In what has to be one of the most hilariously lopsided polls of this year, the Washington Post finds that 87% of Americans disapprove of the President, 74% disapproving strongly. Okay, it's not "110%" like the headline, but it's about as ridiculous.
The poll also shows Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin with an 11-point lead over Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele in the US Senate contest, with virtually no undecided voters, even though most other recent polls have cast the race too close to call. It also gives the Democratic nominee for Governor a 10-point lead over incumbent Republican Gov. Ehrlich.
Read the details HERE.
With all due respect to Dean Barnett at Townhall, this has to be the "single worst poll of 2006."
The sample is of 1200 randomly selected adults - why would you include "all adults" in an election sample barely a week before the vote? Out of this sample, they discern 1000 "likely voters," which, put simply, is pure hogwash. The high-water mark of recent midterms is 2002, when about 40% of eligible voters cast ballots. Even assuming all of the "adults" surveyed were "eligible," you should only find 480 "likely voters" TOPS in a sample of 1200.
Now you know why they call it the "Washington COM-Post."
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Media, Polls
Comments (8)
So, only likely voters can ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by BarneyG2000 | October 30, 2006 1:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
So, only likely voters can disapprove of Bush?
Here is another reason to hate Bush. Because of "W", Reagan's anti-Sandinista policy is soon to become a total failure. The Sandinistas are on the verge of taking over power in Nicaragua. Our old friend Daniel Ortega is the projected winner of the Nov. 5th election.
Bush has absolutely no Latin American foreign policy. We have seen one country after another turn communist on his watch, and guess who is Ortega's biggest sponsor? You got it, Hugo Chavez.
1. Posted by BarneyG2000 | October 30, 2006 1:50 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 13:50
2. Posted by Big Mo | October 30, 2006 2:52 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
FOCUS, Barney. I know that was hard for you to do over at Blogs for Bush. But please do try to actually address the purpose for this post instead of ranting on more of your reasons to hate Bush.
2. Posted by Big Mo | October 30, 2006 2:52 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 14:52
3. Posted by AWW | October 30, 2006 3:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Barney - since 9/11 we have had bigger things on our plate than Latin America.
Also, except for Chavez, the countries in LA are turning to the center. See Columbia, Mexico. Brazil. Cuba will change once Castro is gone. Venezuela will be isolated and the exception, not the rule.
3. Posted by AWW | October 30, 2006 3:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 15:13
4. Posted by BarneyG2000 | October 30, 2006 3:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is a socialist and close ally with Hugo Chavez.
Cuba is not going to change, and you forgot about Ecuador and Bolivia.
Reagan would never allow this to happen.
4. Posted by BarneyG2000 | October 30, 2006 3:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 15:53
5. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | October 30, 2006 4:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Gee - I didn't know Reagan was running against Bush in 2004. I thought my only other choice for President (and commander-in-chief) was John Kerry.
The fact that conservatives get upset enough that Bush is not Reagan so as to wish for GOP defeat on election night always seems odd.
5. Posted by Steve_in_Corona | October 30, 2006 4:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 16:49
6. Posted by clark | October 30, 2006 5:43 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
According to the caption above, the 86% and 74% are of Democrats, but don't let that stop you from having a cow.
6. Posted by clark | October 30, 2006 5:43 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 17:43
7. Posted by Conservachef | October 30, 2006 5:49 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The 110% number is probably more accurate when you factor in all of the felons, corpses, and family pets that will undoubtedly be voting (D) on election day...
7. Posted by Conservachef | October 30, 2006 5:49 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 17:49
8. Posted by Scrapiron | October 30, 2006 6:22 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Democrats can always come up with 110%. In 2004 there were several areas under democratic control that had vote totals that exceeded 110% of the number of legal residents, live ones that is.
8. Posted by Scrapiron | October 30, 2006 6:22 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 30, 2006 18:22