From the Reichspropagandaministerium, er, Enemy Media, we get a lecture on how Reichsführer Comrade Petukh SCOAMF’s slipping poll numbers are really nothing but a clear indicator that the public is irredeemably stupid for failing to truly embrace and worship the Awesome Greatness That is The One™. It’s nice to see that Politico has finally quit even pretending to be anything other than yet another propaganda tentacle of the Ogabe Junta:
Voters are appalled at President Barack Obama’s handling of gas prices, even though virtually every policy expert in both parties says there’s little a president can do to affect the day-to-day price of fuel in a global market.
“Virtually every policy expert in both parties” meaning “every member of the ProgNazi Party as well as Mittens Obamneycare Romney.” We repeat ourself? No. Mittens is not an official member of the ProgNazi Party, but he might as well get out of the damn closet and become one already.
No, there’s nothing he can do. Certainly not. Opening new areas to drilling (not to mention re-opening the ones he’s shut down indefinitely)? Nope. Not going to change a thing. Supply and demand is something that energy is exempt from. Except when a Republican is president, in which case they’re likely to fluctuate based on whether he had beans for lunch or not. But when a ProgNazi is president, markets do not in the least bit respond to anything the president does. Why, he could come out tomorrow and declare that henceforth all lands and offshore areas were open to as much drilling as oil companies could dream of and that, by the way, all regulations regarding building of refineries and the products that they refine were off the table and the markets wouldn’t as much as shrug. It’s not like future fluctuations in supply have any effect on what oil futures sell for. No sirree!
On the other hand, if anybody in the world as much as insinuates that maybe Ahmadinnerjacket isn’t all that honest a broker and perhaps we might want to actually do something to stop him from finishing what Hitler started, then they will have single-handedly caused the price of crude to double overnight with their evil, un-nuanced, jingoistic, warmongerish ways.
Truly one unique good, oil is. Alone among every single good known to mankind, the price of it can only be affected in one direction.
But “virtually” is a good choice of words as in “looks real, but it actually isn’t.”
Oh and the picture of Forrest Gump as an opener for an article on voter intelligence? Nice touch, Politico, really nice touch. You and your beloved SCOAMF truly know how to win friends and influence people.
Americans are disgusted at Washington’s bailout culture, and especially the 2008 rescue of the financial services industry. They’re so fed up with bailouts, in fact, that a majority of them now think federal intervention in the auto industry was a good idea that helped the country.
We’d love to see the poll saying that but, unfortunately, the link provided leads to nothing of the sort. Politico has learned a trick, finally, that most people knew ages ago: To get credibility when you don’t have anything to actually support what you’re saying, just put a link in to somewhere. Goatse, Nickelodeon or Democrat Underground, doesn’t matter. Nobody’s going to check it by clicking on it anyway. They’ll just see the hyperlink indicator and go “wow, he’s got proof. Good enough for me!”
They’re aghast at the trajectory of the war in Afghanistan, which Obama helped escalate and extend, and they don’t think the war was worth it in the first place. And many also think Obama is handling the conflict acceptably well.
Same here. Not that we doubt that there is such a poll, you can get any answer you want at any given time provided that you choose your demographics and word your questions correctly, but it would have been fun, not to mention basic professionalism on the part of the hack writing this article, if there’d been a link to it.
That’s presumably a different set of voters than the ones who routinely tell pollsters that they still believe the president is a Muslim, despite all public evidence to the contrary.
Which of course begs the question: Which public evidence? Not that we personally believe that he’s a muslim. Well, he’s either a muslim or an apostate, technically speaking, but the evidence is quite clear to us that the only thing he worships is himself with a fervor that is almost as burning hot as that of the Enemy Media. But where’s the public evidence of which you speak?
Add up that litany of contradictory, irrational or simply silly opinions,
Got that, voters? You’re contradictory, irrational and simply silly. Now shut up, get in line and wait your turn to fondle Ogabe’s Wondrous Testicles.
and it’s enough to make a political professional suspect the electorate is, well, not entirely sophisticated about the choices it’s facing in 2012.
You must have asked one, then, since you’re clearly not one.
“The first lesson you learn as a pollster is that people are stupid,” said Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm.
