The Validity of Newspolls

[Proteas]

------------------------

Poll: Most Back Congress In Iraq Showdown
Majority In CBS/NYT Poll Favor Timetable For Troop Pullout, But Oppose Cutting Off War Funds

(CBS) Most Americans back Democrats in Congress in their showdown with President Bush over Iraq, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

Sixty-four percent of those surveyed favor setting a timetable for a U.S. troop pullout by 2008. The Senate passed legislation Thursday that would require the withdrawal of U.S. forces to begin by Oct. 1.

Most also believe Congress, not the president, should have the final word on setting troop levels in Iraq. But they do not want Democrats to cut off funding for the war if the president is unwilling to agree on a timetable

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/opi nion/polls/main2731960.shtml

-----------------------------

Most Americans Want Gonzales Out, Aides to Testify, Poll Shows
By Heidi Przybyla

April 11 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign, most Americans say, and White House aides should be forced to testify before Congress about their involvement in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys.

In a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, conducted April 5 to 9, 53 percent of respondents said Gonzales should leave his post. Seventy-four percent said White House staff members who had discussions about the firings with Gonzales's chief of staff should testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which the White House has refused to allow.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206010 87&sid=aW0tN07PYS4I&refer=home

------------------

President Bush Job Approval
April 27, 2007

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of American adults Approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his duties as President. Sixty percent (60%) Disapprove of his performance. These figures include 17% of Americans who Strongly Approve of Bush’s performance and 44% who Strongly Disapprove.

(see comments on comparing Approval Ratings from different polling firms.)

The War in Iraq continues to drag down the President’s ratings. Just 29% believe that the troop surge ordered by Bushhas improved the situation in Iraq. Twice as many believe it has made things worse or had no impact. Most Americans favor either an immediate troop withdrawal or a firm timetable for bringing the troops home.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Appr oval.htm

--------------------
--------------------
The will of the uninformed
Pundits and politicians love to be on the side of the people, even if the people don't have a clue.
April 24, 2007

HUGE NUMBERS of Americans don't know jack about their government or politics. According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, 31% of Americans don't know who the vice president is, fewer than half are aware that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, a mere 29% can identify "Scooter" Libby as the convicted former chief of staff of the vice president, and only 15% can name Harry Reid when asked who is the Senate majority leader.

Also last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales' firing of eight U.S. attorneys was "politically motivated."

So, we are supposed to believe that two-thirds of Americans have studied the details of the U.S. attorney firings and come to an informed conclusion that they were politically motivated — even when Senate Democrats agree that there is no actual evidence that Gonzales did anything improper. Are these the same people who couldn't pick Pelosi out of a lineup? Or the 85% who couldn't name the Senate majority leader? Are we to imagine that the 31% of the electorate who still — after seven years of headlines and demonization — can't identify the vice president of the United States nonetheless have a studied opinion on the firing of New Mexico U.S. Atty. David Iglesias?

Oh, before we proceed, let me make clear: This isn't a column defending Gonzales. This administration should have long ago sent him out of the bunker for a coffee-and-doughnut run and then changed the locks. No, this is a column about how confused and at times idiotic the United States is about polls, public opinion and, well, democracy itself. We all love to tout the glories of democracy and denounce politicians who just follow the polls. Well, guess which politicians follow the polls? The popular ones, that's who. And guess why: Because the popular ones get elected. Bucking public opinion is the quickest way for a politician to expedite his or her transition to the private sector.

More to the point, Americans — God bless 'em — are often quite ignorant about the stuff politicians and pundits think matters most. They may know piles about their own professions, hobbies and personal interests, but when it comes to basic civics, they just get their clocks cleaned on Fox's "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?"

Though examples are depressingly unnecessary, here are two of my favorites over the years. In 1987, 45% of adult respondents to one survey answered that the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was in the Constitution (in fact, it's a quote from Karl Marx). Then, in 1991, an American Bar Assn. study reported that a third of Americans did not know what the Bill of Rights was.

