Presidents ratings drop more since June

[Thekla]

Making a mistake of that magnitude will make anyone unpopular. I mean, they even gave pro-Iraq war folks an out to change their minds later on - they can now say they were misled.

My own mother admitted that she hadn’t believed me when I said they were deceiving the American people in the run up to the war. This summer, she actually said, possibly for the first and only time, “You were right. They were telling us lies.”

Not only is my president unpopular, he’s approaching extremely unpopular territory. I think he cares about his popularity very deeply, but like many, digs in his heels and gets increasingly stubborn - thus making him more unpopular. He’s in some sort of cycle of unpopularity right now. But remember, fall is coming and that’s when you roll out a new product. I wonder what it will be?

 

[Jay74]

Thekla:

Making a mistake of that magnitude will make anyone unpopular. I mean, they even gave pro-Iraq war folks an out to change their minds later on - they can now say they were misled.

My own mother admitted that she hadn’t believed me when I said they were deceiving the American people in the run up to the war. This summer, she actually said, possibly for the first and only time, “You were right. They were telling us lies.”

Not only is my president unpopular, he’s approaching extremely unpopular territory. I think he cares about his popularity very deeply, but like many, digs in his heels and gets increasingly stubborn - thus making him more unpopular. He’s in some sort of cycle of unpopularity right now. But remember, fall is coming and that’s when you roll out a new product. I wonder what it will be?

We knew of his “mistake” on November 2, when he recieved an unpopular 62 million vote tally.

 

[Philip_P]

On polls and public policy…

There is some truth to the criticism that “governing by the polls” is a bad idea - if you mean looking at a single, snapshot poll (i.e. what does the public think of policy X in August). However, if you are looking at trends (i.e from January through August, how has public opinion of policy X changed), then I think that this very much **should **affect public policy.

Although formal public (name removed by moderator)ut is restricted mainly to elections, I don’t think the responsibility of citizens to call their public leaders to account, and of leadership to remain accountable to the public, ends with the winning of an election. The philosophical basis of our form of government is that it is of, by, and for the people. So while I agree that “snapshot” polls area poor guide for public policy, overal trends in public opinion can and should influence public policy, especially on something which takes up so much of the nation’s resources as a war.

 

[gnjsdad]

Ani Ibi:

Since you asked, then why don’t you retrieve the information so that we can look at it?

It’s up to the person making the accusation of bias to provide the proof

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

On polls and public policy…

There is some truth to the criticism that “governing by the polls” is a bad idea - if you mean looking at a single, snapshot poll (i.e. what does the public think of policy X in August). However, if you are looking at trends (i.e from January through August, how has public opinion of policy X changed), then I think that this very much **should **affect public policy.

Just for the sake of argument, Philip. How are you going to enforce such a notion? At what point does the polling shift in opinion = a forced change of policy. Who’s doing the polling? How do you know the polling data over any given period of time on any given issue is accurate?

 

[thestickman]

gnjsdad:

It’s up to the person making the accusation of bias to provide the proof

I pointed to the open door that leads to the info you asked for. You wanna know, you know where to go to learn.

 

[gnjsdad]

thestickman:

Happens all the time with NYTimes, CBS, CNN/USA Today Polls. Pretty much everytime they publish a poll regarding Presidential job approval numbers. Tell ya what. If you really want to know and see how this happens start here and backtrack your way to the raw data for each firm listed at this website. It takes time to get through it all but the reality of what I am talking about is documented.

Nope, I don’t have to do that. Let’s just say I work in the industry. I know a little about polls.

I can tell you from experience that sometimes polling results are hard to accept. I can’t tell you how frustrated I was to look at Clinton’s job approval at 65-70% at the height of impeachment. And trust me, it wasn’t because they always interviewed more Democrats than Republicans. But knowing the lengths pollsters go to to eliminate sampling bias, I can tell you that Bush’s current job approval rating is quite accurate. Accepting the fact that public opinion does not always reflect my opinion, or my friends’ opinions, is hard but necessary if you want to get a good understanding of the mood of the public.

