Rotating Header Image



300wde_magictimepoll While checking email before turning in this morning, I was sidetracked by a news headline that reads mysteriously counter to nearly all the public opinion I find on the internet, so I read on through to the article and found this:

AP Poll: Americans high on Obama, direction of US

The article (by RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers) relies entirely on unspecified, non-substantiated information from “an Associated Press-GfK poll”: no link to any such poll nor poll results as described quite generally and generously non-specifically in that article; however, the article does contain a great deal of wandering assumptions by AP that what statistics they do identify (again, quite generally) are not based upon specific polling results (who was polled, what was the sampling, when and how) but are pushed through to the conclusions that AP appears to have predetermined they “should” mean: “most Americans” are “high on Obama…”

The expression, “most Americans,” is used several times in that article but who those “most” are is never specified nor substantiated. Predictably, given AP’s Leftwing perceptions, those “most Americans” are enthusiastic about and over Barack Obama. And what being “high on Obama” actually means is anyone’s guess but the language suggests that AP has noticed an strong indication of those who are enthusiastic about Obama as being under the influence of some drug or are otherwise experiencing substances changing the course of what otherwise might be lucid reasoning. In other words, these generalized but unidentified persons AP presumes as representing “many Americans” are deluded, hypnotized, entranced or otherwise drunken about another human being.

So, the hardcore point AP is making, all fairy-tales and fairy-salesmanship aside, seems to be that among the (probable) 1,000 people they contacted who most likely voted for Obama are stoned, under the influence, drugged or otherwise “high”. It’s just a coarse choice of words and a peculiarly strange expression for AP to use, that “most Americans” are “high on Obama.”

Which isn’t an indication of support or agreement with or about that allegedly hypnotic individual, it indicates quite the contrary: those “most” are not operating under a free will but are, instead, “high on Obama”: not functioning with a clear mind nor clear-thinking as to their perceptions.

However, to the contrary of these assumptions by AP-GkP, MOST the opinion I read on the internet and those that I hear in actual voices from persons I encounter in my life, are decidedly alarmed by and concerned about Barack Obama and most definitely do NOT experience hope and change but fear and loathing. People are, by a great majority, frightened of the damages already done to our nation and perhaps world by this present Administration and find Barack Obama to be depressing, off-putting, offensive, unreliable, unbelievable, annoying and even “disgusting” and “sickening” or so I’ve heard it said and read it written about the man and his Administration.

Here is a link to the GkP website and their parent company and here is a link to a site called “Associated Press-GkP Poll” but nowhere — in the article nor on those sites — is any poll related to the article’s presumptions identified or provided. Perhaps this is yet another one of those Leftwing propaganda pieces designed to convince the public that you’re getting sleepy, very, very sleepy…

I found this article that explains polling methods, identifying telephoned subjects numbering “1,000” but I had to search it out (it’s not referred to nor linked to by the AP article by Fournier/Tompson).

I’m not buying this Obama As Drunken Master conclusion by AP, however — the actual public opinion I encounter daily highly contradicts AP’s assumption.

arrow20 UPDATE:
Other people noticed, too, as to these grand but highly misleading “poll” results — appears to be entirely political propagandizing by AP-GfK (otherwise, if not, then why continue to present such erronous information as this “AP-GfK Poll” and AP in the above article — and also as doe the the other “news” outlets linked below repeating similarly false results;
if the intent is to “report the news” then they’re patently lying in these presentations as I’ve identified in this article and therein not reporting “news” but pushing misleading information under pretense of it being accurate, which is the essence of what political propaganda is).


Gallup reports that 56% of the public believes that Obama is doing an excellent/good job. Gallup reported 62% approved of George W. Bush’s job performance after the first 100 days. MSM tells us how popular Barack Obama is but the numbers tell a different story especially when used comparatively. Comparing the Gallup poll taken following the first 100 day of George W. Bush and Barack Obama is rather informative especially given the highly contentious nature of the 2000 election.

Here are the numbers for other presidents:

April approval ratings in first year in office

Bush now 62%
Clinton, 1993 55
Bush, 1989 58
Reagan, 1981 67
Carter, 1977 63
Nixon, 1969 61
Sampling error: +/-3% pts

Now justify these headlines:

Gallup: First-100-Days-Obama-Meets-Exceeds-Expectations. By the way, the wording of the question is most suspect as many (including me) expected him to do just as poorly as he is doing. But Gallup is going even further. It uses his daily tracking poll to cover up the results of the 100 day poll.

USAToday: Poll: Public thinks highly of Obama

Chicago Tribune: Obama riding high in polls

(continue reading…)

2 C O M M E N T S

  1. MAS1916 says:

    Obama relies on his allies in the press to dress up his policies and ignore his failures. The media have done a good job so far.

    Unfortunately, there will come a time in the next month where the Leader will no longer be able to blame Bush for current problems. The press will just look silly when they accept the “inherited” answer to one of their questions.

    The media is indeed left-leaning, but they don’t want to look silly. Sooner or later, they will figure out that their viewers don’t respect them.

    1. -S- says:

      Obama’s and Democrats blaming previous Admin. (for just about everything, so far) only emphasises the current Admin.’s cowardice, weakness and unreliability. It fosters “we don’t trust the government” sentiments nationwide, which I believe are, actually, Obama’s motive and intent: to undermine confidence among American citizens, to weaken trust in government (that’d prove his disturbed politics “right” in doing so, is the point, he’d fulfil his negative understandings of and about the U.S. and a Capitalist economy by seeing his negative assumptions proven accurate).

      Unfortunately, many in the media (most Leftwing) agree with Obama’s negativity and negative, disturbed, skewered perceptions. Certainly the Democrat majority in Congress does. Thus, they’re busy going about perpetuating “bad America” (and defining it as everyhing that’s occured up to Obama-time) and this then allows them to usher in their more profoundly skewered negative assumption that Obama, then, is “savior” as would be Democrats like him.

      Short summation of all that: Obama’s and the Demo’s blaming of “previous” is them blaming PREVIOUS AMERICA, and Bush is their figurehead because of his popularity on significant issues (mostly national defense and security).

      To wit: Hillary’s ridiculous “reset button”, assuming that Russia, among others, are as gullible and as easily manipulated as the milions of Americans who voted for Obama and can’t identify one specific reason why other than skin tone and booming voice.