Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Two polling questions that separate Republicans from Democrats and Independents

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Two polling questions that separate Republicans from Democrats and Independents
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, not literally questions, but instead statements that respondents replied with how strongly they agreed or disagreed. These are the two questions that had the most divergent responses, and by a substantial degree.

quote:
A lot of what is happening today makes me feel uneasy and out of place in my own country. Things seem to be heading in the wrong direction with our letting millions of immigrants into the country illegally, letting religion slip out of our public life, and moving to be more accepting of gay and lesbian rights.
quote:
I feel cautiously optimistic about where things are headed. It is important to remember how bad the economy was just a few years ago. The economy is improving, more Americans now have health insurance and those with pre-existing conditions are covered, more jobs are being created, and things seem to gradually getting better.
Washington Post
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Was this a high school assignment on flawed polling; with the directions, "Create two statements which can be used to quickly identify the political party of the interviewee."?

OK, I take that back somewhat. There was only one page out of the survey that this story focused on. Most of the rest seems like fairly typical stuff.

[ November 05, 2015, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Digging into it, the really interesting parts were the massive divergences between the democrats and republicans around which group likes piña coladas and getting caught in the rain, which were not into yoga, and enjoyed making love at midnight in the dunes of the cape. It doesn't look like it at first but it seems in the end, both parties were into exactly the same things.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would have been more interesting to hear the responses to

"A lot of what is happening today makes me feel uneasy and our of place in my own country. Things seem to be heading in the wrong direction."

and

"I feel cautiously optimistic about where things are headed. I feel that the economy is improving."

Adding the specific issues of immigration and health insurance that are highly polarized negates the general attitudes expressed at the beginning of the statements. These two statements seem to be written so that Republicans can be described as uneasy and angry and Democrats as optimistic regardless of how they actually feel.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yossarian,

completely agree, I'd like to see the two parts of the question tested independently and combined in the opposite manner and see how the explanatory power varies.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the real difference is in the concept of fairness. Generally speaking, conservatives seem more willing to deny services in order to prevent any fraud and liberals seem more willing to allow some amount of fraud to make sure that everyone receives services.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
philnotfil,

yes that is a big part of it - unfairly enriched versus unfairly denied.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
I think the real difference is in the concept of fairness. Generally speaking, conservatives seem more willing to deny services in order to prevent any fraud and liberals seem more willing to allow some amount of fraud to make sure that everyone receives services.

I am unaware of any conservatives that take that position. It's actually a kind of caricature.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't read the comments much, Rafi?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe the issue is with the phrasing "deny services", as if one is naturally entitled to receive services and some bad guy is trying to "deny you" what you're entitled to. One can take the same scenario and frame it as "conservatives seem less willing to use other people's money to engage in fraudulent activity." I think this would more accurately describe the way many conservatives feel rather than the suggestion that conservatives want to screw people over on principle. In fact some conservatives likely want to do just that but it's an uncharitable characterization to attribute it to conservatives as a whole.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No he's right, that is a caricature. I don't know a conservative that's "willing" to "deny" services "in order to prevent any fraud." It's kind of a nonsensical run on.

Most who are interested in "denying" services think that's the correct result regardless of fraud, with fraud just making it egregious. They base that on the principled position that the provision of services incentivizes behavior and lifestyles that are detrimental to the recipients and/or society as a whole (which may be controversial to some, but is a real likelihood).

"Willing" and "deny" kind of work together to make it sound like it's a choice to take something away that the recipient deserves or is entitled to. It could just as easily be characterized as unwilling to create incentives to make bad choices.

And then there is "any fraud," I don't know any serious person that otherwise believes a program is worthwhile who would desire to end it over a minimal level of fraud. They'll seek to minimize the fraud of course, but not to kill the program.

But even more, claiming that it's a difference in "the concept of fairness," is an incredibly loaded and incorrect assessment of what's going on that is literally only true or false based on the speaker's own point of view.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've seen a lot of conservatives focus their criticism of various programs on the potential for fraud. They certainly seem willing to fatally compromise a program in pursuing a guarantee that no fraud occurs. Whether or not that's the sum of their view, it's the argument they make.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It doesn't just apply to services provided by the government, it just as easily applies to the justice system. Generally speaking, conservatives are more willing to give up rights to catch a criminal, or to jail (or even execute) an innocent person in order to make sure that a guilty person can't use the system to avoid jail.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
But even more, claiming that it's a difference in "the concept of fairness," is an incredibly loaded and incorrect assessment of what's going on that is literally only true or false based on the speaker's own point of view.