 

[thestickman]

gnjsdad:

Nope, I don’t have to do that. Let’s just say I work in the industry. I know a little about polls.

I can tell you from experience that sometimes polling results are hard to accept. I can’t tell you how frustrated I was to look at Clinton’s job approval at 65-70% at the height of impeachment. And trust me, it wasn’t because they always interviewed more Democrats than Republicans. But knowing the lengths pollsters go to to eliminate sampling bias, I can tell you that Bush’s current job approval rating is quite accurate. Accepting the fact that public opinion does not always reflect my opinion, or my friends’ opinions, is hard but necessary if you want to get a good understanding of the mood of the public.

I agree with everything you just posted. However, it has zip to do with the question you originally asked or the valid answer I gave you

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Just for the sake of argument, Philip. How are you going to enforce such a notion? At what point does the polling shift in opinion = a forced change of policy. Who’s doing the polling? How do you know the polling data over any given period of time on any given issue is accurate?

That’s the wrong type of question, it’s not a matter of enforcement. This is more along the lines of questions of what kind of judicial philosophy a supreme court justice should subscribe to? Intentionalist? Originalist? Living Constitution? Etc. While folks may weigh in on what they feel makes for good judicial philosophy, there is no way to “enforce” it.

What I’m basically saying is that good public policy is responsive to public opinion. It’s not a matter of formal enforcement measures - in fact what I’m talking about is explictly *not *a formal process, in the way that an election is a formal process. Rather, it’s about the sort of expectations we have for our public officials.

As far as polling accuracy and methodology, most of the major polling organizations are pretty reliable, especially when it comes to measuring trends. This is one reason why I make the distinction between trends and snapshots. A single poll is more likely to give an erroneous reading than multiple polls conducted over time. Responsible public leadership, in my opinion, looks at these polls as a tool to help become more responsive to the public.

 

[Thekla]

Jay74:

We knew of his “mistake” on November 2, when he recieved an unpopular 62 million vote tally.

The citizenry gets to say that we liked you before and now we don’t. We thought you were doing a good job and now we don’t. This Iraq war thing? You were wrong and we think you made a mistake. We thought electing you would be okay and now we don’t like you. November 2004? That’s a long time ago.

You know, I’ve never even heard of anyone in the last 9 months who said, “Bush? I really wish I’d voted for him.” That’s not to say that he can’t lose his current unpopularity. But I just can’t see people going from being okay with the Iraq war to thinking it was a mistake back to it being okay again. I think that once you’ve lost that level of trust, you are not getting it back. But you never know. Our government tends to think it has a public relations problem instead of a policy problem (“The American people just need to understand”). So I fully expect the PR machine to go into overdrive.

My president could go from his current level of unpopularity to being popular again. Or he could end up the most unpopular president on record. We’ll have to stay tuned.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

That’s the wrong type of question, it’s not a matter of enforcement. This is more along the lines of questions of what kind of judicial philosophy a supreme court justice should subscribe to? Intentionalist? Originalist? Living Constitution? Etc. While folks may weigh in on what they feel makes for good judicial philosophy, there is no way to “enforce” it.

What I’m basically saying is that good public policy is responsive to public opinion. It’s not a matter of formal enforcement measures - in fact what I’m talking about is explictly *not *a formal process, in the way that an election is a formal process. Rather, it’s about the sort of expectations we have for our public officials.

As far as polling accuracy and methodology, most of the major polling organizations are pretty reliable, especially when it comes to measuring trends. This is one reason why I make the distinction between trends and snapshots. A single poll is more likely to give an erroneous reading than multiple polls conducted over time. Responsible public leadership, in my opinion, looks at these polls as a tool to help become more responsive to the public.

