Bloodless Coup

And I particularly like that Bush is viewed as less honest than Clinton. That poll result is pretty sweet.

"not remotely close" yet within the margin of error?

Of course I'm being snarky, but doesn't this say something about the media more than the President? What I mean is, Clinton was convicted for (a, according to Moon, extreme form of) lying, yet there has been no conviction of Bush. The media (misleading by leaving out so many relevant facts for which even magazines appear to be better than TV or newspapers at footnoting) has convinced the American people that the Congress was suckered into supporting the war in Iraq, when the leading Democratic Congressmen and Senators are on record in the Clinton administration talking about the threat posed by Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. Maybe it was Bush's advance team infiltrating the Clinton administration? Maybe not. If you want an accurate poll, how about have a sample in which about half the people aren't claiming to make over 50K. I haven't seen such a poll since I've been keeping track. Either the polls are not truly representative of the nation, or the responders are lying about how much they make so we can't trust anything else they say, or the nation's economy is doing great (if half the people are making 50K) and they're too silly to realize that historically that's an awesome salary.

I'm no Bush defender, but don't you think this is a silly poll? Clinton had a rather different set of national-security-related events to confront during his presidency. Of course his term looks a lot better than the present in retrospect. So does Reagan's, no? How much of that is attributable to Clinton himself is highly debateable, and of course Bush loses points for the perception of insecurity that has been fostered around the Iraq war, but the idea that this poll has value as anything other than a partisan brickbat has to be pretty dubious.

Uh, what do you mean Clinton had a different set of national-security related events to deal with? I think these numbers (the national security ones) are mostly due to Iraq and George Bush started that war, not anyone outside the country. So I'd say his bad numbers there are of his own making. We were the superpower under Clinton, and we're still the superpower under Bush. But Clinton didn't launch us into a draining war - Bush did that. And noticeably ineptly.

All any poll is supposed to be is simply a measure of popular opinion. That's all they ever are. So given what the terms of a poll are, I think this one has as much value as any other. And it simply shows that Americans think far more of Bill Clinton's leadership than they do of George Bush's.

Morris as to - "or the responders are lying about how much they make so we can't trust anything else they say" - that's just plainly stupid. People lie all the time about their personal attributes, particularly ones they are very insecure about (and in our culture being poor is probably seen as worse than being fat, ugly and maybe even smelly). And what, if someone lies once, you can't trust anything they ever say? Then just how does the world communicate b/c people do lie? But whereas people often see lots of reasons to try and make themselves look better in the eyes of others (yes, particularly strangers), there's not a hell of a lot of incentive to lie about whether someone likes Bush or Clinton better on policy X.

Oh, and as to your first comment - the line you deride I THOUGHT pretty clearly modified the sentence that preceded it. And those numbers are WAY out of the margin of error. On lots of policy areas Clinton's admired like Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods and Bush is viewed as positively as someone with bad breath and syphillis. Maybe the opinions of the American people don't matter in any greater sense - but that's what these numbers illustrate

Armand, do you really think 9/11 doesn't qualify as something rather different from anything Clinton had to deal with? 9/11 sure added to my perception of insecurity. As for the Iraq war (which, if nothing else, is chewing up a lot of potential Al Qaeda recruits), it may or may not be a big stupid waste of time, treasure, lives, and good faith, but I don't see it making New York or Chicago less "secure" on balance.

Armand, you write: "And what, if someone lies once, you can't trust anything they ever say?" So, if I get what you're saying, then it wouldn't matter if Bush had lied, because we can't assume just because a person lies once that they'd ever do it again, and it's counterproductive to make that assumption. Is that it, basically?
And 46 to 42 is generally within the margin of error, which is the thrust of your argument, that people believe Clinton is better at handling national security. What's interesting is that there's no link from CNN or the opinion research corporation to the broken down stats, so we don't know if they sampled 60% Democrats and 40% Republicans, or even the actual margin of error. And your argument that money's worth lying about but politics isn't doesn't make any sense. If that were true, and nobody cared what somebody else thought about politics, why do they do these polls?
And how is it you blame Bush alone for launching us into the war? We wouldn't have gone to Iraq if Saddam had let us inspect his country for WMDs. According to the Duelfer report, Saddam had every intention of developing them again once he'd brought down sanctions through the oil for food bribes, and according to the audiotape of Saddam he'd intended to use biological weapons against Israel and Saudi Arabia if we'd gone into Baghdad during Desert Storm. By your logic, if someone does a home invasion and then people feel less safe because it's televised when the police go into his home and take him out, then it's the police' fault that people feel less safe.
And just because Clinton didn't deal with national security issues doesn't mean he didn't have any to deal with. Embassy bombings, anyone? He had years to capture Osama too, and he didn't do it either.
And let's not forget that people didn't like Clinton or Reagan when they left office, they only like them because people are human and most don't like to hold onto the painful memories, like Gore lying about the Buddhist temple fundraisers.

jacflash writes: "9/11 sure added to my perception of insecurity." Ah, there is the $984,000 dollar question (yes, I know putting the "$" sign and using "dollar" is redundant; I don't care).

