"Bear this in mind, when a presidential approval poll is taken a viable sample is generally 1,100 people."
Sorry, but a lecture on poll sampling can't change this fact: "Eli, Nita, Tom, Carrie and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team" told us flatly that "84.6% of MoveOn members voted to support the bill, 9.2% said they weren't sure and 6.2% voted to oppose it."
That's "MoveOn members," not "those who responded."
Reputable pollsters tell you up front how they conducted each poll. Why didn't MoveOn's results announcement say how many -- I'll be generous and not say "how few" -- people responded? Because it might not have seemed so impressive against that 3.2 million?
"There are too many legitimate concerns and issues that we can address with this supplemental to get bogged down in sensationalism."
Yes, like compensation for damaged spinach growers. Like the built-in waivers saving the Bush the trouble of appending a signing statement even if he decided to sign it.
Here's a question John didn't raise: "Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members." Who's a "member"? Someone who's responded to one mailing? Someone who's actually given money? Anyone who hasn't gotten around to opting out of the mailing list? This must present a bit of a dilemma to MoveOn: claim too few "members" and you don't seem so important; claim too many and the number of "members" who respond seems less impressive.
Come on. This wasn't grassroots "member-driven" action; this was establishment agenda-driven fourflushing, pure and simple.
A poll is a poll. It is not meant to capture the entire populations opinion. This is both impractical and impossible. Bear this in mind, when a presidential approval poll is taken a viable sample is generally 1,100 people. There are 230,000,000 Americans! 126K of 3.2 million is more than enough for an adequate sample.
There are too many legitimate concerns and issues that we can address with this supplemental to get bogged down in sensationalism. This is a genuine debate about how we address Iraq. Do we need to resort to fallacious statements and invectives?
Wesley Clark stated it very well: 'all the candidates are subjugate to NY jewish money interests'. These interests are pushing war on Iran and they see no reason to stop the presses over the tragedy they caused in Iraq. MoveOn is playing the "Not too fast Out of Iraq" and "Everything on the Table" game. Every Democratic candidate is therefore a war-monger in regards to Iran, and they better not vote to immediately de-fund the war in Iraq. This explains the intellectually obscene way that MoveOn, as part of the House of Israel, advocates for wider war in the Middle East.
The Iraqis have been Crucified, their country destroyed like Lebanon.
Don't Crucify Iran Next!
from the bondage of Pharaoh Rahmses ain't gonna be easy. Here in New Hampshire, our two new Democratic representatives defeated not only the Republican incumbents but, as challengers from the left, the Democratic national machine's favored candidates in the primary.
You'd be unlikely to remember that while reading this op-ed in the <i>Concord</i> [N.H.] <i>Monitor</i> by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter:
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/REPOSITORY/703210344/1017/OPINION
Primary challenger or not, she's heaving those blocks up the pyramid with the rest of them now. Here's a reply from a prominent local activist:
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070322/REPOSITORY/703220337/1028/OPINION02
Shea-Porter says, "This bill will mark the beginning of the end of the war." I wonder how many "beginnings" this "end" will end up having?
Almost sounds like someone with a lot of cynical DLC-style pro-corporate, pro-elite, pro-money triangulation experience has his fingerprints all over Rahming this down MoveOn's throat.
Pages