Poll: Republicans Are Really, Really Stupid

[quote name='mykevermin']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?[/QUOTE]

When I was in high school, one day, they called over the PA for "All smokers" to come to a meeting where they discussed smoking, how it was bad for you and things like not smoking on school property, etc., etc.

Now, you had closet smokers who didn't want anyone (or, at least, anyone who would get the info back to their parents) to know they smoked. Then, you had those who just wanted an excuse to get out of class. I've always wondered how effective that really was.

Likewise in your case, how many people said "porn" trying to be cute? How many people are ashamed/would try to hide it and would never admit to using the internet for porn?

Now, I'm not saying that you simply cannot trust any polling done ever - but face it, how many people really care enough to sit through a telephone poll and answer questions like "Do you believe contraceptives should be outlawed" honestly and truthfully?
 
Here's one thing I'll give you: if it's coupled with a question about birth control, then "contraceptive" might have suffered from testing effects - at the same time, if the contraceptive question was asked first, then that entire meaning disappears.

Here are the crosstabs, by the by: http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

Effects of survey "pisstakers," for lack of a better phrase, are difficult to identify. That's why they used the survey method they did, to try to mitigate effects of those folks by getting a broad and representative sample of the US population.

That's the point: the sample *is* the control. If there are a broad number of spoilers, their responses are going to be randomly distributed (keep in mind the only thing spoilers have in common is the desire to muck up surveys - they don't have a similar pattern in their belief system). Therefore people who deliberately muck up surveys show the reslience of survey methods, as a random distribution of spoiled answers comes out in the wash, leaving the results intact.

It's positively absurd to write off the results of this poll based on nothing more than the conjecture that 2000+ people who were randomly selected to answer survey questions all deliberately sought to spoil - and if they did, it's another step of absurdity to think that they were, without knowledge of each other at all, able to answer in ways that were internally consistent with themselves (i.e. not just picking random answers) - let alone everyone else that responded - and if this were true, you still have the logical hurdle of people who identify as Republicans answering a survey in a way where, by your understanding of spoiling, they are deliberately denigrating and disparaging themselves and their political belief system.

It's stepwise conjecture that's so positively unlikely it could only be recommended by you, Mr. Cook.
 
EDIT: Well fuck it, I should just refresh the page and let myke answer.

I don't know what particular methods they used for this particular poll. In a telephone poll you can easily throw out responses that are always no, not sure, or yes, or follow a pattern that doesn't make sense. If there aren't control questions it's not as easy to spot liars.

But you're confounding two issues - 1) that people will actually sit through the all the questions, think about them, and answer honestly, rather than just pushing a button that doesn't mean anything to them or just hanging up and 2) That people will actually sit through all the questions, think about them, and answer directly opposite to what they think purely for the reason of messing up the poll (is there any other reason?).

#1 can be controlled for by checking for some consistency (depending on the questions), throwing out anybody who didn't complete it, or placing less statistical significance on later questions that people didn't answer as frequently (if that were the case).

#2 can't be controlled for very easily in that telephone format with the questions they asked, but is more than likely not a significant number of people.

It's not the best poll in the world because it's too easy to see the intent, it would be better to hide those questions among others that aren't as politically charged, or word them better, but that doesn't suddenly condemn all polls.
 
I like this question: "QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?"

As Spaz said, at this point, it's pretty obvious what the intent of this poll was. If the people taking it weren't screwing around before, I'm sure they were at the point this was asked. Either that, or they hung up the phone.

Also, I notice little has been said about the source of this poll (Daily Kos). I would love to see some of the responses to a similar poll about Democrats if FOX News was the source.
 
Perhaps, but if you did think he was a racist who hates white people then the question wouldn't seem that ridiculous, and if you didn't then you would either just say no, or if you thought the poll was a waste of time because of that question you might just hang up. You wouldn't then continue with the poll just to answer opposite to what you think for the remainder of it (well maybe you would, but a significant number of people wouldn't).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I like this question: "QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?"

As Spaz said, at this point, it's pretty obvious what the intent of this poll was. If the people taking it weren't screwing around before, I'm sure they were at the point this was asked. Either that, or they hung up the phone.

