Poll: Republicans Are Really, Really Stupid
- Thread starter mykevermin
- Start date
haha, that last question seemed pretty random, is that supposed to be the control? 
EDIT: Oh, I see, it was a nice selection that just made it seem random...
Man, every group has its crazies, but when the crazies apparently make up between 25 and 50% you've got a bit of a problem. I'm going to be optimistic and say it was a badly sampled poll.
EDIT: Oh, I see, it was a nice selection that just made it seem random...
Man, every group has its crazies, but when the crazies apparently make up between 25 and 50% you've got a bit of a problem. I'm going to be optimistic and say it was a badly sampled poll.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
They're just highlights from the larger poll. There are other questions. if you go to the Kos link.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Spaz:
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
Basic random-digit-dialing sample. I'm too lazy to see if any states are omitted.
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
Basic random-digit-dialing sample. I'm too lazy to see if any states are omitted.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
yup this poll finalizes it all republicans are the same.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theg...sts-gopers-are-edging-toward-the-extreme.aspx
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theg...sts-gopers-are-edging-toward-the-extreme.aspx
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Oblig:
Wow, some of the numbers on the full poll are unreal.
:O
Wow, some of the numbers on the full poll are unreal.
:O
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
At the risk of interrupting the left-wing circle-jerk over the correct interpretation (even if the poll is by an organization I don't trust farther than I can completely verify) that many Republicans hold wacko views, let me present compelling evidence that Democrats, too, are really, really stupid:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642
http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-dfs.pdf
Etc etc.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642
http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-dfs.pdf
Etc etc.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']At the risk of interrupting the left-wing circle-jerk over the correct interpretation
Etc etc.[/QUOTE]
duck and cover
Etc etc.[/QUOTE]
duck and cover
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
^^ 
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']I'm sorry but I think my teabagger is WAY more extreme than yours:
[/QUOTE]
Quite a few good ones in there - I see a Glen Beck style conspiracy flowchart parody and "starting to scare George Orwell". Where'd you get this fake rally pic is it an Onion deal?
Quite a few good ones in there - I see a Glen Beck style conspiracy flowchart parody and "starting to scare George Orwell". Where'd you get this fake rally pic is it an Onion deal?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Papa Neorev']yup this poll finalizes it all republicans are the same.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theg...sts-gopers-are-edging-toward-the-extreme.aspx[/QUOTE]
ahem.
*cracks knuckles*
She's not really attacking the poll here, she's attacking random-digit dialing as a survey method - meaning she's discrediting any political poll done by random digit dialing - i.e., all of them. A pretty broad brush to start with, but let's continue. She brings up statistical anomalies with the % likely to vote - and while that may be some basis for skepticism, it may also be a temporaral anomaly - people are more likely to vote when they're the minority party and when they're stressed/troubled. There's no doubt that people are stressed economically all around right now, and thanks to the Tea Party movement, there's a lot of concentrated animosity right now. She doesn't even begin to consider temporal effects, she just point out a statistical anomaly and kinda leaves it there all by itself - which is not, as such, evidence that the poll is inaccurate or biased. It's the author of this blog alluding to evidence and implying the conclusion (the poll is fatally flawed that she can, by virtue of allusion and not saying it outright, step away from when she's called on it - she never "said-said" it, after all.
1) Baseless speculation to put people worried by these poll results at ease - she can neither confirm nor deny this, but tries to claim that it's a possibility. Again, this is not a criticism of this poll but of random-digit-dialing surveys on the whole. She's doing more disservice to a kind of research method than she is this particular poll. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2) Answers are still included even if folks stop at a particular question - moreover, there's a consistency with which the frightening idiocy and harmful, poisonous attitudes are answered that suggest you wouldn't see much variation if you make the assumption (she's good at that!) that the kind of people who would stop in the middle of the poll are identifiably different from those who completed it. So, yeah, again, baseless speculation.
She's attempting to minimize the damning information from this poll by doing more than simply pointing out who the poll is about - 30% of a third is nearly 10% of our population. If she's trying to minimize this via statistical sleight of hand, she may fool people who can't follow simple numbers, but her sentence here is essentially saying "one out of every ten people in the US is this damned dumb."
(moreover, she's pointing to the *lower end* of the fearsome percentages by pointing to 30%. Go to the 63% of people who think Obama is a socialist, and suddenly you're talking about 2 out of every 5 Americans. How "small" of a number is that?
Conflating "older" with "dumber" is another sleight of hand. She's trying to argue that younger folks are more intelligent and thus not going to think these horrible things about Obama.
Critique the poll, not the research method. She's consistent in that she's doing all of the latter and none of the former.
If she's excusing lying to pollsters by way of suggesting that our President has not committed high crimes or misdemeanors is "support," she clearly shows herself unable to congitively look outside her political spectrum to realize that suggesting what she is is
ing ridiculous. Actually, it's not ridiculous - it's affirming the poll's findings. She's justifying a bigoted, ignorant, uneducated plurality of a political party by trying to explain the poll results as justified because people in the party are simply unwilling to admit that the President has not violated the law.
HEY KATIE CONNOLLY! THAT'S THEING POINT OF THE POLL.
