Spreading the word about the growing presence of progressive Alaskans and their powerful ideas on the web
Having lived very close to the Boston Commons, I can tell you that on a nice day, there are easily 2,000 people in the park. This number, added to the intelligent ones in these photos, makes me think there were only a few hundred quitty pants supporters in attendance.
I'm glad to see the opposition are finally showing up at the rallies. I haven't been able to believe people in the lower 48 really have thought she knows what being a President takes, and that she could possibly run the country when she couldn't keep up with what was going on in the different State of Alaska Departments, or talk directly with the legislature to answer their questions wanting them to talk to her staff instead.
The TP'ers are being used, or is it used TP. She apparently endorses the idea of a Romney/Spalin 2012 ticket. Oh my, the 'King and Queen of Babbleon'. Peace Out, Wilbo
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics#document/p1The NYT and CBS just did a poll on the nature of the TP movement to pretty good accuracy. Caveat: Of course, it is subject to bias if (1) you believe the NYT is an evil right wing propaganda mouthpiece or (2) tea partiers are cunning enough to systematically lie about their basic demographic information in a manner that is coordinated across large numbers of people.Some highlights I thought were interesting:- Palin (#34, 40). I was happy to see that even a majority of self-described TP supporters don't think she would be an effective president (47% vs. 40% with 13% not knowing); she is only the favorite politician of 9% of the sample (vs 3% of the general populace). I hope she continues to become increasingly irrelevant and marginalized.- Trust (#21). Even 75% of TP's agree that the government can be trusted "some" of the time. That is a healthy thing and speaks to the depth of the peaceful political traditions in our Republic.- As the other polls suggest, they consider themselves to be middle or upper middle class and report higher educational levels; this is not a redneck hick tax protest.Most interesting of all, while the answers generally portray a theme of desire for smaller government, more fiscal responsibility, and less spending, 62% of TP's (#59) think major entitlement programs are worth the costs. Meeting the TP's ostensible goal (fiscal responsibility) will likely require some combination of cutting entitlements, broadening the tax base, reforming the tax code, and probably inflation. It will be hard to do it without adjusting entitlements and if a majority of TP's (not to mention all other Americans) support those entitlement programs I think it shows how hard it will be to modify them.Anyways, interesting data to go with the out of town event. I'm interested to see how Phil's observations of the local groups match up with the national data from Gallup and the NYT/CBS polls.Don't feed the trolls,Chris
Chris's analysis of the results of this polling data is utter bullshit and the original analysis, written by only two of the Times junior reporters, (neither of which are qualified or have any expertise in analyzing poll data), doesn't reflect what experienced polling analysts conclude when they have reviewed the same data.First off, the polling data is biased and not scientific and is lacking basic controls on both participation and methodology. This has been discussed in the many other reviews of this amateurish faux news article.Chris omits any mention that this poll has been deconstructed by several qualified professional polling analysts who came up with far different results and speak of the lack of controls and ambiguity in the data.(The Times authors/reporters admit as much publicly when questioned in a number of public discussion of the analysis and their results)But Chris's assertion that the poll bias, (as if it's likely there isn't any, or surely couldn't be any, contrary to the reality of any poll without sufficient controls), could only be due to the some wildly over-inflated and spurious concoction of idiocy he offers up,(a supposed 'reason' that lacks any and all reason to begin with, and is offered up as if it he expects it might have bearing on the actual reality, when in fact it does not.)As to Chris's 'highlights', he's selected by cherry picking the flawed data in order to attempt to advance his own flawed analysis, not shared by most analysts who have reviewed that same data.Chris would like you to think the data show the Tea Baggers not all that enamored of Palin.The data shows nearly 70% of the tea-baggers rate Palin favorably, with only 12% of them giving her an unfavorable rating, and contrary to what Chris concludes, nearly half of the tea-baggers think Palin would be an effective president, a number nearly twice that of the belief of the general public.As to the tea-baggers inflating their incomes and education, it's a given that when asked in polls without any controls, most folks tend to inflate their own numbers.As an indicator to how this same generalization plays out in the polling data, only 3% of the tea-baggers think they're in the upper class, but 12% report income over 250,000 dollars a year. If they were really making over a quarter of a million dollars a year, they couldn't help but recognize they weren't middle class citizens.When you compare the incomes they report for themselves and compare it to the numbers they report for being retired, and/or on Social Security and Medicare, there's another disconnect. Incomes of the levels they report for themselves don't jibe with the other indicators they also report for themselves.As an indicator of how misinformed the tea-baggers are 96% of them don't know that taxes have been cut for 98% of Americans. A whopping 64% of these fools think their taxes have been raised.Another 84% of them think everyone else agrees with them, (that shows the level of delusion in this group of fantasy freaks)But then again, 63% get their news from Fox and 84% think Hannity and Beck are hosts of news shows. (Fox won't even make that idiotic claim)These self-identified tea-baggers are nothing new, they're the ultra-conservative base of the right, the fringe extremist white, supposedly Christian Repugnants. (66% report voting Republican usually or always)They basically don't believe in democracy, never have, and once George Bush, their wonderkind hero got dumped they've staged their hissy fit with the assistance of their demagogues of the right on radio and television.continued....