Keep that in mind the next time you’re polled by this ProgNazi polling firm: You’re STUPID.
“I tell a client trying to make sense of numbers on a poll that are inherently contradictory that at least once a week.”
Which is because polls are, in a word, crap. Yes, we could have chosen a more sophisticated word, but we wouldn’t want to upset our ProgNazi betters by giving the impression that we might not be as irrational, silly and stupid as they just know that we are. It’s not the polled that are stupid if the answers are contradictory, it’s the pollsters. The outcome of a poll, any poll, depends on WHO you’re asking, WHAT you’re asking and HOW you’re asking it. The first should be pretty obvious, as should the second. But what is often overlooked by idiots referring to polls supporting their argument, deliberately or because they’re simply ignorant, is HOW the question is asked. Example: If you were to have asked us in 2004 before the election whether we thought president Bush was doing a good job, we would have answered “no.” Which you media morons would then gleefully have used to argue that we weren’t going to vote for his reelection. WE know that because you DID, and just ask president Kerry how well that prediction worked out for him. You weren’t asking if we were going to vote for him, you asked us whether we thought he was doing a great job, which we didn’t. But he was still doing a helluva lot better job that Kedwards could have ever done.
Also, you can’t compare one poll to another if you want to prove “contradictory results.” It’s hard enough to get clear answers from the results of one poll. Trying to get them from two or more different ones, all with different demographics, time they were made and contexts of the polls. Forget about it. That’s just plain silly or, dare we say, stupid?
Finally, we have to admire the polling firm quoted above’s marketing policy. “Yeah, our results are contradictory, but that’s because we poll stupid people. Say, would you like to pay us to run another poll for you?”
Brilliant. Simply brilliant. Sounds like they’re polling their customers.
Jensen, a Democrat, pointed to surveys showing that voters embraced individual elements of the Affordable Care Act, while rejecting the overall law, as an example of the political schizophrenia or simple ignorance that pollsters and politicians must contend with.
1. “Would you like free healthcare?”
2. “Would you like to be forced to pay for everybody else’s ‘free’ healthcare?”
Sorry, but we utterly fail to see the contradiction in answering “yes” to 1. and “no” to 2., but then again, we’re not a highly credentialed, definitely NOT “stupid” polling firm.
1. “Do you like the new 2012 Ferrari?”
2. “Would you buy one for your neighbor?”
“We’re seeing that kind of thing more and more. I think it’s a function of increased political polarization and voters just digging in their heels and refusing to consider the opposing facts once they’ve formed an opinion about something,” said Jensen,
“Digging in your heels and refusing to consider the opposing facts” = “disagreeing with anything the ProgNazi Party says.”
In case you’re behind on your ProgNazi to English studies. “Refusing to be convinced by ‘facts’ that aren’t even remotely factual” is not an option. Everything the ProgNazi Party says is a fact, and if you don’t immediately agree, you’re just a bitter clinger digging your heels in. Stupidly.
who has generated eye-catching data showing many GOP primary voters still question the president’s religion and nationality. “I also think voters are showing a tendency to turn issues that should be factual or non-factual into opinions. If you show a Tennessee birther Obama’s birth certificate, they’re just going to say ‘well in my opinion he’s not a real American.’ It’s not about the birth certificate; it’s about expressing hatred for Obama in any form they can.”
Our only reaction to seeing the “long form birth certificate” was “seriously? My 10-year-old could have done a more convincing job with 10 minutes and a copy of PhotoShop. The information may be accurate, but since the copy isn’t, in fact, a copy, you’re going to have to do better to call it ‘proof’ of anything other than the exceedingly poor PhotoShop skills of the current Junta and their staff.”
And “fickle” is a nice way of describing the voters of 2012, who appear to be wandering, confused and Forrest Gump-like through the experience of a presidential campaign. It isn’t just unclear which party’s vision they’d rather embrace; it’s entirely questionable whether the great mass of voters has even the most basic grasp of the details – or for that matter, the most elementary factual components – of the national political debate.
They’d be better informed if the Enemy Media ever took it upon themselves to provide actual facts instead of propaganda efforts for Ear Leader, but that’s not likely to happen any time soon.