Are we (in fact) significantly less secure post-9/11, or do we perceive ourselves to be less secure (but really aren't)?

My own take is that the threat from Al Qaeda/Bin Laden is significantly overblown. Historically, Al Qaeda has mounted between a half and a full attack against America every year since the early 90s (1st World Trade center, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, etc.). Leaving 9/11 out, those attacks were horrific in for those involved, but did little strategically or tactically to hurt the US (of course, the did much to help Al Qaeda gain resources and recruits, but that's a separate argument). Even 9/11 did little to actually damage the US; it's worst cost (again, except for the personal tragedies) was in terms of the nationwide US recession that the attacks likely deepened.

I'm certainly not going to argue we can ignore Al Qaeda, but exactly how significant a threat to the US are they? Personally, I don't feel any greater insecurity post-9/11 (in fact, I think I feel more secure - Al Qaeda has clearly showed it's willingness to strike at very visible political symbols, not actual vulnerable targets; since I don't live near any political symbols, I percieve myself to be safer now than when I thought Al Qaeda were terrorists bent on doing the most damage).

Certainly, your mileage may vary. Something to think about, however.

do we perceive ourselves to be less secure

Which is, of course, the whole point of terrorism.

Which means, of course, that the way to defeat terrorists is to have enough nerve to stick to your policies that they disagree with. Which also means that the right-wing-nutballs who complain about the news coverage of Iraq being bad for the country, even though it is generally accurate and certainly a fundamental part of the free speech section of the Constitution, might actually have a point.

Which is, of course, the whole point of terrorism.

Also the poll, which was my point.

Baltar: yes, of course it's overblown, but in terms of visceral personal impact, remember that I worked in the investment business on 9/11. I didn't know any of the victims well, but people around me did. I was one degree removed from maybe fifteen funerals -- and my employer went bust as a direct result of the attack. Not that I have exactly run scared, but does it mean that I will think twice before, say, bringing my kids into Boston for the huge Independence Day shindig? You betcha, and that thinking twice has nothing to do with Iraq, which was my point. I think.

Well, at least Al Gore has a sense of humor.

Binky,
How does that go again? It's funny because he thinks he invented the internet.

But it's not really ha ha funny, is it?

It is.

And Morris, though you write "and let's not forget that people didn't like Clinton or Reagan when they left office" the fact of the matter (uh-oh, there I go being all reality-based again) is that both Clinton and Reagan were a lot more popular when they left office (though certainly not at their historic highs) than George W. Bush is right now.

omg, are we having this fight again.

If you want an accurate poll, how about have a sample in which about half the people aren't claiming to make over 50K.

my $0.02: why should polls proportionally represent income brackets when the party in question so disproportionately favors those who make over $50K? surely the upper-middle class families bush pretends to favor (when, indeed, it's only the very very well-to-do his fiscal policies materially serve), in their disproporionate representation in this poll, should show greater willingness to indulge those secondary effects (wars, carnage, orwellian levels of surveillance and propaganda) of their borderline untaxed capital gains, the likes of which people with less than $50K in annual income tend not to see.

well, either that anticipatable bias isn't showing up, or it is, and the truer numbers are even more abysmal. either way, people don't like your guy, and since you're all about direct democracy, why wait til '08 -- let's throw the bastard out now. indeed, to argue otherwise is downright undemocratic, right morris?

hell, we've got at least one, and probably two or three impeachable offenses hanging around just waiting for a party with balls to prosecute. but of course the GOP only talks tough when it comes to brown people in black hats (or those just trying to eke out a living in the wake of NAFTA), not when it comes to white folks in white collars.

