What Should a President's Base Be?

Shut up, Gene. You're just as much an idiot as Bush is.

Here he goes with his polls again. Col will you please state that you are quoting biased media polls of 1000 Americans and that does not represent the thoughts of the nation. It is your opinion only.

In fact the majority of Americans are NOT conservatives.

How do you know that? Another poll maybe?

Anyways col. This country is certainly not a liberal one, and maybe not even a conservative majority. I think it's safe to say that the majority is more "moderate". However, these "moderates" are the reason Bush was elected. That should tell you something.

Anyways col. This country is certainly not a liberal one, and maybe not even a conservative majority. I think it's safe to say that the majority is more "moderate". However, these "moderates" are the reason Bush was elected. That should tell you something.

But what the hell is a moderate anyway? Someone who claims to believe something but doesn't really believe it? Someone who's apathetic about politics altogether? Or is it someone who is scared of both sides based on their opponents portrayals of them?

Good question.

another know nothing whining that the president stands for what he thinks is right for the country.

In case you spent your whole life in a haze, I'll clue you in. The president does not "represent" any group of people. In fact, he doesn't represent any people at all. The House of Representatives' role is to represent the voice of the people at the federal level. The Senate's role is to represent the states and the President represents the voice of the Nation.

The founding fathers were very smart in seperating the powers and representation of the federal government. It's too bad that (completely and entirely out of ignorance and pettiness) "we the people" are working so hard to destroy that seperation.

The Bush policies are not moderate. Moderates would demand a balanced budget. The do not believe in nation building. The would not support the Social Security changes Bush wants. They want us to protect our borders. All these are not the policies of the right that Bush and his cohorts in the GOP are following. I do not give a rats A*s waht the conservatives want. How about what the MAJORITY want.

The Bush policies are not moderate. Moderates would demand a balanced budget. The do not believe in nation building. The would not support the Social Security changes Bush wants. They want us to protect our borders. All these are not the policies of the right that Bush and his cohorts in the GOP are following. I do not give a rats A*s waht the conservatives want. How about what the MAJORITY want.

You don't speak for the "moderates" col, so quit your "they" speech.

I know that the Bush policies do not fit a moderate or liberal agenda. I do not intent to speak for anyone but just look at the level of disatisfaction that exists with Bush and the Congress. The right and a some moderate Republicans put Bush into office in 2004 and many of them are not happy with the results.

The Bush policies are not moderate.

and how many lines did you have to snort to find "Moderate" as a requirement in the Constitution? For that matter, what drugs did you have to take to find anything saying the President represents the "majority" of anything?

The founding fathers set up the electoral college for the express perpose of seperating the Executive Branch from the whims of the majority.

If the "majority" is so important to you, why don't you move somewhere where mob rule is the law of the land?

Gene, say what you like about Bush and his base, it's not like your presidential candidates have done anything at all for their base in the last eight years or so. Instead of yelling at us about how our guy isn't Saint George of Assisi, shouldn't you be yelling at your own faction about why your guy always ends up being St. Loser of No Base At All?

I mean, all you're really saying here is that I should swap out a big government conservative for a big government liberal. As I've pointed out before, this is a total non-starter for me. If you really want to improve my faction's status in my eyes, you should be encouraging me to find a small-government conservative.

Also, our system is set up explicitly to not second-guess the Executive once he's elected. He's supposed to have a free hand to set policy, without having to put every decision to a vote of the people. We break this duty up into four-year chunks, and moderate its power by means of the other two branches of government, to prevent the Executive from abusing his freedom of action too much.

But the President absolutely must be able to follow through on his policies, regardless of mood swings in public opinion.

Although the conservatives got Bush elected, he is NOT President of just the conservatives - Col. Gene

I really doubt any true conservatives really believe Bush represents their interests. Maybe he'll make some headway in redeeming himself with the nomination of Alito...


How do you know that? Another poll maybe? - Island Dog

Someday, Island Dog, you must share with us alternate ways of representing a consenus of the American opinion. Polls do have their caveats but major corporations use them to seek guidance for their products, the White House uses them to gauge the public mood, and they can certainly be used to support one's thesis whilst blogging.

