Nearly Half of American Believe Muslims Should Have Reduced Civil Liberties.

[Admiral Ackbar]

In U.S., 44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties)

[camoor]

In U.S., 44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties)

Oh goody. Instead of interred Japanese-Americans and liberty cabbage it's an expanded Guantanamo Bay and freedom fries.

And they say history doesn't repeat itself.

[ananag112]

That is retarted. I am Indian and I am Hindu. When ever I go on a plane or something, it feel that the security guards are extra wary of my family and me. People always confuse Hindus with Muslims and it really makes me mad. A Hindu temple near me got trashed because some Americans thought it was a Muslim prayer place.

EDIT: Not that I am saying Muslims should be attacked. I am just saying that some "Americans" seem to be a tad ignorant.

[RedvsBlue]

Wow this is great. I'd be really curious to know how many people would endorse internment camps reminiscent of WWII. Wait, I don't want to know actually, it'll probably just piss me off.

[JSweeney]

In related news, I believe nearly half of Americans deserve a good smack upside the head.

I wonder if they took the time to break down the denomination of the people who said they are "deeply religious". Strangely, the differences between Prodestant and Catholic seem to make some differences in situations like this.

[ananag112]

In U.S., 44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties)

Oh goody. Instead of interred Japanese-Americans and liberty cabbage it's an expanded Guantanamo Bay and freedom fries.

And they say history doesn't repeat itself.

So true. So true.

[Kaijufan]

I hate people who think like this.

[David85]

Why are you people shocked?

The majority of the country is still white, they don't give a fucking rats ass to the minorities, that's been shown all the time.

Wait up to the fucking times people, the country is going to hell because people are fucking dumbasses.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

In related news, I believe nearly half of Americans deserve a good smack upside the head.

I believe that number is actually closer to 85%.

[JSweeney]

Why are you people shocked?

The majority of the country is still white, they don't give a shaq-fuing rats ass to the minorities, that's been shown all the time.

Wait up to the shaq-fuing times people, the country is going to hell because people are shaq-fuing dumbasses.

Well if that isn't just the pot calling the kettle black.
You aren't exactly a shinning pinnacle of honor, virtue and intelligence yourself, David.

Rallying against "them" is easy. Sitting on the outside yelling in doesn't do anything, and often exacerbates the issue.

[ananag112]

Where I live, people are more considerate towards minorities. Still, can't anyone see that restricting rights for innocent people is just plain wrong? What is wrong with America?

[JSweeney]

In related news, I believe nearly half of Americans deserve a good smack upside the head.

I believe that number is actually closer to 85%.

I think after that post it just went up to 85% +1 :)

[JSweeney]

Where I live, people are more considerate towards minorities. Still, can't anyone see that restricting rights for innocent people is just plain wrong? What is wrong with America?

People live there.

[ananag112]

Where I live, people are more considerate towards minorities. Still, can't anyone see that restricting rights for innocent people is just plain wrong? What is wrong with America?

People live there.

Clarify please.

[JSweeney]

Where I live, people are more considerate towards minorities. Still, can't anyone see that restricting rights for innocent people is just plain wrong? What is wrong with America?

People live there.

Clarify please.

No people, no problems.
People cause problems. People, when gathered together start thinking as groups, removing "humanity" from the issue. It's easier for a group to be racist, sexist, etc, because the individiual person can always point a finger and say... "it's thier fault... It's not me... I'm different".

[David85]

Why are you people shocked?

The majority of the country is still white, they don't give a shaq-fuing rats ass to the minorities, that's been shown all the time.

Wait up to the shaq-fuing times people, the country is going to hell because people are shaq-fuing dumbasses.

Well if that isn't just the pot calling the kettle black.
You aren't exactly a shinning pinnacle of honor, virtue and intelligence yourself, David.

Rallying against "them" is easy. Sitting on the outside yelling in doesn't do anything, and often exacerbates the issue.

Do you just become a fucking dumbass more and more each day?

I bet you are one of the 44%.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Where I live, people are more considerate towards minorities. Still, can't anyone see that restricting rights for innocent people is just plain wrong? What is wrong with America?

People live there.

Clarify please.

No people, no problems.
People cause problems. People, when gathered together start thinking as groups, removing "humanity" from the issue. It's easier for a group to be racist, sexist, etc, because the individiual person can always point a finger and say... "it's thier fault... It's not me... I'm different".

group·think n.

The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.

