If you ever check out realclearpolitics, remember it's a conservative site

[Thorgrim]

But, while I think Kirk can be attacked fairly for supporting the President's policy in Iraq - even though he voted against the surge and was one of the eleven Republicans who went to the White House in May and told the President he'd better get his act together on the war or else - to attack Kirk as being indifferent or neglectful of US troops or veterans benefits is simply laughable.

...

As I said, Kirk is vulnerable over his initial support for the war, but trying to attack him as neglecting US soldiers and veterans is exceedingly dishonest - and doing it over the Fourth of July holiday only makes it that much more shameful.

Real Clear Politics - News - Mid Term Elections - Elections 2008 - Opinion - Commentary - TIME

Kirk not only voted against timetables, he also showed no interest or opposed giving the troops full leave, and did not vigorously fight when US veteran funds were being cut by the 2005 GOP

Kirk has been a big Iraq supporter, in votes, and in actions, yet RCP constantly runs articles slamming Democratic congressman, yet they almost never target conservative republicans...

What makes it worse than the fact they hold themselves out to be fair and balanced, is that Fox uses them as their source of statistics for elections...and the extremely blood red Weekly Standard praises their commentators...and not for being fair, but for making "excellent points"

For the record, the staff and their favorite writers were wildly off about the 2006 election basically all the way up to the night before the election...so it's not like fox picks them because they are particularly intelligent

I visit them because it gives me a quick link to what right wingers think are the best articles of the day and I can better understand their thinking...but make no mistake, they are hugely partisan and one small step away from being "redstate with statistics we hyperlink"

[JaJae]

They do a great job of keeping up to date averages on the polls though. Excellent resource.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They do a great job of keeping up to date averages on the polls though. Excellent resource.

Their RealClearPolitics - Polls - Archives is off

They use sources like Rasmussen who they know are a constant outlier of +4-10 of presidential approval, I have no idea what method scott uses for Bush's approval, but when he was in the low 30s for the first time, Rasmussen had him as high as I think mid40s when every single other polling firm had him in the 30s

Bush: Job Ratings is more accurate

[Thorgrim]

Another example of Rasmussen's problems:

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election.

Other poll asks the reasonable, do you support or oppose impeachment proceedings?

That's the more objective question...people don't like the word impeachment, it's harsh, and they phrase it in a straight up way "do you support or oppose?"

Great question, solid answers...

Now Scott goes: Do you want Bush to be IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM OFFICE?

Well, really, that brings in the whole question of how it would go in the Senate, would Cheney be the new president, would Nancy? Does saying yes mean I think he's 100% guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? A ton of confusing factors that would cause people to stop and go "nah...I don't think I want that"