The hell?

January 19, 2005 6:05 PM

Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider. And 90% of CNN polls are half-mental. Or something. Via TMW
posted by XQUZYPHYR (42 comments total)

Doesn't this necessarily mean he is a divider?
posted by rxrfrx at 6:06 PM on January 19, 2005

CNN polls are non-scientific. A proper survey would grab the opinions of 1500 people or so across the country at random. That said, November's elections are probably a more accurate assessment of our country's ideological division.
posted by AlexReynolds at 6:10 PM on January 19, 2005

OK, part of me thinks this is weak, 'cause there's no content, but more of me is rofling about the headline.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:15 PM on January 19, 2005

Yeah, the headline itself is a better story than the story is.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:17 PM on January 19, 2005

Doesn't this necessarily mean he is a divider?

Yup. I figure that "nation is divided over whether Boosh is a uniter or divider" means that only 25% think he's a uniter.
posted by 327.ca at 6:18 PM on January 19, 2005

AlexReynolds - check the link. This was a scientific poll w/ a nationwide sample of over 1,000.

The headline is classic, almost beats out yesterday's CNoNion headline.
posted by thirdparty at 6:18 PM on January 19, 2005

AlexReynolds, that's funny because that's pretty much what Bush keeps saying. The November elections give him the right and the power to do as he pleases, regardless of the fact that half the country didn't vote for him.

The question is will they tone down the inauguration? Of course, that would be giving into the defeatists. Spend, spend, spend, smile, smile, smile, someone's getting rich off the blood of innocents, hoorah!
posted by fenriq at 6:22 PM on January 19, 2005

CNN polls are non-scientific. A proper survey would grab the opinions of 1500 people or so across the country at random.

I quote, from the motherfucking link:

Forty-nine percent of 1,007 adult Americans said in phone interviews they believe Bush is a "uniter," according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday. Another 49 percent called him a "divider," and 2 percent had no opinion. The results nearly match those of a poll taken in October 2004, which showed 48 percent considered Bush a "uniter" and 48 percent called him a "divider," with 4 percent having no opinion.

It's actually an interesting logical paradox. If 100% of Americans thought Bush was a 'divider', would he be a 'uniter'? Or just a uniter in terms of having people think that he's a divider? Does the act of believing that someone is a divider mean that he/she is a divider? Do the terms 'uniter' and 'divider' have meaning beyond the belief in their effect?

Introduction to Philosophy class is now in recess.
posted by riviera at 6:22 PM on January 19, 2005

*raises hand*

Wouldn't we then be united in thinking he's a divider if it was 100%, riviera?
posted by amberglow at 6:28 PM on January 19, 2005

riviera - I'm no philosophosist, but I think if 100% of Americans thought Bush was a "divider," you'd certainly have to call him a "uniter" of something, if only the sentiment that he is divisive. But the fact that 50% believe he is a "uniter" and 50% a "divider" doesn't necessarily mean he is *not* a "uniter" on some issue. He's certainly a "divider" on the issue being addressed in the poll ("uniter or divider?"), but he may be a "uniter" on another issue, such as, oh, "do you have strong feelings about this President?"
posted by thirdparty at 6:32 PM on January 19, 2005

Metafilter: Quoting from the Motherfucking Link
posted by jonp72 at 6:33 PM on January 19, 2005

So to summarize, people could be united in support, united in opposition, united in indifference, and so on.
There are probably fifty united states.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:36 PM on January 19, 2005

This is like the statistic that 75% of people think their IQ is above 100, but much funnier.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:40 PM on January 19, 2005

Isn't it a little early for this poll? Just weeks ago half the country voted for Bush, half for Kerry. A this point:

Obviously: Bush is both.

Obviously: Kerry would be too.
posted by scheptech at 6:42 PM on January 19, 2005

"The question is will they tone down the inauguration? Of course, that would be giving into the defeatists. Spend, spend, spend, smile, smile, smile, someone's getting rich off the blood of innocents, hoorah!"

The money being spent on the inauguration could buy 690 Humvees and pay for a $290 bonus for each soldier serving in Iraq, but our mission has been accomplished, so there's no need for that.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:46 PM on January 19, 2005

AlexReynolds - check the link. This was a scientific poll w/ a nationwide sample of over 1,000.

Mea culpa. The link looked like one of CNN's "quickpolls" that show up on their frontpage. FWIW, I never disagreed that the country is divided. In fact, I strongly dislike Bush and his corrupt, cronyist administration, almost as must as I dislike the Democratic half of the Senate and House for rolling over on cabinet nominations.
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:14 PM on January 19, 2005

He's a floor wax. AND a dessert topping. This president is the greatest shine you ever tasted.
posted by LeLiLo at 7:17 PM on January 19, 2005

Yeah, the headline was funny but this...

I quote, from the motherfucking link:

...was much funnier.
posted by effwerd at 7:20 PM on January 19, 2005

Somebody please call me when we can start easily discerning which headlines are from CNN, and which are from the Onion. I'll be over here playing flash games or something. Thanks.
posted by majcher at 7:23 PM on January 19, 2005

Shit. I mean here. See, every second I read the news, I get stupider. There ain't much more stupid to go before I hit bottom, either.
posted by majcher at 7:25 PM on January 19, 2005

49% believe he is a divider and 49% believe he is a uniter and like cherry kool-aid, 2% prefer hiding their head in the sand.
posted by Arch Stanton at 7:27 PM on January 19, 2005

Some of the other stats are even stranger. 18% of people thing that the Inagural celebration is going to help heal the partisan divide. How does that even make sense?
posted by absalom at 7:30 PM on January 19, 2005

Metafilter: There ain't much more stupid to go...
posted by toftflin at 7:31 PM on January 19, 2005

18% of people thing that the Inagural celebration is going to help heal the partisan divide. How does that even make sense?

