This insider thinks the paranoia is ludicrous too. Furthermore it's totally hypocritical and always has been.
For an "outsider" like me, the level of mistrust in the Federal government in the US seems quite staggering. I guess I just don't understand why that same level of mistrust doesn't exist at all levels of government.
If someone is more confident in a local government, which they have more personal influence on, over a national government, which they have less personal influence on, then that is ludicrous and hypocritical? Man, I got to move to Cali, I think I need a doctor to proscribe some herbs to see the logic in that.
|
As for health-care, even CNN polls show that nearly 75% of Americans think Congress needs to start from scratch or stop working on health-care completely. The President needs to forget bipartisan support and worry about the peoples support. Which this bill does not have.According to Jon Stewart (the most trusted news anchor according to polls), Faux News is the only poll that shows numbers this high. All of the other polls show support for congress passing the legislation or a damn-near even split. He showed the polling from CNN specifically and it showed 62% in favor of Congress passing the health care legislation.
Well, I guess Jon Stewart isn't that reliable then. Rassmussen, Gallup, Zogby, I could go on and on, most definitely do not show a "damned near even split".
If someone is more confident in a local government, which they have more personal influence on, over a national government, which they have less personal influence on, then that is ludicrous and hypocritical?
I can see your point, to an extent. Maybe Canada is "small" enough, that I don't feel as detached from my federal government as you seem to feel. Or maybe it's our parliamentary style of government.
I dunno.
Greg
And the origins of the paranoia involve one of the two ugliest episodes in the history of the nation.Which one is that?
Slavery. Specifically from about 1850 to 1877 (Though the violent counterrevolution continued in some places into the 1940s.), with an echo a century later.
|
If someone is more confident in a local government, which they have more personal influence on, over a national government, which they have less personal influence on, then that is ludicrous and hypocritical?I can see your point, to an extent. Maybe Canada is "small" enough, that I don't feel as detached from my federal government as you seem to feel. Or maybe it's our parliamentary style of government.
I have heard from many people that a parliamentary sytem of government feels more responsive then a federalist system like the U.S. has. Primarily it has to do with the larger number of political parties and the lack of winner takes all mentality.
|
|
I'm curious. Once you stop claiming benefits in the US, do you still count in the unemployment statistics? I think why this matters when comparing to Europe should be fairly clear.From the link:
What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called "Macroeconomics":
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl's "bizarre point of view" is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.
Emphasis mine.
The second you stop looking for a job you're no longer "unemployed". The actual unemployment rate, right now, in America, is well over 15%. The official rate dropped from 10.3 to 9.7 not because anyone found a job, but because quite a few gave up looking and are no longer counted.
Slavery. Specifically from about 1850 to 1877 (Though the violent counterrevolution continued in some places into the 1940s.), with an echo a century later.
How did slavery breed distrust in the federal government? (Aside from those who were enslaved.)
Sorry, I learned some US history in high school, but can only hit the high points. I don't remember a lot of the details.
Greg
I have heard from many people that a parliamentary sytem of government feels more responsive then a federalist system like the U.S. has. Primarily it has to do with the larger number of political parties and the lack of winner takes all mentality.
Possibly. Also because since there is only one elected house, the person who represents your district is either on the PMs side, or can stand up and directly question the governing party's actions.
Question Period can be fun sometimes...
(I've heard that when President Kennedy met with Prime Minister Deifenbaker back in the day, he was quite astounded to hear that the leader of the country had to stand up in Parliament each day and defend himself.)
Greg
I found Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritiarians to be very enlightening. Specifically, I was fascinated by what it asserts about the origin of the (apparently fundamental and intractable) differences between the "conservative" and "liberal" world views.
Fair warning: The conclusions drawn aren't at all favorable for certain viewpoints often held by certain members of the "right wing" of the United States, though the author does take great pains to differentiate between "right-wing" and traditional conservatism. I also expect many will discount the material because the author "has an agenda" (which begs the question exactly what does this guy have to gain?), but so be it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have heard from many people that a parliamentary sytem of government feels more responsive then a federalist system like the U.S. has. Primarily it has to do with the larger number of political parties and the lack of winner takes all mentality.Possibly. Also because since there is only one elected house, the person who represents your district is either on the PMs side, or can stand up and directly question the governing party's actions.
Question Period can be fun sometimes...
(I've heard that when President Kennedy met with Prime Minister Deifenbaker back in the day, he was quite astounded to hear that the leader of the country had to stand up in Parliament each day and defend himself.)
Greg
I'll admit I don't follow Canadian Politics much. Closest I got was the scandal up there that Captain Ed followed back on his old blog a few years ago. Well that and Mark Steyn's kerfulffle.
Uh-oh...this thread looks to be going the way of so many others: Of each of us tearing down caricatures of the other side, then patting ourselves on the back for it.
Let's not and say we did?