That said, I can certainly see how attacking the poll itself would be an excellent touche if it's structure is such that it is meant to provide biased results, but that burden of proof is on you, the assailer. Simply stating that a poll is only 1000 people doesn't quite destroy that particular poll's credibility or discredit all others. It would have been nice to use Col. Gene's poll in this article as a good example to study, but, he didn't provide a source for his data.

That said, I can certainly see how attacking the poll itself would be an excellent touche if it's structure is such that it is meant to provide biased results, but that burden of proof is on you, the assailer.

I disagree - the burden proof is quite rightly on the pollster or the person using the poll to justify a point of view or action. Any desired result, determined beforehand, can be obtained by polling - all you have to do is ask the right set of questions in the right way to the right group of people. For all we know, they could have done the poll 10 times before they got the numbers they wanted. We should be skeptical of all polls, no matter where they come from.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Para Tad2K

Well in a democratic system it is what the majority want not what the minority want that is to the way things are run. The political unrest has never been greater and the reason is that Bush and the conservatives, who are a MINORITY, have their way and say the hell with anyone that wants something different.

Most conservatives can not complete a a phrase without blasting the liberals. What gives the 25 or 30% who are conservatives the right to set the policies for 100% of Americans? The Democrats have not done well in comming up with some alternate suggestions but the GOP policies have FAILED to meet the needs of most Americans.

I disagree - the burden proof is quite rightly on the pollster or the person using the poll to justify a point of view or action.

I was not clear enough - allow me to restate the sentence:

That said, I can certainly see how attacking the poll itself would be an excellent touche if it's structure is such that it is meant to provide biased results, but that burden of proof is on you, the assailer, to prove your point by explaining how the poll is not credible.

I agree, Daiwa, we should be critically minded of polls, but it is the role of the individual countering the poll to point out how and in what way it's data is skewed.

There is no 'burden of proof' on the pollster as they are not the ones attempting to discredit themselves. They have only to honestly describe their procedure(s) in justifying the resulting data they have retrieved.

Though it could be argued authors writing persuasive pieces should be bluntly honest in their writing and should never use 'unfair' data, even 'correct' data can be used deceptively.

For example, let's take a page from Col. Gene's talking about his unsourced poll:

That truth of that is reflected in all the polls about the Bush policies and the fact almost 75% of Americans believe we are, as a nation, moving in the wrong direction.

...and rephrase it in a manner White House Press Secretary Scott Mclellan might find more conducive:

The truth of that is reflected in all these polls about the Bush policies and the fact almost one third of Americans believe we are, as a nation, moving in the right direction.

Now, can it be seen how it is the personal responsibility of the reader to pick through the b.s. and critically digest what they are reading or being told? If one is given the results of a poll, should they not research the poll themselves then determine the credibility of that poll in their mind? If one is to criticize the poll to others should they not give reasons as to why the poll is not credible?

No person writing a blog should have to, up front, give a detailed explanation of the procedures of the poll every time they quote a number, but they should provide some source so that critically minded readers can check the validity of the poll by their own judgement and explain that judgement to others.

What gives the 25 or 30% who are conservatives the right to set the policies for 100% of Americans? The Democrats have not done well in comming up with some alternate suggestions but the GOP policies have FAILED to meet the needs of most Americans.

Col, no President will ever make %100 of the "people" happy. Would you complain if Kerry was President and he was setting policy for the %10 of liberals in this country? I doubt it.

It is your opinion that these policies don't "meet the needs". If it was up to we would all be living in a welfare state with the successful people paying for everything.

Deference,

I have showed how polls taken by the MSM and similar organizations choose to poll more democrats than republicans. I have shown on several occassions how the media distorts these polls.

Anyways, if you want to believe that a media poll of 1000 Americans accurately represents the millions of people in this country, well....there's just not much hope.

I read that particular blog, Island Dog and you were correct to a certain extent. However, the fact remains that not every poll centers around a sample of only 1000 Americans and not every poll from every organization or news agency within the Mainstream Media polls more Democrats then Republicans.

