quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Does anyone know of any polls that break this down by party that were done after 27 April 2011.
Here's one from Gallup that breaks it down demographically. Notice that the numbers are still much higher than the WaPo poll you posted. This is likely due to the significant difference in the way the question was asked, which gets to the heart of the problem of interpreting responses to opinion polls as objectively accurate. There's a lot of cheerleading partisanship, rather than logical reflective deliberations.
<edit>By "cheerleading partisanship" I mean essentially this (from Gary Langer, head pollster for ABC news):
quote:I think these measurements are not really reflecting 'belief' in the true sense of the phrase," he said. "Many people are expressing their opinion rather than an assertion of factual reality. People who don’t like you are going to take an opportunity to send a message.... They’re simply taking advantage of an opportunity to express antipathy toward him.
I think the dramatic difference between the WaPo poll and the Gallup poll quantifies, to some degree, exactly this effect.
For more on the partisan cheerleading effect, see this post by Brendan Nyhan comparing the partisan makeup of of people who express truther opinions and those who express birther opinions.</edit>
posted
I am still wondering, if $=Speech, then why isn't bribery legal?
"I'm Darth Maul. I know how to manage money. Instead of spending about $200 per person on ads in this district, I'll pay every person $100-cash in exchange for your vote. All I ask is that you promise to vote for me. Warning, I will uphold all of my campaign promise to the same percentage as you, who promise to vote for me, actually vote for me."
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From Kate's link, 9% of Americans consider themselves "part of the Birther movement." Given the partisan makeup of the US, this would lead me to guess that something like 12-15% of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents probably cop to being birthers.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The ugly part is going to be if Obama goes after Romney for being a Mormon, and Romney trots out the birther Muslim Rev. Wright etc crap from four years ago. If we go that route, yes, it'll be nasty and highly magnified by the money.
You are not looking far enough down the rabbit hole of citizen's united.
It will be "the ugly part is going to be if the clusters of wholly unaffiliated PAC's representing only themselves of course go after mormonism birther muslim rev. wright crap" which of course the candidates can assure everyone is not their doing, their hands are clean of course [/i]
Speaking of which.
"Koch Brothers, Allies Pledge $100 Million At Private Meeting To Beat Obama"
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: From Kate's link, 9% of Americans consider themselves "part of the Birther movement." Given the partisan makeup of the US, this would lead me to guess that something like 12-15% of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents probably cop to being birthers.
Which of Kate's links? Her most recent link reported
quote:18% say they still have doubts about where the President was born (including 40% of Tea Party, 33% of Republicans, 27% of Conservatives.) * 10% say they are sure the document released 04/27/11 is a forgery (including 17% of Tea Party , 18% of Republicans, 16% of Conservatives).
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I am still wondering, if $=Speech, then why isn't bribery legal?
"I'm Darth Maul. I know how to manage money. Instead of spending about $200 per person on ads in this district, I'll pay every person $100-cash in exchange for your vote. All I ask is that you promise to vote for me. Warning, I will uphold all of my campaign promise to the same percentage as you, who promise to vote for me, actually vote for me."
I'd be interested to see what would happen if that made it to SCOTUS and what sort of legal flimflam they'd use to separate the two without delegitimizing Citizens United.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, isn't there a pretty tried and true method for getting these sorts of things tested out?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Which of Kate's links? Her most recent link reported
quote:18% say they still have doubts about where the President was born (including 40% of Tea Party, 33% of Republicans, 27% of Conservatives.) * 10% say they are sure the document released 04/27/11 is a forgery (including 17% of Tea Party , 18% of Republicans, 16% of Conservatives).
A bit further on is this:
quote:9% of Americans consider themselves to be part of the "Birther" movement
That's the number I was drawing on.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an interesting article in the October 2000 edition of the California Law Review on vote buying. Apparently there are two federal laws that outlaw it, one that outlaws offering a bribe, and one that outlaws accepting it, even if it's just to register to vote. Every individual state also outlaws the practice in state-wide elections.
