Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

[lider_r]

Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush_070706225930)) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice
President **** Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.

The survey by the American Research Group found that 45 percent support the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush, with 46 percent opposed, and a 54-40 split in favor when it comes to Cheney.

The study by the private New Hampshire-based ARG canvassed 1,100 Americans by telephone July 3-5 and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points. The findings are available on ARG's Internet site.

The White House declined to comment on the poll, the latest bad news for a president who has seen his public opinion standings dragged to record lows by the unpopular war in Iraq.

The US Constitution says presidents and vice presidents can be impeached -- that is, formally charged by the House -- for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" by a simple majority vote.
Conviction by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds majority, means removal from office.

Just two US presidents have been impeached: Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999; Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868. Disgraced president Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 when a House impeachment vote appeared likely.

In late April, left-wing Representative Dennis Kucinich, a long-shot Democratic presidential hopeful, introduced a resolution calling for Cheney's impeachment. To date, the measure has nine listed co-sponsors and a 10th set to sign on when the House returns to work next week.

But Democratic leaders appear unlikely to pursue such a course.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush_070706225930 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush_070706225930)

[Pandy]

Na, I like him. Everyone I know has a job now.

[shocker1]

Question: Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?
7/5/07 Favor Oppose Undecided
All Adults 45% 46% 9% Voters 46% 44% 10%
Democrats (38%) 69% 22% 9% Republicans (29%) 13% 86% 1% Independents (33%) 50% 30% 20%
3/15/06 42% 49% 9%
Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.BS polls that never call anyone you know. Call 10,000,000 voters and I might listen.

[Abolith]

BS polls that never call anyone you know. Call 10,000,000 voters and I might listen.

ya they just pick areas that are known to have a higher concentration of people who are likely to answer the way they want the poll to read.

[Con-man]

With polls you're relying on chance that the people you come across will give you an accurate portrayal of public thought, however, as Abolith has already mentioned, everybody is biased including those behind the polls.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hmmm the "American Research Group". Their website looks like the spice rack Homer Simpson put together in his basement.

[Dasein]

BS polls that never call anyone you know. Call 10,000,000 voters and I might listen.

There is no statisitical advantage to calling that many people as you get substantially decreasing returns on the margin of error.

[Durandal]

Hmmm the "American Research Group". Their website looks like the spice rack Homer Simpson put together in his basement.

Not too sure why that is relevant. Its a simple website ANYOE can access regardless of connection. I wish more website were more simple.

That said, its a poll.

I am certainly one of those that would love to Bush turned out on his ass, but I shudder to think how even more impotent our government would become during the event.

[shocker1]

Statistical polls are all well and good for marketing ice cream or the political weapon of half truths we see here. Let's not kid ourselves though this American Research Group with it's flashy Patriotic name lists no mission statement, funding, support, or even an about us section on their Mickey mouse website. Poll is statistically slanted toward Dems and Ind leaving Rep a mere 29% of 1100 people called with 933 interviews.

There have been other more credible polls showing lacking support and such for the President. these polls at least list the foundations supporting them or an about us page on their site. However they all together show the same nearly even split in the country.

This impeachment talk piss me of to no end. Just as it did when the Newt attack dogs hounded Clinton. It damaged the country then and does now. The Congress should impeach itself as they are the check on the balance of war. I watched as everyone but a few proudly proclaimed their go get Saddam platform. As it stands it makes a good election set piece to support the troops but not the mission they are working on right now. Sick!

[helomech]

Much of US favors Bush impeachment: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush_070706225930)) - Nearly half of the US public wants President George W. Bush to face impeachment, and even more favor that fate for Vice
President **** Cheney, according to a poll out Friday.



Much of the US?More likely much the Left US....another slanted poll taken by and reported by libs'........

[Chulo]

There is no statisitical advantage to calling that many people as you get substantially decreasing returns on the margin of error.
more people will get u a more diverse base <hopefuly> because such "news" polls are always stacked anyway// its not real research when they decide to randomly call 1000 people in the most liberal area, when they dont take a full and proper cross section.

[Dasein]

more people will get u a more diverse base

Not really. Let's say 30% of the population identifies as liberals or Democrats, 30% as conservatives or Republicans and 40% have no preference or consider themselves independent. Regardless of your sample size, you should see a similar distribution of people, so you do not get an greater diversity with a larger sample size.

[Rivers]

Don't you have to commit a crime to be impeached? What crime did Bush commit? He went to war using authority that was given to him. Since when has being unpopular been a crime?

[vryhpyammoadded]

They also forgot to mention about 40% of Americans want most of Capitol Hill’s Congressmen and Senators heads mounted on pikes on the Mall.

[Big Bad Bob]

:roll:

I love how these polls mention that the current approval rating of the democratic controlled congress is lower than the Presidents, but hey its easy to throw mud at the man on top.

Impeach Bush for what??

[Dasein]

Don't you have to commit a crime to be impeached?

No. While the Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors as impeachable offenses, Congress has sole discretion to decide what actually qualifies.

[Jobu]

It's probably been the same anytime a President has been unpopular.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Not too sure why that is relevant. Its a simple website ANYOE can access regardless of connection. I wish more website were more simple.