Of course, please take special time to note that Connolly is deliberately *distracting* the viewer by trying to parse out the people who answered "not sure" to the question about impeachment. The plurality of poll respondents DO support impeachment - but that's not the story for her, not at all.
Well, she got one thing right - comparing attitudes towards impeachment b/w Bush and Obama are totally useless, seeing as how one violated the law like a motherer and the other has not.
Or twist the shit out of it so your readership is too dizzy to see you're bullshitting, and bullshitting poorly. Breaks my heart that a person like her has a job with Newsweek and earns what she earns. She clearly doesn't deserve it.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theg...sts-gopers-are-edging-toward-the-extreme.aspx[/QUOTE]
ahem.
*cracks knuckles*
She's not really attacking the poll here, she's attacking random-digit dialing as a survey method - meaning she's discrediting any political poll done by random digit dialing - i.e., all of them. A pretty broad brush to start with, but let's continue. She brings up statistical anomalies with the % likely to vote - and while that may be some basis for skepticism, it may also be a temporaral anomaly - people are more likely to vote when they're the minority party and when they're stressed/troubled. There's no doubt that people are stressed economically all around right now, and thanks to the Tea Party movement, there's a lot of concentrated animosity right now. She doesn't even begin to consider temporal effects, she just point out a statistical anomaly and kinda leaves it there all by itself - which is not, as such, evidence that the poll is inaccurate or biased. It's the author of this blog alluding to evidence and implying the conclusion (the poll is fatally flawed that she can, by virtue of allusion and not saying it outright, step away from when she's called on it - she never "said-said" it, after all.
1) Baseless speculation to put people worried by these poll results at ease - she can neither confirm nor deny this, but tries to claim that it's a possibility. Again, this is not a criticism of this poll but of random-digit-dialing surveys on the whole. She's doing more disservice to a kind of research method than she is this particular poll. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2) Answers are still included even if folks stop at a particular question - moreover, there's a consistency with which the frightening idiocy and harmful, poisonous attitudes are answered that suggest you wouldn't see much variation if you make the assumption (she's good at that!) that the kind of people who would stop in the middle of the poll are identifiably different from those who completed it. So, yeah, again, baseless speculation.
She's attempting to minimize the damning information from this poll by doing more than simply pointing out who the poll is about - 30% of a third is nearly 10% of our population. If she's trying to minimize this via statistical sleight of hand, she may fool people who can't follow simple numbers, but her sentence here is essentially saying "one out of every ten people in the US is this damned dumb."
(moreover, she's pointing to the *lower end* of the fearsome percentages by pointing to 30%. Go to the 63% of people who think Obama is a socialist, and suddenly you're talking about 2 out of every 5 Americans. How "small" of a number is that?
Conflating "older" with "dumber" is another sleight of hand. She's trying to argue that younger folks are more intelligent and thus not going to think these horrible things about Obama.
Critique the poll, not the research method. She's consistent in that she's doing all of the latter and none of the former.
If she's excusing lying to pollsters by way of suggesting that our President has not committed high crimes or misdemeanors is "support," she clearly shows herself unable to congitively look outside her political spectrum to realize that suggesting what she is is
ing ridiculous. Actually, it's not ridiculous - it's affirming the poll's findings. She's justifying a bigoted, ignorant, uneducated plurality of a political party by trying to explain the poll results as justified because people in the party are simply unwilling to admit that the President has not violated the law.HEY KATIE CONNOLLY! THAT'S THE
ING POINT OF THE POLL.Of course, please take special time to note that Connolly is deliberately *distracting* the viewer by trying to parse out the people who answered "not sure" to the question about impeachment. The plurality of poll respondents DO support impeachment - but that's not the story for her, not at all.
Well, she got one thing right - comparing attitudes towards impeachment b/w Bush and Obama are totally useless, seeing as how one violated the law like a mother
er and the other has not.Or twist the shit out of it so your readership is too dizzy to see you're bullshitting, and bullshitting poorly. Breaks my heart that a person like her has a job with Newsweek and earns what she earns. She clearly doesn't deserve it.
Magehart
CAGiversary!
[quote name='IRHari']Obama has been violating the supreme law of the land called the Constitution. It requires the President be a natural born citizen and its been proven that Obama was born in Kenya.[/QUOTE]
The constitution only has power if we choose to enforce it. As it turns out so far we choose not to enforce the finer aspects of it.
The constitution only has power if we choose to enforce it. As it turns out so far we choose not to enforce the finer aspects of it.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Strell']31% want contraception outlawed.
31% want contraception outlawed.
31% WANT CONTRACEPTION OUTLAWED.[/QUOTE]
No, no, no...you see, they just want it to be a state's rights issue.
31% want contraception outlawed.
31% WANT CONTRACEPTION OUTLAWED.[/QUOTE]
No, no, no...you see, they just want it to be a state's rights issue.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']ahem.
