And I know that plenty of conservatives won't call themselves "Republicans." I'd like to see a poll that delves into the reasons people who call themselves "Republicans" choose to call themselves "Republicans" and why others reject the label, despite being conservative.
Also, I wonder if some people who aren't conservative at all lie to pollsters — especially a poll with a lefty name like "Daily Kos" — so they can skew the results and give those folks the results they imagine the poll is designed to produce: that non-liberals are evil/stupid.
Nevertheless, let's read the results of this poll:
• 39% of Republicans want President Obama to be impeached.Wonderful anti-Republican PR results. They justify the fears people who are not Republicans have about the Republican Party. I don't like thinking people are this extreme, and I wish I could see how the questions were worded. The full survey (and the questions) were not out at the time TPM put up this post, and releasing the results in this form reinforces my suspicion that the motivation of the poll is to generate anti-Republican PR.
• 63% think Obama is a socialist.
• Only 42% believe Obama was born in the United States.
• 21% think ACORN stole the 2008 election -- that is, that Obama didn't actually win it, and isn't legitimately the president, with 55% saying they are "not sure."...
• 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president.
• 23% want to secede from the United States.
• 73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools....
• 31% want contraception to be outlawed.
How would you word questions to ask "self-identified" Democrats if it were your goal to generate anti-Democrat PR? How would you smoke out all the flaky and stupid suggestions they'd go along with if a pollster offered it in a rational-sounding form and didn't interject amazement at the answers? Then how would you reword the questions to publish the results to make the best propaganda for your side?
(I once submitted to a poll where I was asked various questions about abortion rights, and the pollster started coming back with "Really?" and "Are you sure?" in a shaming way that made it obvious they were trying to get people to say they supported laws restricting abortion so they could attack some politician — probably Russ Feingold. It was really unprofessional!)
ADDED: Here's the Kos post announcing the results of the poll. It begins with this mind-boggling sentence: "As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world." It turns out this poll was designed to help him with that theory.
How independent and reliable is Research 2000?
Posts
219 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 219 of 219Re: "The Wong Kim Ark case said no such thing (you lie again)."
These are the actual words:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
It clearly says that in England and in the United States EVERY child who is born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is NATURAL BORN.
When someone is both Natural Born and a citizen, that person is a Natural Born Citizen.
lyssalovelyredhead said,
""Sorry, Mick, Hon, but I just can't get that excited about it (even if I were to assume that all of what you say is completely true with no counter-arguments, which I wouldn't without some independant research)."
See that's the problem, hon, you don't care what you should care about. The accident of his birth is what should have prevented Obama from being POTUS in the first place. He is precisely the type that the founders would have barred. Unfortunately McCain also ran as a Usurper (he was born in Panama) which allowed Obama to run. If that doesn't bother you, I feel sorry for you, and again those like you are the reason this has been allowed to happen.
MadisonMan said,
""How is it John McCain's fault that a demoralized Republican Party (Gee, I wonder why!) nominated him? You fault him for running a better campaign than any of his Republican adversaries?
I thought the readers of this blog were more intelligent than this. John McCain allowed Obama to run because he is not Natural Born either. Thus he couldn't challenge him then or now.
AjLynch: In Philly, they passed a new ordinance that requires chain restaurants to post calorie info on their menus.
Yes, we've had that law in New York for a while now. There was a little bit of grumbling about the small one-time expense of getting the calorie counts posted, but it wasn't a huge burden and it's given useful information to consumers. (Many consumers are counting their calories for health reasons, but they don't have time to make home-cooked meals every day.) We're pretty happy with the law.
The big loser seems to have been Starbucks. A lot of people hadn't realized just how high the calorie counts where for some of their drinks. (We're talking 1000+ calories!) But Starbucks is associated with liberals so they deserve all the bad stuff that happens to them.
Peter V. Bella: Just curious, what if every single restaurant refused to post the calorie count?
I don't know about Philadelphia, but in New York the restaurants would have to pay a fine. Paying the fine would be even more expensive than just posting the calorie count.
Dust Bunny Queen: They should all post fake and daily fluctuating calorie counts, on those electronic ticker type signs.
That would be fraud and subject them to greater fines and possibly jail time.
Mick: "See that's the problem, hon, you don't care what you should care about."
Things you should care about more than this issue (since we're issuing directives on what others should care about now):
* That some folks are able to sucessfully push the idea that opposition to Obama's policies stems from racism.
* That we are one past-middle aged man's heartbeat away from a Supreme Court that will refuse to respect the first amendment.
* That the welfare state has a vested interest in keeping people in poverty.
* That unemployment's still in the crapper, but someone out there actually believes the admin's statements that things are improving.
* That taxes and wealth-envy kill the will to produce.
*That Democrats successfully push the idea that they are for women and minorities, when their policies and words say the exact opposite.
* That a number of Americans believe that socialistic policies will work despite constant and repeated evidence to the contrary.
* That a majority of Americans voted for Obama, despite his obvious lack of demonstrated abilities.
And so on, and so on, and so on . . .
Sorry, it's just low on the priority list. FWIW, I've always advocated changing the law to allow non-native born citizens to become president, assuming naturalization for a large number of years.