I was thinking more along the lines that the site doesn't list anything about who they are. Or where their money comes from. Or what their agenda is - or even if they claim to have no agenda. This information would be relevant, considering the business they are in, no?

And this is nice;


The survey results available on this web-site are provided through the kindness of our subscribers.


Subscribers vary from survey to survey, but generally include individuals, news organizations, single media outlets, media groups, corporations, foundations, and lobbying firms. Subscribers receive survey results before the results are posted on the web-site and their summaries are more detailed than the postings.


ARG has complete control over the content of the surveys for the posted results. Subscribers do have the opportunity to add their own questions at the end of the surveys for additional fees.


Seems to me they could pick and choose who to ask about what, what results to exclude, and it seems quite odd to me that this is in effect a "reverse survey" - i.e. you go to them instead of them randomly calling you. Get 1000 people together, register with the site, generate your own survey and get the results you want.

[nognig]

Either that poll is way off or America has a ton of stupid people. Maybe a little from column A and column B?

I could see numbers as high as 30% for impeachment, but a majority? Come on! What exactly would he be impeached for? Lying about the Iraq war? Should have impeached Clinton too (a 2nd time) then, he spouted the same info as Bush.

NN

[Dasein]

What exactly would he be impeached for?

Whatever Congress can agree on.

[Hsimoorb]

Losts of posts saying how slanted and 'liberal' the people taking the polls are....not much else. Get over it. Polls are accurate. What you all SHOULD be saying is that The presidents shouldn't be impeached. The closest ya'll came was to ask if you have to commit a crime to be impeached, which we all knwo isn't true.

Just get past the whole "OMG bias!" phase and say what needs to be said: Bush hasn't done anything to warrant impeachment, not that we can prove, not that anyone respectable would actualy acuse him of. The 45 percent of people who said they want these guys impeached are saying it because they don't like the two, not because they deserve it.

Those 45 percent of people aren't going to be swayed by you guys saying how biased the polls are, by arguing facts.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Losts of posts saying how slanted and 'liberal' the people taking the polls are....not much else. Get over it. Polls are accurate. What you all SHOULD be saying is that The presidents shouldn't be impeached. The closest ya'll came was to ask if you have to commit a crime to be impeached, which we all knwo isn't true.

Just get past the whole "OMG bias!" phase and say what needs to be said: Bush hasn't done anything to warrant impeachment, not that we can prove, not that anyone respectable would actualy acuse him of. The 45 percent of people who said they want these guys impeached are saying it because they don't like the two, not because they deserve it.

Those 45 percent of people aren't going to be swayed by you guys saying how biased the polls are, by arguing facts.

Mmm...the poll doesn't ask "can" Bush be impeached, it asks "should" Bush be impeached. That's an opinion question, not a question about the legalities surrounding impeachment. So there is no right and wrong, and you won't be able to produce any facts to prove them wrong.

But we can address the basis of the article - the poll. You can no more say "all polls are accurate" than you can say "everybody cheats on their taxes". You can't know that until you look at each return in detail. But we aren't given any details at all here - which in my view makes both the poll and the article completely worthless.

[Hsimoorb]

Mmm...the poll doesn't ask "can" Bush be impeached, it asks "should" Bush be impeached. That's an opinion question, not a question about the legalities surrounding impeachment. So there is no right and wrong, and you won't be able to produce any facts to prove them wrong.



The fact they were trying to ascertain was opinion, not fact.



But we can address the basis of the article - the poll. You can no more say "all polls are accurate" than you can say "everybody cheats on their taxes". You can't know that until you look at each return in detail. But we aren't given any details at all here - which in my view makes both the poll and the article completely worthless.


Bias is one thing. But accusing people of bias with no evidence is the definition of baseless. People were also critisizing for the 'small' sample of 1100. And we know from both mathematics and lots of experience that 1100 people is about as good of a sample as you can get. Arguing against polling is alot like arguing with the ump. You're rarely right, and you look like a fool doing it. After all, elections are just big polls. You ask people questions, and one answer wins. Modern polling has a very good accuracy margin.

If you realy want to argue, try these arguments 1) Most people in the poll said that the House should not even start impeachement procedures 2) Impeaching the President is a stupid-ass idea, and the people who think that should happen should grow up.*

Just don't argue facts.

*As a matter of fact, people like that SHOULD just grow up. Impeachement is the lamest idea I've ever heard. The dems just need to quit this BS while they're way way behind.

[mi35d]

So, by your logic, presidential elections could be as simple as asking the first 1,000 people who show up who they'd like to vote for.

A poll can be skewed in anyway the poll taker would like and aren't necessarily accurate. If I was to have a poll that asks, "Do you like Hillary Clinton" and called people in a senate district where she won 90% of the vote last election, odds on favorite we'll come out with a good number of people who would be pro Hillary. That doesn't mean that 90% of the people in the country like the woman.

CNN and the other news agency continue to get bit in the ass when they "predict" a winner with 1% of the votes in during elections.