Carrying your preference a step further, do you think the Consititution should be changed so that if a President doesn’t change policy in light of public polling trends he should be forced to do so?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gnjsdad:

It’s up to the person making the accusation of bias to provide the proof

According to who? You asked the question. I am just wondering if you have any actual interest in having the question answered. If so, then you may want to go a-googling somewhat yourself and show us some links from your googling. If not, then it isn’t really a question is it? It is a rhetorical question which is actually a declarative statement.

 

[Philip_P]

thestickman:

Carrying your preference a step further, do you think the Consititution should be changed so that if a President doesn’t change policy in light of public polling trends he should be forced to do so?

No, I don’t think it needs to be formalized in that fashion (though, if I were making amendments to the Constitution, I would get rid of the electoral college. It stymied the voters’ will in 2000, and nearly did again in 04 - if Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the college but not the popular vote).

It’s really an expression of what I think makes for good behavior in public officials. In that sense I don’t think it’s something that can eve be “enforceable,” except indirectly. If voters as a whole had the expectation that public officials would be more responsive to public opinion, though, we would see more public officials who behaved that way.

PS - in parliamentary systems, it *is *possible to penalize elected officials for losing touch with the public, for instance by means of a vote of no confidence. Also in some states, as for instance in California’s recall of Gov. Wilson. I’m not convinced this is wise, which is why I’m hesitant to endorse a *formal *means of making public officials more directly accountable. I think focusing on changing voter expecations is a better route, rather than amending the Constitution, for instance.

 

[gnjsdad]

Ani Ibi:

According to who? You asked the question. I am just wondering if you have any actual interest in having the question answered. If so, then you may want to go a-googling somewhat yourself and show us some links from your googling. If not, then it isn’t really a question is it? It is a rhetorical question which is actually a declarative statement.

Yes, my question was rhetorical. Stickman made some blanket accusations against public opinion polls, accusations which I find unfounded. My answer to him and to you was in my previous post. He is the one who says the polls showing Bush’s job approval rating dropping is based on biased samples. I answered that accusation. If he’s not happy with my answer, it is up to him to provide some documentation to back up the accusations he’s making. Otherwise, it just sounds like:

Poll I agree with = unbiased

Poll I don’t agree with = biased

 

[mpav]

Theckla, what was the lie?

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

Poll I agree with = unbiased

Poll I don’t agree with = biased

As long as the poll is done pretty objectively, the questions asked pretty fairly, and they poll between Dems and GOP evenly, I will go along with the poll.

We went through poll analisys pretty extensively during the 2004 elections.

 

[Thekla]

mpav:

Theckla, what was the lie?

Here’s one example…

One definition of a lie is to “give a false impression.” Some people claim that a lie is a word for word falsehood, but that’s incorrect. The “lie” was deliberately giving the false impression that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I say deliberately because when you repeatedly suggest that we invade Iraq because of 9/11, and you have no evidence, you are deliberately trying to mislead (a polite way of saying you are telling a lie.)

Polls showed at the time that a large segment of the population (around 42%) believed not just that Iraq was involved, but that the majority of the hijackers were Iraqi. That doesn’t just happen by accident.

 

[thestickman]

gilliam:

As long as the poll is done pretty objectively, the questions asked pretty fairly, and they poll between Dems and GOP evenly, I will go along with the poll.

Same here.

 

[thestickman]

Philip P:

No, I don’t think it needs to be formalized in that fashion (though, if I were making amendments to the Constitution, I would get rid of the electoral college. It stymied the voters’ will in 2000, and nearly did again in 04 - if Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the college but not the popular vote).

To say the electoral college stymied the will of the people is another invalid statement. The electoral college is yet another example of why our system of government isn’t a pure democracy but is a representitive republic. The electoral college worked as the founding fathers of the nation designed it to. It prevents a few states from dominating the smaller states. Leave it alone!

 

[gilliam]

thestickman:

To say the electoral college stymied the will of the people is another invalid statement. The electoral college is yet another example of why our system of government isn’t a pure democracy but is a representitive republic. The electoral college worked as the founding fathers of the nation designed it to. It prevents a few states from dominating the smaller states. Leave it alone!

I come from a relatively small state, I like the electoral college