BushCo's black support at 2%

Maybe Karen Hughes can help.

A Polling Free-Fall Among Blacks

By Dan Froomkin
Special to
Thursday, October 13, 2005; 3:09 PM

In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history of presidential polling, President Bush’s job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

The drop among blacks drove Bush’s overall job approval ratings to an all-time low of 39 percent in this poll. By comparison, 45 percent of whites and 36 percent of Hispanics approve of the job Bush is doing.

A few months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Bush’s approval rating among blacks at 51 percent. As recently as six months ago, it was at 19 percent.

Read more.

10 replies on “BushCo's black support at 2%”

Another false and misleading poll.
My, my. Are people like you and
the rest of the media monitored
by any agency to make sure that the
polls and polling results you report about are factual and done
properly so that your readers review accurate pieces of information? This WOULD enable your readers to make an intelligent
decision on an issue without being
influenced by something that is
rather misleading.

Misleading in this respect. There’s a “play on words” throughout your article. For instance, the title is “BushCo’s
BLACK SUPPORT AT 2%”. Nowhere in
your article do you reveal how
many blacks participated in the
taking of this poll.

In one CBS News/Bush Ratings article, they too, never reported
in their article how many people
participated in their poll. Not
until the very bottom of the page
did they divulge that they interviewed only 808 people for
their poll which used the play
on words, “the American public”.

I have found that this false and
misleading way of reporting the
results of sampling surveys is

I am concerned when I think about
senior citizens in particular, who
see these poll results on the air
of a network…and if it’s talking
about a candidate running for President…they may RELY on that
polling information in order to
decide who they want to vote for.
That would be wrong.

P.S. The up or down 3 percent
notation is of no use. If you
use 300 people for a poll, what’s
3 percent anyway. Not enough to
make a difference.

suzieq’s comments are not valid in that if she has a complaint about lack of numbers involved in the poll, she would be better advised to direct them to the washington post and NOT this site.
for what it’s worth.

Dear Suzy Creamcheese,

The issue is not, as you suggest, the absolute numbers polled but, more importantly, whether
a) the sample polled is representative of the population to which you want to generalize (the Truman-Dewey presidential race is a classic example: the pollsters sampled from telephone books, equating voters with people who had telephones).
b) Another issue is response rate, the percentage of those in the sample polled who respond (if that’s less than 70%–the general rule of thumb–there’s no legitimate basis for inferring from their responses to the population of interest).
c) I would be less concerned about the senior citizens–they went to public k-12 before the country became, by and large, mathematically illiterate, i.e., I think the senior citizens understand basic math far better than do contemporary journalists. I do though quite agree with you that everyone should, independently, formulate their own conclusions: anyone who decides how to vote based on what a poll, accurately or inaccurately, reports is not thinking.
d) As to margins of error–your “up or down 3 percent notation”–assuming the poll were a scientific one–that could mean that *less* than 2% of the black population approves of mostly black people being abandonned while the CNN and military convoys–including the blackwater boys–started rolling into town to ‘maintain law and order.’
e) Polling results can, when the polls are conducted scientifically, provide a reliable indicator of what people are thinking: if you think that 2% approval rating is too low, I suggest you start reading about what people say they think ( would be a good place to start).
f) If, like Anon., your concern is with the way polls in this country are conducted, let us think–*really hard*–about the discrepancies between the exit polls and the reported 2004 election results.

–claudia k.

The facts are, just go have a conversation with any African Americans you know, and take your own poll among them, and I believe you will see that in reality, the job approval rating for Bush by most African Americans you talk to is WAY
LESS than 2%. While your at it, go into the street, in your own community, and then in different communities, and ask around. If you go to enough diverse towns and such, I believe you’ll find that the apporval rating for this administration is also pretty far below the 39% we currently have them at. The fact is, the Americans that have access to the truth know that Bush and his cronies are a bunch of thugs; those that only are programmed by network news and Christian Broadcasting have been brainwashed to believe that everything is hunky-dory, that our Prez is a good man with Godly intentions who is being torn aprt by that devil-worshipping left-wing media. And that is a huge crock of s***. The fact is that this administration is tumbling down fast and hard from the top of their ivory tower of corruption. I’d like to feel confident enough to say the Bush criminals will be brought to justice, but there is still this nagging fear in me that says they will wiggle or lie or strong-arm their way out of it. America, we’d better watch our backs, but the enemy isn’t from foreign soil, the enemy is swigging whiskey in the Oval Office, and gettin’ his swagger on.
Those who have retained their ability to reason in America wish the Bush Co was monitored by any agency to make sure that the drivel and bull they spout out is true. It would be nice if this administration had a watchdog to keep them from continuously lying to our public, at our publics expense, indeed, at the expense of people all aroudn the world. However when the watchdogs are appointed by the crooks, and fed by the crooks, then who are the dogs protecting?

RE: A Polling Free-Fall Among Blacks

Dear Mr. Froomkin:

I noticed you used a data which was reported by the NBC/Wall Street
Journal poll.

“Bush’s job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped 2 percent”… many African Americans were interviewed in this
poll, sir?

I ask the same question, how many
African Americans were polled when
reporting the following data…”The drop among blacks drove Bush’s overall job approval ratings to an all time low of 39 percent in this poll. (How many
people participated in this poll, sir?)

“By comparison, 45 percent of whites and 36 percent of Hispanics
approve of the job Bush is doing.
Same question…How many whites
and hispanics participate in this
particular question?

It’s important for the public who
read this information to know what
is truth and what is false and
misleading information, and when
there is a “play on words” such
as the incinuation that all Americans took this poll and answered in a way that produced
these particular results….that
is false, sir. I suspect, as in
many other polls taken and reported
in the media, newspapers and magazines, that your poll had a
very limited number of participants. Can you tell me if
I’m correct or not?

