Gallup Poll Shows 62% of under 30 crowd PRo BUsh
 

Sorry I dont have a link, as I read this in todays NY Daily News. 10/30/03. I will look to see if I can find this.

The article stated that 62% of Americans under the age of 30 are pro Bush. They support the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, and Bush's Economics.

This was reported byt the Associated Press and the poll was conducted by the Gallup Corp.

If anyone finds an online copy of this please post.

Thanks.

So what? Do you have an opinion on this? It doesn't really mean a damn thing. Maybe post the reason you posted this so we can ascertain what you want to talk about.

I want to talk that most under 30 people LIKE Bush. They think he is doing a good job. They think the war is going well. That despite what the Media and liberal left are trying to make Americans believe.

Is the media saying that all young people hate Bush? Examples?

I assume that alot of them are males. Furthermore they, like myself, are probably cowboys. I was madder then hell after 9/11 and was glad that Bush wasn't going to be some bureaucratic pussy and fucking deal with the U.N. every step of the fucking way. I'll admit that Dubya has his flaws in policy and what not, but I respect that he was willing to step up to the plate to lead this country after everything that has happened.

I don't know what your media says, but me myself seems to notice that according to the media Bush is some evil old white bigot, whom may or may not be the Anti-Christ for being pro-life, pro-tax cut, and pro-America.

What was the alternatives? Stepping down and surrendering?

Surrendering wasn't, but wagging the dog and appeasing Europe and the Arab world over several issues was. Fact of the matter Bush took shit into his own hands and factored in what was good for America's interests, which is all he is accountable for.

Yeah god forbid being diplomatic.

I like the war on terror, It's like that time they started the war on drugs,a dn suddently no drugs were aviable, and all drug problems was solved. I can't wait until all terror is kiled in the same way, and I can remove the ducttape from my various orifices.

Apparently the "liberal" media doesn't really have any kind of pull on what people think. Right? How else could you explain bush's approval rating on what is probably the most media saturated demographic there is. Especially considering everyone on TV goes out of their way to paint the picture of bush as
some evil old white bigot, whom may or may not be the Anti-Christ for being pro-life, pro-tax cut, and pro-America.

I conclude that either this whole "liberal media" issue that some folks a so quick to blame for any kind of negative assessment of the current administration is akin to some sort of chicken little dance, or the media isn't any more liberal than it is conservative.

We tried being diplomatic. Hence the 12 years of sanctions and 17 resolutions that were passed. 17 resolutions that Saddam willfully violated for those 12 years. Bush gave Saddam plenty of time, hell more then I would've, that fuckhead had four years to make things right after Clinton went in and he didn't, so get fucking serious about being diplomatic. All diplomatic is in this situation is Europe trying to contain US power for its own selfish interests.

If you don't think Bush takes heat from the media, well.... you must be living on the moon, in a cave with your eyes closed and your ears plugged. So do you live in a cave on the moon? Oh really, how convienent.

Diplomatic towards other big nations that opposed the war. And the UN.

How were we not Diplomatic? Answer me that.

Nah, pretty close, though, I live in Norway.

My question was serious though, I don't get to watch or read American news media too often, so I wonder what opinion people has on this. Is the big media really biased in one general direction?


....well you didn't really get a green light from the UN did you?

I'd say 80% of the time I see something about Bush on TV it is negative, could be that I live in one of the more "liberal" states.

As far as the UN, the whole fiasco showed that they have no real resolve or authority. France vowed to cockblock the U.S. no matter what because they would lose economically. Bush wanted Saddam out of there, and the French weren't down with that. I'd say, judging by that, at best both sides did a piss poor job of diplomacy. Just because we didn't get the green light doesn't mean we were undiplomatic, or that we were wrong, its just the way it worked.

Well, I think it's great that Europe and the UN is useless, because that mean we won't have to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. That should be left to the relevant and determined countries of the coalition. Have fun.

Again, eple's "Norway, the rest of the world can go to hell" mentality. Good dont pay, we never expected you guys to chip in or do anything other than benifit from our actions. Europe is very good at this, ask France.

So, what's the problem? The "liberal" media is obviously having no effect. The sky isn't falling, it isn't a problem.;)

I think there are just as many examples off conservative values reflected in the media, you just don't notice them because you are only looking for liberal bias. See how many gay couples you see in prime time. Count how many man on man kisses you see in television, are they as frequent as heterosexual kisses? Have you even seen one? Give me some concrete examples of liberal bias. If there is as much as you say there is you should just be able to turn on your t.v. and then type exactly what you are seeing.