Now, I'll restate this challenge to you since you've failed to read it or answer to it,

Someday, Island Dog, you must share with us alternate ways of representing a consenus of the American opinion.

Any ideas Island Dog? Or is there just not much hope?

Someday, Island Dog, you must share with us alternate ways of representing a consenus of the American opinion. Any ideas Island Dog? Or is there just not much hope?

The best one I can think of is in November.

Bush - 62,040,606
Kerry - 59,028,1099

I'd say that was a fine alternative, Island Dog, the only drawback being that it takes millions (billions?) of dollars and more then two months to accomplish the task, add to that the fact that the data is significantly outdated and no longer holds as much relevancy to the new day. Obviously, if another election was to be held today, two months from now, we'd very probably see some drastically different numbers then we did last January.

The main difference between the actual polls /surveys and an election tally is that one is done with smaller numbers which are expanded to the population as a whole in the form of a percentage to predict public opinion whereas the other is used to verify public opinion with actual numbers.

Different engines for different purposes.

Well in a democratic system it is what the majority want not what the minority want that is to the way things are run.

Colon Gangrene, have you ever made any statement that didn't prove that the taxpayers' money was completely and utterly wasted paying for your "education".

Tell me please that you know the difference between a democracy and a representative republic. Also please tell me that you haven't smoked so much crack that you think the U.S. is a democracy.

You may return to your crack-whoring now.

I'd say that was a fine alternative, Island Dog, the only drawback being that it takes millions (billions?) of dollars and more then two months to accomplish the task, add to that the fact that the data is significantly outdated and no longer holds as much relevancy to the new day. Obviously, if another election was to be held today, two months from now, we'd very probably see some drastically different numbers then we did last January.

Interesting, but let's remember most polls showed Kerry beating Bush.

Also, the election was a decisive question. Bush or Kerry. There is no way to spin that poll like the media does with targeted and distorted questions.

Just to put your mind at ease about my education I know we have a republic form of government. However, those elected are expected to follow the desires of those that elected them not go off into a direction that ignores what the majority want. In 1776 we went to war with the most powerful nation at that time to end policies that most Americans did not accept - those of George III (another George) and the English Parliment.

The polls in November 2004 said the election would be close. I guess they were correct. If the election were held today, the results would be VERY different. I would like anyone to explain why, we should be following policies or court appointments that agree with about 1/3 of the people in our country and ignore the other 2/3?

In 1776 we went to war with the most powerful nation at that time to end policies that most Americans did not accept - those of George III (another George) and the English Parliment.

Historians believed that only 25% of the colonial population supported the revolution, with 25% against it and 50% neutral on the subject.

I would like anyone to explain why, we should be following policies or court appointments that agree with about 1/3 of the people in our country and ignore the other 2/3?

Because the US is a Republic and when over 50% elect one of the 1/3 into office, that is the way the system works.

If the election were held today, the results would be VERY different.

Just because 2/3 of the people don't approve of the President's policies, does not mean they would vote for a Democrat at this time. Could you please provide some evidence saying that if the election was held today that they would not vote for a Republican, or is this your opinion?

The polls in November 2004 said the election would be close. I guess they were correct

Nope, the polls said Kerry would beat Bush. I guess they were wrong.

I would like anyone to explain why, we should be following policies or court appointments that agree with about 1/3 of the people in our country and ignore the other 2/3?

Because like it or not, he IS the president! He was duly elected and in doing so "we" gave him the power to do those things which "you" seem to hate! Tough! You want change? You ain't going to get it until at least 2008.

Lee 1776

The system is NOT working for the vast majority of Americans. The low and most of the middle income works are getting screwed. The future generations are getting screwed by the debt thay will be forced to repay because we are giving the wealthy tax cuts we can not afford. Just think we borrow money our children must repay and pay interest on the adedd debt to give those that have more then they need to have even more. Works for the Haves and the Have more The Bush Base.

Yes drmiler That is the attitude The conservatives and Bush screw the vast majority because they can. This must be part of the right wing Christian teaching. I wonder why I can not find that passage in my Bible?