Oct 08 2006

All You Need To Know About Zogby Polls

Published by at 1:21 pm under 2006 Elections,All General Discussions

All you need to know about the accuracy of Zogby Polls is right here.

29 responses so far

29 Responses to “All You Need To Know About Zogby Polls”

Newer Comments »
  1. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 2:06 pm

    Aj:

    The polls are all over the place. That Democracy Corp poll you linked the other day will not come up for me, but I think you said that it had Bush’s approval rating at 43, and now Newsweek has him falling to 33. Rasmussen has him at 41. What gives?

  2. patrick neid says:
    October 8, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    AJ,

    off topic.

    why do think the white house has not signed the Border Fence bill that mickey kaus has been talking about?

    http://www.slate.com/id/2150865/&#pocketveto

  3. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    patrick:

    I saw Bush on TV the other day with a bunch of other Repbulicans at a signing ceremony and they said it was for the fence.

    One thing about Kaus: He is a Democrat. He endorsed Kerry in the last election and I think that people need to look before they leap here and go half cocked making accusations etc.

    They got their fence, Bush has said noting about vetoing it.

  4. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    And it will take awhile to build 700 miles of fence, some of it might be virutal for awhile, who knows? It is not as if they can wave a magic wand and make a 700 mile fence just appear.

  5. patrick neid says:
    October 8, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    Terrye,

    while you are right about mickey he has a point. the actual Border fence bill has not been signed. bush signed a broader appropriations bill. this is a major distinction. for the past forty years congress and presidents have signed the same bills and the money for the fence was spent other places. the Border bill was written to prevent this. if the president does not sign it within a few days the fence will never be built. if the dems get control of congress they will simply write a comprehensive bill leaving out the fence as all prior bills did. we will continue to have open borders. i simply want to know why the white house has not signed the bill.

  6. patrick neid says:
    October 8, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    Terrye,

    this congressman understands the difference:

    http://tinyurl.com/ppclc

    without this bill we will never have real border enforcement.

  7. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    patrick:

    Becasue he is a bad man I guess.

    All I know is I saw a bunch of Republicans, some of them very supportive of the fence there with Bush all smiles.

    We have an election coming up and it seems that every other day someone comes up with something designed to upset the base. But Bush has said nothing about vetoing anything.

  8. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    According to this link the bill Bush signed does set aside money for the fence. In fact the article makes the point that it was something of a defeat for Bush to be forced to go with enforcement only. So I guess it just depends on who you ask.

  9. patrick neid says:
    October 8, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    terrye,

    i think you are missing the point here. he hasn’t signed the bill and the law stipulates that it must be signed by october 11th. have you read the links i provided? what he signed in arizona was the homeland security appropriations bill not the Secure Fence bill of 2006.

    of course he’s not going to veto it. all he has to do is not sign it. that’s what a pocket veto is. my question remains, why hasn’t he signed the Secure Fence act of 2006? it passed with huge majorities in both houses. it’s a simple question. he said he would sign it and he hasn’t. why not? this will be a deal breaker for me and millions of other americans in this election.

    here’s the open link from oct 6th:

    A Republican congressman said Friday that a bill awaiting President Bush’s signature categorically requires federal agencies to erect 700 miles of double-layered fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, rejecting any notion that high-tech monitoring could be used instead.

    Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, said the Secure Fence Act, passed before Congress went into recess Sept. 29, would not grant the Department of Homeland Security leeway to rely on high-tech monitoring instead of physical barriers in five “smuggler’s corridors” from California to Texas.

    “They’ve got to build the fence,” Hunter said. “That’s what the bill mandates.”

    Hunter said the bill allows for other deterrents — cameras, roads, lights — to be implemented alongside an actual fence, to be completed by 2008.

    Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has indicated support for a “virtual fence” that would rely on cameras and motion detectors to dissuade would-be illegal immigrants.

    President Bush has not yet signed the Secure Fence Act, but earlier this week signed a $35 billion appropriations bill that included $1.2 billion for border fencing.

    The Mexican government has sharply criticized plans to build the fence. Layered fencing currently stands on about 75 miles of the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border, mostly in cities like San Diego, El Paso, Texas, and Nogales, Ariz.

  10. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 4:24 pm

    And this is from my link:

    SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. – President Bush on Wednesday signed a law that will pay for hundreds of miles of new fences along the U.S.-Mexico border, a move against illegal immigration that Republicans had sought before next month’s congressional elections.

    Bush had hoped to address the illegal immigration issue in a comprehensive way that would have brought beefed-up border security as well as a temporary guest worker program allowing the immigrants to work legally in the United States.

    He spent months advancing the idea but failed to overcome doubts from many Republicans on Capitol Hill who derided the guest worker program as an “amnesty” that would give illegal immigrants a route to citizenship.