That the public mood is a poor compass for guiding the ship of state is an old lament. Here are two reasons why.

The first has to do with the laziness, spinelessness and vanity of political elites. Citing polls as proof you're on the right side of an argument is often a symptom of intellectual cowardice. If the crowd says 2+2=7, that's no reason to invoke the authority of the crowd. But pundits and pols know that if they align themselves with the latest Gallup findings, they don't have to defend their position on the merits because "the people" are always right. Such is the seductiveness of populism. It means never being wrong. "The people of Nebraska are for free silver, and I am for free silver," proclaimed William Jennings Bryan. "I will look up the arguments later."

Which brings us to ideology. The days when politicians would actually defend small-r republicanism are gone. The answer to every problem in our democracy seems to be more democracy, as if any alternative spells more tyranny. Indeed, once more the "forces of progress" are trying to destroy the electoral college in the name of democracy. Their beachhead is Maryland, which was the first to approve an interstate compact promising its electors to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

If these progressives have their way, we'll soon see candidates ignoring small states and rural areas entirely because democracy means going where the votes are. The old notion that this is a republic in which minority communities have a say will suffer perhaps the final, fatal blow.

But that's OK, because 70% of Americans say they're for getting rid of the electoral college. And Lord knows, they must be right.

Los Angeles Times

-------------------------------

So I guess it all boils down to one question;

Why do we put so much stock in poll results, again?

[HighlyIllogical]

We know that most americans are idiots...media conducted polls, like all polls, are quite falliable. I would doubt their validity in many cases, but, certainly, there is an aspect of truth to all of the non-biased polls.

[Demosthenez]

Excellent article. This is why we shouldnt be a direct democracy, the majority of our nation is a bunch of politically illiterate retards. Of course, politicans know this as well as we do. The difference is they exploit this ignorance to their advantage almost uniformally.

Fucking shame. Our government is becoming so corrupt and wrong.

[HighlyIllogical]

You're excusing subverting the will of the people because you claim that most americans are ignorant?

That's highly illiberal of you. Direct democracy would allow the will of the people to be taken in to account in presidential races...

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/27/07 04:47 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Excellent article. This is why we shouldnt be a direct democracy, the majority of our nation is a bunch of politically illiterate retards. Of course, politicans know this as well as we do. The difference is they exploit this ignorance to their advantage almost uniformally.

Fucking shame. Our government is becoming so corrupt and wrong.

Most governments have a very significant degree of corruption.. but I don't think it was that much better before.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/27/07 05:31 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: You're excusing subverting the will of the people because you claim that most americans are ignorant?

That's highly illiberal of you. Direct democracy would allow the will of the people to be taken in to account in presidential races...

Direct democracy also lynched blacks in the pre-Civil Rights Act South. But that's okay, it was "the will of the people", right?

If we had a direct democracy, gays would be thrown in jail, other religions would be banned, etc. At least in some states, anyway.

[Memorize]

At 4/27/07 05:31 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: You're excusing subverting the will of the people because you claim that most americans are ignorant?

Why the hell do you think the founding father's set up the electorial college?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/27/07 05:31 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

\

That's highly illiberal of you. Direct democracy would allow the will of the people to be taken in to account in presidential races...

Yes because the tyranny of the majority is always a great thing.

[Proteas]

At 4/27/07 05:31 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: You're excusing subverting the will of the people because you claim that most americans are ignorant?

That's highly illiberal of you. Direct democracy would allow the will of the people to be taken in to account in presidential races...

You just made the point that most Americans are ignornant, yet you don't seem to take issue with them controlling the government....?

And what the hell does "illiberal" mean anyway?

[HighlyIllogical]

Tyrrany of the majority is a risk that we take with democracy/republicanism/whatever...