*cracks knuckles*
She's not really attacking the poll here, she's attacking random-digit dialing as a survey method - meaning she's discrediting any political poll done by random digit dialing - i.e., all of them. A pretty broad brush to start with, but let's continue. She brings up statistical anomalies with the % likely to vote - and while that may be some basis for skepticism, it may also be a temporaral anomaly - people are more likely to vote when they're the minority party and when they're stressed/troubled. There's no doubt that people are stressed economically all around right now, and thanks to the Tea Party movement, there's a lot of concentrated animosity right now. She doesn't even begin to consider temporal effects, she just point out a statistical anomaly and kinda leaves it there all by itself - which is not, as such, evidence that the poll is inaccurate or biased. It's the author of this blog alluding to evidence and implying the conclusion (the poll is fatally flawed that she can, by virtue of allusion and not saying it outright, step away from when she's called on it - she never "said-said" it, after all.
1) Baseless speculation to put people worried by these poll results at ease - she can neither confirm nor deny this, but tries to claim that it's a possibility. Again, this is not a criticism of this poll but of random-digit-dialing surveys on the whole. She's doing more disservice to a kind of research method than she is this particular poll. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2) Answers are still included even if folks stop at a particular question - moreover, there's a consistency with which the frightening idiocy and harmful, poisonous attitudes are answered that suggest you wouldn't see much variation if you make the assumption (she's good at that!) that the kind of people who would stop in the middle of the poll are identifiably different from those who completed it. So, yeah, again, baseless speculation.
She's attempting to minimize the damning information from this poll by doing more than simply pointing out who the poll is about - 30% of a third is nearly 10% of our population. If she's trying to minimize this via statistical sleight of hand, she may fool people who can't follow simple numbers, but her sentence here is essentially saying "one out of every ten people in the US is this damned dumb."
(moreover, she's pointing to the *lower end* of the fearsome percentages by pointing to 30%. Go to the 63% of people who think Obama is a socialist, and suddenly you're talking about 2 out of every 5 Americans. How "small" of a number is that?
Conflating "older" with "dumber" is another sleight of hand. She's trying to argue that younger folks are more intelligent and thus not going to think these horrible things about Obama.
Critique the poll, not the research method. She's consistent in that she's doing all of the latter and none of the former.
If she's excusing lying to pollsters by way of suggesting that our President has not committed high crimes or misdemeanors is "support," she clearly shows herself unable to congitively look outside her political spectrum to realize that suggesting what she is ising ridiculous. Actually, it's not ridiculous - it's affirming the poll's findings. She's justifying a bigoted, ignorant, uneducated plurality of a political party by trying to explain the poll results as justified because people in the party are simply unwilling to admit that the President has not violated the law.
HEY KATIE CONNOLLY! THAT'S THEING POINT OF THE POLL.
Of course, please take special time to note that Connolly is deliberately *distracting* the viewer by trying to parse out the people who answered "not sure" to the question about impeachment. The plurality of poll respondents DO support impeachment - but that's not the story for her, not at all.
Well, she got one thing right - comparing attitudes towards impeachment b/w Bush and Obama are totally useless, seeing as how one violated the law like a motherer and the other has not.
Or twist the shit out of it so your readership is too dizzy to see you're bullshitting, and bullshitting poorly. Breaks my heart that a person like her has a job with Newsweek and earns what she earns. She clearly doesn't deserve it.[/QUOTE]
*rubs eyes*
You really didn't need to take the time to type all that, I just threw it out for fun.
so lets just skip the bullshit.
we are both partisans and aren't ever going to agree about a poll from dailykos just like one from redstate wouldn't fly either. especially since most of the way I would answer those questions doesn't match up with how dailykos wants people to believe republicans are answering.
*cracks knuckles*
She's not really attacking the poll here, she's attacking random-digit dialing as a survey method - meaning she's discrediting any political poll done by random digit dialing - i.e., all of them. A pretty broad brush to start with, but let's continue. She brings up statistical anomalies with the % likely to vote - and while that may be some basis for skepticism, it may also be a temporaral anomaly - people are more likely to vote when they're the minority party and when they're stressed/troubled. There's no doubt that people are stressed economically all around right now, and thanks to the Tea Party movement, there's a lot of concentrated animosity right now. She doesn't even begin to consider temporal effects, she just point out a statistical anomaly and kinda leaves it there all by itself - which is not, as such, evidence that the poll is inaccurate or biased. It's the author of this blog alluding to evidence and implying the conclusion (the poll is fatally flawed that she can, by virtue of allusion and not saying it outright, step away from when she's called on it - she never "said-said" it, after all.
1) Baseless speculation to put people worried by these poll results at ease - she can neither confirm nor deny this, but tries to claim that it's a possibility. Again, this is not a criticism of this poll but of random-digit-dialing surveys on the whole. She's doing more disservice to a kind of research method than she is this particular poll. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2) Answers are still included even if folks stop at a particular question - moreover, there's a consistency with which the frightening idiocy and harmful, poisonous attitudes are answered that suggest you wouldn't see much variation if you make the assumption (she's good at that!) that the kind of people who would stop in the middle of the poll are identifiably different from those who completed it. So, yeah, again, baseless speculation.
She's attempting to minimize the damning information from this poll by doing more than simply pointing out who the poll is about - 30% of a third is nearly 10% of our population. If she's trying to minimize this via statistical sleight of hand, she may fool people who can't follow simple numbers, but her sentence here is essentially saying "one out of every ten people in the US is this damned dumb."