Also, I notice little has been said about the source of this poll (Daily Kos). I would love to see some of the responses to a similar poll about Democrats if FOX News was the source.[/QUOTE]

Daily Kos ordered the poll; Research 2000 was the company commissioned to do it.

I've a busy day, please consider my silence in response to further grasping at straws a stern "tsk-tsk" and "come the fuck onnnn, man" as appropriate responses.
 
Very good points.

So, at the point they ask a stupid question like "Do you think BO is a racist?" Now, you have those on the extreme that pound the 1 Key and shout into the phone "Hell yeah!". You have those who could sense the intent of this survey, but do their honest, diligent duty and answer the question with a "No." Then, you have those who, after hearing this question, hang up the phone. Then, you have those who, after hearing this question (or, possibly, before) answer the question with the most obvious "bad" answer (Now, granted, in some situations, the "bad" answer may not be so apparent, but in this particular survey, any idiot would be able to tell the "bad" answer.)

So, there are four groups of people.
Those who honestly think BO is racist. Their vote counts.
Those who honestly don't think BO is racist and give an honest answer. Their vote counts.
Those who honestly don't think BO is racist and hang up the phone. Their vote doesn't count.
Those who honestly don't think BO is racist and answer incorrectly. Their vote counts - but the wrong way.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Daily Kos ordered the poll; Research 2000 was the company commissioned to do it.[/QUOTE]

Yup. The same company that had the race in Mass at a dead heat (even though Brown won by about five points). And the same company that DK uses for a large majority of their polls. I'm sure that they don't have any bias toward such a large customer of their company.

So - if FOX News outsourced a poll to another company and it came back with results you didn't agree with, you're telling me that the fact the poll came from FOX would have nothing to do with it?

And before you answer, you should go back and read some of your old posts.
 
A dead heat with a margin of error that probably accounted for most of the difference.

But anyway, when they can tell what the "bad" answer is, do they answer what they think, what they think they should answer (socially), what they think the pollster wants them to answer, what they think the pollster doesn't want them to answer, or simply the exact opposite of what they actually think?
 
You don't really know for certain who's doing the survey - answering the question based on that isn't possible - so you answer with the socially bad answer.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You don't really know for certain who's doing the survey - answering the question based on that isn't possible - so you answer with the socially bad answer.[/QUOTE]

If you're lying then you're lying for a specific reason. If you think that the poll is leaning in a certain direction then you can tell what the pollster is getting at - you can see the intent of the question. In an example where the intent is easy to see, and if your goal is to manipulate, then you'd answer against what you think the poll is wanting you to answer, which may or may not be the same as the socially right/wrong answer.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup. The same company that had the race in Mass at a dead heat (even though Brown won by about five points). And the same company that DK uses for a large majority of their polls. I'm sure that they don't have any bias toward such a large customer of their company.

So - if FOX News outsourced a poll to another company and it came back with results you didn't agree with, you're telling me that the fact the poll came from FOX would have nothing to do with it?

And before you answer, you should go back and read some of your old posts.[/QUOTE]

Well, get to quotin' my posts, will ya? We're all waiting with anticipation over here.
 
I find that far left Democrats, and far right Republicals are like born-agains. Everyone knows they exist, but nobody really likes them, they're loud, when they knock on your door you tell your kids to answer it and say that nobody is home, and they're out of touch with reality.

Coming from a very liberal state (Oregon) I find that most of the people are the born again Democrats who are in your face and often wrong about everything, and in response, I find myself becoming more conservative. For the sake of balance, I need to move to Texas...soon.

CAG is no different. The extremes bicker for pages, and both sides try to sell their opinion as fact. Apparently I like car crashes, because I've been spending way to much time in the politics forum here.
 
Here's a great story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/2...2FjY29yZGlvbl90cmF2ZWwEc2xrA29iYW1hcmVzcG9uZA--

Politicians in Vegas are pissed because Pres. Obama has twice made statements saying that if you can't afford your mortgage or college tuition, you shouldn't be blowing your money in Vegas. What horse's ass, truly doesn't think that's a rational statement?