As for polls: Assuming one thinks that public opinion always makes for good government policy (which I don't), polls have been documented as being quite easy to manipulate via context, leading questions, etc.
I'm not surprised at the lack of consensus in this thread (or in the sources cited herein).
|
|
Thanks for the information on the second question. BTW how long do these appeals tend to take?
As for the first question your position seems cognitively dissonant. Please help me to understand how you resolve these apparent contradictions.
regarding banning/regulation of recreational drugs:
"I see nothing wrong with the first thing. "
regarding banning/regulation of recreational/unhealthy foods:
"But that would be wrong."
Help me out here please.
Also if it would save hundreds of billions would you support state regulation of food and exercise?
Aren't some European countries banning trans fats and such already like some US states?
Those appeals would take about a year or more, usually. But it's only drugs that are rarely denied to people. If there's some medical treatment that'll save a life, and is medically justified, it'll get done. Might have to wait a bit, but it'll get done.
Regarding drugs, it's important to differ between different levels of harm. Seriously harmful drugs should be banned. If there were a foodstuff that was seriously harmful, then I'd have no issue with them being banned. But a big mac? Or other fatty foods? Unless I'm shown seriously levels of harm that can occur from that, I see no reason to ban them.
How did slavery breed distrust in the federal government? (Aside from those who were enslaved.)
Sorry, I learned some US history in high school, but can only hit the high points. I don't remember a lot of the details.
That's ok. You said you were an outsider and I entirely forgot about it and presumed a larger body of knowledge than was reasonable.
It wasn't slavery itself that bred distrust in the federal government, but rather the desire to preserve it. As it became more and more clear that the free states were outpacing the slave states in population, the growth of federal power turned from something that Slave Power* avidly sought into something to which it was deeply skeptical. That same power, which seemed so amazingly legitimate and righteous when the then-more populous slave states were lobbying for a Congress based on population alone and later when they were crying for the blood of New Englanders who wanted to quit the nation (and take their dirt with them) over the War of 1812, suddenly became a dire threat. A government so empowered could potentially end slavery. The threat of this drove Slave Power off a cliff in 1861 and thus hastened the arrival of the destiny which Slave Power had so feared.
After the war, it became necessary to whitewash the Slave Power movement. Enthusiasm for egalitarianism, as opposed to simple abolitionism, was always a bit unsteady. By the end of the war a majority of loyalists certainly wanted slavery ended. Having fought such a long and bloody struggle on its account, they reasonably did not want to do so again or even to resume the regularly-scheduled crises of the antebellum period. Furthermore Slave Power made it very clear that it intended to re-fight the war it had just lost by other means. When representatives from Slave Power states returned to the Congress, some of them went so far as to do so in their gray uniforms. So motivated by racist self-interest (better to have the freedmen emancipated and equal in the South** than have them get ideas about moving North), genuine humanitarianism (much of what was done involved teaching slaves to read and write, etc), and a desire to close the book for good on the issue, Reconstruction was undertaken. One of the greater tragedies in American history is that it failed. White supremacy was reinstated and would remain for another century, almost entirely unchallenged.
Part of closing the book on the issue amounted to some dirty dealing. Northern whites agreed to literally sell out the freedmen and allow southern whites and their terrorist organizations (the Ku Klux Klan being the most famous) to lie flagrantly about what the war had been about in the first place. They're still doing it. Instead of fighting to preserve slavery, which is what their declarations at the time said, they were permitted to get away with calling it a war over some kind of constitutional theory. It was a heroic lost cause, fit to be romanticized. Its cause: States' Rights.
And then things settled down into the dominant political pattern of the next century: the South would always vote, as a bloc, for Democrats. It was a one party state within a state ruled by the Slave Power aristocracy and its descendants, both by blood and ideology. They called it the Solid South. If you look at electoral maps for presidential elections in the period this is anything but subtle.
The Solid South's States' Rights version of Slave Power was naturally obsessed with not putting itself in the position that necessitated a renaming yet again. This meant, as a matter of course, never supporting Republicans. They were the Party of Lincoln and Reconstruction. In much of the South the Fourth of July went celebrated only by blacks, while the whites celebrated a Confederate Memorial Day. One of their own, Woodrow Wilson, instituted segregation even in the federal government itself. Meanwhile the Republicans spent every election from 1866 to about 1900 running against the Confederacy. Every mother's son that fought to end slavery was killed by a bullet from the gun of a Democrat, they said. But they wouldn't do anything to disrupt the machinery of segregation in the South or elsewhere.
Then came the Civil Rights movement. The Confederate flags, idle for a century, were dusted off and even incorporated into state flags to symbolize opposition to segregation. The intrusion of the federal government into the domestic (read: segregated) interests of the states was the greatest insult to white supremacy since abolition. Indeed, the civil rights activists were the new abolitionists and they required a new generation of white knights to battle them. That was the KKK, but it was also the state governments and the state Democratic parties. It was the local police and school boards. When schools were forced to integrate, and thus give black children access to the same quality of education that the white kids got, it took the federal government mobilizing the military to get the job done. Meanwhile the white parents fled the public schools in droves, setting up all-white private schools in haste and with considerable aid from state and local governments to make it happen and preserve segregation by other means. Just as their ancestors tried to preserve slavery by other means. And again we were treated to howls of states' rights and the invasive and intrusive nature of the federal government.