[JSweeney]

The majority of the country is still white, they don't give a shaq-fuing rats ass to the minorities, that's been shown all the time.

Exactly how do you quantify they?
All white people?
The majority of white people?
Some white people?

Exactly how is making an assumption about someone based purely on race not prejudicial?

The use of they along with "white" hints towards and accusation being made against an entire class of people. Considering only 44% of Americans said that, that's hardly even a majority of "white" americans.

If you look at the story provided, it doesn't even mention race.
You've dragged race into this on the back of a prejudical statement.


Wait up to the shaq-fuing times people, the country is going to hell because people are shaq-fuing dumbasses.

The fact that you seem to love calling people dumbasses seems to suggest that you have a belief that you are smarter than these people, and in your mind "better".
That seems to be a huge display of hubris. I'm sorry, but even in the petty little arguments here, many, many CAGs seem to get the better of you. Using yourself a metric to judge the American public just seems to be folly.

Do you just become a shaq-fuing dumbass more and more each day?
If being in disagreement with you makes someone a dumbass, then yes.
I am a dumbass. As is likely the majority of this board.

I bet you are one of the 44%.
If you'd bother to read a thread before storming in, you'd see the ridiculousness of that statement.

Suggesting to do something like this is a small minded, prejudical and racist thing to do. Of course, trying to agrue and yell about it in the same terms is just silly... and that's exactly what you are doing.

[WhipSmartBanky]

The majority of the country is still white, they don't give a shaq-fuing rats ass to the minorities, that's been shown all the time.

Exactly how do you quantify they?
All white people?
The majority of white people?
Some white people?

Exactly how is making an assumption about someone based purely on race not prejudicial?

The use of they along with "white" hints towards and accusation being made against an entire class of people. Considering only 44% of Americans said that, that's hardly even a majority of "white" americans.

If you look at the story provided, it doesn't even mention race.
You've dragged race into this on the back of a prejudical statement.


Wait up to the shaq-fuing times people, the country is going to hell because people are shaq-fuing dumbasses.

The fact that you seem to love calling people dumbasses seems to suggest that you have a belief that you are smarter than these people, and in your mind "better".
That seems to be a huge display of hubris. I'm sorry, but even in the petty little arguments here, many, many CAGs seem to get the better of you. Using yourself a metric to judge the American public just seems to be folly.

Do you just become a shaq-fuing dumbass more and more each day?
If being in disagreement with you makes someone a dumbass, then yes.
I am a dumbass. As is likely the majority of this board.

I bet you are one of the 44%.
If you'd bother to read a thread before storming in, you'd see the ridiculousness of that statement.

Suggesting to do something like this is a small minded, prejudical and racist thing to do. Of course, trying to agrue and yell about it in the same terms is just silly... and that's exactly what you are doing.

http://www.atari.net/sites/banky/winpwn3d.gif

[Ikohn4ever]

I am curious on the breakdown. I wonder what percentage is men and women, what percentage are white, black, asian, and what precentage of different religous groups. That sort of info makes things a lot clearer.

[RedvsBlue]

The majority of the country is still white, they don't give a shaq-fuing rats ass to the minorities, that's been shown all the time.

Exactly how do you quantify they?
All white people?
The majority of white people?
Some white people?

Exactly how is making an assumption about someone based purely on race not prejudicial?

The use of they along with "white" hints towards and accusation being made against an entire class of people. Considering only 44% of Americans said that, that's hardly even a majority of "white" americans.

If you look at the story provided, it doesn't even mention race.
You've dragged race into this on the back of a prejudical statement.


Wait up to the shaq-fuing times people, the country is going to hell because people are shaq-fuing dumbasses.

The fact that you seem to love calling people dumbasses seems to suggest that you have a belief that you are smarter than these people, and in your mind "better".
That seems to be a huge display of hubris. I'm sorry, but even in the petty little arguments here, many, many CAGs seem to get the better of you. Using yourself a metric to judge the American public just seems to be folly.

Do you just become a shaq-fuing dumbass more and more each day?
If being in disagreement with you makes someone a dumbass, then yes.
I am a dumbass. As is likely the majority of this board.

I bet you are one of the 44%.
If you'd bother to read a thread before storming in, you'd see the ridiculousness of that statement.

Suggesting to do something like this is a small minded, prejudical and racist thing to do. Of course, trying to agrue and yell about it in the same terms is just silly... and that's exactly what you are doing.

