[ahagotyou]

Right. 41% have no opinion. Hard to compare his 9% negative rating against Bush's 60+%.

Bush is the president. Barak and Hillary are senators. They have totally different jobs. That's the relevant factor that ALL of you are missing.

Also, anyone who puts stock in media polls to form their opinions is hooked on grape kool-aid IMO.

It just fucking silly.

[JTS_tv]

No, I'm well aware of that. First things first. I'm just trying to get him to be able to understand the article.

[Lydiaswingert]

Bush is the president. Barak and Hillary are senators. They have totally different jobs. That's the relevant factor that ALL of you are missing.

Also, anyone who puts stock in media polls to form their opinions is hooked on grape kool-aid IMO.

It just fucking silly.

Yeah, almost as silly as jerking off to MNF press releases.

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

Yep, by a whopping 3%. Whoop de doo....

And also what I'm saying is that people think Bush is doing a better job than Obama, by a 4% margin.

So, basically, Bush is gettin' his ass beaten by a chick...

[StitsVobsaith]

OPINION OF …
(Among Democratic Primary Voters)

CLINTON

Favorable
57%
Not favorable
12%
Undecided
27%
Don’t know enough yet
3%

OBAMA

Favorable
40%
Not favorable
3%
Undecided
16%
Don’t know enough yet
40%

Well sure. Just like if you examine Bush's approval rating among Republican Primary Voters, you find that his approval rating is MUCH higher than 33%.

But rather than compare apples and oranges (like you did) I prefer to compare apples and apples - Bush approval numbers among the American people (NOT just among registered Republicans) and compare that to the approval numbers, among the American people (NOT just among registered Democrats!) for Hillary and Obama.

And when CBSNews did THAT, it found the following:

Bush 33%
Obama 29%
Hillary 36%

Yet the Driveby Media plays its cheap leftist bias game and headlines Bush's "very low" 33% approval, while burying Obama's truly dismal 29% and ignoring Hillary's pathetic 36%.

But the Demmie rank and file don't LIKE those numbers about Obama and Hillary, so they thump their chests and spout approval numbers among registered Democrats only.

I guess being a Democrat means living in an utter state of denial, day after day.

[StitsVobsaith]

Right. 41% have no opinion.

Right. Which means Obama's dismal 29% approval number might be even LOWER if those people DID have an opinion about him. But in the meantime, all you can do is use the poll findings among those who DO have an opinion, and in that instance, CBSNews found that Obama only has a 29% approval rating, versus Bush's 33% approval rating, and Hillary's 36% approval rating.

Yet the Driveby Media continues to speak of Bush's "very low" approval rating, and NEVER refers to Obama's "very low" approval rating.

Leftist Media Bias anyone?

[Lydiaswingert]

Right. Which means Obama's dismal 29% approval number might be even LOWER if those people DID have an opinion about him. But in the meantime, all you can do is use the poll findings among those who DO have an opinion, and in that instance, CBSNews found that Obama only has a 29% approval rating, versus Bush's 33% approval rating, and Hillary's 36% approval rating.

Yet the Driveby Media continues to speak of Bush's "very low" approval rating, and NEVER refers to Obama's "very low" approval rating.

Leftist Media Bias anyone?

You might have some credibility if *you* weren't so obviously biased.

The unfavorability is much more telling, and while it might be that Obama's favorability will decline as people gain familiarity with him, the opposite is also possible.

[StitsVobsaith]

Personal bias is irrelevent when one is discussing factual data, such as polling results.

There are PLENTY of people on this website who are liberal biased, for example. And they make all sorts of assertions and claims. Yet their claims are not false (or true) because they are biased liberal. Neither are my claims false (or true) because I am biased conservative.

Your assertion is therefore irrelevent to this discussion. My personal biases (and yours, and theirs) is irrelevent.

[StitsVobsaith]

You might have some credibility if *you* weren't so obviously biased.

And what might YOU do so that YOU might have some credibility?

Are you saying that, for example, if a poster here is obviously biased against President Bush that said poster therefore has no credibility?

It seems to me personal bias is irrelevent, and personal bias does NOT mean a person has no credibility.

You seem more concerned about making personal swipes, rather than discussing the issue.

[Lydiaswingert]

Personal bias is irrelevent when one is discussing factual data, such as polling results.

There are PLENTY of people on this website who are liberal biased, for example. And they make all sorts of assertions and claims. Yet their claims are not false (or true) because they are biased liberal. Neither are my claims false (or true) because I am biased conservative.

Your assertion is therefore irrelevent to this discussion. My personal biases (and yours, and theirs) is irrelevent.

It is?

And if you really think it's irrelevant, why'd you mention it?

[Lydiaswingert]

And what might YOU do so that YOU might have some credibility?

Are you saying that, for example, if a poster here is obviously biased against President Bush that said poster therefore has no credibility?

It seems to me personal bias is irrelevent, and personal bias does NOT mean a person has no credibility.

You seem more concerned about making personal swipes, rather than discussing the issue.

Bias, regardless of it's slant, tends to prevent unprejudiced judgement, the absence of which is indeed relevant to determining credibility.

[StitsVobsaith]

Bias, regardless of it's slant, tends to prevent unprejudiced judgement, the absence of which is indeed relevant to determining credibility.