But this time the party pushing racial equality was not the Republicans. It was the Democrats. Lyndon Johnson, a Texan no less, signed federal legislation to require the segregated states to let blacks vote and to force them to integrate. In doing so he declared that the Democrats had lost the South for at least a generation. He was right. The Solid South cracked. Barry Goldwater, one of the heroes of modern American conservative, openly suggested that if the Democrats had given up on holding the South then the GOP might as well grab it from them. Other voices in the party wanted to preserve its legacy of racial justice, but they did not prevail. Instead Richard Nixon launched a successful campaign on the deliberate strategy of appealing and pandering to white supremacy through various codewords ("law and order" and "states' rights" among them) that won him the White House. A decade later, Ronald Reagan was so bold as to commence his general election campaign with a speech about getting the federal government off peoples' backs...to an audience at the site where civil rights workers had been killed by white supremacists in 1964. The racists correctly saw this as a promise for another Nixonesque presidency and turned out in droves to vote for Reagan's ticket.
The last vestiges of the old Solid South hung on in the Congress into the 90s, but the picture was changing. As old white supremacist Democrats who predated Civil Rights retired they were replaced routinely by the first Republican to hold the seat since Reconstruction. Then we had a new Solid South, or Red States as they like to be called now. And they use the latest version of the same rhetoric that opposed civil rights. It's not accidental. It's no coincidence that the level of government that did the most to further civil rights and end slavery is the one most distrusted while the levels of government that did the most to preserve white supremacy and slavery are the ones preferred.
Whether or not the average voter has any idea that this is the history, I don't know. The racists certainly do. They're very good at parsing the code. But GOP strategists have admitted to it. (I would quote the relevant passage, but it includes racial slurs.)
Fortunately, if you look at the 2008 electoral map you can see that it looks like the South is finally beginning to de-Southernize and de-Solidify.
*That is, the political movement dedicated to the preservation and perpetuation of slavery. It was originally a bi-partisan bloc but increasingly became synonymous with the Democratic party. Generally speaking the same forces remained aligned with the Democrats (Fighting for re-enslavement and then segregation.) until the 1930s and the bond was not really broken until the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.
**In American discourse, the South does not include the entirety of the southern United States. Rather it refers to those areas who elected to define themselves by the common experience of having been a slave society. By any reasonable geographic definition, Los Angeles is a southern city and California a southern state. But each is far from Southern in cultural terms.
I'm not advocating for cradle to grave care, but what's so wrong about the government providing a "safety net" when people are down on their luck (welfare, food stamps, medicaid)? As to healthcare, we gave capitalism it's shot, and it's abusing its power and denying coverage to its customers by finding "pre-existing condition" loopholes etc. Let the government have its chance at healthcare...I was in the military for over 8 years and received some of the best, hassle free care I have ever had. There's no reason this couldn't work in the civilian world.I have a safety net. Family, friends, my church etc. I am a safety net to my friends and family as well. It's a nice thought, but it's not the (US) government's place to enact one. Look at the Fannie/Freddie mess to see what happens when the Government tries to put a 'net'.
I'd also point out (again!) that I'm talking the Federal Government, not the state governments. If California wants to have that safety net, let them knock themselves out. But they shouldn't be going to the Federal Government and saying "Save us from our stupidity!"
Interesting. Matthew, would you say you are one of the people I referred to earlier? Those who would prefer a more powerful Medicaid as opposed to Medicare(State "insurance" over Federal "insurance", that is).
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Well, I guess Jon Stewart isn't that reliable then. Rassmussen, Gallup, Zogby, I could go on and on, most definitely do not show a "damned near even split".
All three of those polling operations (Rasmussen especially) have significant problems in their methodology. Rasmussen polls tend to favor the right wing position more often than other companies, and there have been problems with Zogby's methodology for years. I no longer consider him a reputable pollster, and I've got a hairy eyeball on Rasmussen.
I'm not saying that to reflect much in this thread (which I haven't read in detail), but anyone citing Rasmussen or Zogby should know that they don't run a great polling operation.
a WHOLE LOTTA STUFF
Interesting. Matthew, David, your thoughts? I will get into my own later(gotta go home from work).
Lots on the slavery...
Thanks for taking the time to write this. Very interesting, especially that quote from Atwater.
Greg
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Check out this info about Rasmussen owner Scott Rasmussen (see the text under the "Polling" header): Scott Rasmussen
Clearly this guy has a political axe to grind.
According to a study by the Fordham University Political Science department, Gallup ranked 17th of 23 in accuracy regarding polling of the 2008 US presidential election. Not terribly encouraging.