Here's an example against the idea of a media going out of its way to playahate on the president:
How long did it take the CIA agent white house leak story to make a major news source? I read about it on tfp at least a week before i heard anything about it on any major news outlet. That isn't really consistent with your apparent opinion that the media is just waiting to jump on any excuse to criticise the president. Why would the media wait a week to report en masse some credible negative info on bush if they were so biased and eager to smear him?

Clinton took heaps of heat from the media. All presidents take heat from the media, that is what the media does. If jesus were president he would take heaps of criticism from the media. People would complain about him spending to much time tending to the needs of the sick and the poor and ignoring the military's budget needs. Quit pretending that media bias is the only reason bush takes heat.

And good luck Democrates in 04, dont let the door hit you on the way out.

Hm? we are responsible for celaning up your mess?

Anyways, don't flame Norway, they are giving away money and personell just like the US wants to. I am fronting my opinions, not Norway's.

Anyway, if you didn't partake in the destruction, you aren't responsible for reconstructioning. Clean up your own mess. The end.

Saved for future chuckle.

We'll see what the nation thinks 12 months and several days from now.

I've been saving FEL-erisms like that for next november myself. I'll have a nice long thread of those kinds of quotes, and then a picture of me gloating.

Most people aren't anti-gay, but do you fault them if they don't agree with it? I forsure as hell know I don't like seeing men kiss on tv. I suppose that America is racist to because UPN has piss poor ratings because it is main stream BET.

Quote:

Clinton took heaps of heat from the media. All presidents take heat from the media, that is what the media does. If jesus were president he would take heaps of criticism from the media. People would complain about him spending to much time tending to the needs of the sick and the poor and ignoring the military's budget needs. Quit pretending that media bias is the only reason bush takes heat.

I agree that every president takes heat, and that it is basically the media's job to do such. Like I said earlier, alot of the stuff you see (or at least as I view it) you'd think Bush was ushering in the apoclypse.

Those heartless bastards!

(see sig below)

Who are you voting for, the General that hangs with War criminals( why that picture is not being displayed like the Rumsfeild with Saddam pic is, i will never know,) that was fired for wanting to fire on allied troops, or the guy from Vermont that gave the weathy a tax cut, while increasing the middle classes taxes? Or the other guys that seem to flip flop their stances every time they see that America is more in tune with Conservatives then Liberals out side of California and New York?

The guy I already gave $700 dollars to, Howard Dean.

So your saying the content of the media actually has more to do with what the viewers will accept than any kind of unstated political motivation? I agree. I think the media is a reflection of the people who watch it. Whichever way you think the media leans, you have to acknowledge that it couldn't lean that way if enough people didn't want it to. Why would people watch something if they believed it was actively working against their goals? So if america is moving to the right, as the results of recent elections seem to indicate, how is it that the "liberal media" isn't being made to suffer for it's(according to you) 80% liberal bias rate?

Many people in america are racist, you're right on that one. I fail to see how that relates to what i said. Perhaps you could elaborate on that comparison.

I've certainly seen that idea expressed in the media, but i would argue that the people expressing it are in the minority. I also think there has been just as much, in fact considerably more pro-bush, pro-war information coming from the mainstream media. In fact, there was a point immediately after 9/11 where, as far as anyone in the manstream media was concerned, the president shit roses. He was untouchable. On 9/10 the president was lacking in intelligence(the I.Q. kind) even by the admission of some of his own party. Then 9/11 and suddenly the president is a brilliant leader, and untouchable. It's only been since iraq has become somewhat tenuous that being critical of the president is acceptable again.
Liberal bias exists just as conservative bias exists, but both are completely blown out of proportion.

Well, statistically speaking, it's not the under 30 male vote that Bush needs, it's the 25-50 female, upper middle class vote that he needs to completely landslide the '04 Elections, that's how Slick Willy did it in '92 and '96.

I don't recall 96, but did Willy I think had less of the vote then GWB in 1992 I think....

GO GO GOOGLE POWERS ACTIVATE..

Ahhh 42% in 92 and 49% in 96.

Don't think I'd call those a landslide.

Reagan in 1984 with 59% was a lot closer to a landslide.

42% in 1992, but that was a 3 way race where Clinton came in first, Perot second, and Bush I a low trailing third.

In a 3 way race 42% is a commanding majority.