Also, I take it that you took offense to the endearment I used, "hon." For that, I apologize. I used to wait tables in a southern restuarant, where I picked up that habit, and it still slips out occasionally. I don't mean it to be insulting; I don't use it on people that I dislike.
Remember that time that (then candidate) Obama called a reporter "sweetie?" I thought that was adorable!
lyssalovelyredhead said,
Sorry, it's just low on the priority list. FWIW, I've always advocated changing the law to allow non-native born citizens to become president, assuming naturalization for a large number of years.""
Ah the truth comes out. I find that a lot of people get offended by this law because it makes their children or themselves ineligible and they feel that eligibility is a "right". It is not a "right". It is a National Security provision. I particularly don't care if someone lables me as racist for wanting to adhere to the USC! That just shows what they are. Further, it is the LAW. It can only be changed by Amendment, not by any Naturalization Law enacted by congress. The fact that you advocate breaking the law, and that you are somehow smarter than the founders is disturbing, but hey, you're not the only one! And that's why it has been allowed to happen! I was just kidding about "hon", it takes a lot more than that to offend me.
John Bingham, the writer of the 14th Amendment said this in 1866, less than 100 years from ratification of the USC.
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))""
Obama , by his OWN ADMISSION, stated on Fight the Smears that his citizenship was "governe'" by Britain.
"Ah the truth comes out. I find that a lot of people get offended by this law because it makes their children or themselves ineligible and they feel that eligibility is a "right"."
There's no truth to come out, and I'm certainly not offended or thinking that there are any rights involved. I just think it's not that important and bad policy.
Also, the Constitution is "law," (as are statutes and case law, in lawyer-speak- of course they work within a hierarchy of power). An amendment would be a change in the law. Unfortunately, there are a number of laws that "fall out of enforcement" for a wide variety of reasons. I'm not saying that that's a good policy; it's not (interestingly, the history of Roe v. Wade starts with a case of an unenforced law), but it is what it is.
There are a lot of things wrong with the world. I'm not going to put my energy into seeing if this is one of them.
Re: "No, you lie again (it's a common thing). It said that children born in the US of RESIDENT DOMICILED ALIENS are Citizens (specifically, read the case)."
Here are the actual words:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
It says that EVERY child born of alien parents is Natural Born, in England, and in the colonies, and in the USA.
Elsewhere in the ruling, it says that even when aliens are in the country temporarily, that is sufficient.
Yale Law Review wrote: "It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. "
And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Re: "No, you lie again (it's a common thing). It said that children born in the US of RESIDENT DOMICILED ALIENS are Citizens (specifically, read the case)."
Here are the actual words of the ruling:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Elsewhere in the ruling it says that even when aliens were in the country temporarily, that is sufficient. And it says that this definition of Natural Born applied to England, the English colonies, and that it still applies under the Constitution.
Mick is very full of his own importance and wonderfulness for daring to face some vastly important truth.
Citizenship and ALL the rights involved in it, conferred by birth, is like being born into a family. It's not your choice. Doing anything to change your birth status takes legal measures and forms and courts.
To say that some children of citizens do not have the signal "right" of holding the office of POTUS is to say that they are bastard children of the nation.
Saying that people who chose to serve in the military, giving up certain rights for themselves and often risking their lives, and also possibly bringing their children in to the world in far away places in service to their nation, that they essentially bastardize their own children, making them bastard children of the nation and not as *legitimate* as the other children born, is not a case of some people getting snotty about their own kids.
It shows where picking ones nose endlessly over what is essentially plain language becomes a farce.
Are you seriously implying that progressives 'posing' as Republicans 'skewed' the results of the poll? Do you even understand the concept of a random sample? Wait, maybe that question was a bit too complicated. Let me back up. Do you know what a poll is? LOL
Dissecting Some of the Questions that Daily Kos Asked Self-Identifed Republicans
…the Daily Kos questions to Self-identified Republicans are not as straight-forward as they look at first sight, and how you phrase a question can bring a vast variety in the answers. (For instance, there is a difference between asking "Do you think Bush was right to start a(n illegal) war?", "Do you think the U.S. Army was right to invade (Saddam Hussein's) Iraq?", and "Do you think the United States was right to overthrow a dictator (who had killed 300,000 of his fellow citizens)?" Note that each question changes even more by simply adding — or, alternatively, removing — the respective phrase in parentheses.)
As I will be pointing out below, the main problem here is with either-or questions in which neither option is entirely satisfactory. … (Often, by voicing a question saying the exact opposite of what the original question is saying, you see the problem with that original question.) I have reason to believe that these questions were reframed after they were asked in order to make Republicans look ridiculous — make them look more Taliban-like — but since I have no proof of this, I do not dwell into the issue. …
Read the rest of the dissection here:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2010/02/dissecting-some-of-questions-that-daily.html
Dissecting Some of the Questions that Daily Kos Asked Self-Identifed Republicans
…the Daily Kos questions are not as straight-forward as they look at first sight, and how you phrase a question can bring a vast variety in the answers. (For instance, there is a difference between asking "Do you think Bush was right to start a(n illegal) war?", "Do you think the U.S. Army was right to invade (Saddam Hussein's) Iraq?", and "Do you think the United States was right to overthrow a dictator (who had killed 300,000 of his fellow citizens)?" Note that each question changes even more by simply adding — or, alternatively, removing — the respective phrase in parentheses.)