Good stuff but I would highly disagree with the fact that David85 is elitist...nope couldn't be the case, he's just better than the rest of us, that's all.

[Ledhed]

Strangely, the differences between ProDestant and Catholic seem to make some differences in situations like this.

Completely off-topic, but I simply had to seeing as I'm sure this is the first and last time that Sweeney has ever misspelled something. :wink:

[JSweeney]

I am curious on the breakdown. I wonder what percentage is men and women, what percentage are white, black, asian, and what precentage of different religous groups. That sort of info makes things a lot clearer.

I know. I really wish there was a transcript of the press conference that Cornell held on this.
More information on the methodology used, and a peek at the raw data itself would be great. There are so many more numbers that they could have generated out of thier data, but didn't.

Sorting by location (urban\suburban\rural), race, sex, and multiple other factors could have given us even more interesting data to mull over.

[camoor]

Strangely, the differences between ProDestant and Catholic seem to make some differences in situations like this.

Completely off-topic, but I simply had to seeing as I'm sure this is the first and last time that Sweeney has ever misspelled something. :wink:

The scarlet D! :shock: :lol:

[JSweeney]

The red!
It burns!!
It burns with an unholy glow!
Avert your eyes!!

[alonzomourning23]

That is retarted. I am Indian and I am Hindu. When ever I go on a plane or something, it feel that the security guards are extra wary of my family and me. People always confuse Hindus with Muslims and it really makes me mad. A Hindu temple near me got trashed because some Americans thought it was a Muslim prayer place.

EDIT: Not that I am saying Muslims should be attacked. I am just saying that some "Americans" seem to be a tad ignorant.

I have a lot of hindu friends and they have the same problems. And this is MA, a supposedly liberal state, I can only imagine how it is in other parts of the country. One of my friends co workers used to, everytime he walked near him, would step aside and make a joke about how he "osama" is going to blow us up (referring to my friend). He also gets searched everytime he goes on a plane (like the rest of his family), where when my father goes off at security, they look for every possible reason not to search him. One guard even took a lighter out of his carry on luggage and told him he had to keep it in his pocket or he couldn't take it on the plane. I remember one time they even stopped his 14 year old cousin and searched her (we dropped her off at the airport and were watching). They told us we had to go away, to stop watching, and the guy who told us kept looking at the ground (instead of his eyes) whenever my friend looked at him. He never really talks about any of it (though he did complain about people calling him osama at school), so I have no idea what has gone on when I wasn't around. I wonder what it would be like if we were in alabama or someplace in middle america.

[Quackzilla]

They only asked 715 people.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

Strangely, the differences between ProDestant and Catholic seem to make some differences in situations like this.

Completely off-topic, but I simply had to seeing as I'm sure this is the first and last time that Sweeney has ever misspelled something. :wink:

I caught a Sweeney spelling mistake not to long ago. They are quite rare.

[elprincipe]

In U.S., 44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties)

That is some scary stuff there, scary stuff.

[elprincipe]

Why are you people shocked?

The majority of the country is still white, they don't give a shaq-fuing rats ass to the minorities, that's been shown all the time.

Wait up to the shaq-fuing times people, the country is going to hell because people are shaq-fuing dumbasses.

Your comment displays a nice bit of ignorance and betrays your own intolerance. The article didn't mention race at all, yet you imply that people who are white are racist because of it. How sad for you.

EDIT: whoops, didn't read down and see JSweeney's post making any further discussion pretty much unnecessary.

[help1]

thats sick

[David85]

You are a fucking dumbass. They asked random people, muslims are not going to say they are in favor for it and being that the majority of the country is still white why the hell would they care about a minority.

It doesn'r mension race because they took a random poll, do you think the poll is 100% blacks? It is supposed to respeect America, and America is made up of more whitess, thus more whites were asked this question.

[JSweeney]

You are a shaq-fuing dumbass.

What a powerful lead. If only you had content to back it up.


They asked random people, muslims are not going to say they are in favor for it and being that the majority of the country is still white why the hell would they care about a minority.

The people doing the study, or the majority of the country?
Your sentence is poorly formed and thus is not clear enough.
They is very ambigious, and you don't provide enough context for one to figure which you mean.

In any case, I'll answer both points.

The racial make-up of those participating in the study would be important to the people conducting the research because it allows them to interpret the data even futher, and helps them to notice patterns and statistical correlations. Considering the matter deals so deeply with both race and religion, it's a germane question... heck, they even pointed out the correlations between the belief and reported religious and political affilations. Race seems like it would be another very valuable metric to any researcher who as studying a topic such as this.