    Under the legislation, about $1.2 billion would be spent during the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 for southwest border fencing and other barriers. The money is part of a $33.8 billion package for domestic security programs that are being bolstered following the Sept. 11 attacks.
    ################

    And btw it is not the 11th yet anyway. But you know what? I find dealing with paranoid nativists almost as exhausting as dealing with liberals.

    Once Bush is gone I am not sure which party I will be in, but it would be nice if we could get through one week without the socalled base having a cow about something.

  11. For Enforcement says:
    October 8, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    First, reality says Pres Bush has no alternative but to sign the fence bill. If he vetoed or pocket vetoed it, that one act by itself would get about 50 Repub representatives voted out. It would be a huge victory for the Dems, they would then pass the comprehensive bill, Pres Bush would sign it,(because he wants it anyhow) and we would get no fence and we would get about 20 to 50 million new US citizens. Not many Repubs are seriously backing THAT plan.

    Anyhow, back to the Polls and Zogby, since 90% or more of the Polls are conducted by the MSM and the remainder are greatly influenced by them, that’s why they paint as distorted a picture as they think they can get by with to sway voting as much as possible. It’s strictly propaganda. None of the polls are related to reality.

  12. kittymyers says:
    October 8, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    I just this minute had a phone call from someone doing a poll about voting. The first question: Was I at least 18 and a registered voter? When I answered yes, she ended the call and hung up. So much for the veracity of polls.

  13. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    Considering the vote in the Senate Bush could not hope to sustain a veto anyway. And I heard the little speech he gave the day he signed that and he did not say anything about a veto. On the one occasion when he vetoed something he made it clear up front he would.

  14. patrick neid says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:15 pm

    Terrye,

    you are starting to play games.

    again i’m asking you a very simple question “why hasn’t bush signed the Secure Fence act of 2006?

    i am not talking about the homeland security appropriation bill he signed in arizona. if you can’t understand the difference we have nothing to discuss here. and please save your “nativist” bs for your cows. i have the most liberal position on immigration reform short of open borders of anyone that has ever posted here.

    secondly you clearly don’t understand the question as you again are alluding to a veto. you apparently don’t understand what a pocket veto is as opposed to a veto. so again my simple question is: why has the bill not been signed?

    enforcement, i completely agree with you on what it may cost in house seats. that’s why i can’t figure out what the delay in the signing is. if Kaus is right he has only until the 11th. why all the suspence?

  15. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:25 pm

    patrick:

    Why are you asking me why Bush did not do something? Am I psychic? An d besides I am such an idiot how could I hope to know?

    I do know what a pocket veto is and I do know about the secure fence act. I also know that it is not the 11th yet and that it might be that Bush is still going to sign it…or it might be that he wants more of a virtual fence than just a physical barrier and has something else in mind.

    I don’t know, but I am getting to the place where I do not give a damn either.

  16. patrick neid says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    terrye,

    my question all along was why hadn’t the white house signed the bill. i have no idea either. that’s why i put it out there. i do know, however, what it will cost them if they don’t.

  17. For Enforcement says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:39 pm

    I love this term: Virtual Fence
    as used in this sentence.
    “more of a virtual fence ”

    And what does it mean?
    It means there is virtually no fence there.
    It means that virtually no illegals would be interfered with.
    It means virtually no security.

    and finally it means virtually nothing would have been done to slow the parade across the border.

    Other than that, it might make somebody feel good because they would have succeeded in keeping the borders open.

  18. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 5:57 pm

    I know too that there is a great deal of ambiguity where pocket vetoes are concerned. As a general rule they are not the kind veto that is over ridden. But it would be dicey and the Supreme Court could get involved. But when Bush spoke he said nothing about not signing anything or stopping anything or whatever.

    As for a virtual fence, it is no more nonsensical than putting up a wall and then ignoring it out in the middle of nowhere. How hard would that be to get over or under?

    Virtual fences use the same kind of technology that is used by the military to track terrorists in large expanses. I had heard a long time ago that there was some discussion of using both, depending on the traffic. In and around urban areas a physical barrier would be more useful and in some regions of the desert it might be that something else would work as well or better. Whatever they do, it will take time and some sort of technology and man power needs to be used at least in the short term.

    But what say we wait awhile before we borrow trouble here?

    And patrick I sold my cows, no money in it.

  19. For Enforcement says:
    October 8, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    Did you also sell your hay baler?

  20. Terrye says:
    October 8, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    Yep. You see during the farm crisis my marriage fell apart, working all those seven day weeks to milk those cows was too much for us. Between the never ending debt and the worry and the constant work we just gave up. And so we sold out and then got a divorce.

Newer Comments »