Just wait. They'll get the number down in the teens before it's all over.

Good post, btw.

The party affiliation of the nation has changed that much since the elections a year ago? Really?

what? you don't believe us?

punk

Good, dependable nervous Ace.

Its an oversampling of Democrats, not a trend.

But it is amazing the circular logic of it all, I posted a comment on the Wash Post's political online chat session, Dana Milbanks answered thusly:

"Isn't it inherently misleading for The Post to run a poll that skews so far left? The number of persons who identify as Democrats seems to be almost 12 points higher than actually exists in the country.

Dana Milbank: No. What happens is when Bush is up, more people identify themselves as Republicans; when he's down, more people identify as Democrats. So if you weighted for what they call 'party ID' then you'd cancel out the actual shift in public sentiment. That said, when party identification is skewed wildly outside a usual band, they make some adjustments. But the results are consistent with other recent polls.

Talk about begging the question, we are using as a basis of determining the idea which we wish to determine. So, we think bush is down, therefore we will sample more democrats. I suppose if they wanted to push the story that Bush is great, they would sample more Republicans.

Moreover, while there is certainly some genuine dissatisfaction with Bush from former supporters, many of those are pissed off because he's not far enough to the right on issues like the budget and immigrations and that dreadful Supreme Court pick who Won't Be Named. In other words, dissatisfaction with Bush is not necessarily a good sign for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

One senses that some on the left are so mired in BDS that 'getting' Bush is all they care about, no matter the implications.

It's just proof that more democrats are stay-at-home-in-the-middle-of-the-day people than not. Another secret of polling is that poor, retired, and female people are horribly over-sampled as well.
At least I've heard that from a reputable source.
Ok, my barber. But I TRUST him.
Anyways, aren't we supposed to completely rely on our feelings instead of facts?

Poor Democrats. I'm thinking they're going to be shocked after the Republican Convention in 2008 when they learn Bush is not the nominee.

I posted this at another site but....

What would be more convincing to me (about the point that these polls have sampling/weighting flaws) is a comparison to other past poll’s sampling/weighting characteristics where Bush’s fav/unfav ratings were around 50% or higher.

If those old polls had roughly the same characteristics as these polls then I would say that the dismissal of the current polls is akin to sour grapes. If they are different (better balanced) then that would be something. Of course if they are skewed the other way (favoring Rep’s etc) I would be suprised.

Has anyone done this sort of comparison?

This&That

So, at what level of approval does the Constitution mandate a new election?

Anyone think it would be a good idea to organize a letter writing (email) campaign to the whitehouse in support of the president.(asside from rampent spending and immigration, not being a pussy and throwing in the towel) Since I've never been polled, EVER and don't know anyone that has. Makes me think that they've figured out how to randomly select only demoRats to call.

Several commenters have already mentioned factors that would contribute to over-representation of Dems in the polls. Another, ironically, is the sheer number of polls and phone solicitors.

Twenty or thirty years ago, better than half of the people contacted by pollsters were thrilled to take the time to answer their questions. Today, maybe one out of five contacts agrees to take the poll, and those people are disproportionately the ones with way too much time on their hands. That response may not automatically skew Democratic, but it certainly isn't representative of actual voters.

As Rocketeer notes, the guy isn't running for anything. Focus on Iraq. Get it done right and start getting some troops out of there by '07 and the guy will prove them all wrong. From what I understand, he enjoys that.

Bad poll numbers--for those of us who believe he's on the right track--might be a blessing. Focus, George.

They ARE focusing on Iraq. The idea is to try and drag the president down in public opinion with a non-stop propaganda war OVER Iraq in order to force him to withdraw our forces just like happened in Viet Nam. In case any of you missed the non-hollywood version of that war, we didn't loose; not a single engagement. We walked away because the media told the voters that we had no business being there and we were not winning. That is all people need to hear to loose their resolve to liberate another country from totalitarianism, and it works very well. Just ask a South Vietnamiese refugee.

Rocketeer: They won't get it's not Bush running for another 20 years. They ran against Nixon in 2004. Whoever is nominated by the Reps in '08, the Dems will run against Bush.

The Democrats aren't getting that their own polling numbers are dropping at the same rate, occasionally faster. They still cling to the wonderful numbers that a Generic Democrat polls, thinking that someday, Comrade, those votes will be ours.

Aint it great?

I think it's about '06, guys. Unpopular prez = congressional gains for the party out of power. If they thought it would get them votes the Dems would be running to the right of Bush on the war. With the Dems, it's always about power, not principles. Look for the disinformation to escalate.

Maybe the Islam world will now support Bush since we apparantly embracing Islam with tolerance and understanding.
/Sarcasm Off/

The Flight 93 Memorial's Crescent of Embrace glorifying Muslim extremism has not been alterd despite announcements from nearly two months ago.

Links: http://tractioncontrol.blogspot.com/
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003543.htm

Ever since 1994, the left has been living in an alternate reality where the latest scandal or tragedy is going to propel them back into power. Every two years, there is the wishful thinking. This is no different. 2006 elections are one year away. What do they think is going to happen between now and then?

Well, we know what they wish will happen, Iraq will coollapse under the weight of its own failures and we will be repulsed out of the whole Middle East once we hit 3000 KIAs. No, that sort of wishful thinking will hardly help the dems.

They wish that Fitmas III will come about and have everyone in the admin in prison by June. As has been debated by over 1000 posts here so far, Plame was an analyst, Wilson is a liar. Fitzmas doesn't have the charm it once did, its gone commercial.

Oh, and some judge is eventually gonna read the legally inadequate indictments against Delay. The SEC should clear Frist.

In the meantime, the dems seem to have become the shrill anti-American party, revelling in anti-US protests wherever they happen.

And plus, these polls are sampling 51% democrats. Not very trustworth, those are.