Why would "the whites" care? Because any action that infringes on civil liberties of a class of people sets precedent. If a set precedent already exists, it make it much easier to just expand upon the set precedent.
If the government started by infringing on the civil liberties of muslims, how much more difficult would it be to infringe on say, African Americans, the next time? As soon as you start creating different tiers of civil liberties for certain groups, you start down a very dangerous path.
Many people are wise enought to see at least that much.

It doesn'r mension race because they took a random poll, do you think the poll is 100% blacks?
Even in a random poll, it is an interesting and useful metric. Considering that they asked about religious and political affilation, is it that unusual to believe they would add that question to the questionaire?

It is supposed to respeect America, and America is made up of more whitess, thus more whites were asked this question.
That's neither here nor there, David.

[CTLesq]

Hurrah another thread where we can bash America!

Hurrah! I am going to go have ice cream now!

CTL

[elprincipe]

Hurrah another thread where we can bash America!

Hurrah! I am going to go have ice cream now!

CTL

Come on now, this has nothing to do with bashing America. Just because you don't think America is perfect doesn't mean you're bashing the country. I suppose we shouldn't say anything about Abu Ghraib either (not that these two things have much in common)?

[CTLesq]

Hurrah another thread where we can bash America!

Hurrah! I am going to go have ice cream now!

CTL

Come on now, this has nothing to do with bashing America. Just because you don't think America is perfect doesn't mean you're bashing the country. I suppose we shouldn't say anything about Abu Ghraib either (not that these two things have much in common)?

I don't have time to do trend analysis of this forum, but would you care to wager that most of the people who used this thread as an attempt to be "critical" fall on the side of the fence that generally supports or opposes the policies of the US or Americans in general?

I mean what could be more reasonable that extrapolating the views of 715 people over 280M Americans? And I understand polling can be very accurate. I also would point out that there is not a scintilla of evidence that degree of accuracy was used in this poll.

I have no problem with healthy criticism. The idea that we should use someone's religion as a basis to infringe on their rights in the constitution is clearly wrong and misguided.

[elprincipe]

Hurrah another thread where we can bash America!

Hurrah! I am going to go have ice cream now!

CTL

Come on now, this has nothing to do with bashing America. Just because you don't think America is perfect doesn't mean you're bashing the country. I suppose we shouldn't say anything about Abu Ghraib either (not that these two things have much in common)?

I don't have time to do trend analysis of this forum, but would you care to wager that most of the people who used this thread as an attempt to be "critical" fall on the side of the fence that generally supports or opposes the policies of the US or Americans in general?

I mean what could be more reasonable that extrapolating the views of 715 people over 280M Americans? And I understand polling can be very accurate. I also would point out that there is not a scintilla of evidence that degree of accuracy was used in this poll.

I have no problem with healthy criticism. The idea that we should use someone's religion as a basis to infringe on their rights in the constitution is clearly wrong and misguided.

Well, I've read plenty of posts by some of these people and yes, a few do really hate the U.S. like Quackzilla. OTOH I believe that the attitude that we should take away people's rights due to their religion should be fully exposed to the sunlight and wilt like the noxious weed that it is.

[bmulligan]

Thank the creator that we have some check on the will of the people.

[DCriminal]

Frequently, poll questions are termed a certain way to get a desired response. I wouldn't mind seeing the specific questions that were asked to lead to this conclusion. In all honesty, the limited number of people polled, coupled with the politically charged numbers makes be believe that the poll was not a good one.

I know that I will never see any of this information, but I am heasitant to lend any validity to the conclusions.

[RedvsBlue]

Frequently, poll questions are termed a certain way to get a desired response. I wouldn't mind seeing the specific questions that were asked to lead to this conclusion. In all honesty, the limited number of people polled, coupled with the politically charged numbers makes be believe that the poll was not a good one.

I know that I will never see any of this information, but I am heasitant to lend any validity to the conclusions.

Well you know how it goes, there's lies, there's damned lies and then there's statistics. Finding out that only 715 people took the poll gives me a little bit of comfort.

[Plumberboy]

Finding out that only 715 people took the poll gives me a little bit of comfort.

If the survey participants are representative of the population (in this case America), a sample size if 715 people is acceptable and would result in a margin of error of approx 4 percentage points.

