52% support Bush Impeachment: Zogby Poll

unlawflcombatnt · 01-26-2006, 04:18 PM

In a the most recent January 2006 Zogby poll, 52% thought Bush should be impeached. Below is a copy of the Zogby poll.

The link to this article can also be found at: Zogby Poll

RidinHighSpeeds · 01-26-2006, 04:58 PM

I'm sure if Kerry was elected and this same poll was asked around this time...you would see similar results. Most people who support Bush would have voted Yes for Kerry's impeachment.

52% was the poll result for Bush's impeachment, well i'm sure most of those polled were Kerry supporters. Also it would make those who supported Clinton feel better if Bush was impeached. I understand this poll is about the Administration using wire-tapping as a means to better our security (which I think is wrong) but again, the Bush supporters would have come up with a similar poll to find a way to impeach a Democrat in office (if that was the case)

Katczinsky · 01-26-2006, 05:02 PM

That's cool. Yeah, Bush's approval ratings dropped below 40% again this month. If Congress really is doing its job and representing the American people, then this should definetly be getting much more attention in Washington than it currently is. Its almost a taboo to say the "I-word" in Washington.

foundit66 · 01-26-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

I'm sure if Kerry was elected and this same poll was asked around this time...you would see similar results. Most people who support Bush would have voted Yes for Kerry's impeachment.

"By a margin of 52 to 43 percent, citizens want Congress to impeach President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval..."

Yeah.
Bush's ACTUAL ACTIONS in committing a potentially impeachable offense are obviously not a part of this...
<end sarcasm>

Quote:

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

52% was the poll result for Bush's impeachment, well i'm sure most of those polled were Kerry supporters. Also it would make those who supported Clinton feel better if Bush was impeached. I understand this poll is about the Administration using wire-tapping as a means to better our security (which I think is wrong) but again, the Bush supporters would have come up with a similar poll to find a way to impeach a Democrat in office (if that was the case)

Clinton's numbers were significantly different...
Question 2: As you may know, the House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on whether to recommend impeachment of Bill Clinton to the full House of Representatives. In your view, should the House Judiciary Committee vote for or against impeachment?
To impeach Clinton?
Vote for impeachment 34%
Vote against impeachment 59%

Question 3: For those against impeachment, are you against impeachment because you think Clinton did nothing illegal, or because you think that even if Clinton did something illegal, it is not serious enough to justify impeachment?

Clinton's actions
Not illegal 8%
Not impeachable 48%
Impeachable 34%
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/08/poll/

Moreover, the Zogby poll did talk about precisely your concern.
Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 76 percent of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 50 percent of independents and 29 percent of Republicans.

It's interesting to note that the previous poll for Clinton had 34% INCLUDING BOTH PARTIES think the House Judiciary Committee should have voted for impeachment, while 29% OF JUST REPUBLICANS felt that Bush should be impeached.

As much as you may want to spin this and deny it, you can't just chalk it up to politics....

Dylan · 01-28-2006, 07:45 PM

I already explained why this poll is worthless, statistically speaking, in a thread of the same topic that Foundit66 posted over at Debate the Issues.

foundit66 · 01-28-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

I already explained why this poll is worthless, statistically speaking, in a thread of the same topic that Foundit66 posted over at Debate the Issues.

"worthless"?
I thought you were just tossing out menial gripes when I read your comments. If I had realized that you believed your comments made that poll "worthless", I would have set you straight sooner...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

Ah, now here is the problem with margin of error, when polls are this close.
A margin of error of 2.9 means that the percentage could be 52 to 49 (I'm just going to combine undecided into this number), or it could be 49.1 to 51.9, thus thowing a majority for voters who are against impeachment or undecided.

Yes, yes. Margin of error. Something that exists for every poll.
That should go without saying, but the importance of it should not neglected.
But by the same token, it should not be misinterpreted.