(moreover, she's pointing to the *lower end* of the fearsome percentages by pointing to 30%. Go to the 63% of people who think Obama is a socialist, and suddenly you're talking about 2 out of every 5 Americans. How "small" of a number is that?
Conflating "older" with "dumber" is another sleight of hand. She's trying to argue that younger folks are more intelligent and thus not going to think these horrible things about Obama.
Critique the poll, not the research method. She's consistent in that she's doing all of the latter and none of the former.
If she's excusing lying to pollsters by way of suggesting that our President has not committed high crimes or misdemeanors is "support," she clearly shows herself unable to congitively look outside her political spectrum to realize that suggesting what she is is
ing ridiculous. Actually, it's not ridiculous - it's affirming the poll's findings. She's justifying a bigoted, ignorant, uneducated plurality of a political party by trying to explain the poll results as justified because people in the party are simply unwilling to admit that the President has not violated the law.HEY KATIE CONNOLLY! THAT'S THE
ING POINT OF THE POLL.Of course, please take special time to note that Connolly is deliberately *distracting* the viewer by trying to parse out the people who answered "not sure" to the question about impeachment. The plurality of poll respondents DO support impeachment - but that's not the story for her, not at all.
Well, she got one thing right - comparing attitudes towards impeachment b/w Bush and Obama are totally useless, seeing as how one violated the law like a mother
er and the other has not.Or twist the shit out of it so your readership is too dizzy to see you're bullshitting, and bullshitting poorly. Breaks my heart that a person like her has a job with Newsweek and earns what she earns. She clearly doesn't deserve it.[/QUOTE]
*rubs eyes*
You really didn't need to take the time to type all that, I just threw it out for fun.
so lets just skip the bullshit.
we are both partisans and aren't ever going to agree about a poll from dailykos just like one from redstate wouldn't fly either. especially since most of the way I would answer those questions doesn't match up with how dailykos wants people to believe republicans are answering.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='J7.']Both parties have idiots. Tell me this though, what the are we going to do with this 3.8 trillion dollar deficit?[/QUOTE]
we'reed. Like that wasn't ever going to happen no matter who was incharge.
are we going to do with this 3.8 trillion dollar deficit?[/QUOTE]we're
ed. Like that wasn't ever going to happen no matter who was incharge.[quote name='Papa Neorev']we're ed. Like that wasn't ever going to happen no matter who was incharge.[/QUOTE]
If McCain had been in office I doubt it would be that large. Still too large but not 3.8 trillion. Democrats like to spend. They have good intentions but big government is not the answer.
ed. Like that wasn't ever going to happen no matter who was incharge.[/QUOTE]If McCain had been in office I doubt it would be that large. Still too large but not 3.8 trillion. Democrats like to spend. They have good intentions but big government is not the answer.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='J7.']Both parties have idiots. Tell me this though, what the are we going to do with this 3.8 trillion dollar deficit?[/QUOTE]
3.8T is the *budget*, dude.
I think this poll deserves a bit more than the flippant "both parties have idiots" comment - but if that's what you want to offer, so be it. You'd be better off discovering the difference between "proposed budget" and "deficit" than posting deeper thoughts here.
EDIT: I give elprincipe the benefit of trying to mitigate that Dems have erroneous beliefs, too. He cited two poll numbers, and, given time, can surely conjur up something better. I was one of those people who believed, until a few hours ago, that Palin said she could see Russia from her house/backyard. Here's what she did say, leading me to believe that the poll reflects a splitting of hairs rather than outright naivete on Dems' part:
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
Okay, "from my house" ≠ "just right over the border." But she did bring up her state's proximity to Russia to artificially bolster her foreign policy expertise. Like I said, splitting hairs.
are we going to do with this 3.8 trillion dollar deficit?[/QUOTE]3.8T is the *budget*, dude.
I think this poll deserves a bit more than the flippant "both parties have idiots" comment - but if that's what you want to offer, so be it. You'd be better off discovering the difference between "proposed budget" and "deficit" than posting deeper thoughts here.
EDIT: I give elprincipe the benefit of trying to mitigate that Dems have erroneous beliefs, too. He cited two poll numbers, and, given time, can surely conjur up something better. I was one of those people who believed, until a few hours ago, that Palin said she could see Russia from her house/backyard. Here's what she did say, leading me to believe that the poll reflects a splitting of hairs rather than outright naivete on Dems' part:
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
Okay, "from my house" ≠ "just right over the border." But she did bring up her state's proximity to Russia to artificially bolster her foreign policy expertise. Like I said, splitting hairs.
[quote name='mykevermin']3.8T is the *budget*, dude.
I think this poll deserves a bit more than the flippant "both parties have idiots" comment - but if that's what you want to offer, so be it. You'd be better off discovering the difference between "proposed budget" and "deficit" than posting deeper thoughts here.[/QUOTE]
you know what I mean, i'm not that stupid. sorry i ruffled your feathers, it's apparent what you believe.