[RedvsBlue]

Finding out that only 715 people took the poll gives me a little bit of comfort.

If the survey participants are representative of the population (in this case America), a sample size if 715 people is acceptable and would result in a margin of error of approx 4 percentage points.

That's my point, how can 715 people be a representation of all the differing opinions within america. There's different opinions within races, sexes, location, political background, etc. 715 is a lazy number of people to poll, plain and simple.

[jmcc]

Actually 715 is a fine number to represent the country, statistically. The method is sound.

[alonzomourning23]

715 is within reason. But just for arguments sake even if it is off by 15 points, that is still a major problem especially when we pride ourselves on being "the land of the free".

[CTLesq]

Actually 715 is a fine number to represent the country, statistically. The method is sound.

Really? And if those 715 are all white men from the upper west side of Manhattan you want to make that argument?

Can 715 people represent 280M people statistically? Maybe. But the study doesn't indicate the methodology that was used.

So it is very much open to question.

CTL

[Quackzilla]

They used the same sampling as with the political polls. They asked 715 random people, and acted like it had the accuracy of a presidential election poll (excluding electronic voting).

This myth is: BUSTED

[ananag112]

715 people is a decent number of people.

[CTLesq]

They used the same sampling as with the political polls. They asked 715 random people, and acted like it had the accuracy of a presidential election poll (excluding electronic voting).

This myth is: BUSTED

As all the political polls that have ever been conducted? Because thats what you said.

And if they are using random people then it can't be said to be representative as you would have to specifically target specific demographics.

Your argument is: BUSTED.

[Quackzilla]

They used the same sampling as with the political polls. They asked 715 random people, and acted like it had the accuracy of a presidential election poll (excluding electronic voting).

This myth is: BUSTED

As all the political polls that have ever been conducted? Because thats what you said.

And if they are using random people then it can't be said to be representative as you would have to specifically target specific demographics.

Your argument is: BUSTED.

I meant that they used the same random lame ass sampling as during the presidential election polls, asking random people on the street.

Then I say that they try and pass it off as accurately representing the opinion of Americans. (like in an official election poll where they ask everybody)

Then I went on to say that the myth that 44% of Americans hate muslims is busted.

So basically, you agreed with my post, but you misinterpereted it.
Just a simple communication error.

[jmcc]

Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.

[elprincipe]

It's amazing what fear will drive people to. Also amazing how our own government is helping the terrorists by comprehensively trying to sow fear among the population over everything in their lives from travel to food supply to the mail. The only thing to fear is fear itself, a good line that I'm sure a lot of people will agree with.

[jmcc]

It's amazing what fear will drive people to. Also amazing how our own government is helping the terrorists by comprehensively trying to sow fear among the population over everything in their lives from travel to food supply to the mail. The only thing to fear is fear itself, a good line that I'm sure a lot of people will agree with.

Fear itself isn't nearly as tangible as people with darker skin than your own, though.

[Quackzilla]

Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall.

[jmcc]

Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall.

And? Odd as it seems, that's statistically enough people to represent the nation.

[Quackzilla]

So during the presidential elections why do we all vote? Why can't the government just call 715 people to decide the next president?

[jmcc]

So during the presidential elections why do we all vote? Why can't the government just call 715 people to decide the next president?

Er, we do? Electoral college?

[CTLesq]

Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall.

And? Odd as it seems, that's statistically enough people to represent the nation.

As you said it seems to be reasonable.

Tell me, wouldn't you agree that it seemed reasonable prior to invading Iraq that Iraq had WMDs.

Its not a question of should or shouldn't we have invaded. Its a question of based off the intelligence we had and the prior 11 years of dealing with Iraq that they posessed WMDs.

The point is you don't know wether it WAS reasonable.

As for the 5% margin of error - so what? It doesn't address the ultimate issue.

None of you can say based on what was in the article that they used a representative population of the US.

What you can say is it seems to be representative.

CTL

[Quackzilla]

CTL is absolutely right.

[jmcc]

Did anyone poo-pooing this bother to read the study that the article linked to? The methodology was sound, the margin of error was below 5% and the conclusion they came to was logically supported by the results. It's normal to want to write this off as not being correct, but in all probability it is.

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall.

And? Odd as it seems, that's statistically enough people to represent the nation.

As you said it seems to be reasonable.

Tell me, wouldn't you agree that it seemed reasonable prior to invading Iraq that Iraq had WMDs.