I've been to Vegas. It's an overrated dump, but my opinions on the city aside, I'm amazed anyone with a straight face can tell you his comments were negative.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You don't really know for certain who's doing the survey - answering the question based on that isn't possible - so you answer with the socially bad answer.[/QUOTE]

UB, you started out as a mildly interesting poster, but all you sound like now is a slightly-above-average Republican party apologist.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

There's a difference between being an idiot and having brain damage.[/QUOTE]

When does human life begin? Intent? A fertilized egg? A heartbeat? Kicking? Birth? Grade school? College?
 
[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]

I meant putting their hand into everything, not just money spent.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']When does human life begin? Intent? A fertilized egg? A heartbeat? Kicking? Birth? Grade school? College?[/QUOTE]

I'm not entirely sure, but I'm pretty sure you don't kill anything if you trick your uterus into thinking that there's something inside of it.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Obviously it begins after birth and being alive for about 3 hours. Otherwise its just a fleshly ball that could become anything.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to someone whose "wanted pregnancy" child dies in utero during the second trimester or so. But keep your guard up as I'm sure they'll try to punch you in the face.

Politicians in Vegas are pissed because Pres. Obama has twice made statements saying that if you can't afford your mortgage or college tuition, you shouldn't be blowing your money in Vegas. What horse's ass, truly doesn't think that's a rational statement?
Click to expand...

A similar argument can be made that all those people (our new Miss America the most recent) that when overweight/obese or scholarly struggling kids are playing videogames and sitting on the couch, they are not using the time to exercise or study. However, the gaming community gets up in arms when these generalizations are made. Similarly, the Vegas politicians understand that tourism is the lifeblood of their community so anything that could decrease tourism should be attacked vehemently. I completely understand that they dont want to be the single entity scapegoated. Spread some of those bullets around!
 
[quote name='SpazX']If you're lying then you're lying for a specific reason.[/QUOTE]

My reason is because I don't like pollsters calling me, so I just give the worst possible answers.

I hate that pollsters and politicians are exempt from the Do Not Call list.
 
[quote name='SpazX']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.[/QUOTE]

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lieve_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='AdultLink']You ever been in charge of large organizations, much less an entire nation? Millions of areas that have to be searched, etc. Being in charge and knowing an attack will happen, but not knowing where, and trying to stop it is alot harder then bitching about it on a forum.[/QUOTE]
Lies! Bitching takes a lot out of you!
 
[quote name='AdultLink']You ever been in charge of large organizations, much less an entire nation? Millions of areas that have to be searched, etc. Being in charge and knowing an attack will happen, but not knowing where, and trying to stop it is alot harder then bitching about it on a forum.[/QUOTE]

The poll question does not demand such specific knowledge. I didn't say he knew who, when, and where. I said that, given a memo detailed one big-time who (who had attacked us before) as well as a pretty detailed how, that he did have some advance knowledge.

Because he *did*.

Now, if you want to ask "Do you believe President George W. Bush had enough advance information to have prevented the 9/11 attacks?" that's a whole 'nother issue, and one I would offer a definitive "no" to.

I don't believe Democrats are inherenty less dumb than Republicans, but the polls y'all bring up aren't helping bolster my faith in that belief.
 
AdultLink, this is a great example of loyalty to people as opposed to principles.

You're clearly making excuses for Bush, but this type of thing should not be acceptable no matter WHO does it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']AdultLink, this is a great example of loyalty to people as opposed to principles.

You're clearly making excuses for Bush, but this type of thing should not be acceptable no matter WHO does it.[/QUOTE]

Defending Bush? Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, leonardo De Vinci, all of them could've been in charge of America at the time, but when you are talking one month, and millions of leads FROM ONE STATE ALONE, that wouldn't be much time for anyone.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, who would dare think that Bush could have plausibly known about those attacks in advance? It's nonsense, I tell ya.[/QUOTE]

Bush should have done a better job as regards the threat of al Qaeda before 9/11? Yes, absolutely. For that matter, so should have Clinton, under whom we suffered several al Qaeda attacks.

However, obviously, information about various threats is not even remotely comparable to specific knowledge of plans to fly airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon. Come on, you've got to be kidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top