Nate Silver, a statistician whose mathematical models accurately predicted 49 of 50 states in the 2008 presidential election, has called Zogby International "the worst pollster in the world," for their shoddy methodology. A lot of their poll results are self-selection robo-calls, which are not considered very accurate.
Again, I'm not saying any of this to comment on whether the polling on health care is accurate or what have you.
I am saying that the three pollsters cited here all have problems with their methodology, and ought not to be treated all that seriously as a real arbiter of the opinions of the American public, whether their results support Republicans, Democrats, or Space Aliens.
Interesting.
New national math, English standards drafted
Texas and Alaska are the only states not participating in the national standards effort and Texas also opted out of the federal Race to the Top competition for $4.35 billion for education reform.
"Texas has chosen to preserve its sovereign authority to determine what is appropriate for Texas children to learn in its public schools," Scott wrote in a letter to U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. "It is clear that the first step toward nationalization of our schools has been put into place."
Those wacky racists slavers, up to their old tricks again.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Erik,
I can't speak for all polls, but Rasmussen's accuracy has been noted by such notorious right wing sites as Slate Fordham university, FiveThirtyEight.com and Mason Dixon.com.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. Very interesting, especially that quote from Atwater.
It's a massive story. I skipped loads and loads. To cover the whole thing would amount to the political and much of the social history of the United States from 1789 to 2010. The story of small town segregation, the most widespread and successful local government initiative in American history, could alone fill many large books. (Short version: It's no accident that most communities in America are monoracial. Immigrants, of the right color anyway, had few barriers to moving into various communities over the second and third generations. By contrast most African-Americans are 12th generation Americans or so and still see incredible, if declining, levels of informal residential segregation.)
For some more gory details on the Southern Strategy, this is decent.
And this is a bit on the Confederacy in American political culture of late.
None of this, not that it's going to head off the inevitable posts coming, is to suggest that every single conservative, or every single person who doesn't want to see state and local governments abolished, is a racist.
Check out this info about Rasmussen owner Scott Rasmussen (see the text under the "Polling" header): Scott Rasmussen
Clearly this guy has a political axe to grind.
According to a study by the Fordham University Political Science department, Gallup ranked 17th of 23 in accuracy regarding polling of the 2008 US presidential election. Not terribly encouraging.
Nate Silver, a statistician whose mathematical models accurately predicted 49 of 50 states in the 2008 presidential election, has called Zogby International "the worst pollster in the world," for their shoddy methodology. A lot of their poll results are self-selection robo-calls, which are not considered very accurate.
Again, I'm not saying any of this to comment on whether the polling on health care is accurate or what have you.
I am saying that the three pollsters cited here all have problems with their methodology, and ought not to be treated all that seriously as a real arbiter of the opinions of the American public, whether their results support Republicans, Democrats, or Space Aliens.
I don't understand your criticism of Rasmussen here.
You stated that his findings were suspect because his polls leaned more to the "right" than others.
I saw nothing in the link that states he would have an axe to grind. Just stating that he clearly does have an axe to grind and giving a link that does not support it, well, does not support it.
Further, this was in the Rasmussen link:
Rasmussen's polls are notable for their use of automated public opinion polling, involving pre-recorded telephone inquiries. These types of polls have been shown to produce accurate results at low cost. But some have doubted their reliability. In 2004 Slate magazine said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.
But to elaborate, stating that his firm was 17th out of 23 does not mean anything without discussing the discrepancy between the groups involved. So, with best one year and 17th the next time around, it just might bethat there is a narrow difference in the presidential election polls.
I have yet to see an actual criticism of the methodology used by Rasmussen. I just see a repeat that it is bad with no reasoning behind the criticism.
Thanks for taking the time to write this. Very interesting, especially that quote from Atwater.It's a massive story. I skipped loads and loads. To cover the whole thing would amount to the political and much of the social history of the United States from 1789 to 2010. The story of small town segregation, the most widespread and successful local government initiative in American history, could alone fill many large books. (Short version: It's no accident that most communities in America are monoracial. Immigrants, of the right color anyway, had few barriers to moving into various communities over the second and third generations. By contrast most African-Americans are 12th generation Americans or so and still see incredible, if declining, levels of informal residential segregation.)
For some more gory details on the Southern Strategy, this is decent.
And this is a bit on the Confederacy in American political culture of late.
None of this, not that it's going to head off the inevitable posts coming, is to suggest that every single conservative, or every single person who doesn't want to see state and local governments abolished, is a racist.
So, basically if it isn't about race but it can be argued by those with discriminatory racial motives to be about race, then it must really be about race.
Wow.
Sorry Samnell, but just throwing that blanket statement that not every conservative is racist is <removed by me> and <removed by me>. Just saying there are individuals who do not fit it is still painting with a ridiculous brush. It is a brush that is being used to make those who use any argument against your beliefs as being a racist.