Interestingly, the article cites a 2000 SCOTUS case, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC where the Supreme Court upheld a limit to individual campaign contributions with nothing more than the legal logic that anything more than that strays into the territory of buying votes. But I really don't see how this all grooves with corporate citizenship and Citizen's United. If corporations are people, and people are limited in the donations they can give, corporations should theoretically be bound the same way, and there's precedent for money equaling bribery, thus, why wouldn't massive efforts undertaken on someone's behalf be tantamount to an illegal campaign contribution? Money isn't just speech, it's also money. I'm not sure I get the legal argument that strips money of it's moneyness and transforms it into only speech.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dagonee attritioned himself, he'd have to change his base natural response to confrontational argument in order to post here and not give himself a coronary, haha
though I admit I miss watching him drive himself flipping mad talking to tom
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*rolleyes* I never noticed Dagonee to have a big problem with confrontational argument, Samprimary. I did notice him many times have a problem with 'how can a smart, decent person like you believe something so laughably wicked and stupid' kind of argument, though. Shocker that you'd cast it differently, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never noticed Dagonee to have a big problem with confrontational argument, Samprimary.
Dagonee would drive himself crazy over certain topics and personalities. His interactions with tom davidson in particular degraded to the point of the surreal and is a potent example of why the ignore button was invented and should routinely be advised for some. This is independent of any judgment whether or not specific instances of his knifesprouting battles were precipitated fairly by others or not, but those winds blew both ways. It is better that he is not here and he knows it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*snort* Good thing you're here to speak for his behavior!
And, no, it wasn't certain topics. It was certain topics when pursued in certain ways, which is actually quite different. You'll pardon me for assuming your statement wasn't independent of any judgment, when you characterized his beef as a problem with 'confrontational argument', Samprimary.
Don't get me wrong, I dig why you approach it that way: you're a known (and often funny) fan of the "Geewillickers, it's funny how goddamn stupid you are!" approach. Someone who doesn't play that sort of schtick is unlikely to appeal.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That .. would be relevant if I thought dagonee was stupid, or if I would mind at all if he thought it was time to come back. You have an odd way of white-knighting the guy, but, okay! I'm glad to have gotten both a rolleyes and a snort out of you.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Don't get me wrong, I dig why you approach it that way: you're a known (and often funny) fan of the "Geewillickers, it's funny how goddamn stupid you are!" approach. Someone who doesn't play that sort of schtick is unlikely to appeal.
Heh, that is a pretty good characterization.
At least, it seems that way to someone who's often a target of said approach (but laughs anyway, because you are quite funny and your opinion of me isn't terribly high on my list of concerns).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind the characterization at all; we've had plenty of hilariously idiotic individuals scootch on through and even get stuck in the drain. Good times, good times.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that I and I'm sure others can remember clearly discussions on some of those topics you're definitely thinking of that went along in spite of disagreement, but did so in forum-safety.
I didn't say you thought he was stupid, but thinking someone is stupid doesn't seem to be a requirement for your approach either. I don't believe you think, for example, Dan is stupid but go ahead and tell me you don't talk to him that way?
Anyway, I'm not white-knighting (ugh) him, I was criticizing your unfair attack. And by the way, you're contradicting yourself-you just said it was better without him here, and even that he knew it too.
Oh, and another thing that I saw happen more than once (and still does, over there) is the approach as though the default assumption is that he's got some explaining to do-not so much to discover his position, but to get him to defend it from the back of his heel right away.
Heh. I just think it's pretty amusing to have that sort of thing described as 'confrontational argument'. I suppose much of it has to do with whether your listeners agree with you already or not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're the one that brought up the "Geewillickers, it's funny how goddamn stupid you are!" 'approach.' I pointed out how it's not relevant to Dagonee when I don't think Dagonee is stupid. You chose a poor direction against me.
quote:And by the way, you're contradicting yourself-you just said it was better without him here, and even that he knew it too.
I'm glad that you feel compelled to stand up for Dagonee, but you need to do it without dud charges. I've said nothing that contradicts that.
quote:Heh. I just think it's pretty amusing to have that sort of thing described as 'confrontational argument'.