Its not a question of should or shouldn't we have invaded. Its a question of based off the intelligence we had and the prior 11 years of dealing with Iraq that they posessed WMDs.

The point is you don't know wether it WAS reasonable.

As for the 5% margin of error - so what? It doesn't address the ultimate issue.

None of you can say based on what was in the article that they used a representative population of the US.

What you can say is it seems to be representative.

CTL

Your Iraq point is both completely random and a bad example of the point you think you made with it. The methodology of the statistics in that case were flawed, as they turned out to be largely made-up, which isn't the case with this Cornell study [yet.]

But in any case, I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why the methods of this study are flawed. You say it's not enough people to represent the country, but experts in the field clearly disagree with you. Can you point out what every statistics major at Cornell missed when they were doing this study?

[Drocket]

715 people IS enough to be a statisticly valid representation of the US - IF proper polling techniques are used. Ultimately, all this blather comes down to one simple question: do you trust the people who did this poll? If you trust that they were honestly trying to get an accurate answer, then most likely the conclusion they came to was roughly correct. If you don't trust the people doing the poll - if, for instance, you think they had a political agenda and wanted a predetermined outcome - then you can't trust the results of the poll either.

Of course, weighting the population is only one of many ways to screw up a poll to show a pretermined outcome. Different phrasing of the question can cause massive variations in the poll's outcome - actually, its a lot easier to mess around with the question phrasing than it is to mess around with your population sampling. Again, it comes down to the question of whether you trust the pollers to be doing their job honestly.

[Admiral Ackbar]

From http://www.publicagenda.org/ (http://www.publicagenda.org/polling/polling_error.cfm)

"There are about 209 million adults in America, of every imaginable background and circumstance. So how can a survey of only 800 or 1,000 adults reflect what the entire country is thinking? How can a thousand voices speak for us all?

Public opinion researchers liken it to making a big pot of soup — to taste-test the soup, you don't have to eat the whole pot, or even a whole bowl's worth. You only have to try a bite. The same is true of public opinion. You don't have to ask every single person in America to find out what Americans think; you only need to ask a few to get the flavor of public opinion.

This fact is reflected by a survey's margin of error, or sampling error. When public opinion researchers report the margin of error for their polls (usually expressed as something like "plus or minus 3 percentage points") they are stating their confidence in the data they have collected. The lower the margin of error, the more accurately the views of those surveyed matches those of the entire population.

You must also remember that every margin of error has a "confidence interval," usually 95 percent. That means that if you asked a question from this poll 100 times, 95 of those times the results would be within 3 percentage points of the original answer. Of course, this means that the other five times you ask the question, you may get answers that are completely off the wall.

For example, if 50 percent of a sample of 1,000 randomly selected Americans said they favor recycling laws, in 95 cases out of 100, 50 percent of the entire population in the U.S. would also have given the same response had they been asked, give or take 3 percentage points (i.e., the true proportion could be 47 percent or 53 percent).

The bigger the sample, the smaller the margin of error, but once you get past a certain point -- say, a sample size of 800 or 1,000 — the improvement is very small. The results of a survey of 300 people will likely be correct within 6 percentage points, while a survey of 1,000 will be correct within 3 percentage points, a lower margin of error. But that is where the dramatic differences end — when a sample is increased to 2,000 respondents, the margin of error drops only slightly, to 2 percentage points.

Despite this, some surveys have sample sizes much larger than 1,000 people. But why ask two or three thousand respondents when 800 will do? Well, it sounds more impressive, but that's hardly worth the cost of interviewing all those additional people. Usually when a study has a large sample, it is so certain subgroups — like parents or the elderly — can be teased out and compared to each other or to the whole. If you want to compare retired people to the general public, for instance, a sample of 1,000 might yield only one or two hundred people who are no longer working, which may not be enough to get a solid grasp on the views of that group. A sample of 2,000, however, will probably yield a larger group of retired Americans, and provide a more accurate picture of their views.

Sometimes increasing the sample size is not enough, if the subgroup you are examining is rare or particularly hard to find. Young black men, for example, make up only a small percentage of the U.S. population. In a standard random sample, you would have to interview an enormous number of people before you had a large enough subgroup of young black men. In this instance, you would take an "oversample," purposely seeking out members of the particular group you are interested in, and comparing the results to the main sample.