I think this poll deserves a bit more than the flippant "both parties have idiots" comment - but if that's what you want to offer, so be it. You'd be better off discovering the difference between "proposed budget" and "deficit" than posting deeper thoughts here.[/QUOTE]
you know what I mean, i'm not that stupid. sorry i ruffled your feathers, it's apparent what you believe.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
No, if you use words that aren't correct, I can't read your mind.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']Obama has been violating the supreme law of the land called the Constitution. It requires the President be a natural born citizen and its been proven that Obama was born in Kenya.[/QUOTE]
Hey hey, only 36 percent of Republicans believed that lie. That's comparable to the number of Democrats who believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.
Hey hey, only 36 percent of Republicans believed that lie. That's comparable to the number of Democrats who believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.
I was under the impression everything and anything myke posted was for my personal and immense enjoyment.
So there you go - alternative reason #1. Let's get the list going.
[quote name='elprincipe']Hey hey, only 36 percent of Republicans believed that lie. That's comparable to the number of Democrats who believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.[/QUOTE]
First rule of killing any conspiracy theory: They all require an intensely secretive, close-knit, well-oiled multi-faceted machine consisted of several factions and groups all working together in perfect harmony, union, and unison, able to coordinate a grand series of movements with little to no fault, painstakingly flawless in all regards with several contingencies to cover every possible arising issue, deftly carrying out a complex plan without fault.
Dubya fell off aing Segway.
Case closed.
So there you go - alternative reason #1. Let's get the list going.
[quote name='elprincipe']Hey hey, only 36 percent of Republicans believed that lie. That's comparable to the number of Democrats who believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.[/QUOTE]
First rule of killing any conspiracy theory: They all require an intensely secretive, close-knit, well-oiled multi-faceted machine consisted of several factions and groups all working together in perfect harmony, union, and unison, able to coordinate a grand series of movements with little to no fault, painstakingly flawless in all regards with several contingencies to cover every possible arising issue, deftly carrying out a complex plan without fault.
Dubya fell off a
ing Segway.Case closed.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']3.8T is the *budget*, dude.
I think this poll deserves a bit more than the flippant "both parties have idiots" comment - but if that's what you want to offer, so be it. You'd be better off discovering the difference between "proposed budget" and "deficit" than posting deeper thoughts here.
EDIT: I give elprincipe the benefit of trying to mitigate that Dems have erroneous beliefs, too. He cited two poll numbers, and, given time, can surely conjur up something better. I was one of those people who believed, until a few hours ago, that Palin said she could see Russia from her house/backyard. Here's what she did say, leading me to believe that the poll reflects a splitting of hairs rather than outright naivete on Dems' part:
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
Okay, "from my house" ≠ "just right over the border." But she did bring up her state's proximity to Russia to artificially bolster her foreign policy expertise. Like I said, splitting hairs.[/QUOTE]
She did bring that up in a vain attempt to boost her nonexistent foreign policy credentials. However, the most interesting part of that poll was how many people believed what Tina Fey said on SNL really was what Palin said, which of course it was not. Anyway, those were just examples of people being utterly clueless on facts and issues, just like in the poll cited in the OT.
If people want to talk budget and deficits/debt, let's do so. But it's bad enough to note a proposed $1.6 trillion deficit (a record) and a $3.8 trillion budget (also a record), not to mention a proposed record 2.15 million federal employees, without confusing overall budget and deficit. The bad things start with accounting tricks that make even that dire picture look rosier than it is, move on through no cuts or even spending restraint on major budget items (defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), and then top it off with the proposal of massive new expenditures such as a third $100 billion "stimulus" (aka waste) and massive health-care spending proposals. Tax hikes proposed won't cover these new expenditures, thus we are looking at a record deficit, and huge deficits down the road even with assumptions of a strong economic recovery.
Solution:
1. Cut federal expenditures instead of increasing them (includes defense and entitlement reform)
2. Follow through on Obama's plans for certain tax increases (on those making $250,000 and above, and limiting their deductions)
3. Look for ways to permanently reduce the size of the federal government so that over the long term solvency can be assured, such as eliminating Cabinet-level departments that are unnecessary such as Education and Energy.
I think this poll deserves a bit more than the flippant "both parties have idiots" comment - but if that's what you want to offer, so be it. You'd be better off discovering the difference between "proposed budget" and "deficit" than posting deeper thoughts here.
EDIT: I give elprincipe the benefit of trying to mitigate that Dems have erroneous beliefs, too. He cited two poll numbers, and, given time, can surely conjur up something better. I was one of those people who believed, until a few hours ago, that Palin said she could see Russia from her house/backyard. Here's what she did say, leading me to believe that the poll reflects a splitting of hairs rather than outright naivete on Dems' part:
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
Okay, "from my house" ≠ "just right over the border." But she did bring up her state's proximity to Russia to artificially bolster her foreign policy expertise. Like I said, splitting hairs.[/QUOTE]
She did bring that up in a vain attempt to boost her nonexistent foreign policy credentials. However, the most interesting part of that poll was how many people believed what Tina Fey said on SNL really was what Palin said, which of course it was not. Anyway, those were just examples of people being utterly clueless on facts and issues, just like in the poll cited in the OT.
