"Law Profs back President Obama over Mitt Romney 72% to 19%..."
19%! That's huge! I'm stunned!
Actually, it's not a very scientific poll, just a blog poll put up by lawprof Brian Leiter. Why would only lawprofs vote? I'm sure Leiter has non-lawprof readers. But what's most important is that Leiter's readers — lawprof or non-lawprof — probably skew left, even more than the usual group of lawprofs.
In which case: 19%! Wow! Huge!
We'll see what kind of "lawprof" result is achieved through a poll at lawprof Althouse's blog site:
October 31, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Althouse--why do you even bother putting up a poll like this?
We already know what the results are going to be. You run a very conservative blog with very conservative commentators. You think they're all voting for the Green Party?
Is the Romster's support any better among conlawprofs?
PS Is Brian's brother named Felix?
When Obama see this poll result, he's going to pee his pants.
Look at how many lawprofs support Gary Johnson. Amazing!
Wow, Obama is just crushing Jill Stein!
War on women! War on women!
The information given about Leiter's poll suggests that there was none of that diabolical "voter suppression" going on, in other words that he made no attempt to limit his sample to lawprofs, other than self-identification.
Is California the only state with a ticket of Roseanne Barr/Cindy Sheehan on the ballot?
Come on, Jill, baby! You can do it.
Bill-why do you even bother to comment on a post like this?
Were adjuncts polled?
*winks*
Garage has got a sawzall with a rubber finger on it hitting the VOTE button for Obama.
And yes, ladies (wink) I can adapt your sawzall to your intimate personal needs.
What?
Too over the top?
@ MayBee
No, Roseanne and Cindy are on the Florida ballot, too. There are actually TWELVE different presidential choices, plus the option of a write-in.
Bill - humorless liberal?
Rick Santorum has an explanation:
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."
Oh wait... you want to know why law professors don't support the GOP. Forget the Santorum explanation, it doesn't apply.
I wonder which man they would choose if:
1) The parties were reversed
2) The skin colors were reversed
3) The lawprofs had just inherited a failing business that needed turned around.
4) They actually gave a shit about the future of the country
I wonder who they would choose if there were no political parties and folks instead voted on the actual issues rather than based on blind partisanship.
That's huge! I'm stunned! ...Wow! Huge!
For a "better than expected" 19%?
If you previously exclaimed the same superlatives to Meade, I can't imagine that makes him feel too confident right now.
I'm very surprised too - I expect academics to tilt left; especially in a field like law that touches directly on politics. To me this signifies that Romney is an acceptable candidate to moderate Democrats and/or that there's a special animus toward Obama over his (and Holder's) legal tactics.
Left off the most popular choice...
E) None of the above
Edutcher gets bonus points for the 007 reference.
Regardless of how the election turns out, I am curious to see what percentage of the electorate is committed to failure.
Rusty dais--"Garage has got a sawzall with a rubber finger on it hitting the VOTE button for Obama.
And yes, ladies (wink) I can adapt your sawzall to your intimate personal needs.I wonder which man they would choose if:"
I think we can safely assume some answers.
Dave said--"I'm very surprised too - I expect academics to tilt left; especially in a field like law that touches directly on politics. To me this signifies that Romney is an acceptable candidate to moderate Democrats and/or that there's a special animus toward Obama over his (and Holder's) legal tactics"
I'd say there are about 20% con's in education, hiding out, as it were, and no, I have yet to see one peep from any liberal about Zero and Holders at best, dubious, practices. Racial justice, and social justice, precludes just justice. Always.
Okay...half of my post, the middle half, disappeared on me, I didn't mean the Rusty part to go with the comment it's with, but it turned out funnier than my original one so maybe God does look out after fools :-)
Carn, I was wondering if anyone else would.
Jake Diamond said...
Rick Santorum has an explanation:
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side."
Oh wait... you want to know why law professors don't support the GOP. Forget the Santorum explanation, it doesn't apply.
I guess that means lawprofs aren't smart, unless they're conlawprofs - Conservative lawprofs.
I voted twice!
I voted twice!
I voted for Mitt!
I voted for Jill!
Nobama, nobama, nobama, go!
Come on people, vote for Jill!
Think of the frogs!
Just kidding about voting twice. That didn't happen. Impossible.
Just kidding about voting twice. That didn't happen. Impossible.
Thanks for that assurance Senator Franken.
I agree more with Johnson, but this is *not* the year for a protest vote. Statism Lite is still better than Full Blown Statism on Steroids.
Rick, I feel the same way. I usually vote Libertarian, but not this year. It's too important to stop this debacle.
Someone will have to try to explain to edutcher what "does not apply" means.
So I'm too lazy to look: What was the lawprof support for Obama last go-around?
Post a Comment