44% of Republicans Believe "Armed Revolution is Necessary"

The Fairleigh Dickinson University poll of 863 registered voters was conducted nationally by
telephone with both landline and cell phones from April 22 through April 28, 2013, and has a
margin of error of +/-3.4 percentage points.
 
What's significant about the number?

Methodologically, I mean. Specifics would be ideal.

***

Thanks, Casey, wish I could take credit. Totally swiped it from elsewhere.
 
They believe armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years. The question did not ask if it is necessary today, right this second.

And necessary is inherently subjective. For some armed revolution would be necessary because of privacy. For others it would be about economic turmoil. Personally, I don't think large groups of people would stage revolutions as long as they are not hungry and have plenty of gadgets to play with.
 
[quote name='Spokker']And necessary is inherently subjective.[/QUOTE]

agreed. that doesn't explain the massive disparity between self-identified Rs and Ds, however.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What's significant about the number?


Thanks, Casey, wish I could take credit. Totally swiped it from elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

It's an extremely small sample size relative to the population so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Btw I also love your signature :applause::lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']agreed. that doesn't explain the massive disparity between self-identified Rs and Ds, however.[/QUOTE]

Democrats might be more likely to consider unarmed revolution, like a bigger and badder Occupy Wall Street.
[quote name='highoffcoffee496']It's an extremely small sample size relative to the population so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Btw I also love your signature :applause::lol:[/QUOTE]
Well, you need to pick something between 1 and 300 million people, and I think any survey is going to be closer to 800-1000 participants based on cost considerations alone. Pointing to the sample size if not enough. You would have to argue why the results would change. The classic example is Dewey defeats Truman. The reason that headline was printed is because newspapers relied on telephone surveys. At that time, calling people on the phone did not give you a sample that was representative of the overall population. Had they surveyed people on the street, perhaps they would have gotten a different result. Today, almost everyone has a phone number so it's generally not a problem for that reason anymore.

My only concern about the sample, and this goes for any telephone survey, is that people who participate probably have too much time on their hands, and this might make the sample lean toward more unemployed or underemployed people who are disgruntled in the first place. Working people may be less likely to not have time to this nonsense, and don't have time for revolution either.
 
What percentage of Republicans, the earth was created in a week, believe man walked with dinosaurs, dinosaur fossils were created as a big trick by the invisible red man, and/or the red man and the invisible man exist? Is it the same as the ones who believe in armed revolution (for dog knows what)?

Ironic that the gun masterbators (AKA nutz) believe the 2nd amendment is under attack while other amendments ARE under attack such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']What percentage of Republicans, the earth was created in a week, believe man walked with dinosaurs, dinosaur fossils were created as a big trick by the invisible red man, and/or the red man and the invisible man exist? Is it the same as the ones who believe in armed revolution (for dog knows what)?[/quote]What do you object to, "armed" or "revolution?" What we saw in Seattle on May Day was an unarmed revolt, what for I don't know, but it was no less frightening.

Ironic that the gun masterbators (AKA nutz) believe the 2nd amendment is under attack while other amendments ARE under attack such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the majority of 2nd amendment defenders do not also want to defend the other three you mention?
 
[quote name='Clak']And they wonder why some people think we need to keep crazies from buying firearms....:roll:[/QUOTE]


I see people who believe that an armed revolution might be necessary if the gov't were to become tyrannical are called "crazy" and "nutz" here. I wonder what you guys would have said during the Revolutionary War. And its good to know that you feel that holding opposing views to yours deems someone crazy and unworthy of their 2nd Amendment rights...:roll:
 
[quote name='Spokker']Do you think that the majority of 2nd amendment defenders do not also want to defend the other three you mention?[/QUOTE]

majority is irrelevant - anyone defending one thing, with Constitutional arguments being the foundation, on one side should not be taken seriously if they are willing to disregard any other aspect of the Constitution on the other.

The very notion of holding that document exalted as a legal/philosophical framework is to hold the *document* exalted, not portions of it. The entire argument becomes fallacious at that point.

Why is that hard to understand?
 
Where was this poll when Bush was around, but now we happen to have a "black" guy in office all of a sudden its armed revolution...

But of course calling most republican as racist is wrong... maybe they just have bad timing?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
The very notion of holding that document exalted as a legal/philosophical framework is to hold the *document* exalted, not portions of it. The entire argument becomes fallacious at that point.
[/QUOTE]I agree, but take it to the ones who are doing that, like everyone in the mainstream left-right framework.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Care to expand on that comment beyond some "both sides are doing it" tripe? How are Democrats doing this, for instance?[/QUOTE]

Oh I dont know... Maybe invading sovereign nations, bombing civilians, Obamacare, etc.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']

But of course calling most republican as racist is wrong... [/QUOTE]

why? it's accurate.