That you saw this thing happen more than once does not make it what I am describing. Nor, more to the point, does it make the case that it must be what I am describing. Note how I said: "This is independent of any judgment whether or not specific instances of his knifesprouting battles were precipitated fairly by others or not" — my attitude does not hinge on the idea that Dagonee was never subject to this approach, so we're up to dud charge no. 3.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's relevant not based on whether or not you think he's stupid, but whether or not you're a fan of that particular approach. You clearly are, which is why I'm less than surprised to hear you characterize it as 'confrontational argument'. So, not a dud.
I'm glad you felt compelled to criticize him, too-I mean seriously, you can't expect that to stick when we're both talking about someone who isn't here. And I gave examples of contradiction-characterizing his problem as with 'confrontational argument', saying it's better he's not here, so on. Not-misfire #2.
As for #3, like I said, it's not irrelevant. If you wanted to back off your characterization of 'confrontational argument', perhaps it'd be less relevant.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your entry into this conversation was to state that Dagonee drove himself away because of his 'natural response to confrontational argument', which is actually pretty funny. Dagonee, experienced lawyer-simply cannot handle confrontational argument. Heh.
I can't say what your standard for that is, but if you still stick to your guns that the kind of thing that prompted his departure was merely 'confrontational argument', then your use of the term is bunk.
But again, as I said, if your standard for that IS 'man, how do you believe something so stupid and funny!' well then you're still wrong, but I understand why.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not really telling me what my characterization is, but, eh.
quote:Your entry into this conversation was to state that Dagonee drove himself away because of his 'natural response to confrontational argument', which is actually pretty funny.
It was funny! Though it got a little surreal between him and Tom Davidson, as I noted.
quote: but if you still stick to your guns that the kind of thing that prompted his departure was merely 'confrontational argument', then your use of the term is bunk.
Only if you seriously think that confrontational arguments had nothing to do with his departure.
Anyway.
quote:And I gave examples of contradiction
No, really — when you read what I said, I'm not contradicting myself. To make it clear, do you want to bring up the quotes of where you think I am?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is precisely what I'm talking about: describing the sorts of things that most drove Dagonee nuts, and away, as 'confrontational argument' is about as accurate as describing a man being beaten to death as a boxing match. There's confrontation in both, but to baldly describe it as a 'confrontation' is just silly.
Again, if you want to qualify that statement-that his problem was with 'confrontational arguments'-fine. Until then, though, you're full of it. And I mean that in the nicest, most humorous way possible!
This kind of conversation, actually, is the sort of thing that drove him away. Such as patronizing laughter, casual presumption of superiority, 'light-hearted' mockery, so on and so forth. Casting him as an oversensitive tantrum-thrower who can't tolerate 'confrontational argument'. I've seen him, many times and on many subjects, participate in a confrontational argument calmly. Others have too, I've no doubt. What I rarely saw, however, was him responding with a laugh to being patronized.
Which is just gosh, WEIRD, I know, Samprimary, but still, some people are just crazy like that!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Pots and kettles, buddy You've concluded this argument for yourself and will tell yourself that I'm full of it ... based on duds. Which is why I want to see you try to show me contradicting myself (and why, I suspect, you're not taking me up on it).
quote: Casting him as an oversensitive tantrum-thrower who can't tolerate 'confrontational argument'.
oversensitive tantrum-thrower, eh? Now that's interesting. I wonder what else I didn't say that you'll say for me!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For starters, you first said it was better that he's gone and that he knows it too. Contradiction. You also said his problem was with 'confrontational argument', but that it was independent of judgment. Contradiction, unless we're supposed to believe 'unable to handle confrontation' is meant to be neutral or even complimentary.
So, the reason why I'm not doing it is because I did, and when I did, your explanations were bunk. C'mon, Samprimary, tell me again how that's independent of who was at fault. 'The wind blew both ways', right. But it's better he's gone, so perhaps more one way than another. And he couldn't handle confrontational argument...
As for what you didn't say. Dude. Are we going to pretend you have to explicitly say something to say it? *You?* Serious question, Samprimary. You said he left because he couldn't deal with confrontational argument. Tell me you have to specifically make any of the numerous criticisms associated with that in order to have done so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For starters, you first said it was better that he's gone and that he knows it too. Contradiction.
