Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

Yeah, "democratic pollsters" and "republican pollsters" are paid by each party to conduct private polls for the campaigns.

Charlie Cook, Congressional Quarterly, Polling report, Gallup, WSJ, NYT, Rasmussen, etc. DO NOT hire partisan pollsters.

 

perhaps it was this one?

Republicans Losing Grip On Married Moms

as an interesting side note reports indicate they are tightening their grip on unmarried boys...

 

Just for the record... I've not defended Foley's decisions; I feel I am protecting his civil and criminal rights...

 

How does one get to the bottom of exactly who is polling? Aren't they like shell corporations?

Obviously a pollster hired by any political party is going to be skewed-- at least for their publicly released polls -- but how do you discern what forces are at work behind a pollster?

If they are like journalists, it is against their nature to be truly objective. And I don't see why they shouldn't be like journalists-- and have less accountability.

 

I guess you could prove your point by providing a current poll that states that the majority of the American people believe that the Iraq war was and is handled correctly.

 

Ding, ding ding!

And I can guaran-dog-teee you that If I take random "sampling" over the phone in a majorly democratic area I will get democrat results....

That is how it works, jack.


I have personally recieved phone calls about polls in which the party on the other end heard my "conservative" views and mysteriously lost the call...

Don't even play like the pollsters aren't heavily phoning the Dade county's, Albuquerque's, etc. Blue areas of the map do not have area codes that cannot be reached.... pollsters know who and where to call to help push the ideas they're looking for.

Wake up.

 

No.

Polling companies like Gallup are respected and successful because of their credibility. The minute they lose that, the organization goes to crap. They have a huge financial incentive to be unbiased.

 

You're right on the money here giddyup ~ Foley was indeed trying to pole the bottom of a page.

 

wow... you clearly don't get it. Is this like some Stephen Colbert paraody thing, where you write "from the gut" rather than after looking at actually facts on polling?

 

Why bother? Polls are not MY vote. Polls are for sheep.


"Hey look everybody! This what everyone else is doing! Do it too!!"

I'm uniting your scattered base.

 

Who said anything about polls affecting your vote? You made it seem like polls are skewed either wittingly or unwittingly (the cliche' "fly over state" argument) with some liberal, urban bias.

They are not.

 

My point is that with the left, polls = truth.

Where facts = inconveniences.


Go Sheep!


Never trust a poll... go to the polls and vote!

 

My opinion, given personal knowledge, leads me to believe otherwise.



I am entitled to believe what I want. As are you.

Go Sheep!

 

What facts are you talking about exactly?

Just spoutin' off some slogans there?

Again, polls measure the opinions of people. Nothing more, nothing less... If you are angry at them I guess it's because you disagree with the majority at the time.

*shrugs*

 

...of the poll... and of THOSE polled.

Polls mean bupkis.


If evryone is not asked, they cannot be factual or taken as such.


I find it very telling that parties in trouble with an identity must run the polling points out as factual when in fact they are just "potentially" indicators.

Both side do it... they just seem to hold more importance than they should. That's all.

 

If that poll or polling effort does not exist, I cannot provide it and so I cannot prove that point. That does nothing to prove the objectivity of any pollster, because nothing is under consideration.

 

You're starting another argument that has nothing do with what you were saying earlier.

You went from polls are inaccurate because they are skewed to urban areas to some nonsensical, partisan rant on the "identity" of parties.

If polls didnt matter both sides wouldnt spend millions of dollars on their own pollsters, as mentioned before.

You don't understand how polls are used. You can't derive policy positions from polls because someone has to drive a policy position to the point where it is understood by people being polled.

Polls are scientific measurements of opinions. Polls are facts. They weight them accordingly to be as accurate as possible ( with the obvious +/- of 3-4 %).

 

roy d. elton must love you.




Keep D&D Civil.

 

That is admirable but I would find your defense more compelling if you had also done the same for Democrats accused of wrong doing.

 

Hmmmm....

Again, hard core pols like Delay and Rove would know every personal weakness of those that vote on the Hill.
_______

HOW ROVE TWISTED FOLEY'S ARM:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=47854

It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.

But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"

But when Foley's friend saw the Congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.

According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

"He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"

The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would.

--Ryan Lizza