Why do people buy brand-name drugs when there's a generic equivalent? Marketing...
posted by AlexReynolds at 7:35 PM on January 19, 2005

By having us agree that we are divided he has already united us. He has done this to even a greater degree in Iraq where the divisions are even greater.

Seriously, I would like to see a good poll that taps into questions like how many think he is terrible versus wonderful. This seems to be the real polarization not 49% thinking something sort of, versus 49% thinking something else (sort of).
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:44 PM on January 19, 2005

And would somebody please explain to me what this means:

24 percent said it (the President's most important role) should be to provide moral leadership.

Are these respondents seriously trying to say that Bush's most important job is to show everyone how to be moral? Forget about diplomacy, forget about uniting the country, forget about running the war just--"Look at me..I ain't gettin no blow jobs."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:45 PM on January 19, 2005

I'm failing to find it, but wasn't there something in the Onion like this a month or so before the election?

Poll: Is America divided?

50% - Yes
50% - No
posted by psmealey at 8:11 PM on January 19, 2005

dividing? uniting? motherfucking? BOOM!
posted by NationalKato at 8:27 PM on January 19, 2005

This is only an issue because, at one time, Bush said something like "I am a uniter, not a divider." At the time, this seemed, to me, to be as silly as Michael Jackson saying "I'm a lover, not a fighter."

Has there ever been a president that the whole nation loved? Of course not. Even Reagan (as we learned during his obit MeFi thread) was despised by a significant portion of the population. Presidents, by making choices, automatically favor some causes and stand in opposition to others.

Thus, the only logical answer to this question is "divider," just like every president before him. The major thing that united the U.S. during his first four years was 9/11, which was not his doing. That temporary unity, of course, was part of what resulted in the quick passage of the Patriot act, the march to war, etc.

So, in conclusion, Bush is not a divider, but the 9/11 terrorists were uniters. Let's take a moment and hope that we have no more dreadful reasons to be excessively united in the next four years.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:41 PM on January 19, 2005

The question is will they tone down the inauguration?

No, the question is, "is our children learning?" This much we know.
posted by mudpuppie at 8:46 PM on January 19, 2005

Personally, I think he is a univider. But my better half thinks he is a diviter.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 9:58 PM on January 19, 2005

He has done this to even a greater degree in Iraq where the divisions are even greater.

From what it looks like, those divisions are the Quick and the Dead.
posted by 235w103 at 11:06 PM on January 19, 2005

And would somebody please explain to me what this means:

24 percent said it (the President's most important role) should be to provide moral leadership.

I'm going to guess it's just that you parsed it differently than some other people did. I personally would have parsed that as "The president's most important role is to provide leadership which is moral", not "leadership about being moral". That may explain the large number.
posted by Bugbread at 11:50 PM on January 19, 2005

'Uniter' is a Bushism. What he *meant* to say was 'polarizer':

Bush
I'm a polarizer, not a divider!

posted by vhsiv at 11:56 PM on January 19, 2005

"In an economic recession, I'd rather that in order to get out of this recession, that the people be spending their money, not the government trying to figure out how to spend the people's money."— George W. Bush, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 16, 2004

Meanwhile, the District of Columbia - who voted against him, 10-1 - gets to foot the $17.3M bill for the extra security and the overtime that goes with it.

Uniter? Divider? It depends on which side of the barricades you're standing on.
posted by vhsiv at 12:16 AM on January 20, 2005

The CNN folks who create these headlines MUST have a sense of humor. Surely such plentiful fodder for mirth cannot continually be accidental.
I can envision them snickering with one another as they create another imaginative and onionesque lead to slip by "the man."
posted by nofundy at 5:08 AM on January 20, 2005

PM Hopes for more consensual Bush is a good one.

My all time favourite headline is "Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic are Atriocious" after Caledonian beat Celtic in a Scottish football match.
posted by vbfg at 5:58 AM on January 20, 2005

The CNN folks who create these headlines MUST have a sense of humor

This one is already classic: Better Human Intelligence Needed
posted by amberglow at 6:01 AM on January 20, 2005

/OT

Poll: Is America divided?

50% - Yes
50% - No

This seems as good a time as any to share my favourite/the most useless statistic of all time. During the pre-game show for the Super Bowl in 1995 (San Diego vs. San Francisco), this briefly flashed onscreen:

THE TEAM THAT HAS WON THE PRE-GAME COIN TOSS HAS WON THE SUPER BOWL 50% OF THE TIME.

It's almost like a zen koan. Sometimes I recite it to calm myself down.

/OT
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:06 AM on January 20, 2005

Everybody, FREEP THIS POLL.
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 6:32 AM on January 20, 2005

Obviously: Bush is both.

Obviously: Kerry would be too.

This, actually, isn't true, or, at least, it's not proven. It's impossible to know if Kerry would have reached across the aisle or not.

Would the U.S. had been divided? Well, yes, obviously. Would Kerry have been the divider? Well, that's harder to know.

We, however, have 4 years of Bush's presidency to state confidently whether or not he is a divider or uniter.
posted by Human Stain at 8:11 AM on January 20, 2005

Has there ever been a president that the whole nation loved?

FDR came pretty damn close, but I guess since the Right has made hate of him and the New Deal, it sort of makes up for it.
posted by absalom at 9:23 AM on January 20, 2005