Forget the fringe tea-baggers, they're deluded lying misinformed idiots who don't have a clue, let alone do they carry any political value or worth.They don't mean anything more now than they ever did. They are a very small minority in America's public debate.Ignore them and those who, like Chris, wish to elevate them beyond their rightful place.The data isn't 'interesting', it's pitifully delusional and hopelessly idiotic.
I don't think I've seen the New York Times savaged as an in-bed confederate of Fox ("Faux") News before... In general, the Gray Lady is often thought to have some leanings to the left if anything.Can you provide some links to the one of the "many reviews" debunking the methodology of the poll please? Additionally, since you are convinced that Tea Partiers are poor, is there any other mainstream analysis that seconds this opinion? I'd be interested to see it. I'm sorry if my few quick thoughts jotted down as "interesting highlights" were interpreted as comprehensive analysis.Thanks for refraining from direct personal attacks.Don't Feed the Trolls,Chris
That misinformed opinion of everything or anything printed by the NYT is indicative of the lack of comprehension inherent in someone who lacks the capability to see beyond his malformed and ill-conceived generalizations.The NYT regularly prints and employs Krauthammer, Ross G. Douthat, Bill Kristol, John Tierney, not to mention a plethora of other uber conservative morons.The NYT brought us William Safire, Judith Miller and Jason Blair, Howell Raines , Jill Abramson.One cannot open up the New York Times and make some stupid assumption that they're going to read only one view.Most folks have the ability to look at any one article and decipher who wrote it and from what perspective said article was created.Others, like Chris, aren't capable of distinguishing one view or one writer's ideology from the other.(and Chris, don't thank me for not personally attacking you and your moronic idiocy, each reply to your idiocy is a personal attack on said idiocy and the idiotic presentation you, yourself have tried to pass off.....)Oh, and Chris, if you want to see the debunking of your false assertions, you need only learn to use a search engine, type in such key words as 'polling data debunked', then do your own homework, I don't feel like holding your hand every time you can't use your own computer.......
So, in summary:1) Ad hominem personal attacks and name-calling with complete disregard for any sort of courtesy or civility.2) Zero evidence provided for claims.3) Asserts that the New York Times is essentially part of a right-wing conspiracy.Copy.Don't feed the trolls,Chris
I heard second hand that in Boston, Sarah whipped the crowd into a mindless frenzy that looked like a mass of hyper drugged minions...media mind control...scarey.
Again, when one intends to attack a person's character and motive, at the same time he attacks that person's opinion, it's not an ad hominem attack.I know your attraction to talking points without understanding their basic meaning is one of your most endearing traits but do see if you can find someone help you to become better educated.You're unable and incapable of refuting any of the evident reality you're faced with and like when that happens in each instance in your history, you attempt to ignore what's staring you in the face.Run along and see if you can't find someone else to impress with your fatuous and illiterate bullshit.
Post a Comment