Ever notice how unnamed Democrats do better in polling than specific Democrats? If only Democrats could nominate a mysterious Democrat-with-no-name for an actual election.
Do media outlets ever think about the harm they do Democrats by having polls like these? They’re just feeding the insanity of the poor muckadoos.
“Wow! An unnamed Democrat could beat a President who can’t run again if an election were held today absent campaigns! The American people must be on our side!”
It’s both sad and funny.
It’s sunny!
So sunny. What a bunch of ….
what’s the plural of dufus? Dufi?
My favorite part:
“However, all the numbers are within the poll’s sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, so it’s possible that the public’s opinion has not changed at all.”
Does this really pass for news?
I, personally, would be very happy if there was never again a poll taken and reported on.
Beolaf, you only say that because of the polls that are widely publicized. If they had a poll question written by one of us, I’m sure you’d enjoy it.
Example:
Would you rather vote for:
a) a republican who will cut your taxes, and kill terrorists,
b) a democrat who will raise your taxes, and appease terrorists, or
c) an independent who will add more tax loopholes, and form a committee to study the terrorists?
Other examples anyone?
Would you rather
a) buy me a beer
b) give me $10 to go away
I think you guys are missing the real point here.
“And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.
This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month.”
The only thing that was beyond the poll’s margin of error (not that that means anything) was that more people support the war.
Wasn’t that a song by America?
“I Went to the White House on a Dem With No Name”