Again, I say <removed by me>. You are doing it and you damn well know that you are doing it.
Try actually addrssing points made instead of trying to paint large groups as just being racially motivated or stupid. Just saying none of this is "to suggest that every single conservative, or every single person who doesn't want to see state and local governments abolished, is a racist." does not make up for the fact of how broad a brush you are painting beyond a few individuals that you exclude.
So, stop <removed by me>
Note: Edited after cooling down...
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Said stuff.
I saw nothing in the link that states he would have an axe to grind. Just stating that he clearly does have an axe to grind and giving a link that does not support it, well, does not support it.
The 17th of 23 thing was actually for Gallup, not Rasmussen.
I thought the Wiki bit on Scott Rasmussen made it pretty clear that he's a dedicated super-religious member of the right wing, but YMMV.
Frankly, I found this quote: “I would not consider myself a political conservative — that implies an alignment with Washington politics that I don’t think I have.” completely disingenuous and an attempt to dodge the question.
Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.
"Political conservative" does not equal "an alignment with Washington politics" by any standard whatsoever. That strikes me as a dodge, and given the "skew" of Rasmussen poll results (they're often considerably to the right of other polling operations, especially lately) I just don't trust these guys.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Hey, Thing, we don't tolerate people saying "f@!~ you" to each other on our message boards. I'm not going to delete the post and ban your butt for bad behavior in large part because I don't want to appear to be silencing political dissent in an off-topic thread, but I think you should take a step back and maybe even apologize to Samnell.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with the idea that conservatives are racists (which is obviously not uniformly the case), but let's ease off on the swearing and stuff, eh?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting post Samnell,
It does kind of gloss over the entire Federalist/Anti-federalist movements of the late 18th and 19th centuries, not to mention the 10th ammendment itself.
As to the civil rights movement, LBJ (for all his faults) did do the right thing that the reconstruction Republicans had started with the 13th - 15th ammendments. This was undone in a large chunk by the damage the Great Society did, I'll direct you to the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams to discuss that in more detail. I'd also point out that the Republicans were the ones that pushed the civil rights laws through, over the objections of Al Gore Sr. (I think Robert Byrd was in the Senate then, the white sheets make it hard to tell) Barry Goldwater's views on gays, espeically gays in the military, is well known. Lee Atwater's statements aside, the Republican stance on the Southern Strategy is much different Indeed, you look at Bobby Jindal to see where the 'Southern Strategy' is now. (and yes, for colour bean counters, he was elected before our current President)
Reconstruction was hardly the enlightened North coming into the south, and hardly just and fair across the board. In Sherman's Autobigraphy, in fact, he talks about having to work to have land restored to his friends. The election and compromise of 1876 ended any form of Reconstruction anyway. (ironic, a contested election).
Now a days though, much is forgiven if the colour doesn't match the expected politics. Ask Michael Steele Condi Rice and Marco Rubio. Or Michelle Malkin herself. Race is also used as a refuge, in accusing anyone critizing a minority's viewpoint. Even if you have to edit the black guy out
Of course we have things like calling President Obama a 'Magic Negro' on the right from Rush Limbaugh.
I'm not denying conservative racists or bigots exist. As a rule though, the ones who hate, instead of simply disagree are hunted down and cast out.
I'm tired of the 'you don't support the President, you must be racist' claptrap. I've been accused of being a closet gay man for commenting on GayPatriot, accused of being a homophobe for opposing judicial tampering to 'create' a 'right' to same sex marriage. (Quick, don't tell my mom and cousin! Or read what I write for that matter.
States Rights is an issue that pre-dates, and post-dates, the civil war. To say it solely comes from the issue of slavery, is disingenious.
I am still looking for a more complete report, but I did find this:
Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election
Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain
support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength. Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).
So, I'm still looking for something that had Rasmussen as 17th out of 23.
Just hoping I can be supplied with such a link.
Said stuff.
I saw nothing in the link that states he would have an axe to grind. Just stating that he clearly does have an axe to grind and giving a link that does not support it, well, does not support it.
The 17th of 23 thing was actually for Gallup, not Rasmussen.
I thought the Wiki bit on Scott Rasmussen made it pretty clear that he's a dedicated super-religious member of the right wing, but YMMV.
Frankly, I found this quote: “I would not consider myself a political conservative — that implies an alignment with Washington politics that I don’t think I have.” completely disingenuous and an attempt to dodge the question.
Your average racist Teabagger Obama = Hitler sign carrier could probably say the exact same thing without lying.
"Political conservative" does not equal "an alignment with Washington politics" by any standard whatsoever. That strikes me as a dodge, and given the "skew" of Rasmussen poll results (they're often considerably to the right of other polling operations, especially lately) I just don't trust these guys.
Again, I see no substantiation that his polling is suspect.
He was number one in 2004 and tied Pew with a perfect polling showing in 2008.