That doesn't make any sense. It's not a contradiction.
quote:You also said his problem was with 'confrontational argument', but that it was independent of judgment. Contradiction, unless we're supposed to believe 'unable to handle confrontation' is meant to be neutral or even complimentary.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I said "independent of any judgment whether or not specific instances of his knifesprouting battles were precipitated fairly by others or not" — which is true, considering that being incompatible with an online community doesn't have to be your fault. You took that and cleaved it down to "independent of [any] judgment [on Sam's part]."
I think you are a smart guy, I really don't want to think you can't look at this and see that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your entry into this conversation was to state that Dagonee drove himself away because of his 'natural response to confrontational argument', which is actually pretty funny. Dagonee, experienced lawyer-simply cannot handle confrontational argument. Heh.
He was gone from this forum not that long after passing the bar. He was nt an "experienced lawyer" at that time, as far as I recall.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a contradiction not with itself, but with other statements you made-specifically, you'd be ambivalent on whether or not he decided to participate again. You said that *after* saying it was better he was gone. So look, you can flatly state that nothing you've said is contradictory all you like.
Now that you're actually explaining yourself a bit better, yes, there is less or even no contradiction. Kind of what I was asking for from the start. Your initial claim, that his problem was with 'confrontational argument', was absurd. It needed substantial explanation before it bordered on the realm of fact. That you can claim you *weren't* saying anything critical or finding fault when you said that...
I know you know words better than that, Samprimary. I also am fairly certain you, personally, would have at least a little less respect for someone if they couldn't handle confrontational argument. So for pity's sake, cut the crap. You're super clever and aloof and witty, we all get it.
quote:I think you are a smart guy, I really don't want to think you can't look at this and see that.
Ugh. I would respond with what I actually think to being called stupid in such a patronizing way, if I weren't pretty convinced your insult would be excused and permitted whereas my response would not. Case in point: THAT sort of 'confrontational argument' was reliably something that, yes, drove him nuts. So if that was your intent, well done I suppose but would add that it's indistinguishable from your usual style of dispute here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a contradiction not with itself, but with other statements you made-specifically, you'd be ambivalent on whether or not he decided to participate again. You said that *after* saying it was better he was gone. So look, you can flatly state that nothing you've said is contradictory all you like.
I can, because they're not contradictory.
These statements:
quote:It is better that he is not here and he knows it.
quote:That .. would be relevant if I thought dagonee was stupid, or if I would mind at all if he thought it was time to come back
Are not contradictory. I seriously would not care a whit if he decided to stress himself out by coming back here, because it's not like it bothers me in any way. And I can say that while readily surmising that there was good reason for him to stop posting here.
You can take above part of post ^ and run through it all you like. I think you should admit that the "contradiction" was a result of your own misreading of me. I think you should also not try to twist your own misreading against me. I will call you on it!
quote:Now that you're actually explaining yourself a bit better, yes, there is less or even no contradiction.
You're getting there. It is "no contradiction."
quote:So for pity's sake, cut the crap. You're super clever and aloof and witty, we all get it.
To defend myself and clarify myself against attacks by a person who is trying equally as hard (if not more, really, at this point!) to be witty, aloof, patronizing, and all of the things you are throwing at me in order to make this about my attitude and the way I choose to present myself on this forum isn't something you can wave away with "cut the crap." Especially not when, as I have demonstrated, you're trying that by making charges that don't stick.
You may continue to try strenuously to make this a referendum on my behavior. It's no longer really about whether I'm right about an ex-poster. It's about how much I annoy you. You may think this as patronizing as you like.
quote:Ugh. I would respond with what I actually think to being called stupid in such a patronizing way
Stop it. I don't think you're stupid. Your mind-reading has been awry from the start of this teapot-tempest!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't think I am stupid, then perhaps you should choose your words such that they don't so thoroughly convey that specific message. By all means, call me on what you like, but if you're interested in a straightforward conversation, do it plainly. Cut this s*%t of 'you're smart, I don't want to think you can't get this'. You're not in a position to be so patronizing to nearly anyone here.
But if you'll not even admit that that sort of remark is anytjing less than an insult, there's as little point as I expected in this conversation. I'll simply drop it and go back to trying to consciously not mind slights such as that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: It works pretty well for me!