No. You can't just assume that all the "undecideds" probably think that Bush should not be impeached and include them in with that statistic. That would be an error.
It means they are UNDECIDED. As in they could think one way or another pending further information. If they find out that Bush's efforts were widely and wildly unsuccessful, that could influence them one way. If a court ruling came out that said Bush's actions were constitutional or unconstitutional, that could have a different impact.

And moreover, another error should have been apparent to you if you had added up 52 + 49 to get 101%. Obviously, some rounding took place...

But utilizing the margin of error, and just as "accurately" deciding to place the "undecideds" in with the "impeach Bush" crowd, I could just as accurately claim the results could be 60% for impeaching Bush as compared to 40% not impeaching Bush. Using the very same methods you used, in the other way....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

Any poll that has numbers that are very close together and a magin of error that could make a signifigant difference is basically useless.

Yeah. Keep telling yourself that....
There is a reason that the results are reported 52% +/- 2.9% vs 43% +/- 2.9% instead of 49% -0%/+6% vs 46% +0%/-6%...
If the margin of error actually causes significant overlap, that's one thing.
But that isn't what we had here...
Even if we use your margin of error, without misrepresenting the "undecideds" as something they are not, we STILL have more people wanting "impeachment" than not.

And in addition, why don't you have any comment on the fact that impeachment proceedings took place for Clinton when A SMALLER MINORITY thought that he should be impeached?
Utilizing the same standards, our "majority" is more than enough to press the issue...
Only 34% thought he should be impeached then, as opposed to 52% now...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

Oh yeah, and I don't trust Zogby. They said Kerry was going to win for sure.

It was a fairly close election.
Polls all over the place had different winners with different margins at different times in the election campaigning. This event or that event shifted the political landscape.
This web-site summarizes Zogby's election polling results over time, and the last item posted shows that Zogby predicted BUSH the winner.
Not Kerry as you claim.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

In fact, if you count up the results of the different polls that Zogby did over time, you'll find that they predicted Bush the winner TWENTY TIMES out of a total of 34 listed polls. Kerry came up as the winner ONLY SEVEN times, while they were listed as TYING for seven times as well.
Statistically, that would mean that in 58.8% of their reported results, they said Bush would win. 20.6% of the time, they said Kerry would be the winner, and another 20.6% of the time, they said they were tied.

And almost all of the polls that put Kerry ahead were the EARLY polls. The LATER polls, closer to the election, almost unilaterally said that Bush would win or the occasional "tie".
ONLY ONE poll after October 8th showed Kerry being ahead. Out of TWENTY-TWO POLLS after October 8th, ONLY ONE showed Kerry as a winner.

Next time, get your facts and your math straight...

RidinHighSpeeds · 01-29-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

It was a fairly close election.

2000 was a faily close election...

2004 Bush carried 3 million more votes than Kerry. I wouldn't necessarily consider that close.

RidinHighSpeeds · 01-29-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

As you may know, the House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on whether to recommend impeachment of Bill Clinton to the full House of Representatives. In your view, should the House Judiciary Committee vote for or against impeachment?
To impeach Clinton?
Vote for impeachment 34%
Vote against impeachment 59%

For impeachment.

Do you think Clinton should or should not have been impeached? And why?

foundit66 · 01-29-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ridinhighspeeds

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

As you may know, the House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on whether to recommend impeachment of Bill Clinton to the full House of Representatives. In your view, should the House Judiciary Committee vote for or against impeachment?
To impeach Clinton?
Vote for impeachment 34%
Vote against impeachment 59%

For impeachment.
Do you think Clinton should or should not have been impeached? And why?

At the time, I was 100% for it. I hate the fact that a president blatantly lied to the public and lied under oath. I thought the "legal-eze" dodge (what "is" "sex") was an incredibly poor excuse.