Thank you.

CNN and Wolf Blitzer aired the results of a Bush Approval Poll
today and the results “of Americans” (didn’t give the number
of participants in the poll) were
interesting to those who didn’t care for Bush, and disappointing for his supporters.

My complaint about NOT POSTING the
number of participants in a poll came to full light during this poll
when the word “impeachment” was
mentioned. The questioning was
like…Do you think the Democrats
would call for Impeachment if Bush’s approval rating gets any
lower? The percentages here were
high in the “yes” line, and lower
in the “no” line.

Here’s why it’s important in that
case to give all the information in
this poll that one has.

People need to know that only a
minute portion of the American population participated in this poll, and the percentages given
are based on that minute number
of participants–NOT ON THE ENTIRE

The poll on CNN was misleading. It
makes me very upset everytime I see
a television network air the results polls and they treat the
percentages of Americans as though
the poll included every American
when it does not. That’s false.

Play on words, deceit, misleading
information…the network is fully
aware of their poll and the information that was used to put
it together. To them, an incinuation that their poll included all Americans makes them
look more important.

A common complaint about this poll appears to be that it didn’t survey “THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICANS IN THIS COUNTRY.”

BFD: no poll ever has; no poll ever will. The issue is whether the *sample* was scientifically selected and whether the response rate was high enough to generalize to the population of interest. I rest my case about the rampant quantitatve illiteracy in this country.

OR, is the point here to discredit this particular poll’s results because it shows GWB’s support is approaching nothing.

Can someone point me to any polls before we invaded Iraq that showed considerable support for Bush–where people were complaining that the results weren’t based on a plebiscite (defined as “a direct vote in which the entire electorate is invited to accept or refuse a proposal”)? I didn’t think so.

Windy raises a very good point. Go out and ask the African-Americans you know what they think: if the 2% is close to accurate, you won’t find much, if any, support for GWB. If the 2% is a gross underestimate, you’ll find many who do support GWB.

–claudia krenz

Yeah, well, I warn you, this won’t
make me very popular with anybody
who likes the late Rosa Parks but
I felt it was necessary to comment
on recent events.

First of all, even I realize that
Ms. Parks was a very important person to her race and to the Civil
Rights movement; but what I resented was the purpose of her
receiving the Medal of Freedom from
the President of the United States,
and the true purpose for her being
allowed to lie in State in the Capitol Rotunda.

The criteria our government used to
give Ms. Parks these honors was because SHE SAID “NO” TO A WHITE
MAN ON A BUS. I’m white. Now,
you’ve insulted me by honoring this
woman in all these ways because
she said “no” to a white man.

In addition, and very important,
how many young children across this
land have said “no” to the drug dealer on the playground who wanted
them to sell drugs?

How many women and children in domestic violence situations who’ve
said “no” to the abuser, and found
themselves beaten up badly as a result?

What about the passenger on the subway who is confronted by a gang
member who says to him…”you’ve got my seat, don’t ya? Get out of
it.” And the passenger says, “No, go find your own.” Suddenly, the
gang member pulls out a knife and
stabs the passenger and the passenger falls to the floor dead.

My point…in these three examples
above, you’ll notice that they were
brave and very courageous. You’ll
also notice that there was no President giving them the Medal of
Freedom, and in the case of the dead subway passenger, he was not
given the honor to lie in State at
the Capitol Rotunda for his bravery
and courage in front of a gang member.

Every American soldier, 2027, who
have died in Iraq deserve the honor
of receiving the highest medal for
their bravery and courage…and
the honor of lying in State in the Capitol Rotunda. But they were not
given this. Rosa Parks was given
these honors because Rosa Parks said “no” to a white man.

Audie Murphy, a hero, a soldier and
a very fine American actor, is buried in Arlington National Cemetary but he did not lie in State in the Capitol Rotunda.

I welcome your comments.

The other day, I tuned into C-SPAN2
just in time to see Harry Reid
tell the members of the U.S. Senate that he speaks on behalf of the people of the United States
when he demands that the intelligence report is handed over
post haste.

I thought about that. About what he said–he speaks on behalf of the American People–and I got angry.

I hear politicians say those same
words quite a bit…particularly,
lately, for some reason. And again, I get angry.

I have but one voice…one vote…
a variety of opinions that all belong to one person…and I am
that ONE PERSON. I’ve worked very
hard in my life to make it very
plain to people that NO ONE except
the President and Vice President of the United States have the authority to speak or represent me
in any way–if I am around or not
around at the time a decision like
that is to be made.

How DARE then…Harry Reid, who is
not even from my own Republican Party, claim that he speaks for me
as well as the 259,999,999 people in America. I was still angry.

So, I decided this was the time to
get out the old dictionary and the
computer and write Mr. Reid an email that would straighten out the
misconception and the misuse of my

Senator Reid is not concerned with
anything I have to say. He’s probably not even concerned about
the voices of the very people he
represents in Nevada. Senator Reid
is more concerned at this time with
his Party’s attempt to reach out and grab George Bush and his Administration and take them all
into the Courtroom for a little
Impeachment session.

The bitterness and sourness of the
Democrats since they lost the election in 2000, and 2004, and
the Impeachment Hearings of Bill
Clinton are all behind the current
behavior of the Democratic Party.

Neither they nor the Republican Party Members can see anything in
the way of important issues that
are right in front of their faces,
and are waiting to be resolved.

No political party that I can see
right now is interested in the needs of the people to the degree
that they are solely focused on
those problems and not political

This is sad, and this is going to
backfire on our political parties
very soon when the people of the United States in some way manage
to get their message across to the
country’s limosine driven politicians…that we are tired of
the arguments and the neglect.

I’ll be back after the upcoming elections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.