On the contrary, if one is biased towards the side of a particular issue which happens to be the true interpretation of said issue, then one is more apt to be correct than incorrect. Prejudiced judgment is not necessarily either good nor bad. In fact, the extremely prejudiced person may well be much closer to the truth than is the supposed "unprejudiced" person.

For example, suppose a person, back in the 1940's, was prejudiced against the Third Reich. Having seen some of the earlier atrocities committed by that Reich, that prejudiced person tends to prejudge the next Nazi he encounters at the death camp he is housed in. That particular Nazi tells him, "Oh, we just want you to step in this room so you can shower off the lice on your body." But because he is prejudiced against members of the Third Reich, he decides "This guy probably wants to kill me!", even though it is the first time he has met the fellow. But he's PREJUDICED against members of the Third Reich, so he prejudges the fellow's motives, and suspects it's NOT a shower that he is about to receive in the "shower room".

Prejudiced and biased? You bet!

But also in closer touch with the truth (it turns out) than his fellow prisoner next to him, who says, "Gee, this is the first time we have met this guy. Let's not be prejudiced in our assessment of him."

[JTS_tv]

Sal, why don't we just compare the rates of those who disapprove? Aren't those numbers just as relevant?

[StitsVobsaith]

That's basically what elections do, pramjockey - compare the rates of approval and disapproval.

For example, for the past 14 years, more people disapproved of the Democrats than dissapproved of the Republicans. That's why the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House for most of that time.

And right now, the split is pretty much 50-50, with the Democrats holding only a razor thin margin in the House and the Senate, and the Republicans holding the margin in the White House.

[JTS_tv]

No, discuss the issue at hand. You don't get to weasel out.

What are the disapproval rates of Bush, Clinton, and Obama?

[Lydiaswingert]

On the contrary, if one is biased towards the side of a particular issue which happens to be the true interpretation of said issue, then one is more apt to be correct than incorrect. Prejudiced judgment is not necessarily either good nor bad. In fact, the extremely prejudiced person may well be much closer to the truth than is the supposed "unprejudiced" person.

For example, suppose a person, back in the 1940's, was prejudiced against the Third Reich. Having seen some of the earlier atrocities committed by that Reich, that prejudiced person tends to prejudge the next Nazi he encounters at the death camp he is housed in. That particular Nazi tells him, "Oh, we just want you to step in this room so you can shower off the lice on your body." But because he is prejudiced against members of the Third Reich, he decides "This guy probably wants to kill me!", even though it is the first time he has met the fellow. But he's PREJUDICED against members of the Third Reich, so he prejudges the fellow's motives, and suspects it's NOT a shower that he is about to receive in the "shower room".

Prejudiced and biased? You bet!

But also in closer touch with the truth (it turns out) than his fellow prisoner next to him, who says, "Gee, this is the first time we have met this guy. Let's not be prejudiced in our assessment of him."

You mischaracterize prejudice, which is preconception.

[StitsVobsaith]

What are the disapproval rates of Bush, Clinton, and Obama?

Go ask the Driveby Media.

But you may not get an answer, since the Driveby Media prefers to talk about Bush's approval number, and Obama's approval number, and Hillary's approval number.

And here's what CBSNews found for those numbers:

Hillary 36%
Bush 33%
Obama 29%

Look, I realize those numbers are troubling for you (especially the ones for Hillary and Obama - you probably LIKE seing the number for Bush, right?) and I recognize that up until now the Driveby Media has kept you unaware of those extremely low numbers (in the case of Hillary and Obama, that is - that same media has shouted from the rooftop Bush's number!) but you can only continue to hide your head in the sand for so long, pramjockey.

You have now come face to face with reality, and can no longer comfort yourself with the delusions that the Driveby Media has engendered in you.

[StitsVobsaith]

You mischaracterize prejudice, which is preconception.

Then please define, contrast, and compare for us what YOU think those two words mean.

[JTS_tv]

Go ask the Driveby Media.

But you may not get an answer, since the Driveby Media prefers to talk about Bush's approval number, and Obama's approval number, and Hillary's approval number.

And here's what CBSNews found for those numbers:

Hillary 36%
Bush 33%
Obama 29%

Look, I realize those numbers are troubling for you (especially the ones for Hillary and Obama - you probably LIKE seing the number for Bush, right?) and I recognize that up until now the Driveby Media has kept you unaware of those extremely low numbers (in the case of Hillary and Obama, that is - that same media has shouted from the rooftop Bush's number!) but you can only continue to hide your head in the sand for so long, pramjockey.

You have now come face to face with reality, and can no longer comfort yourself with the delusions that the Driveby Media has engendered in you.

You can quote Rush as much as you want. It doesn't change anything. And, I'm not troubled by the numbers because I'm able to look at them rationally. I really have no interest in Obama's or Clinton's approval numbers one way or the other. The campaign is really a long way off, and I suspect neither of them will end up in the race.

But, you seem very interested in dodging the issue. Instead of manipulating the numbers, you should just admit that, of those with an opinion, people approve of Clinton and Obama more than they do of Bush. Hey, it happens.

[Lydiaswingert]

Then please define, contrast, and compare for us what YOU think those two words mean.

I'm off to work shortly so I'll be brief: prejudice implies preconception, which is opinion formed prior to having knowledge. Having knowledge or experience does *not* make one prejudiced; forming opinions in the absence thereof, *does*.

Capishe?