In retrospect, I think my view-point is more tempered. Impeachment is a heck of a process which has implications that I don't take lightly. I don't like how he was put on the spot in the first place. I don't see the reason in swearing in a President to interrogate him about his private sex life, and not swearing in oil executives on an issue of their inflated profits.
But Clinton was sworn in, and he lied...
So in current retrospect, I'm glad the impeachment proceedings went forth, but also glad that a relatively "amicable" solution could be found with an "acquittal" by the Senate and not ousting him from office.
No way should he have gotten off "scott free"...

Although, if he had been ousted from office, I don't know if I would have shed a tear either. A lot of frustration for the (in my opinion) pure b.s. which lead to the lie, but that doesn't excuse the lie either...
A LOT of frustration on this end over the lie...

Hopefully this answers your question.
If this doesn't answer your question, just let me know...

On a slightly related note to the whole legal definition of "sex" thing, there was the Canada snafu last year involving whether or not a gay affair could be legally labelled as "adultery", and thus grounds for divorce on charges of "adultery". The point of contention being that some definitions require "sexual intercourse" for a charge of adultery, and the historical definition of "sexual intercourse" only encompasses penile-vaginal sex. Obviously same-gender sex would be excluded.
The Canadian high court eventually ruled a married person having a gay sexual affair was "adultery".

Something similar occurred in New Hampshire, and the courts ruled that a gay love affair for a married man WAS NOT "adultery" based on arguments similar to the above. I don't know if she got a divorce on other grounds, but the courts ruled it was not legal "adultery".
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...3/blanc150.htm

Just as a demonstration of where the whole "it was not sex" ideology / terminology can lead to...

RidinHighSpeeds · 01-29-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Quote:

Originally Posted by ridinhighspeeds

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

As you may know, the House Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on whether to recommend impeachment of Bill Clinton to the full House of Representatives. In your view, should the House Judiciary Committee vote for or against impeachment?
To impeach Clinton?
Vote for impeachment 34%
Vote against impeachment 59%

For impeachment.
Do you think Clinton should or should not have been impeached? And why?

At the time, I was 100% for it. I hate the fact that a president blatantly lied to the public and lied under oath. I thought the "legal-eze" dodge (what "is" sex) was an incredibly poor excuse.

In retrospect, I think my view-point is more tempered. Impeachment is a heck of a process which has implications that I don't take lightly. I don't like how he was put on the spot in the first place. I don't see the reason in swearing in a President to interrogate him about his private sex life, and not swearing in oil executives on an issue of their inflated profits.
But Clinton was sworn in, and he lied...
So in current retrospect, I'm glad the impeachment proceedings went forth, but also glad that a relatively "amicable" solution could be found with an "acquittal" by the Senate and not ousting him from office.
No way should he have gotten off "scott free"...

Although, if he had been ousted from office, I don't know if I would have shed a tear either. A lot of frustration for the (in my opinion) pure b.s. which lead to the lie, but that doesn't excuse the lie either...
A LOT of frustration on this end over the lie...

Hopefully this answers your question.
If this doesn't answer your question, just let me know...

Just the answer I was looking for. Also I would like to thank you for bringing some interesting points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

On a slightly related note to the whole legal definition of "sex" thing, there was the Canada snafu last year involving whether or not a gay affair could be legally labelled as "adultery", and thus grounds for divorce on charges of "adultery". The point of contention being that some definitions require "sexual intercourse" for a charge of adultery, and the historical definition of "sexual intercourse" only encompasses penile-vaginal sex. Obviously same-gender sex would be excluded.
The Canadian high court eventually ruled a married person having a gay sexual affair was "adultery".

Something similar occurred in New Hampshire, and the courts ruled that a gay love affair for a married man WAS NOT "adultery" based on arguments similar to the above. I don't know if she got a divorce on other grounds, but the courts ruled it was not legal "adultery".
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/suprem...3/blanc150.htm

Just as a demonstration of where the whole "it was not sex" ideology / terminology can lead to...

Wow that's new news to me!