William J. Clinton (W) 370 44,908,254 42.93%

George H. W. Bush 168 39,102,343 37.38%

Ross Perot 19,741,065 18.87%

Me fail english, thats unpossible! :P

I found the source poll here

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...oll.rock.vote/

By the way, this story is awesome because it actually lists the exact survey questions and answers. So many press stories distort or don't disclose the actual survey details. Kudos to CNN for the interactive results browser in the story. (It's a javascript, so i can't link, just look for poll results in the little box.)

Anyway, on to the good stuff:

Question: What is your opinion of President George W. Bush?

18-29: Favorable: 66% Unfavorable: 34%

What is your opinion of former President Bill Clinton?

18-29: Favorable 67% Unfavorable 32%

Should gay marriages be recognized by law?

18-29: Yes 53% No 45%

Should U.S. Troops remain in Iraq?

18-29: More/same number: 38% Withdraw some/all: 62%


Gotta love those kids. Bush is OK, but Clinton was better, gay marriages are OK, and let's get those troops out of Iraq!

Thanks for endorsing this valuable and informative survey, Food Eater Lad! I feel a lot better about kids today.

Re: Gallup Poll Shows 62% of under 30 crowd PRo BUsh
 

Just goes to show that those under 30 don't really have a clue what's going on.:)

Well, if you cared enough about 9/11 you might know that the UN supported and chipped in on 'enduring freedom'(wtf is it about these names?) but since the links connecting Iraq to terror or even WMD was weaker than about any other muslim country on this planet they didn't want anything to do with it.

I for one is mostly opposed to the hypocrisy that is Bush, if he had just said "We are pretty tired of having to go along with every wim th OPEC countries get so to awoid a energy crisis in the near future we will take the weakest country with the most oil by force. Anybody who's joins in will share the spoils and get a chance of kicking some muslim ass. " then I'd think it was OK and probably wanted my country to join in.

Links to Iraq and terror are weak??? In what world do you live? He had ties to groups such as the ANO, Ansar Al- Islam, and various Palestinian groups. Other groups besides Al-Queda exist you know and he did support them.

We never attacked Iraq for our own oil supply, it amazes me that dissenters of the war never have been able to grasp this. We get maybe 20% of our oil from the Mideast (None of which comes from Iraq). If anything our presence in Iraq is a move to ensure our status as the sole hyper-power. Our presence in the unstable region that is the Mideast acts as a deterrent for other nations (such as Japan and Western European countries) that rely heavily on Mideastern oil from policing the region, thus they have weaker standing armies, thus we remain top dog. If you don't believe me read up on Paul Wolfowitz, this has been his idea for many a year, and he has manifested it quite brilliantly.

1 - I didn't say there where NO links to between Iraq and terrorism, I just said that any other muslim country in the world including US allies like Saudi Arabia could show stronger links.

2 - As for the deterrant part, is this why muslim countries are racing to develop nukes? Or is that a direct result of the invasion of a practicly defenceless country?

3 - I also didn't say you went in to take their oil, I said you went in to take control over their oil to lessen the OPEC-influence.

(this thread is pretty far from the subject by now isn't it?)


Well, that's it for me today, I'm going to Copenhagen to drink beer with my lovly neighbours the danes whos sense of mocking Bush I love (sending a submarine to Iraq when he demanded their help in operation iraqi freedom, now that's the highest form of irony).

Well yes and no......

He has partially taken international terrorism to task.

But iraq didn't support international terrorism, so how do you explain that?

The Saudis do support international terrorism, it is the birth place of al-queada, Bin Ladden is from SA, 15 of 19 of the terrorists of 911 were from Saudi, etc, etc. Yet bush does nothing. How do you explain that?

The UN and the security council was in full support to root out terrorism in Afghanistan, etc. There are several nations helping out there. For example, Canada has 2,000 troops stationed in Khandahar. The UN did not support attacking Iraq because Iraq had attacked no other country. It's a hard sell to convince the UN that it should conquor a peaceful country. And before you crank it up telling me that saddam is a madman, know this, i agree, he was a murdering prick. But he had not attacked any other country. In 91, he attacked Kuwait and the UN responded very quickly to attack him. In other words, the UN worked.

:p

That's the best line i think i have read in a long time. Great post.

The Saudi royal family has 1 trillion dollars in the US stock market. They basically hold us for ransom. Think what would happen if in one day 1 trillion dollars is removed.