[Hsimoorb]

So, by your logic, presidential elections could be as simple as asking the first 1,000 people who show up who they'd like to vote for.


No. But the polls would be close to the election result.

I understand what you are saying about bias in the poll taking, but I don't see evidence of it yet.

[Dasein]

CNN and the other news agency continue to get bit in the ass when they "predict" a winner with 1% of the votes in during elections.

They're right more often than wrong when calling states, and even when wrong, the results fall within the margin of error based on the numbers polled.

[Will938]

Bias is one thing. But accusing people of bias with no evidence is the definition of baseless. People were also critisizing for the 'small' sample of 1100. And we know from both mathematics and lots of experience that 1100 people is about as good of a sample as you can get. Arguing against polling is alot like arguing with the ump. You're rarely right, and you look like a fool doing it. After all, elections are just big polls. You ask people questions, and one answer wins. Modern polling has a very good accuracy margin.

Just don't argue facts.

Now there's a laugh. What exactly defines a "modern poll"? There are many different varieties each with their own conditions. A company can select which ever one supports their views more and run with it. So far as you or I know this could of happened here, just because someone published their findings is a horrible reason to trust them.

Assuming they have an exactly perfect distribution, they didn't put any bias into it; for them to be 95% sure of that 6% error, they'd need to poll 1053 people. For them to be 99.9% sure of the 6% error, they'd need to poll 2975 people.

See what I mean? They're saying that they can't be sure of 6% of the results, but judging by the sample they took they can only be 95% confident that this result is correct. When dealing with vital issues like this, maybe the company should get off their lazy asses and be as accurate as possible; which in most cases they are not.

[Dasein]

See what I mean? They're saying that they can't be sure of 6% of the results, but judging by the sample they took they can only be 95% confident that this result is correct. When dealing with vital issues like this, maybe the company should get off their lazy asses and be as accurate as possible; which in most cases they are not.

Look at vurtually any poll and you'll see some fine print about the 95%/6%, it's the industry standard. To get that extra 4.9% confidence, that means doubling your sample size, which means higher costs. Are your clients willing to pay that higher cost for a small improvement in confidence?

[Will938]

Look at vurtually any poll and you'll see some fine print about the 95%/6%, it's the industry standard. To get that extra 4.9% confidence, that means doubling your sample size, which means higher costs. Are your clients willing to pay that higher cost for a small improvement in confidence?

I know this, I just did all the math to prove it. But don't you think that if you're going to write an article that will be read nationally and impact people's way of thinking, that you have a responsibility to go the extra bit and be as close to 100% confident in the results as statistics allows?

95% confidence that we're correctly centered on our 6% error is not high accuracy. Imagine if we allowed pilots with that amount of successful landings/error to fly, there'd be crashes every hour.

[ZhukovG]

Impeachment for the real President (cheney) impossible he would continue maybe some sort of terrorist attack so he can use NSPD 51 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The fact they were trying to ascertain was opinion, not fact.

Yes, the result of the poll is an opinion.



Bias is one thing. But accusing people of bias with no evidence is the definition of baseless.

Baseless? Hardly. Look at the website the poll came from. Who are they? What are they? Who funds them? How was the poll taken? From what pool did they draw the list of names to contact? Where did that pool come from? What exactly were the questions asked, in what order (i.e. since it has been established that you can change poll results by "setting up" questions in a particular order, or asking them a certain way). These are all perfectly reasonable questions to ask, and in fact any organization taking polls knows that and furnishes that info up front. The fact that it's all hidden here - a lie of omission - did not occur by accident. There is a reason for that.

I agree that the result cannot be argued with, within the context of that poll. But the next logical question to be asked by anybody with connected brain cells is - what is the context of that poll? It makes all the difference in the world. If they randomly polled 2 million nationwide by asking a single question: "do you think Bush should be impeached" then they should report exactly that: of 2 million people randomly selected nationwide, 51% said "yes". Were they to to poll 4 people from Warwick Rhode Island, from a list provided by the DNC, by asking "do you think Bush should be impeached for lying to the American people" - then they should state that. The results would obviously be quite different.

[shocker1]

The bias is also in the wording of the article and it's title. It could have said a majority of Americans reject Bush impeachment. Or country split on impeachment but it decided to slant the results of a mystery poll and make the assertion that "Much" of the people in the US want Bush impeached. So since that is the premise of the article it is political hog wash. As has been stated also making wild assertions of such a serious nature deserves a better, more credible means of measuring public opinion.

[Chulo]

they should make a poll on how many people trust the media and their Polls and how many people thing the media is politicaly biased

[XASA]

they should make a poll on how many people trust the media and their Polls and how many people thing the media is politicaly biased

Purely conjecture on my part, but I'm willing to bet that 29% of the people do not trust the media-- about the same as the few remaining members of Bush's base who still defend his failed policies and apologize for his administration's incompetence.

Impeachment ain't going to happen with just 18 months left of Bush's term and with Cheney as Vice President, so it's a bogus poll about a bogus possibility.

[Bia]

Hmmm the "American Research Group". Their website looks like the spice rack Homer Simpson put together in his basement.

One of the best episodes ever.

+Rep