It appears that you are dismissing him based upon what his polls show despite a track record of being the best.
Edit note: I see that I missed the Gallup bit and took it as being about Rasmussen. My apologies to Erik Mona on that one.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
You can't, because that was a reference to Gallup, not Rasmussen. Like you, most of the results I could find on the 2008 election have them pretty accurate. My concerns about their accuracy have grown since that election, and are based a lot on my distrust of Scott Rasmussen and my perceptions that their results skew right consistently relative to other polls, particularly on Obama's popularity and the health care issue.
You can't, because that was a reference to Gallup, not Rasmussen. Like you, most of the results I could find on the 2008 election have them pretty accurate. My concerns about their accuracy have grown since that election, and are based a lot on my distrust of Scott Rasmussen and my perceptions that their results skew right consistently relative to other polls, particularly on Obama's popularity and the health care issue.
I recognized that mistake and edited it in above.
Hey, Thing, we don't tolerate people saying "f**! you" to each other on our message boards. I'm not going to delete the post and ban your butt for bad behavior in large part because I don't want to appear to be silencing political dissent in an off-topic thread, but I think you should take a step back and maybe even apologize to Samnell.
I'm not saying you can't disagree with the idea that conservatives are racists (which is obviously not uniformly the case), but let's ease off on the swearing and stuff, eh?
Appreciate the not banning bit.
But, I'm not going to apologize to the poster who calls members our military serial killers, including those who served in WWII.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Not that I expect you to take a Daily Kos post as a non-interested objective arbiter of fairness, but this post clicks with my own sense of Rasmussen polling stronger for the anti-Obama, anti-Health Care reform position in recent months. The charts showing their results relative to other polling outfits are quite interesting.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Appreciate the not banning bit.
But, I'm not going to apologize to the poster who calls members our military serial killers, including those who served in WWII.
Fair enough. I don't really care if you apologize. Just please refrain from swearing at one another! :)
In the immortal words of the great statesman Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
You can't, because that was a reference to Gallup, not Rasmussen. Like you, most of the results I could find on the 2008 election have them pretty accurate. My concerns about their accuracy have grown since that election, and are based a lot on my distrust of Scott Rasmussen and my perceptions that their results skew right consistently relative to other polls, particularly on Obama's popularity and the health care issue.
But, 17 of the 23 in the last election over estimated the support of Obama where Rasmussen was perfectly on the money. His polling was definitely to the right of other pollsters in that case. So, why should Rasmussen be dismissed for poll results that now lean right of other pollsters?
|
|
Thanks for taking the time to write this. Very interesting, especially that quote from Atwater.It's a massive story. I skipped loads and loads. To cover the whole thing would amount to the political and much of the social history of the United States from 1789 to 2010. The story of small town segregation, the most widespread and successful local government initiative in American history, could alone fill many large books. (Short version: It's no accident that most communities in America are monoracial. Immigrants, of the right color anyway, had few barriers to moving into various communities over the second and third generations. By contrast most African-Americans are 12th generation Americans or so and still see incredible, if declining, levels of informal residential segregation.)
For some more gory details on the Southern Strategy, this is decent.
And this is a bit on the Confederacy in American political culture of late.
None of this, not that it's going to head off the inevitable posts coming, is to suggest that every single conservative, or every single person who doesn't want to see state and local governments abolished, is a racist.
Just want to say to Sam. I agree with pretty much every thing that you have said in this thread. And kudos to you for sticking to your guns and speaking what you believe no matter what the fallout. Keep preaching the word! I'd write more, but I think you have the debate well in hand on our side of the fence. Keep it up my friend!
|
|
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.
Also, most Americans liked the idea of extending Medicare to younger Americans. That idea tracked really well. Too bad, Benedict Lieberman sank that hope.
Smart Americans know that our healthcare system is broken. Something is wrong when a large number of citizens of the greatest nation in the world can't afford to go to their doctor when they are sick. You get the benefits of being in a Capitalist society; you should have to pay for those rights and privileges. The price is helping your fellow man. Someone asked us to apologize to our kids. Maybe you should apologize to your neighbors first. Who cares how much it costs? Let's fix the problem first, and deal with the money later.
Not that I expect you to take a Daily Kos post as a non-interested objective arbiter of fairness, but this post clicks with my own sense of Rasmussen polling stronger for the anti-Obama, anti-Health Care reform position in recent months. The charts showing their results relative to other polling outfits are quite interesting.
The poster also complained that because the numbers used in Rasmussen's polls were so large compared to the other pollsters that it shifts the results when polling is combined.
But, polling is more accurate when larger samples are polled. So, this poster is arguing that Rasmussen's polling is bad because he has different results than others and is supporting that this shows a weakness by pointing out a strength of the methodology that Rasmussen uses.
I see nothing here that shows any bias in Rasmussen. Only bias in the poster.
Edit note: The poster referenced was not Erik Mona but the one in the link about Rasmussen polling.
Appreciate the not banning bit.But, I'm not going to apologize
I don't want you to apologize either. Nor did I want Erik to ban you.
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.
Also, most Americans liked the idea of extending Medicare to younger Americans. That idea tracked really well. Too bad, Benedict Lieberman sank that hope.
Smart Americans know that our healthcare system is broken. Something is wrong when a large number of citizens of the greatest nation in the world can't afford to go to their doctor when they are sick. You get the benefits of being in a Capitalist society; you should have to pay for those rights and privileges. The price is helping your fellow man. Someone asked us to apologize to our kids. Maybe you should apologize to your neighbors first. Who cares how much it costs? Let's fix the problem first, and deal with the money later.
And, I will ask again since you have dodged twice before.
Since you think the government does not do enough and that more needs to be done for your fellow man, what do you do? What have you given up to help your fellow man?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The poster also complained that because the numbers used in Rasmussen's polls were so large compared to the other pollsters that it shifts the results when polling is combined.But, polling is more accurate when larger samples are polled. So, this poster is arguing that Rasmussen's polling is bad because he has different results than others and is supporting that this shows a weakness by pointing out a strength of the methodology that Rasmussen uses.
I see nothing here that shows any bias in Rasmussen. Only bias in the poster.
I would try rereading it again more carefully. There is no claim that I saw that Rasmussen polls more people, only that they conduct a large number of polls. A large number of polls != more people polled or a larger sample size (they could be polling the same group of people multiple times). The statement that Rasmussen polls a larger sample is something you pulled out of thin air or got from another source - it is not supported by the link.
|
|
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.
Also, most Americans liked the idea of extending Medicare to younger Americans. That idea tracked really well. Too bad, Benedict Lieberman sank that hope.
Smart Americans know that our healthcare system is broken. Something is wrong when a large number of citizens of the greatest nation in the world can't afford to go to their doctor when they are sick. You get the benefits of being in a Capitalist society; you should have to pay for those rights and privileges. The price is helping your fellow man. Someone asked us to apologize to our kids. Maybe you should apologize to your neighbors first. Who cares how much it costs? Let's fix the problem first, and deal with the money later.
And, I will ask again since you have dodged twice before.
Since you think the government does not do enough and that more needs to be done for your fellow man, what do you do? What have you given up to help your fellow man?
I've dodged twice before? Dude, this is the first time you and I have locked horns on these boards (unless you are Garydee in disguise). So wtf?
Beyond that, it's none of your beeswax what I've done. That's between me and them. I don't have to prove anything to you, anymore than I would ask you to prove what you have done. It's enough to say that I pay my taxes, and I want those taxes to go towards actually helping Americans. I do other things, but as I have said before, what those things are, are none of your business. And what if I did choose to tell you? Of course, whatever those things are, you would say that I wasn't doing enough. You would say that I should put my money where my mouth was. In other words, you would use the standard debate tactics to try and delegitimize my opinion. And I have no desire to do that dance with you sir.
I would try rereading it again more carefully. There is no claim that I saw that Rasmussen polls more people, only that the conduct more polls. More polls != more people polled. The statement that Rasmussen polls a larger sample is something you pulled out of thin air or got from another source - it is not supported by the link.
The poster also complained that because the numbers used in Rasmussen's polls were so large compared to the other pollsters that it shifts the results when polling is combined.But, polling is more accurate when larger samples are polled. So, this poster is arguing that Rasmussen's polling is bad because he has different results than others and is supporting that this shows a weakness by pointing out a strength of the methodology that Rasmussen uses.
I see nothing here that shows any bias in Rasmussen. Only bias in the poster.
You are factually incorrect.
Red dots are Rasmussen polls the other color are non-Rasmussen polls.
If you look at the dots, there are more non-red dots than red dots. There are a whole lot more. It isn't even close. The volume of Rasmussen's polls is the size of the polls or the poster isn't counting the number of polls.
A note about polls. From what I've been hearing lately; it's true that at first glance, most Americans are against the healthcare proposal. Of course, that's before they hear what it will entail. Once they are informed of the details, most Americans like what they are hearing and support the piecemeal elements of the plan.
Also, most Americans liked the idea of extending Medicare to younger Americans. That idea tracked really well. Too bad, Benedict Lieberman sank that hope.
Smart Americans know that our healthcare system is broken. Something is wrong when a large number of citizens of the greatest nation in the world can't afford to go to their doctor when they are sick. You get the benefits of being in a Capitalist society; you should have to pay for those rights and privileges. The price is helping your fellow man. Someone asked us to apologize to our kids. Maybe you should apologize to your neighbors first. Who cares how much it costs? Let's fix the problem first, and deal with the money later.
And, I will ask again since you have dodged twice before.
Since you think the government does not do enough and that more needs to be done for your fellow man, what do you do? What have you given up to help your fellow man?
