namelesstavern.net

Polls are worthless. I think one of them was done in a predominately Democratic district repeatedly, which in my mind invalidates them. My neighbor who is a hardcore Democratic has done a dozen this year. I've done zero. That explains it for me.

The true poll will be in November.. Unfortunately for the W haters, he'll still be in office. However, it'll be interesting if the GOP takes a hit from all the bad press, and the complete lack of coverage of the booming, good economy.

I'd like to see the DNC take back the house, but unfortunately Howard Dean won't shut up enough to allow them to get the moderates back, and will cowtow to the whacko far left people who aren't enough to win anywhere but the Northeast and California.

Yeah, all those polls in the chart I linked to were totally biased and their correlation to one another is just by chance.

brinstar wrote:

Mindia wrote:Again, across-the-board unemployment numbers are lower now than under the Clinton administration.

Mindia wrote:So, if your dollar doesn't go as far anymore as it did, say, 6 years ago, you cannot blame Bush for that. It has nothing to do with the current unemployment status in America. Unemployment figures are what they are.

i'm sorry, i see a disparity here. if, as you say, Bush is immune from blame for the current unemployment rate, why is a comparison to the Clinton-era unemployment rate relevant at all? i am fighting the urge to assume that you are upholding a double standard, in that unfavorable unemployment rates are blameable on a president from one party, but not on the other-- but i would like to hear a better answer. either admit the irrelevance of Clinton-era unemployment figures in comparison to Bush-era unemployment figures, or admit that maybe unemployment figures DO have something to do with an administration's policies.

It is irrelevant. I was just pointing out the coincidence. Also, when I talked about your dollar not going as far as it did, say 6 years ago, I was referring to the cost of housing and rent now, which has nothing to do with who is president, but has everything to do with normal economic and real estate market growth.

I didnt say they were biased. Just worthless.

500 people out of 300 million is hardly a good cross comparison.