If people want to talk budget and deficits/debt, let's do so. But it's bad enough to note a proposed $1.6 trillion deficit (a record) and a $3.8 trillion budget (also a record), not to mention a proposed record 2.15 million federal employees, without confusing overall budget and deficit. The bad things start with accounting tricks that make even that dire picture look rosier than it is, move on through no cuts or even spending restraint on major budget items (defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), and then top it off with the proposal of massive new expenditures such as a third $100 billion "stimulus" (aka waste) and massive health-care spending proposals. Tax hikes proposed won't cover these new expenditures, thus we are looking at a record deficit, and huge deficits down the road even with assumptions of a strong economic recovery.
Solution:
1. Cut federal expenditures instead of increasing them (includes defense and entitlement reform)
2. Follow through on Obama's plans for certain tax increases (on those making $250,000 and above, and limiting their deductions)
3. Look for ways to permanently reduce the size of the federal government so that over the long term solvency can be assured, such as eliminating Cabinet-level departments that are unnecessary such as Education and Energy.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='J7.']If McCain had been in office I doubt it would be that large. Still too large but not 3.8 trillion. Democrats like to spend. They have good intentions but big government is not the answer.[/QUOTE]
Big government is a problem for both parties. It's just that Dems choose to put the money toward the poor and minorities while Repubs love war and rich people. Which one do you like more?
Big government is a problem for both parties. It's just that Dems choose to put the money toward the poor and minorities while Repubs love war and rich people. Which one do you like more?
Energy Penguin
CAGiversary!
[quote name='IRHari']Obama has been violating the supreme law of the land called the Constitution. It requires the President be a natural born citizen and its been proven that Obama was born in Kenya.[/QUOTE]
What proof do you have? Please link.
What proof do you have? Please link.
[quote name='depascal22']Big government is a problem for both parties. It's just that Dems choose to put the money toward the poor and minorities while Repubs love war and rich people. Which one do you like more?[/QUOTE]
Is that why the democrats are doing all of those backroom deals with businesses?
Keep watching the hopenosis beam.
Is that why the democrats are doing all of those backroom deals with businesses?
Keep watching the hopenosis beam.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='AdultLink']Is that why the democrats are doing all of those backroom deals with businesses?
Keep watching the hopenosis beam.[/QUOTE]
Hopenosis beam. I like it. :lol:
I would point out democrats shifting resources to Afghanistan and spending $700 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Keep watching the hopenosis beam.[/QUOTE]
Hopenosis beam. I like it. :lol:
I would point out democrats shifting resources to Afghanistan and spending $700 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Papa Neorev']*rubs eyes*
You really didn't need to take the time to type all that, I just threw it out for fun.
so lets just skip the bullshit.
we are both partisans and aren't ever going to agree about a poll from dailykos just like one from redstate wouldn't fly either. especially since most of the way I would answer those questions doesn't match up with how dailykos wants people to believe republicans are answering.[/QUOTE]
Here's the difference between you and me.
*YOU* refuse to believe that which disagrees with your worldview, and seem to think that disagreeing with it is sufficient grounds for political debate.
*I* have dissected that blog as bullshit and articulated why her reasons are absurd. I know plenty about research methods, so it's not like this was a huge stretch for me to look over. I wasn't poring over books or searching links. I just read her blog and said "oh, that's bullshit; oh, that's nonsense; doesn't she realize she's reifying the results here?" etc.
You don't seem to make much of the results of this poll, and would like to cross your arms and harumph it away. I, OTOH, have pointed out that it's a reasonable research method with jaw-droppingly surprising results (even for a cynic like myself).
If you think that's fair and equal, well...then I would support your proposed "fair tax."
You really didn't need to take the time to type all that, I just threw it out for fun.
so lets just skip the bullshit.
we are both partisans and aren't ever going to agree about a poll from dailykos just like one from redstate wouldn't fly either. especially since most of the way I would answer those questions doesn't match up with how dailykos wants people to believe republicans are answering.[/QUOTE]
Here's the difference between you and me.
*YOU* refuse to believe that which disagrees with your worldview, and seem to think that disagreeing with it is sufficient grounds for political debate.
*I* have dissected that blog as bullshit and articulated why her reasons are absurd. I know plenty about research methods, so it's not like this was a huge stretch for me to look over. I wasn't poring over books or searching links. I just read her blog and said "oh, that's bullshit; oh, that's nonsense; doesn't she realize she's reifying the results here?" etc.
You don't seem to make much of the results of this poll, and would like to cross your arms and harumph it away. I, OTOH, have pointed out that it's a reasonable research method with jaw-droppingly surprising results (even for a cynic like myself).
If you think that's fair and equal, well...then I would support your proposed "fair tax."
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's the difference between you and me.
*YOU* refuse to believe that which disagrees with your worldview, and seem to think that disagreeing with it is sufficient grounds for political debate.
*I* have dissected that blog as bullshit and articulated why her reasons are absurd. I know plenty about research methods, so it's not like this was a huge stretch for me to look over. I wasn't poring over books or searching links. I just read her blog and said "oh, that's bullshit; oh, that's nonsense; doesn't she realize she's reifying the results here?" etc.