As I will be pointing out below, the main problem here is with either-or questions in which neither option is entirely satisfactory. The answers therefore help Kos make those questioned look ridiculous. Often, by voicing a question stating the exact opposite of what the original question is saying, you sense the problem with that original question — since the (unmentioned) alternative is unpalatable, or even more unpalatable, the person questioned has little choice but to accept the question, incongruous as it may be. …
See the dissection of the Daily Kos questions below:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2010/02/dissecting-some-of-questions-that-daily.html
Dissecting Some of the Questions that Daily Kos Asked Self-Identifed Republicans
(It seems like my comment isn't making it, so I'm going to try one (last) time without the hyperlink…)
The Research 2000 for Daily Kos questions (1/20-31) to Self-identified Republicans (MoE 2%) are not as straight-forward as they look at first sight, and how you phrase a question can bring a vast variety in the answers. (For instance, there is a difference between asking “Do you think Bush was right to start a(n illegal) war?”, “Do you think the U.S. Army was right to invade (Saddam Hussein’s) Iraq?”, and “Do you think the United States was right to overthrow a dictator (who had killed 300,000 of his fellow citizens)?” Note that each question changes even more by simply adding — or, alternatively, removing — the respective phrase in parentheses.)
The main problem here is with either-or questions in which neither option is entirely satisfactory. The answers therefore help Kos make those questioned look ridiculous. Often, by voicing a question stating the exact opposite of what the original question is saying, you sense the problem with that original question — since the (unmentioned) alternative is unpalatable, or even more unpalatable, the person questioned has little choice but to accept the question, incongruous as it may be.
For example: “Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?
Think of the exact opposite of this question — in this case, “Do you believe Barack Obama is an unbiased uniter who LOVES white people?” — to see how the question is distorted. It is highly unlikely that most people — even Democrats — would answer Yes to the entire revised question. Even Democrats who might — who probably would — gladly say Yes to the first part of the revised question, would have trouble with the second part, sensing it goes too far. (This question is one of several that makes me believe that the questions have been changed since they were asked in order to make Republicans look more “Taliban-like” but, since I have no proof for that, assume that the question was asked as written here.)
There is more than a little evidence to believe that, for reasons good or bad, Obama is — to some extent — resentful of white America, not least his autobiographies, the “damn America” comment of his (former?) spiritual guide, and his “stupid” white policemen quote. Imagine a person being asked the (original) question above; if she answers No, she is effectively answering Yes to the revised question (”do you believe Barack Obama is an unbiased uniter who ADORES white people?”). If you do not believe the latter, you are in a dilemma in answering the original question and remaining honest.
What all this shows is that if you really want to get to know the population or a segment thereof (rather than make a caricature of them), it makes more sense to frame your queries as if they were multiple-choice questions.
PS: I likewise dissect all of DC's poll questions on the No Pasarán blog…
Obviously, this was no poll; just some made up chum for the masses.
As to your question about why some conservatives will not call themselves Republicans, that's an easy one. As a conservative who is not a member of the GOP, I fit that bill.
Republican is a tainted brand. They overspent and lived the high life when they were in power. I do not want to be associated with that brand. Just because they may be right on some issues does not earn my allegiance.
In this poll, the South is heavily over-represented, and the West perhaps slightly so, at the expense of the Northeast. I wonder how representative the respondents were as far as socioeconomic status, if the regional representation isn't even right.
Re: "Do you even understand the concept of a random sample? Wait, maybe that question was a bit too complicated. Let me back up. Do you know what a poll is? LOL"
Eric, random samples do not necessarily represent the population well, nor are samples always chosen randomly. Your post is arrogant and ignorant.
Re: "Eric, random samples do not necessarily represent the population well, nor are samples always chosen randomly. Your post is arrogant and ignorant."
Random samples are the best way to get the most accurate representation of any population. The polling firm is reputable and has released their methodology in detail. If knowledge is arrogant, then I guess I'm arrogant. But how can my informed statement be ignorant? It would seem that your suggestion that the poll might not be random in light of the fact that the methodology was released in detail is what is actually ignorant, as you clearly have not taken the time to read about how the poll was conducted before commenting on it.
Re: "In this poll, the South is heavily over-represented, and the West perhaps slightly so, at the expense of the Northeast. I wonder how representative the respondents were as far as socioeconomic status, if the regional representation isn't even right."
Define "heavily over-represented," please. And while your at it, please read the methodology of the poll before you make untrue arguments. The fact that more people from the south self-identify as republican does not mean that the poll "heavily over-represented" the south. Nay. It means that the poll accurately reflected the country, as it is true that more people self-identify as republicans in the south.
If your idea of a random sample means finding an even spread of Republicans across the country and SESs, then you truly do not understand the concept of a random sample. Or the definition of the word ignorant. And brazen ignorance is, IMHO, arrogant.
Seacrest out.
Post a Comment