« Reliable Sources | Main | On The Cumulative Effect Of Reality »

August 05, 2005


And they haven't even started polling the Franklin indictments, which could implicate several in this administration too.

From your observations here, it would seem that the DNC should be mentioning Enron, Abu Ghraib and Plame rather more often than they do. Or am I just deluded by common sense?

As things heat up, I'd love to see some serious polling on the question of the various "exit strategies" that have been discussed for this administration.

I sometimes like to ponder the impact of a serious poll that actually asked questions about impeachment/resignation. Even if the numbers weren't particularly encouraging, imagine the impact of seeing it in the papers twice a week.

Is the public following the various corruption stories? Probably not, but that is a sleeper theme to use against the GOP Congress. It won't take much to turn the people against that bunch. But I do agree that by the first of the year the Dems need to have a program to sell, such as US out of Iraq; Opportunity for all not just a few; fair taxes; reliable safety net (including health care) and respect for individual privacy.

Kagro X, wasn't there a poll about impeachment a month ago or so?

revere, the DNC should... the media won't because they view all this as 'old news'. But if Dems do bring it up, the media will have to.

I dunno. I don't actually know anybody who follows polls who I can ask.


Zogby America Poll. June 27-29, 2005. N=905 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.3 (for all likely voters).

"Do you agree or disagree that if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment?"

Agree Disagree Unsure
% % %
ALL 42 50 8
Democrats 59 30 10
Republicans 25 70 5
Independents 43 49 8
Libertarians 36 53 12

hey, Kagro, what am I? Chopped liver? ;-)

Uh, Dem, what's a matter, your sarcasm glasses not working today?

You know, I taught a deaf woman once, and she told me there is no marker in sign language for irony. She said she had to be close enough to a person, and know that person well enough, and be keeping enough of an eye on that person (as opposed to the signer) to read the irony. The professor who was lecturing the course and I had been cracking on Freud for weeks before I figured out she was taking us seriously.


I hope I didn't disappoint anyone in that it took me a few minutes to find it. ;-(

Just use it as a baseline to improve off of. 37 minutes. Can you improve on that for the next time? We can even get you a little beeper in case we need a poll result while you're in a meeting or something.

Well, here's to having more of it. Keep the question in the polling, and keep asking. There's probably no better way to get this question taken seriously than by planting it while in "hey, just asking" mode.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad