57% of Americans Support a Public Option

[nodoginnafight]

Next things next... the poll only presents 20% of the sampling as Republican.... and we ALL KNOW there are more Republicans in the general population.

Actually we do not - 21% self-report as Republicans in the latest poll I saw.

Where'd you see that?... MSNBC???

Frankly, only pollsters who go to great pains to get accurate data can be trusted. And even then, only so far. Conservatives aren't all self-identifying as Republican just now. They're angry. You can go to any conservative blog and see for yourself. They don't like the Democrat-lite RINOS we've been seeing.

So, all these people who want to believe that there's no Republican opposition out there and that a liberal- biased news organization would never lead them by the nose are in for a shock come 2010. What do they REALLY think is gonna happen when the young folk realize they're losing up to 10% of their income for more coverage than they're ever likely use in order to subsidize the old folks because some fat-cat in Washington dictated that it'd be so?

It's all philosophical until they come for your wallet, right?



And you DO realize that you're arguing in support of a bold-faced media lie, don't you?... Nodoginnafight?
The headline doesn't match the poll question.

I agree - many conservatives are not reporting themselves as Republicans. Your opinion as to why may account for some (and conceivably all of them) But I would also suggest that many moderates are no longer identifying themselves as Republicans because they object to the hard right turn that many are attempting to impose on the GOP. I know several of these (myself included) but that's just acedotal evidence and neither of us can (as far as I know) say how many dfall into which category for sure.

That's would be pure speculation on BOTH our parts.

btw - any interpretation of my arguments and my posts should be limited to the extent of my arguments and posts. If I am seeking to make a broader point or to advocate something else, I'll say so.

 

[Murf76]

I agree - many conservatives are not reporting themselves as Republicans. Your opinion as to why may account for some (and conceivably all of them) But I would also suggest that many moderates are no longer identifying themselves as Republicans because they object to the hard right turn that many are attempting to impose on the GOP. I know several of these (myself included) but that's just acedotal evidence and neither of us can (as far as I know) say how many dfall into which category for sure.

That's would be pure speculation on BOTH our parts.

btw - any interpretation of my arguments and my posts should be limited to the extent of my arguments and posts. If I am seeking to make a broader point or to advocate something else, I'll say so.

In that case, maybe you'll fill us all in on where you're getting this 21% when Rasmussen is saying 32.1% Republican and 37.5% Democrat. (????)

 

[nodoginnafight]

I agree - many conservatives are not reporting themselves as Republicans. Your opinion as to why may account for some (and conceivably all of them) But I would also suggest that many moderates are no longer identifying themselves as Republicans because they object to the hard right turn that many are attempting to impose on the GOP. I know several of these (myself included) but that's just acedotal evidence and neither of us can (as far as I know) say how many dfall into which category for sure.

That's would be pure speculation on BOTH our parts.

btw - any interpretation of my arguments and my posts should be limited to the extent of my arguments and posts. If I am seeking to make a broader point or to advocate something else, I'll say so.

In that case, maybe you'll fill us all in on where you're getting this 21% when Rasmussen is saying 32.1% Republican and 37.5% Democrat. (????)

sure

Washington Post-ABC News (washingtonpost.com)

 

[Murf76]

Washington Post-ABC News (washingtonpost.com)

You're fucking kidding me right?

You're NOT siting the numbers taken from a Washington Post / ABC poll in order to authenticate the veracity of another Washington Post / ABC poll. C'mon. Dude.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My question had nothing to do with liberal/moderate/conservative nor with any perceived bias along those lines....

One more time:
Is a sample of 20% R an acurate representation of America or is it, as most intellectually honest individuals would claim, an undersampling?

Two choices: Accurate or undersampled.

If you could just answer with one of the words above that would be great...

I don't know because I don't know the correct number and neither do you.

Well, we certainly know that more than 20% vote R each year, don't we?


Come on, you're being a fucking idiot for the sake of being a fucking idiot now...

You didn't answer my question. I answered yours. Don't pussy out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You didn't answer my question... You spun the poll...
Care to try again?