You don't seem to make much of the results of this poll, and would like to cross your arms and harumph it away. I, OTOH, have pointed out that it's a reasonable research method with jaw-droppingly surprising results (even for a cynic like myself).
If you think that's fair and equal, well...then I would support your proposed "fair tax."[/QUOTE]
more like it wasn't a real stretch for me to find someone speculating about the dailykos poll within about 30secs of looking.
I don't think much of the results of the poll, since i personally know some so called "democrats" that would line up for alot of those "republican" answers in that poll. Becuase good sir I realize that most a good portion of society doesn't have aing clue no matter what side they believe in, when it comes to politics.
oh and it is aing poll........seriously who puts alot of faith in polls? We all know POLLS ARE ALWAYS ING RIGHT!!!!!!!
I'm from the "PARTY OF NO" Why wouldn't I refuse?
I mean I bet there was no way in Hell you're mind wasn't entirely open at the very thought the poll wasn't perfect.
*YOU* refuse to believe that which disagrees with your worldview, and seem to think that disagreeing with it is sufficient grounds for political debate.
*I* have dissected that blog as bullshit and articulated why her reasons are absurd. I know plenty about research methods, so it's not like this was a huge stretch for me to look over. I wasn't poring over books or searching links. I just read her blog and said "oh, that's bullshit; oh, that's nonsense; doesn't she realize she's reifying the results here?" etc.
You don't seem to make much of the results of this poll, and would like to cross your arms and harumph it away. I, OTOH, have pointed out that it's a reasonable research method with jaw-droppingly surprising results (even for a cynic like myself).
If you think that's fair and equal, well...then I would support your proposed "fair tax."
[/QUOTE]more like it wasn't a real stretch for me to find someone speculating about the dailykos poll within about 30secs of looking.
I don't think much of the results of the poll, since i personally know some so called "democrats" that would line up for alot of those "republican" answers in that poll. Becuase good sir I realize that most a good portion of society doesn't have a
ing clue no matter what side they believe in, when it comes to politics.oh and it is a
ing poll........seriously who puts alot of faith in polls? We all know POLLS ARE ALWAYS ING RIGHT!!!!!!!I'm from the "PARTY OF NO" Why wouldn't I refuse?
I mean I bet there was no way in Hell you're mind wasn't entirely open at the very thought the poll wasn't perfect.I dunno if that Zogby poll is a particularly good comparison. These are mostly opinion questions showing their beliefs are crazy. Not a fact-based question where people misattribute a quote (especially when they mix up a comedic exaggeration with similar statements from the actual person). You might as well have a poll showing Democrats don't know how many quarts are in a liter. It's not really the same thing, it would have to be questions about political stance.
A better comparison would be if the poll asked whether or not Bush planned 9/11 (which I actually think is an idea shared by loonies on both ends of the spectrum anyway) or if only gay people should be allowed to teach in schools (I doubt that would get much support, but I'm having a hard time thinking up equivalent questions). Something like that, if you're trying to prove an equal and opposite crazy.
EDIT: And polls are generally accurate, if the sampling is done well. I don't see the reasoning behind dismissing polling in general as a research method. Telephone polls are going to get less relevant over time though unless they get them on cell phones though. There are better methods, they're just more expensive and harder to do.
A better comparison would be if the poll asked whether or not Bush planned 9/11 (which I actually think is an idea shared by loonies on both ends of the spectrum anyway) or if only gay people should be allowed to teach in schools (I doubt that would get much support, but I'm having a hard time thinking up equivalent questions). Something like that, if you're trying to prove an equal and opposite crazy.
EDIT: And polls are generally accurate, if the sampling is done well. I don't see the reasoning behind dismissing polling in general as a research method. Telephone polls are going to get less relevant over time though unless they get them on cell phones though. There are better methods, they're just more expensive and harder to do.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Papa Neorev']more like it wasn't a real stretch for me to find someone speculating about the dailykos poll within about 30secs of looking.
I don't think much of the results of the poll, since i personally know some so called "democrats" that would line up for alot of those "republican" answers in that poll. Becuase good sir I realize that most a good portion of society doesn't have aing clue no matter what side they believe in, when it comes to politics.
oh and it is aing poll........seriously who puts alot of faith in polls? We all know POLLS ARE ALWAYS ING RIGHT!!!!!!!
I'm from the "PARTY OF NO" Why wouldn't I refuse? I mean I bet there was no way in Hell you're mind wasn't entirely open at the very thought the poll wasn't perfect.[/QUOTE]
No, the poll is not perfect. I never said that. The flaws with the poll, though, are the kinds of flaws you will *always* encounter with random-digit dialing. Biased samples based on what time of day you call, biased based on quality of phones (i.e. now that most of us can see the number calling us - something we didn't do 15 or so years ago - we notice when someone we do not know is calling, or someone from a diff. town is calling, allowing us to voluntarily avoid a phone call from a stranger without picking up the phone), potential land line bias (which might explain the age skew, as more and more 'youth' rely solely on cell phones), and even some of the points the blogger brought about (particularly when she mentioned people's general unwillingness to suffer through long survey calls).
Like I said, there are indeed flaws with randrom-digit-dialing as a survey method, but they exist independent of this poll. You can't selectively critique this poll for those reasons and then act like the means by which this poll was taken is ok; that's absurd on its face.