The constitution and bill of rights PROTECT the minority from the tyrrany of the majority...why else would we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/27/07 09:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

The constitution and bill of rights PROTECT the minority from the tyrrany of the majority...why else would we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

And these things can be pulled away at any time with an Amendment that is willed by the states and the majority in it.

The Electoral college is there to protect the states and the individuals from other states and individuals.

Otherwise, there at risk to the majority.

[Proteas]

At 4/27/07 09:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: The constitution and bill of rights PROTECT the minority from the tyrrany of the majority...why else would we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

Oh I don't know, to grant those rights to ALL citizens and not just a select few, like it was back in England?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/27/07 09:50 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 4/27/07 09:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Oh I don't know, to grant those rights to ALL citizens and not just a select few, like it was back in England?

Actually the Magna Carta was in effect to all citizens of the British Commonwealth.

The biggest problem with the Magna Carta was the lack of sections, bills and powers that were there.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/27/07 09:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/27/07 09:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

The constitution and bill of rights PROTECT the minority from the tyrrany of the majority...why else would we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech?

And these things can be pulled away at any time with an Amendment that is willed by the states and the majority in it.

True. But eroding those liberties is quite difficult. I don't think you'd get enough votes in congress (or among the states, if you prefer) for an amendment, say, that removes freedom of religion for muslims.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/27/07 09:55 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 4/27/07 09:50 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/27/07 09:47 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

True. But eroding those liberties is quite difficult. I don't think you'd get enough votes in congress (or among the states, if you prefer) for an amendment, say, that removes freedom of religion for muslims.

I'm not talking about now. It would be political sucide.

But in the future.

To take the Founders though process here, we don't know what the future will be like and how detrimental major decesions we do now could have an effect then.

Get me?

[HighlyIllogical]

Sure, that makes sense. I would suggest that we won't have too many fundimental changes to the Constitution within the near future (or even within, say 50 or 60 years), though.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/27/07 10:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Sure, that makes sense. I would suggest that we won't have too many fundimental changes to the Constitution within the near future (or even within, say 50 or 60 years), though.

Maybe and probally but one can't be sure.

And I for one, would rather stay on the safe side.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/27/07 05:31 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: That's highly illiberal of you. Direct democracy would allow the will of the people to be taken in to account in presidential races...

Most Americans are ignorant, that is a fact. And you are a prime example of them. I have said this DIRECTLY to you before and I will say it again, slowly.

W-e a-r-e n-o-t a d-i-r-e-c-t d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. WE ARE NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Get it?

[JakeHero]

At 4/28/07 04:24 AM, Demosthenez wrote: W-e a-r-e n-o-t a d-i-r-e-c-t d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. WE ARE NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Get it?

Democratic Republic, by the way, wasn't Rome's Golden Age during the times of being a strict republic and not ruled by emperors?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/28/07 02:43 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 4/28/07 04:24 AM, Demosthenez wrote: W-e a-r-e n-o-t a d-i-r-e-c-t d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. WE ARE NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. Get it?

Democratic Republic, by the way, wasn't Rome's Golden Age during the times of being a strict republic and not ruled by emperors?

Federalist Contsitutional Republic.

I was always taught that Rome's glory days was during the Pax Romana.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/27/07 10:23 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/27/07 10:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Sure, that makes sense. I would suggest that we won't have too many fundimental changes to the Constitution within the near future (or even within, say 50 or 60 years), though.

Maybe and probally but one can't be sure.

And I for one, would rather stay on the safe side.

What would you propose to do, though? I mean, personally, I like an liberal activist judiciary (as opposed to an activist conservative judiciary). Would you be opposed to one?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 4/28/07 03:03 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 4/27/07 10:23 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/27/07 10:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

What would you propose to do, though? I mean, personally, I like an liberal activist judiciary (as opposed to an activist conservative judiciary). Would you be opposed to one?

I was always one for a strict constructionism. That would solve most of your problems or at least keep them at bay.