I didn't spin anything. I asked if there was evidence that the poll was skewed. Based on those liberal/moderate/conservative identifications, which actually sample more conservatives than voted in the 2008 election, I say there was no skewing whatsoever.

The sample size was BIGGER than the number of conservatives that actually voted? Not likely. Regardless, it has nothing to do with an ABC poll that shows 5% LESS support for a public option.

34% of the voters in the 2008 election identified themselves as conservatives, according to the exit polls. So this WaPo poll has 4 pct points more conservatives in it than the election did. And STILL there are idiots here saying the poll is skewed to the left.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Washington Post-ABC News (washingtonpost.com)

You're fucking kidding me right?

You're NOT siting the numbers taken from a Washington Post / ABC poll in order to authenticate the veracity of another Washington Post / ABC poll. C'mon. Dude.

no - I'm citing the older poll - period. At the time I was unaware of the newer one which reflects another point drop since April. You asked me where I got the 21% number from and I told you.

Relax - consider decaf

 

[NYcarbineer]

I didn't spin anything. I asked if there was evidence that the poll was skewed. Based on those liberal/moderate/conservative identifications, which actually sample more conservatives than voted in the 2008 election, I say there was no skewing whatsoever.

First things first... Take a look at the headline from the Washington Pravda...
"Public Option Gains Support
CLEAR MAJORITY NOW BACKS PLAN "

Now... look at the actual question...
8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Did you see the words "public option" anywhere in the poll?

"Having the government create a new health insurance plan" can mean alot of things, including co-ops. And yet the headline boasts "Public Option Gains Support".



Next things next... the poll only presents 20% of the sampling as Republican.... and we ALL KNOW there are more Republicans in the general population. People can say that they're "liberal" or "moderate" or "conservative"... but unless they're politically educated they don't always understand what those terms mean.

829 "random adults"... not registered voters, not likely voters... can't be counted on to be politically astute. And so far, the details of the bills are still not widely known. They don't know what it's going to cost them. What's more, even though 85% of the sampling reports that they currently ARE insured, only 15% are making a total household income of over 100k... which means these eggheads think it's just a rhetorical question and that it's not going to cost them anything... because THAT's what these lying asshat Democrats in Washington keep telling them.

More respondents making UNDER 20k were interviewed than those making over 100k. And it's just not reasonable to believe that with over half of the sampling making under 50k that somebody ELSE isn't paying for their insurance, either in total or substantial part. IOW, it's all "other people's money" to them. Bear in mind, the bottom 50% of Americans only pay about 10% of federal taxes currently.

And all that IF the pollsters weren't just tossing out the answers they didn't like. Who knows? Can anyone prove they didn't? Frankly, I wouldn't trust the either the Washington Pravda or the All Barack Channel to tell me if it were raining outside in the midst of a hurricane. :sick:


This wasn't anything more than a snake oil sales pitch. But like I said before, go ahead and invest in push polls. In the end, it can only result in Socialist Democrats wandering the desert for the next couple of decades... which suits me just fine.

Are you a Republican?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well, we certainly know that more than 20% vote R each year, don't we?

There is polling evidence that says 21% report themselves as Republican. So why should a pollster use more than 21% of people who report themselves as Republicans. Because many self identified independents will actually vote Republican? Makes no sense to me.

That poll was conducted by James Carville. Using this poll is akin to saying fox news polls are 100% accurate .

 

[NYcarbineer]

Washington Post-ABC News (washingtonpost.com)

You're fucking kidding me right?

You're NOT siting the numbers taken from a Washington Post / ABC poll in order to authenticate the veracity of another Washington Post / ABC poll. C'mon. Dude.

Do you think 38% conservatives vs. 23% liberals is a fair ratio? If not, what should it be?

 

[mdn2000]

some of you have proved nothing of polls but proved much of fools.

Less than .01 percent of the population is polled by newspapers that have been caught printing lies and pure political propaganda, newspapers that are on lthe verge of bankruptcy, newspapers Obama is going to bailout with tax money, and the fools argue the polls are valid.

Thanks for making me laugh

 

[Murf76]

Do you think 38% conservatives vs. 23% liberals is a fair ratio? If not, what should it be?

