Bush takes 11 point lead in new TIME poll! - Page 2 - VGF

spicy · 09-07-2004, 04:47 PM

If by proved wrong you mean a probably untrue article from a partisan news site, then yes you did.

Bob · 09-07-2004, 04:54 PM

No; I mean proven wrong by the chief U.S. weapons inspector.

Kooks dwell, intellects move on.

spicy · 09-07-2004, 05:02 PM

Tied with a T.

Bob · 09-07-2004, 05:21 PM

You're an Idiot with a T.

Quote:

We have been flooded with e-mails asking (in varying tones of politeness) why our poll results seem different from those released by Time and Newsweek.

There are two basic explanations, one involving our polling data and one involving the newsmagazines. For those who need to know the answer before the explanation, the bottom line is that the President is ahead by 4 to 5 points at this time. That's a significant improvement over the past few weeks, but not a double digit lead.

Our current poll (showing the President ahead by just over a point) includes a Saturday sample that is way out of synch with all the days before it and with the Sunday data that followed. In fact, Saturday's one-day sample showed a big day for Kerry while all the days surrounding it showed a decent lead for the President.

It seems likely that Saturday reflects a rogue sample (especially since it was over a holiday weekend). But, it remains in our 3-day rolling average for one more day (Tuesday's report). If we drop the Saturday sample from our data, Bush is currently ahead by about 4 percentage points in the Rasmussen Reports Tracking Poll.

Weekend polls boost Democrat demographics and even moreso on a Labor Day weekend.

**Prince Toad** · 09-07-2004, 07:33 PM

What the ****? Do people like Democrats more on weekends or something? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Bob · 09-07-2004, 07:43 PM

No, you get a disproportionate sample. Republicans demographically go out more on weekends (time tested fact).

Because of heavy party ID weighting (which would tend to minimize any bounce), it's amazing Bush has a 5 point lead in Rasmussen.

**Prince Toad** · 09-07-2004, 10:19 PM

...wow.

Koga · 09-08-2004, 12:46 PM

I haven't read everything, but I would like to comment on the tax thing.

Any economist would tell you that lowering taxes plus a great increase in spending (i.e. war in Iraq) is bad for the governments budget. Hence, a larger deficit.

It's especially bad since all the money is spent abroad and not in the US. Government investings can help to boost the economy, but not if the focus is on defence.

Bob · 09-08-2004, 01:18 PM

You're wrong on the tax cut part of it, because we're way past the laffer curve which stunts productivity. On the war being bad for our budget, yeah; it costs a lot of money.

But it's spent at home building weapon systems and purchasing body armor.

We're spending a significant amount of our productivity on Iraqis, but that's not bad for the economy.

Nick · 09-08-2004, 04:12 PM

Spending more than you take in isn't good in any sense. Just ask people in society that racked up massive debt with credit cards.

Bob · 09-08-2004, 04:49 PM

Yeah, I agree that Bush spends too much. I'm just saying it isn't because of the tax cut.

Anyway, I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would fix this. Granted, it'd be legislative deadlock.

Nick · 09-09-2004, 02:23 AM

Well, in a sense it is. He's increased the size of the Fed to the largest size ever and squandered the budget surplus because he decreased his income. What the tax cuts and Bush fiscal plans essentially did was take a CEO lifestyle and attempt to support it with a middle-management salary.

Brandon2390 · 09-10-2004, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by *The Master*:
Yeah, I agree that Bush spends too much. I'm just saying it isn't because of the tax cut.

Anyway, I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would fix this. Granted, it'd be legislative deadlock.

You're giving people labels. For just one minute, people need to look at who exactly would be the better president without the labels of Democrat, or Republican

Bob · 09-10-2004, 05:18 PM

Dude - even in an ideal situation, repealing the parts of Bush's tax cut he wants to would only bring in about $250 billion over the course of the next ten years.

And he wants to spend $2 trillion. You do the math.

[ September 10, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: *The Master* ]

UserGoogol · 09-12-2004, 01:01 AM

I've decided to actually start moderating for a change, and I'm moving this over to Current Events, where it so obviously should go.

09-07-2004, 04:47 PM	#21
spicy Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: You\'re in my prayers. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Posts: 1,880 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 805.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,305.00 Donate	If by proved wrong you mean a probably untrue article from a partisan news site, then yes you did.

09-07-2004, 04:54 PM	#22
Bob Junior Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 295 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 3,755.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,255.00 Donate	No; I mean proven wrong by the chief U.S. weapons inspector. Kooks dwell, intellects move on.

09-07-2004, 05:02 PM	#23
spicy Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: You\'re in my prayers. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Posts: 1,880 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 805.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,305.00 Donate	Tied with a T.

09-07-2004, 07:33 PM	#25
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,401 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 43,206.88 Bank: 18,304.68 Total Points: 61,511.56 Donate	What the ****? Do people like Democrats more on weekends or something? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

09-07-2004, 07:43 PM	#26
Bob Junior Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 295 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 3,755.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,255.00 Donate	No, you get a disproportionate sample. Republicans demographically go out more on weekends (time tested fact). Because of heavy party ID weighting (which would tend to minimize any bounce), it's amazing Bush has a 5 point lead in Rasmussen.

09-07-2004, 10:19 PM	#27
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,401 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 43,206.88 Bank: 18,304.68 Total Points: 61,511.56 Donate	...wow.

09-08-2004, 12:46 PM	#28
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,093 Thanks: 104 Thanked 176 Times in 118 Posts Points: 104,302.41 Bank: 17,752.41 Total Points: 122,054.82 Donate	I haven't read everything, but I would like to comment on the tax thing. Any economist would tell you that lowering taxes plus a great increase in spending (i.e. war in Iraq) is bad for the governments budget. Hence, a larger deficit. It's especially bad since all the money is spent abroad and not in the US. Government investings can help to boost the economy, but not if the focus is on defence.

09-08-2004, 01:18 PM	#29
Bob Junior Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 295 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 3,755.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,255.00 Donate	You're wrong on the tax cut part of it, because we're way past the laffer curve which stunts productivity. On the war being bad for our budget, yeah; it costs a lot of money. But it's spent at home building weapon systems and purchasing body armor. We're spending a significant amount of our productivity on Iraqis, but that's not bad for the economy.

09-08-2004, 04:12 PM	#30
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,311.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 10,811.00 Donate	Spending more than you take in isn't good in any sense. Just ask people in society that racked up massive debt with credit cards.

09-08-2004, 04:49 PM	#31
Bob Junior Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 295 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 3,755.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,255.00 Donate	Yeah, I agree that Bush spends too much. I'm just saying it isn't because of the tax cut. Anyway, I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would fix this. Granted, it'd be legislative deadlock.

09-09-2004, 02:23 AM	#32
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,311.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 10,811.00 Donate	Well, in a sense it is. He's increased the size of the Fed to the largest size ever and squandered the budget surplus because he decreased his income. What the tax cuts and Bush fiscal plans essentially did was take a CEO lifestyle and attempt to support it with a middle-management salary.

09-10-2004, 05:18 PM	#34
Bob Junior Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Posts: 295 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 3,755.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,255.00 Donate	Dude - even in an ideal situation, repealing the parts of Bush's tax cut he wants to would only bring in about $250 billion over the course of the next ten years. And he wants to spend $2 trillion. You do the math. [ September 10, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: The Master ]

09-12-2004, 01:01 AM	#35
UserGoogol Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Greater Boston Area Gender: Posts: 4,024 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 5,033.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 5,533.00 Donate	I've decided to actually start moderating for a change, and I'm moving this over to Current Events, where it so obviously should go.