Yeah, it really does. Your skill at not-getting-angry-at-Sam is pretty much unparalleled, from what I've seen.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're not in a position to be so patronizing to nearly anyone here.
Oh? You bent my words by accident. Indeed, you assumed contradictions where there were none (which, I hope, you can see now). And all the while indulging conspicuously in a patronizing tone right from the start, yet, this? I easily find no relevance to your arbitration over who's in a 'position' to act in what ways, due to the, .. I guess unintending hypocrisy.
quote: If you don't think I am stupid, then perhaps you should choose your words such that they don't so thoroughly convey that specific message.
Like I said in advance, because by now I (sadly) saw it coming: I think you should also not try to twist your own misreading against me.
quote:But if you'll not even admit that that sort of remark is anytjing less than an insult ...
It could easily be read as an insult. You jumped straight to insisting I'm calling you stupid, and you can ask me as many times as you want if that is accurate (It's not). What it is is a response to actions and accusations on your behalf I am rightly disappointed by, and had every right to respond to — over me correctly pointing out that you have twisted my words in a way I shouldn't have to defend — quite assuredly something I don't want to think you can't see for yourself when I point it out, and with good reason. It's like if I catch someone telling lies about me, and then I say "I'm very disappointed in you, aren't you more honest than that?" and then they just hinge on, oh, insults now?
I think you're just showing to me that when you're posting when frustrated at me, you'll get stuck in this sort of mode unless I speak to you like a robot, in short and emotionally mute declarative sentences. Which is, I guess, what I should do if you're going to aggress the same against me for being the Unworthy Patronizer either way, just with one way leaving much less room for circles and circles of mind-reading and misrepresentation derailment.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back on topic, I've got to admit, a part of me admires Santorum's willingness to say 'markets are great!' to a woman with a sick child at a campaign event. I think that kind of unregulated ideal I think he goes for is stupid and wicked, but I wouldn't have expected even someone so far right to have just come right out and said that, there and then.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'll simply drop it and go back to trying to consciously not mind slights such as that.
It works pretty well for me!
You leveled it up fast after loggerheads over tea party, breitbart, et al. You might soon qualify for Grandmaster status.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Romney won Nevada, and predictably, the media descended to shower him with congratulations and calls that he's on a roll, and that Gingrich should just give up because he was crushed, and they can't understand why he would even consider keeping up his campaign.
I really don't know why I'm any more annoyed this year than I was four years ago (and I was pretty annoyed four years ago). Just something about how the media keeps saying it's all over after one, and two, and three, and four, and now five elections, and for real this time because Romney actually won two in a row!.
But if you look at the actual numbers, and not the percentages of the victories, it's barely anything at all. Something like 28,000 people voted in the Nevada primary. Romney beat Gingrich by 8,000 votes. The separation between second, third and fourth place was another five thousand votes.
The fact that the media calls that any sort of blowout or mandate defies logic. Smarter reporters that are actually looking at Gingrich and Paul's strategy know they are looking to use the GOP convention rules to get nominated from the floor of the committee, they just need to pick up a certain number of delegates along the way. Eventually it all adds up, and it might even add up fast enough for the three non-Romneys to pool their delegates together and push one of them over the finish line. At the very least, it could turn the Tampa convention into a Charlie Foxtrot.
I'm not even sure why the media is so interested in ending this thing. The longer the campaigns drag on, the more stories they have. Yet they keep rushing to proclaim it all over just because five states have had their say. You know, there were a series of court cases in the 1950s in southern states where black voters sued the Democratic Party because they were (at the time legally) excluded from Democratic Primaries. They used the argument that since the Democratic candidate was destined to win the nomination, that excluding them from voting was an illegal denial of their right to vote. And they won! I wonder how far I'd get if I sued for a right to vote in the New Hampshire primary, since no one after the first half dozen states even matters anymore.
I think it's interesting that in the demographic breakdown, Romney didn't take almost any of the "poor" vote. It was split between Paul and Gingrich. Looks like Romney's poor gaffes are having an effect, though I question how much it matters for the election since the poor disproportionately stay home on election day.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
