"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Iraq and the Election
Poll Shows Bush Losing Ground on Anti-terror Policy

More misleading leads.....

Bottom line: about half the country's concerned about the war. Duh!

Where's the beef? Right here---

..... the president
has not entirely relinquished his advantage on terrorism. On a personal
level, the public by a 14-point margin picks him over Kerry to keep the
nation safer and more secure.



...Kerry is scoring against Bush elsewhere as well, running ahead in
trust to handle five of nine issues tested in this poll,

Gee, that's about half, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's approximately .55555556

.....Bush doesn't lead significantly in any of
them.

Of course, there's no comment as to whether Kerry leads significantly in any
of them. Slanted reportage?

Yeah, any time there is something positive about Kerry, the right
thinks it's because of reporting, then when something negative is said
of Bush, it's the reporting. Something positive about Bush, and/or
negative about Kerry, is automatically deemed as trusted fair and
balanced. How stupid.



Methodology

....among a random national sample of 1,201 adults.

Not likely voters? Waste of time.

Who said they were "not likely voters"?

"basskisser" wrote in message

Gee, that's about half, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's approximately .55555556

Oh, God! sigh You see, bass, that's why I interjected the word 'about'.


.....Bush doesn't lead significantly in any of them.

Of course, there's no comment as to whether Kerry leads significantly in
any
of them. Slanted reportage?

Yeah, any time there is something positive about Kerry, the right
thinks it's because of reporting, then when something negative is said
of Bush, it's the reporting. Something positive about Bush, and/or
negative about Kerry, is automatically deemed as trusted fair and
balanced. How stupid.

Missed point. Again. We're heading for a hundred reps.


Methodology

....among a random national sample of 1,201 adults.

Not likely voters? Waste of time.

Who said they were "not likely voters"?

LOL!!! Very rich, indeed.

Tell you what. Go read a bit about how polls are conducted, particularly
political polls, and the methodology and terminology used.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Gee, that's about half, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's approximately .55555556

Oh, God! sigh You see, bass, that's why I interjected the word 'about'.

Hmm, so, let's see, where does this magical mathematical threshold
called "about", take place?
Is .66666 "about" half? Is .8 "about" half? Is 5,0000 "about" half?

basskisser wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Gee, that's about half, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's approximately .55555556

Oh, God! sigh You see, bass, that's why I interjected the word 'about'.

Hmm, so, let's see, where does this magical mathematical threshold
called "about", take place?
Is .66666 "about" half? Is .8 "about" half? Is 5,0000 "about" half?


Ha ha ha. You really are *so* stupid it's embarassing.

-- Charlie