I've already posted my opinion on this.. see post #50. Boiled down... I don't think a sampling of "random adults" are likely to understand the terminology.


And... yes, not that I understand the relevance of your question, but I'm a registered Republican in a closed primary state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you think 38% conservatives vs. 23% liberals is a fair ratio? If not, what should it be?

I've already posted my opinion on this.. see post #50. Boiled down... I don't think a sampling of "random adults" are likely to understand the terminology.


And... yes, not that I understand the relevance of your question, but I'm a registered Republican in a closed primary state.

You either think 38% conservatives to 23% liberals is a fair ratio, an unfair ratio, or you don't know.

So...

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know because I don't know the correct number and neither do you.

Well, we certainly know that more than 20% vote R each year, don't we?


Come on, you're being a fucking idiot for the sake of being a fucking idiot now...

You didn't answer my question. I answered yours. Don't pussy out.

Damn! He pussied out.

 

[Dr.House]

Well, we certainly know that more than 20% vote R each year, don't we?


Come on, you're being a fucking idiot for the sake of being a fucking idiot now...

You didn't answer my question. I answered yours. Don't pussy out.

Damn! He pussied out.

You didn't answer my question, assbag - why should I answer yours?

 

[saveliberty]

I find it interesting that Congressional Democrats would be willing to risk losing a 2010 election in support of President Obama. Changes in Medicare benefits could backfire on them. No short term reform of the insurance companies could blow up on them. No public option could pull away liberals. The only positive spin I can see is not passing a plan and blaming Republicans for no progress.

 

[Murf76]

Do you think 38% conservatives vs. 23% liberals is a fair ratio? If not, what should it be?

I've already posted my opinion on this.. see post #50. Boiled down... I don't think a sampling of "random adults" are likely to understand the terminology.


And... yes, not that I understand the relevance of your question, but I'm a registered Republican in a closed primary state.

You either think 38% conservatives to 23% liberals is a fair ratio, an unfair ratio, or you don't know.

So...

Are you like learning disabled or something? Unable to read comprehensively?
.... 'cause I don't want to be rude and tell you to go fuck yourself if you've got some sort of mental handicap.

 

[Murf76]

I find it interesting that Congressional Democrats would be willing to risk losing a 2010 election in support of President Obama. Changes in Medicare benefits could backfire on them. No short term reform of the insurance companies could blow up on them. No public option could pull away liberals. The only positive spin I can see is not passing a plan and blaming Republicans for no progress.

That's what I find so interesting about bogus polling. To mislead politicians about the lay of the land can't help but result in them losing votes. I suppose they're attempting to change minds, maybe thinking that people will follow along like sheep if they think the trend is popular, or not hold it against them if they can be fooled into believing they're in the minority. But if that fails to happen... the politician who got taken in is TOAST.

Fine by me. But I'm surprised these idiots are willing to take that chance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You didn't answer my question. I answered yours. Don't pussy out.

Damn! He pussied out.

You didn't answer my question, assbag - why should I answer yours?

I did answer. I said I didn't know because I don't know the correct number.

But, there's been an upsurge all this year of conservatives rebelling against BOTH parties,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tea-party-folks-dont-back-republicans-6.html

remember that thread? That sentiment is widespread in conservative circles.

...so it's certainly not out of the question that a survey involving 38% CONSERVATIVES might still have a low percentage of participants considering themselves Republican.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've already posted my opinion on this.. see post #50. Boiled down... I don't think a sampling of "random adults" are likely to understand the terminology.


And... yes, not that I understand the relevance of your question, but I'm a registered Republican in a closed primary state.

You either think 38% conservatives to 23% liberals is a fair ratio, an unfair ratio, or you don't know.

So...

Are you like learning disabled or something? Unable to read comprehensively?
.... 'cause I don't want to be rude and tell you to go fuck yourself if you've got some sort of mental handicap.

I read your tediously long post. It's a classic example of someone trying to manufacture flaws in a poll simply because they didn't like the RESULTS of the poll.

Again, is 38% to 23% an unfair mix of conservatives and liberals? If so, what should the number be?