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Oh I dont know... Maybe invading sovereign nations, bombing civilians, Obamacare, etc.[/QUOTE]


really? equating healthcare with those others? No wonder you're sporting a 'Viva la revolution" (or would be if it were in english). There is such a thing a degree of severity too ya know.

When the Democrats very questionably lost the 2000 election (even O'Connor is having second thoughts now), they dedicated ourselves to winning the next. When the crazy Rs lose 2 legitimate elections by large margins...it's armed revolution time. So forgive it I don't buy all of this
 
[quote name='usickenme']When the crazy Rs lose 2 legitimate elections by large margins...it's armed revolution time. So forgive it I don't buy all of this[/QUOTE]

There's a great story on Salon about Alex Jones as a business, and why he caters to such groups. It's a phenomenal read, but listening to Jones, and Beck as well, it's not hard to see why many Republicans feel that they need to revisit 1776. It's absurd, it's propaganda so brazen I can't believe people are dumb enough to fall for it, it's intellectually inconsistent - but it's effective. Appealing to hedonism through fearmongering is what it is.

That all said, if you listen to BS talk radio, the internal dialogue on the right over immigration is hilarious to hear. They've gone soooooo far over the crazy wall that they can't reasonably do anything to gain Latino votes without alienating the die-hard conservative crazy pants base. And if they simply cater to the base, they can't grow the party because they're so far over the crazy wall. The Republicans have painted themselves into a corner, and the only thing they can do to win elections (and these are strategies they've been employing) is to fuck with the electoral college, trying to pass "proportionate electoral vote" laws. They can't win with ideas, so they'll use their state-level political advantage to change the rules of the game to benefit themselves. In the meantime, they do spend a lot of time talking immigration reform, and making no sense at all because they're both everywhere at once and nowhere at all on the issue.

Their race relations are *so* bad that they seem to think that all they have to do is trot out Marco Rubio and that will attract Latino voters. Meanwhile, Senator "Wetback" from wherever he is from is totally cool and a-okay, I suppose. :lol:
 
Can anyone provide stats from a similar survey that was done before Obama was elected (preferably during the Clinton years, but during the Bush years would be interesting as well)?

If we're going to say "Oh, black man is in office - white Republicans want to revolt!", shouldn't we have similar data when "white man" was in office and what people said then?
 
[quote name='highoffcoffee496']It's an extremely small sample size relative to the population so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Btw I also love your signature :applause::lol:[/QUOTE]

The sample size is a little small, but not extremely. They say 2,000 to 3,000 people is enough to accurately describe the entire nation. Of course, that's assuming a good random sampling. As somebody already mentioned, the fact that these people participated in a telephone poll already means the sample pool is skewed.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']The sample size is a little small, but not extremely. They say 2,000 to 3,000 people is enough to accurately describe the entire nation. Of course, that's assuming a good random sampling. As somebody already mentioned, the fact that these people participated in a telephone poll already means the sample pool is skewed.[/QUOTE]

It depends if you cherry picked the participants. Randomly polling 800 might give you enough of a diverse sample size where the results would be similar to if you had polled 80,000 however if you only call 800 people and they all happen to live in a conservative county in the South then that's a different story.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, the methodology's on page three, my friend.[/QUOTE]

Yes but that doesn't tell me what I want to know.

Read this about margin of error and tell me if it makes you feel confident about a study conducted by the "prestigious" FDU. Almost every variable in that equation is derived from the assumption that they are using a large enough sample size and asking the question in a correct and unbiased fashion.

Second saying you conducted a "national" poll doesn't mean you randomly picked 800 participants in all "57" states.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Yes but that doesn't tell me what I want to know.[/QUOTE]

Which is precisely why you're so pitifully assailing the methodology, yes?

;) Oh, you meant the above quote in a different way. Right. Well. Hmm.

Also, you're going to joke about Farleigh Dickinson as a less-than-prestigious college (and that, therefore, should be a market of the authority behind research? Someone should tell the students who turned over Reinhart-Rogoff; those two are from Columbia, so by your standard, they must be right!)...but you're going to slyly treat the survey's validity as questionable because of the college it came from...and your citation to compete with that is "about.com."

Just checking to make sure that's the direction you'd like to go here. You can have a mulligan if you like. I think you should take it.
 
When do sources matter? When the information is against your point of view. Then, the source is racist. And so are you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which is precisely why you're so pitifully assailing the methodology, yes?

;) Oh, you meant the above quote in a different way. Right. Well. Hmm.

Also, you're going to joke about Farleigh Dickinson as a less-than-prestigious college (and that, therefore, should be a market of the authority behind research? Someone should tell the students who turned over Reinhart-Rogoff; those two are from Columbia, so by your standard, they must be right!)...but you're going to slyly treat the survey's validity as questionable because of the college it came from...and your citation to compete with that is "about.com."