Additionally, you fall for the last great idiosyncratic folly when you try to demean the results of a national poll by citing people around you. Good old micro-level ethnocentrism. If you can't understand why looking at the small circle around you is a very, very poor comparison to a national-level phone survey, let me know. I'll be happy to explain that to you in great detail.
Anecdote is the singular form of data, all you have is an anecdote, and we all know how '300' ended.
EDIT: Spaz, random digit dialing compensates for moving over to cell phones - but relying on a "white pages method" of opening a phonebook and pointing to a name is certainly far more limiting. (though cell phones are a PITA geographically thanks to number portability laws, but that's for another day).
I don't think much of the results of the poll, since i personally know some so called "democrats" that would line up for alot of those "republican" answers in that poll. Becuase good sir I realize that most a good portion of society doesn't have a
ing clue no matter what side they believe in, when it comes to politics.oh and it is a
ing poll........seriously who puts alot of faith in polls? We all know POLLS ARE ALWAYS ING RIGHT!!!!!!!I'm from the "PARTY OF NO" Why wouldn't I refuse?
I mean I bet there was no way in Hell you're mind wasn't entirely open at the very thought the poll wasn't perfect.[/QUOTE]No, the poll is not perfect. I never said that. The flaws with the poll, though, are the kinds of flaws you will *always* encounter with random-digit dialing. Biased samples based on what time of day you call, biased based on quality of phones (i.e. now that most of us can see the number calling us - something we didn't do 15 or so years ago - we notice when someone we do not know is calling, or someone from a diff. town is calling, allowing us to voluntarily avoid a phone call from a stranger without picking up the phone), potential land line bias (which might explain the age skew, as more and more 'youth' rely solely on cell phones), and even some of the points the blogger brought about (particularly when she mentioned people's general unwillingness to suffer through long survey calls).
Like I said, there are indeed flaws with randrom-digit-dialing as a survey method, but they exist independent of this poll. You can't selectively critique this poll for those reasons and then act like the means by which this poll was taken is ok; that's absurd on its face.
Additionally, you fall for the last great idiosyncratic folly when you try to demean the results of a national poll by citing people around you. Good old micro-level ethnocentrism. If you can't understand why looking at the small circle around you is a very, very poor comparison to a national-level phone survey, let me know. I'll be happy to explain that to you in great detail.
Anecdote is the singular form of data, all you have is an anecdote, and we all know how '300' ended.
EDIT: Spaz, random digit dialing compensates for moving over to cell phones - but relying on a "white pages method" of opening a phonebook and pointing to a name is certainly far more limiting. (though cell phones are a PITA geographically thanks to number portability laws, but that's for another day).
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm going to go out on a limb here and mention that any time I get called up with such a poll, I always give the "worst" answers. Am I alone?[/QUOTE]
I do that when I vote.
I do that when I vote.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm going to go out on a limb here and mention that any time I get called up with such a poll, I always give the "worst" answers. Am I alone?[/QUOTE]
everytime.
Doesn't matter hardcore partisans *cough myke cough* will use poll propaganda to push their agenda.
everytime.
Doesn't matter hardcore partisans *cough myke cough* will use poll propaganda to push their agenda.
Yes, you are everyone, a significant proportion of people polled sit through the entire process simply to give "wrong" answers because they all have the time and ill intent necessary to try to manipulate the poll. There are also no ways to control for that as all polling has only been going on for about a month or so and they are all administered by third graders who have no idea what they're doing.
[quote name='SpazX']Yes, you are everyone, a significant proportion of people polled sit through the entire process simply to give "wrong" answers because they all have the time and ill intent necessary to try to manipulate the poll. There are also no ways to control for that as all polling has only been going on for about a month or so and they are all administered by third graders who have no idea what they're doing.[/QUOTE]
Do tell - what kind of "controls" would you have in place that would tell the difference between someone gaming the poll and someone who honestly believes that contraception should be outlawed?
Question 49: Do you believe contraception should be outlawed?
Press 1 for Yes, 2 for No.
Question 50: Do you really believe that, or are you just joking with us?
Press 1 for Yes, 2 for No.
Question 51: Really? I mean, seriously? Are you thating stupid?
Press 1 for Yes, 2 for No or 3 for Not Sure.
Do tell - what kind of "controls" would you have in place that would tell the difference between someone gaming the poll and someone who honestly believes that contraception should be outlawed?
Question 49: Do you believe contraception should be outlawed?
Press 1 for Yes, 2 for No.
Question 50: Do you really believe that, or are you just joking with us?
Press 1 for Yes, 2 for No.
Question 51: Really? I mean, seriously? Are you that
ing stupid?Press 1 for Yes, 2 for No or 3 for Not Sure.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
You mean...when I did that survey a year or so ago about internet usage, and a substantial portion of the respondents wrote in "porn" under the "other" category on a question about what they used the internet for, they were...lying?
I'll be right back. I'm gonna go sob to Toni Braxton's "Unbreak My Heart."
I'll be right back. I'm gonna go sob to Toni Braxton's "Unbreak My Heart."
bread's done