Of course, in both general samples and oversamples, who is asked is as important as how many are asked. Reputable survey organizations go to great lengths to make sure their interview sample is random and representative of whomever they are surveying, be it retired people, young black men, or all Americans. For more information on random sampling techniques and other important aspects of polling, see 20 Questions Journalists Should Ask About Poll Results.

The convention for survey researchers is to report sampling errors that are based on a 50 percent split, where the margin of error is largest."

The sample size is legitimate.

[Quackzilla]

So that's it, between 40% and 48% of ALL Americans are bigots?

Wow, that's disturbing and abnormal, but at least it is a fact.

[Drocket]

So that's it, between 40% and 48% of ALL Americans are bigots?

Wow, that's disturbing and abnormal, but at least it is a fact.

Assuming the pollsters were honestly trying to do their job and not generate a specific answer. As with any poll, it all comes down to whether you trust the people doing the polling.

[CTLesq]

Your Iraq point is both completely random and a bad example of the point you think you made with it. The methodology of the statistics in that case were flawed, as they turned out to be largely made-up, which isn't the case with this Cornell study [yet.]

But in any case, I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why the methods of this study are flawed. You say it's not enough people to represent the country, but experts in the field clearly disagree with you. Can you point out what every statistics major at Cornell missed when they were doing this study?

I stand by Drockets comments at the bottom of the last page.

I don't know what methodology they used to select the people for the poll.

The burden isn't mine to prove the people they used were flawed. The burden is on the group that conducted the polling to show they used the correct mix of people.

As for my analogy on Iraq, how mistaken you are. Facts were made up? Facts may have been misinterpreted and facts may have turned out to be wrong. But to suggest the evidence, or even the majority of the evidence was made up is patently false and a lie in of itself.

CTL

[Drocket]

The burden isn't mine to prove the people they used were flawed.
It is if you wish to dispute the findings, or at least if you want to have any credibility doing so. "I think they're wrong but I'm not going to bother to figure out how or why" really just doesn't carry much weight.

As for my analogy on Iraq, how mistaken you are. Facts were made up?
Since facts cannot, by definition, be made up, you're quite correct :P

It would be far more accurate to say that facts were deliberately distorted. Facts that in any way supported the possiblity that Iraq has WMDs were given credence that they often didn't deserve instead of being critically examined, while facts that contridicted the predetermined results were ignored or suppressed.

[CTLesq]

It is if you wish to dispute the findings, or at least if you want to have any credibility doing so. "I think they're wrong but I'm not going to bother to figure out how or why" really just doesn't carry much weight.

Nonsense. The question is were the 715 people used in this survey representitive of the US as a whole.

That isn't my burden to prove that they are representative of a whole.

If I take a poll of 100 random people working in Iraq with me and submit it is representative of the US population as a whole would you believe that?

But at least you acknowledge that people who use verbs such as think and seems are on very shaky ground.

It would be far more accurate to say that facts were deliberately distorted. Facts that in any way supported the possiblity that Iraq has WMDs were given credence that they often didn't deserve instead of being critically examined, while facts that contridicted the predetermined results were ignored or suppressed.

All viewed through a post 9/11 world prism that the father we get away from is minimized. And the closer we got to an election the more any miniscule chance a fact might be interpreted another way was magnified.

But I guess Bill Clinton was lying when he attacked them with cruise missles in 1998 and signed a bill pledging the US to oust Hussein from power. Or maybe the king of Jordan lied to Tommy Franks when he told him he fully expected Hussein to use gas weapons against US troops.

CTL

[jmcc]

Your Iraq point is both completely random and a bad example of the point you think you made with it. The methodology of the statistics in that case were flawed, as they turned out to be largely made-up, which isn't the case with this Cornell study [yet.]

But in any case, I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why the methods of this study are flawed. You say it's not enough people to represent the country, but experts in the field clearly disagree with you. Can you point out what every statistics major at Cornell missed when they were doing this study?

I stand by Drockets comments at the bottom of the last page.

I don't know what methodology they used to select the people for the poll.

The burden isn't mine to prove the people they used were flawed. The burden is on the group that conducted the polling to show they used the correct mix of people.

As for my analogy on Iraq, how mistaken you are. Facts were made up? Facts may have been misinterpreted and facts may have turned out to be wrong. But to suggest the evidence, or even the majority of the evidence was made up is patently false and a lie in of itself.

CTL

The burden of proof rest on the accuser not the accused. You're saying the study is flawed somehow. I don't have to prove your point for you.