Just checking to make sure that's the direction you'd like to go here. You can have a mulligan if you like. I think you should take it.[/QUOTE]

I don't have their data.

But based on their sample size and the default level of confidence they used (95% is the most common) their margin of error is also correct.

But that doesn't tell me anything.

What does tell me something is nowhere in that wonderful article you linked does it mention WHAT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED TO THE POLL AUDIENCE.

Edit: Just because the study says:

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Democrats say that Congress
needs to pass new laws to protect the public from gun violence, but the views of Republicans
are almost completely opposite: 65 percent don’t think new laws are necessary. Overall,
registered voters are divided over the need for new gun control legislation. Fifty percent
agree it is needed, with 39 percent who disagree.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean the target audience was asked:

"Does Congress need to pass new laws to protect the public from gun violence" or "Does their need to be new gun control legislation".

That is not how "most" of these studies work.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I don't have their data.

But based on their sample size and the default level of confidence they used (95% is the most common) their margin of error is also correct.

But that doesn't tell me anything.

What does tell me something is nowhere in that wonderful article you linked does it mention WHAT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED TO THE POLL AUDIENCE.

Edit: Just because the study says:



Doesn't mean the target audience was asked:

"Does Congress need to pass new laws to protect the public from gun violence" or "Does their need to be new gun control legislation".

That is not how "most" of these studies work.[/QUOTE]

They have their email listed, I'm sure you can contact them and ask for the exact questions.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']What does tell me something is nowhere in that wonderful article you linked does it mention WHAT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED TO THE POLL AUDIENCE.[/QUOTE]

(page 4)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
(page 4)
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I have no idea why I thought my .pdf ended at page 3.

Edit:

So 1/3 of the people polled lived in the south and 60% of the people polled were 45 years of age or older?

Edit2: I guess the only other thing that would be telling is what time were the called made (Let me guess: Mid afternoon during the workweek?).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most phone survey methodologies avoid those kinds of mistakes, but landline surveys skew older (younger folks are far less likely to have a landline telephone, as I'm sure you know). They did a small cell phone sample to buttress the survey, yeah?

I don't know population density off the top of my head, so I can't critique if 1/3 are southern.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Most phone survey methodologies avoid those kinds of mistakes, but landline surveys skew older (younger folks are far less likely to have a landline telephone, as I'm sure you know). They did a small cell phone sample to buttress the survey, yeah?

I don't know population density off the top of my head, so I can't critique if 1/3 are southern.[/QUOTE]

Let me start by saying I really wish I had know the .pdf went on for another three pages. Also I change my thoughts a little knowing it was a CATI survey.

In a perfect world CATI surveys take out human bias (whether intentional or not) in the selection process. I think it's odd that they're still being used, more so if random polling of 863 people showed that 60% of those targeted were 45 years of age or older and ~ 33% lived in the South.

I don't know if that tells me that the selection process was flawed (surely those numbers aren't in line with averages) or that if the South has a lot of landline phones still being used compared to the rest of the country.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Let me start by saying I really wish I had know the .pdf went on for another three pages. Also I change my thoughts a little knowing it was a CATI survey.[/QUOTE]

No worries, everyone slips up. I appreciate your ownership, that's big of you and something that is all too rare in online debates.
 
Wait - protesters breaking the law as a symbol of their protest? That sounds almost familiar... like 99% of the way familiar...
 
"Both sides do it too robble robble!"

Explain to me how a bunch of people participating in what basically amounted to a extended sit-in is the same as a bunch of people openly committing a felony by brandishing loaded weapons and marching through the nation's capital with an implied "or else" message to the government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Purple Flames']
Explain to me how a bunch of people participating in what basically amounted to a extended sit-in is the same as a bunch of people openly committing a felony by brandishing loaded weapons and marching through the nation's capital with an implied "or else" message to the government.[/QUOTE]The group brandishing loaded weapons is probably going to behave better than the animals at Occupy, if past Tea Party-like protests are any indication.
 
Always remember that an Angry White Man's liberty is more important than the lives of your children, your parents, your siblings, your brothers and sisters from another mother, and you. I'm not surprised by that this article exists anyway, though I wonder if the samplers are disappointed that the 36% of those who want an armed revolution (ie treason) isn't big enough.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Angry White Man's liberty?[/QUOTE]


HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaaaaa.....how can we trust any media these days? Gov't BY the uninformed and misinformed people, FOR the complacent and American Idol addled people....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/04/NBC-News-Again-Caught-Selectively-Editing

Did they really take a clip from Biden's Benghazi Memorial speech and twist it to reference gun control?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...Plagued-Steve-Capus-Out-as-NBC-News-President

Here's forum fav, Breitbart's take on MSNBC's "news". It seems they are trying to outfox FOX at manufacturing the news.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top