For voters to disapprove of Obama’s energy and economic policies may be completely rational. But to reassess a president’s performance in the context of a short-term increase in gas prices is more of a tantrum-like response to a new feeling of discomfort over which the president has relatively little control.
Infantile too? Dang. Why the public bitterly digs their heels in and refuse to fall in love with you, their Enemy Media betters, is clearly beyond our understanding. Personally, we’re ready to have your baby now.
But wait, how can disapproval of SCOAMF’s energy policies be “completely rational” when you yourself just established as “fact” that they don’t affect anything at all? Isn’t it inherently irrational to oppose something that has no real effect whatsoever on anything at all? Why would you even care? We think we see yet another Illiberal Logic Pretzel™ forming, right before our eyes.
About the “short-term” increase, all we can say that the only thing “short-term” about gas prices under SCOAMFs Reign of Error has been the couple of times when it very briefly dropped below $3/gallon. Remember the buck eighty gas under BushHitler? We do. We also remember the daily tantrums from you useless swine in the Enemy Media about his “irresponsible, uncaring energy policies that were waging a war on poor people.” Back then it was entirely the president’s fault that we had to “suffer” under gas prices that are nothing but a distant, wet, dearly longed for dream now.
“Might not be fair but that is the way it is. The higher the gas prices the lower Obama’s approval rating.”
That calculus is fairly straightforward, though it’s one that has frustrated presidents of both parties for decades.
The only difference being that when a president of the “wrong” party was in office, the Enemy Media was encouraging the anger, putting the blame squarely on the president’s shoulders.
Take bailouts, for example. Today, Americans loathe the Troubled Assets Relief Program even more than they did in 2008. In the thick of the ’08 financial crisis, 57 percent of respondents told Pew that government intervention was appropriate. Now, that number is 39 percent, extending an anti-bailout craze that helped drive the 2008 election.
But Americans aren’t opposed to all bailouts, apparently. Amid a flurry of positive earnings reports from GM and Chrysler – and a comeback story told enthusiastically by public figures from Obama to Clint Eastwood – a 56 percent majority of Americans now think bailing out the auto industry was good for the economy.
Remember what we said about comparing polls earlier? You should have listened, you daft clownshoe.
1. “Do you want to pay for the mistakes made by the auto industry with your taxes?”
2. “Do you think that the bailouts helped the economy?”
Apple, meet Mr Orange. Mr Orange, meet Mr Apple. We’d say that it’s debatable whether it helped the economy, personally we believe that the economy would have been helped a lot more by the bankrupt companies being sold off and rebuilt using a more efficient business model, but we can’t fault anybody for thinking that it helped. After all, we don’t know that it wouldn’t have been worse without the bailouts.
But thanks for at least putting some numbers to your earlier statement. No link, but seeing as how it would be pointless to examine the polls further as your basic argument is more torn and tattered than Sandra Fluke’s hymen, we’ll let it pass.
A similar level of capriciousness is evident in foreign affairs. [...] Sixty percent of voters now believe that the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting, according to ABC News and the Washington Post.
And yet, Obama – who escalated the Afghan war with a temporary troop surge – continues to break even or fare a bit better than that when it comes to foreign policy and national security. The ABC/Washington Post poll found 46 percent of voters approve of his handling of the war, while 47 percent disapprove. Those aren’t great numbers – except they look pretty good when three-fifths of the country think the war was a waste of time and effort.
If you get any dumber, we’ll have to lobotomize ourself with a chainsaw to get down to a level where we can even communicate. Overall approval is not the same as approval of any given single action. Yes, we know it’s shocking to a member of the Enemy Media who, worshiping and adoring every word incoherently leaving SCOAMF’s flapping lips, live by the creed that “loving him means loving every single thing that he does.”
And it’s really not hard to not see a contradiction inherent in supporting going to war while disapproving of the enduring clusterfuck that BOTH administrations have made of Assfuckistan.
Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones said the seeming inconsistencies can come from the fact that voters “probably don’t have a whole lot of detailed and specific information about the policies that are being put forward.”
“They’re dumb. D-u-m-b DUMB!”
And that’s basically all that this article proves: The Enemy Media thinks you voters are stupid for not loving Teh One™ and believes that you should do as they say so they’ll no longer call you names because… SHUT UP!