And your Iraq point is unrelated to this, because all the WMD data has either proven to have been misreported or deliberately fudged. The fact that nothing was found pre-war and now post-war is evidence enough. It's neither here nor there, though, since the decision to invade wasn't decided via phone poll.

[jmcc]

It is if you wish to dispute the findings, or at least if you want to have any credibility doing so. "I think they're wrong but I'm not going to bother to figure out how or why" really just doesn't carry much weight.

Nonsense. The question is were the 715 people used in this survey representitive of the US as a whole.

That isn't my burden to prove that they are representative of a whole.

If I take a poll of 100 random people working in Iraq with me and submit it is representative of the US population as a whole would you believe that?

But at least you acknowledge that people who use verbs such as think and seems are on very shaky ground.

No, it's your burden to prove that 715 people ISN'T enough to represent the US population. If you can prove that the 100 are statistically representative, then yes, I'd believe you. There'd have to be an awful lot of explanation as to how an all army group would represent the US population, though. As for "seems" being used, it's a little picky to complain about. How else can you say something that's only 95% certainty? It's very very likely that near half of the people in the US are afraid of Muslims, but there's always a 5% chance the study is reporting wrong.

It would be far more accurate to say that facts were deliberately distorted. Facts that in any way supported the possiblity that Iraq has WMDs were given credence that they often didn't deserve instead of being critically examined, while facts that contridicted the predetermined results were ignored or suppressed.

All viewed through a post 9/11 world prism that the father we get away from is minimized. And the closer we got to an election the more any miniscule chance a fact might be interpreted another way was magnified.

But I guess Bill Clinton was lying when he attacked them with cruise missles in 1998 and signed a bill pledging the US to oust Hussein from power. Or maybe the king of Jordan lied to Tommy Franks when he told him he fully expected Hussein to use gas weapons against US troops.

CTL[/quote]

This is unrelated to the topic at hand, but you're kind of proving the point that the methodology for the evidence that lead to this war was flawed, given your fallback to heresay and "Clinton did it too."

[elprincipe]

It's amazing what fear will drive people to. Also amazing how our own government is helping the terrorists by comprehensively trying to sow fear among the population over everything in their lives from travel to food supply to the mail. The only thing to fear is fear itself, a good line that I'm sure a lot of people will agree with.

Fear itself isn't nearly as tangible as people with darker skin than your own, though.

Well, you may make that leap but I certainly don't. There are Muslims that are black, Arab, white, Asian. In other words, Muslims aren't a racial group.

[CTLesq]

Bad news for you. I didn't make the claim 715 people were repesentative of the US population as a whole.

Likewise its not my responsibility to explain their methodolgy. That is their job.

I clearly stated many posts ago, that 715 people MIGHT be representative of the US as a whole.

But the poll did not explain how they came to determine that the 715 selected represented the US population.

And again - I am waiting for anyone to show me where somone lied about the US intel on Iraq. Did it turn out to be wrong - apparently yes. As for using Clinton and the "he did it so, we can do it" you are absolutely mistaken. My point was that everyone thought along the same lines.

And there are hearsay exceptions which are accepted. Don't even go down a road you don't have the vaguest idea about.

But as we are finding out from this thread the verb "seems" is a very weak verb.

This poll "seems" to be representive of the US population.

This intel "seems" to prove Iraq had WMDs.

CTL

[Drocket]

All viewed through a post 9/11 world prism that the father we get away from is minimized.
So as was already said, you ADMIT that the reasons for going to war were, at the very _least_, irrational?

But I guess Bill Clinton was lying when he attacked them with cruise missles in 1998
Would you happen to mean that attack that took place (by sheer coincidence) on the same day as the start of hearings about his BJ? The one that all the Republicans screamed 'Wag the Dog' about?

I have to say, I love the fact that gets brought up any time pro-war people get backed into a corner trying to prove that there was a case for war, yet at the same time, they're completely incapable of saying that maybe Clinton was right. Want to break the cycle and say that Clinton was right in attacking Iraq back when presidential BJs were the hot topic? That he was, in fact, showing remarkable forsight into world affairs, thereby proving what a great president he was?

Or maybe the king of Jordan lied to Tommy Franks when he told him he fully expected Hussein to use gas weapons against US troops.
Would this be 'King of Jordan, commenting based on carefully evaluated intelligence gathered by the Jordanian version of the CIA', or would that be 'King of Jordan, talking out of his ass'?