I've dodged twice before? Dude, this is the first time you and I have locked horns on these boards (unless you are Garydee in disguise). So wtf?
Beyond that, it's none of your beeswax what I've done. That's between me and them. I don't have to prove anything to you, anymore than I would ask you to prove what you have done. It's enough to say that I pay my taxes, and I want those taxes to go towards actually helping Americans. I do other things, but as I have said before, what those things are, are none of your business. And what if I did choose to tell you? Of course, whatever those things are, you would say that I wasn't doing enough. You would say that I should put my money where my mouth was. In...
No, I have addressed similar posts before and you avoided them.
No, I'm not GaryDee in disguise.
You have gone on in the past about how important it is to help other people and that enough isn't being done to help them by the government. If that is true, then you should be doing an enormous amount to help them yourself. But, I will just say that it seems more that you wish other people to do it because you think it is someone else's responsibility.
You stated this:
The price is helping your fellow man. Someone asked us to apologize to our kids. Maybe you should apologize to your neighbors first. Who cares how much it costs?
Well, how much do you do to help your fellow man?
You can dodge and say it isn't my business but that dodge isn't worth anything when you make statements like I showed above.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You are factually incorrect.
Uh...no. There's nothing there about the number of people polled. Go ahead and quote it if you can find it.
Red dots are Rasmussen polls the other color are non-Rasmussen polls. If you look at the dots, there are more non-red dots than red dots. are a whole lot more. It isn't even close.
The number of dots corresponds to the number of polls, not the number of people polled. These are different things.
Rasmussen conducts a lot of polls. They might just poll their good friends Billy Bob and Jimmy John Jones every day.
There The volume of Rasmussen's polls is the size of the polls or the poster isn't counting the number of polls.
I don't even understand what you are saying...
You are factually incorrect.Red dots are Rasmussen polls the other color are non-Rasmussen polls.
If you look at the dots, there are more non-red dots than red dots. There are a whole lot more. It isn't even close. The volume of Rasmussen's polls is the size of the polls or the poster isn't counting the number of polls.
Uh...no. There's nothing there about the number of people polled. Go ahead and quote it if you can find it. The number of dots corresponds to the number of polls, not the number of people polled. These are different things.
Rasmussen conducts a lot of polls. They might just poll their good friends Billy Bob and Jimmy John Jones.
Again, I say look at the chart the poster used to represent the polls done. There are a whole lot more that are not Rasmussen than are Rasmussen. Funny how you failed to mention that in the response despite that I explicitly pointed it out. I explicitly stated that it either menat the volume of each poll or the poster was not counting the polls in the chart he was using.
Try paying attention to what you are discussing instead of sticking to the side you think is right.
Did you not notice that they were perfect in the last election and best in the previous one?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Again, I say look at the chart the poster used to represent the polls done. There are a whole lot more that are not Rasmussen than are Rasmussen. Funny how you failed to mention that in the response despite that I explicitly pointed it out. I explicitly stated that it either menat the volume of each poll or the poster was not counting the polls in the chart he was using.
Uh...I did. Seriously, is it that hard to understand? The number of dots has nothing to do with the number of people polled.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Try paying attention to what you are discussing instead of sticking to the side you think is right.
Okay, pot, if you say so.
Did you not notice that they were perfect in the last election and best in the previous one?
I'm not sure how that relates to your inability to read.
Again, I say look at the chart the poster used to represent the polls done. There are a whole lot more that are not Rasmussen than are Rasmussen. Funny how you failed to mention that in the response despite that I explicitly pointed it out. I explicitly stated that it either menat the volume of each poll or the poster was not counting the polls in the chart he was using.Uh...I did. Seriously, is it that hard to understand? The number of dots has nothing to do with the number of people polled.
Reading comprehension is your friend.
Try paying attention to what you are discussing instead of sticking to the side you think is right.Okay, pot, if you say so.
Did you not notice that they were perfect in the last election and best in the previous one?I'm not sure how that relates to your inability to read.
The number of dots has to do with the number of polls.
The non-Rasmussen pols greatly outnumber the Rasmussen polls.So, the number of Rasmussen polls can't be throwing off the results of combining the polls. The only way for the Rasmussen polls to throw off the combined other polls is for their volume to be greater.
Obviously, reading comprehension is my friend. I believe that is a relationship you need to work on though Sebastian.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The number of dots has to do with the number of polls.
The non-Rasmussen pols greatly outnumber the Rasmussen polls.
So, the number of Rasmussen polls can't be throwing off the results of combining the polls. The only way for the Rasmussen polls to throw off the combined other polls is for their volume to be greater.Obviously, reading comprehension is my friend. I believe that is a relationship you need to work on though Sebastian.
Wow.
Seriously, wow.
This is not hard to understand.
Number of polls =! number of people polled.
Interesting post Samnell,
*sigh* I think the boards just ate my post. I had things to say but, crap. I must've spent like half an hour. Even typed out a paragraph from a text I had on hand.