Let me steer us back on topic here. Obama now has to defend the actions of some of his cronies. Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Chris Dodd. Now that Dodd has admitted that he wrote the language into the bailout for AIG bonuses, and Barney and Pelosi are trying to claim they had no knowledge, but seriously. They wrote the damn bill in Pelosi's office, and they want to claim innocence ? REALLY ? How can the Dems. scream bloody murder over this when they are the ones who facilitated it ?

Crunch, I have to give you an apology, I said your company was a turd, and while I still think that, I think that they DO deserve the bonuses that were written into their contracts and that they were already in place before they were given the bailout money. It is a cost of doing business for AIG, and the money should not have to be given back. I siad they shouldn't be giving bonuses, but I was wrong, so I apologize for that.

[west20th]

Let me steer us back on topic here. Obama now has to defend the actions of some of his cronies. Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and Chris Dodd. Now that Dodd has admitted that he wrote the language into the bailout for AIG bonuses, and Barney and Pelosi are trying to claim they had no knowledge, but seriously. They wrote the damn bill in Pelosi's office, and they want to claim innocence ? REALLY ? How can the Dems. scream bloody murder over this when they are the ones who facilitated it ?

Crunch, I have to give you an apology, I said your company was a turd, and while I still think that, I think that they DO deserve the bonuses that were written into their contracts and that they were already in place before they were given the bailout money. It is a cost of doing business for AIG, and the money should not have to be given back. I siad they shouldn't be giving bonuses, but I was wrong, so I apologize for that.

So you probably have issues with the automakers renegotiating UAW contracts also? Just seeing if you are consistent.

[TJones]

So you probably have issues with the automakers renegotiating UAW contracts also? Just seeing if you are consistent.

I don't think there should be a UAW at all. In fact, there should be NO UNIONS whatsoever. I am all for sweatshops and equal pay for equal work.

Let me clarify the AIG "bonuses" also. No bonuses should be given to those subsidiaries performing poorly and losing money, but if your division is a proven profit-maker for the company, then by all means, you deserve a bonus. These "retention" bonuses were set in place to keep those who had their ships, shipshape, keep doing their job until the whole company got back on track. These people deserve the bonuses.

[west20th]

I don't think there should be a UAW at all. In fact, there should be NO UNIONS whatsoever. I am all for sweatshops and equal pay for equal work.

Regardless of what you think of the UAW, they do exist and they do have contracts. Any reason why the contractual agreements with AIG execs are any more valid than the UAW's?

By the way I think that the UAW should have re-negotiated to save what is left of their jobs, same goes for AIG. BY the way those retention bonuses didn't really "retain". I think about 17 AIG execs took the money and ran. They are no longer lending their indispensable expertise at AIG.

[TJones]

Regardless of what you think of the UAW, they do exist and they do have contracts. Any reason why the contractual agreements with AIG execs are any more valid than the UAW's?

Can you tell me what parasitic organiation negotiated those contracts and is sucking off those AIG execs ? The AIG execs negotiated their own contracts using their own merits.

[west20th]

Can you tell me what parasitic organiation negotiated those contracts and is sucking off those AIG execs ? The AIG execs negotiated their own contracts using their own merits.

What difference does it make who negotiated the contracts? And speaking of parasitic. who has sucked more off of the govn't teet, the automakers or AIG?

[TJones]

What difference does it make who negotiated the contracts? And speaking of parasitic. who has sucked more off of the govn't teet, the automakers or AIG?

I don't know, I am not upset at either. I think they both should have claimed BK.

BTW, it makes a difference when YOU go in on your own behalf to get your own money, than having someone going in ALWAYS making demands for more money because THEY get a piece of it. Tell you what west, you hand me over 10% of your income, and I will happily go to bat for you when it comes time for your raise, or would you rather go in yourself, and get the raise based on your own merits ?

Oh, and for the record, I don't like Sports Agents either.

[editor]

The discussion of CNN, FNC, and MSNBC has been split into its own topic. Please try to keep the parent Obama topic on topic.

Also, feel free to discuss AIG and such in the HAIFinance section. It could use a few more threads.

[TheNiche]

The discussion of CNN, FNC, and MSNBC has been split into its own topic. Please try to keep the parent Obama topic on topic.

Also, feel free to discuss AIG and such in the HAIFinance section. It could use a few more threads.

Actually, this thread only has a handful of posts that are on-topic. Everything else is about Obama's popularity, AIG, or media bias...and you forgot to transfer quite a few media bias posts.

[editor]

Actually, this thread only has a handful of posts that are on-topic. Everything else is about Obama's popularity, AIG, or media bias...and you forgot to transfer quite a few media bias posts.

How is your post on topic?

[TheNiche]

How is your post on topic?

It was pointing out that the attempt to clean up this thread was woefully inadequate. You should've done a better job so as to ensure that further discussion was on-topic. I suppose that pointing that out is, itself, going off topic. But the spirit of the post was to bring the thread back on topic. Therefore, I believe it to be well-justified, no less than your posts #48 or #50.