Results from the latest Zogby poll

[HootieMcBoob]

It's weird. People seem to think Bush's performance is poor on almost everything but he still would win against Democratic candidate. Things may change when there's a name and face instead of just unnamed candidate but...
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=719

[RobertSeattle]

1. And look at Bush "Winning" 2000 by 6%

Based on the respondents.

So the results are skewed by definition.

[punpirate]

11. I don't think that indicates they thought...

... Bush won by 6%. That is a question about who the respondents voted for in 2000.

Nevertheless, it does say that based on those polled (rather than a clear distribution of respondents according to popular vote) that the results would be biased toward Bush. If those polled accurately reflected the vote split in 2000, there would be 6.5% shift in results.

Note, as well, that almost 40% of the respondents in the interactive survey said they make more than $75K per year. That skews results, too.

Cheers.

[Jacobin]

2. It's the constant media sniping at the Dem candidates

The box with a tube in it in their living rooms tells them they have no choice.

It's either smirk or some godless, gayloving, commie, pinko, Murca hating, raiseyourtaxes, freedom-hating dingbat who wants to take your guns away and won't let you pray in your church and maybe one day if you win the lottery your taxes would be too high candidate.

It will be a loooooooonnnnnnnnggggg slow process to dis-abuse of them of these Rovian notions....hopefully not longer than next year.

[Kolesar]

7. Yeah, but

Do you ever think that if the Americans figure out how much they have been lied to, they are going to turn on Bush and rip him to shreds (figuratively)?

[Nicholas_J]

3. Is Bushanan runnning again?

n/t

[Spirochete]

4. Who do they poll

anyway - the Bush family? Or really dumb people? Or both?

[The Icon Painter]

8. Who they poll

Please note that this is an interactive poll and involves only those Internet users who choose to participate. It is, in effect, another of those self-selected polls which are essentially games not scientifically valid. So be peaceful; these don't really count.

[ButterflyBlood]

5. interesting results

first of all, a plurality says "very unfavorable" and "poor" a good sign.

what's odd those is those who said they'd vote for the Democrat is only .2 higher than those who said "very unfavorable" and only .7 above those who said "poor"...

[liberalhistorian]

6. I think you're right,

the Dems will do better once there's an actual, specific name and face running against Smirk. People tend to prefer the devil they know to anything that is unknown, and once there is a viable, known candidate and he gets the nomination, I think we'll do much better.

[TEXASYANKEE]

9. Very interesting.

Very interesting that a small majority of respondents identified themselves as Republicans and yet the numbers are bad bad bad bad for the Shrub. I like it!

[LEW]

10. I was given the interactive poll

from Zogby - Glad to see the results. Despite the questions, I think this shows just how divided the country is on B*sh. If you look at the undecided and not sure and add to the negative votes, it is 50-50. This is not good for the pResident.

[dusty64]

12. It IS weird.

chimp gets poor marks on EVERYTHING but still boosts a reelect number around what he received in 2000. Democrats are underrepresented and the ones who did vote didn't vote for President Gore. Very confusing and liberals and progressives are WAY underrepresented as cons and VERY conservatives are EXTREMELY overrepresented. I guess if you look at the unbalanced sample chimp does poorly BIG time, imagine what the public REALLY thinks.