Right, why should polls meant to represent the actual American people represent the poor? That's a good question Moon. I'm sure it's not classist or anything to suggest that poor people don't count. They're just the rabble and all, the serfs to the serfs. This is why conservatives call themselves compassionate, taking one look at the competition. And in case you hadn't noticed, tax revenues are way up after captital gains were lowered, so unless your willing to admit all you care about with taxes is treating your own guilt or punishing people because they're fortunate, how about coming up with another good reason to keep tax rates high.Or have some decency and just admit the Left's Keynsian illusion has no clothes, if you take my meaning. And stop being such an elitist. Just because a few extra hundred dollars at the end of the year doesn't "materially serve" you doesn't mean it doesn't mean quite a bit to those on the lower end of the economic ladder who may soon ask why it is you want to take it back, to pay for all the lost revenues consequent from raising the capital gains tax again.
It's funny you tell me we should throw out Bush, when even most of the Democratic party doesn't have the guts to say the same thing. If the Democrats ever truly got organized under a leader with integrity, conservative would have something to worry about. But because your party only serves the polls, they don't sense the winds of change when they're blowing full speed. They don't honor the victory of our soldiers who have Al Queda tatttered and bruised, unable to find recruits even in Iraq. It's true, angry people do destroy others. But eventually, what they end up destroying is themselves, even if they don't yet realize it. The more mud they throw onto conservatives, the uglier they will be.

Well, if you'd like the opinion of the one of us who has actually done survey reseach and polling, just because this survey skews to higher incomes doesn't mean that it's useless. Sometimes skewed polls tell you more, by setting up a "tough case" scenario. For example, if it's more likely (based on past data) that people with incomes above $50,000 are Bush voters, then doing a poll that skews into that demographic that then shows these people are turning anti-Bush, tells you a lot more than polling a demographic that has always consistently opposed him.

Binky,
That's one possibility. Another likely one is that conservative democrats are more numerous is the lower income brackets (as are more conservative republicans, the wal-mart shoppers as I'm sure you think of them), and polling high end people leads to polls skewed as they were before our last presidential election, which were off by quite a bit. If sampling in this way were actually an accurate way to predict, then the last election would have had a different outcome. And the fact that they were that far off and they didn't change their sampling methodology raises a few questions about whether it's accuracy they're going after, or something else entirely.

Ah - so it's POLLSTERS in those black helipcopters. And here I thought it was the UN.

Morris - why do you think poor Democrats are conservative Democrats? If you are going to make assertions like that, how about providing us with data?

morris, grammar. read my prior post slowly and then explain to me how my indictment of the bush administration as blatantly and dramatically favoring the well to do and suggesting that those whom bush pretends to serve (the merely rich (who are fooled) over the super rich (who have both hands in the cookie jar under "their" president)) most interest me when they start signaling their lack of faith in the president is elitist. seriously, i'm curious, because while i have my elitist streak i really don't have any idea what you're talking about. to reinforce what i was trying to say, binky put it far more succinctly.

as for this: Just because a few extra hundred dollars at the end of the year doesn't 'materially serve' you doesn't mean it doesn't mean quite a bit to those on the lower end of the economic ladder who may soon ask why it is you want to take it back, to pay for all the lost revenues consequent from raising the capital gains tax again.

first of all, several recent posts have pretty well dispelled this whole "lost revenue from raising the capital gains tax again" canard, and i love how it's a tax increase simply to eradicate a reckless tax cut. check out the deficit sometime, morris, and check out how much of our debt is owned by china, morris, and then explain to me how good things look for the poor who are going to be the first ones starving in the streets (or worse dying in the trenches) when china decides to cash out.

as for the couple hundred dollars i might be seeing as a consequence of bush's tax cuts (and contrary to your evident belief, i'm really not in the income bracket that bush's cuts targeted), and the even less than that seen by the poor (who weren't paying taxes to begin with), let's not forget that outside of defense, government services are shrinking on every front to adjust for the radical give-back to the super-rich.

now, let's talk about the real poor, the poor who can't feed or educate their children, and can't get adequate health care no matter how hard they work at the minimum wage your folks think is fair, and let's ask what bush has done for them. bear in mind, they were paying no taxes before bush, and they're paying no tax with him. so that's a wash. what's left? government services. make no mistake, there is no compassion in bush's "conservatism," not for the poor you tout, and while your variation of self-delusion might not be elitist, it's still ignorant.

and that's not ad hominem, before you go crying foul. i mean that word in its proper sense: you ignore, either out of misinformation or by choice, the obvious -- that bush has been and is f&^king, and will continue to f*&k the poor like it were a jailhouse shower. and all the tax cuts in the world aren't going to change that except for the worse.