That is kind of the whole point, they have different ideas about what constitutes fairness. On the continuum of helping some people that need it even if it means some people who don't need still get stuff, liberals tend to fall on the side of giving more help even if it means that some people who don't need it get it and conservatives tend to fall on the end of giving less help to make sure that people who don't need it don't get it.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's also one reason why Pyr's arguments about government spending are seductive. It kills the moral reasoning of "giving *my* money to moochers" and reduces the importance and motivations for fraud.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I've seen a lot of conservatives focus their criticism of various programs on the potential for fraud. They certainly seem willing to fatally compromise a program in pursuing a guarantee that no fraud occurs. Whether or not that's the sum of their view, it's the argument they make.

And you've never seen a liberal turn an otherwise unrelated debate on something into a referendum on race? Both sides are guilty of doubling down on arguments that they think are "strong." And arguing against fraud is largely unassailable, I mean really who's going to take the pro-fraud argument (well other than Pyrtolin who thinks any hand out of money directly to people is a net good thing)? Lol - I wrote that before I read your second comment.
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
It doesn't just apply to services provided by the government, it just as easily applies to the justice system. Generally speaking, conservatives are more willing to give up rights to catch a criminal, or to jail (or even execute) an innocent person in order to make sure that a guilty person can't use the system to avoid jail.

Are they? Are conservatives willing to give up gun rights to make it easier to jail bad guys? Are they famous for allowing the government onto their business premises, or encouraging more government interference and monitoring day-to-day to help catch "wrong doers"?

I know plenty on the left and the right, who have little sense of the importance of their rights and are willing to trade them for marginal safety gains.
quote:
That is kind of the whole point, they have different ideas about what constitutes fairness. On the continuum of helping some people that need it even if it means some people who don't need still get stuff, liberals tend to fall on the side of giving more help even if it means that some people who don't need it get it and conservatives tend to fall on the end of giving less help to make sure that people who don't need it don't get it.
Exactly wrong. Conservatives tend to fall on the side of providing tough love to ensure that the people who need the most help get back on their feet as fast as they can and become independent, and liberals tend to fall on the side of undermining the efforts of those that need the most help by creating permanent dependencies and permanent underclass voting blocks. [Smile]

POINT OF VIEW.

[ November 09, 2015, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So do conservatives argue against programs based on potential fraud or not? You seem to be suggesting they both do and don't.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Are they? Are conservatives willing to give up gun rights to make it easier to jail bad guys? Are they famous for allowing the government onto their business premises, or encouraging more government interference and monitoring day-to-day to help catch "wrong doers"?

Generally speaking, conservatives are more likely to use the line "if you don't have anything to hide ..." than liberals. For another example, take a look at the partisan reaction to "stop and frisk" policies.

[ November 09, 2015, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: philnotfil ]

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NH, I've answered that. The fact that the argument is included does not mean that its the reason they oppose a policy. How many people can you find that agree with a program and want to end it because of a low level of fraud?

Philnotfil (or maybe Tandynotphil these days). Take a look at who's politically in control of the cities with stop and frisk policies. I do agree that too many people use the "if you don't have anything to hide..." line, but I live in a pretty liberal area and hear it just as often from people on the left. The days when the left was the party of civil rights are completely over.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've seen arguments that suggest they oppose a program because a low level of fraud is inevitable. That if a program cannot be done without eliminating fraud, it should not be done at all.

I'm not saying this is a particularly well reasoned argument. I just wanted to contradict the assertion that conservative never make that argument.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is virtually no statement for which, "conservatives never...," "no liberal ever..." or "blank type of person always..." is true. Is that really the correct measure for something like this?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's why I take objection to people making those claims. Particularly when they're objecting to something which I believe is rather common.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Digging into it, the really interesting parts were the massive divergences between the democrats and republicans around which group likes piña coladas and getting caught in the rain, which were not into yoga, and enjoyed making love at midnight in the dunes of the cape. It doesn't look like it at first but it seems in the end, both parties were into exactly the same things.

Speaking of which, this mormon boy gone bad has got myself seriously headspun with a local that's into yoga, a confirmed atheist, and reads ... Damn, what's the name of that extreme left internet rag that makes the Nation look like WSJ?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's one that pops up on my FB newsfeed called addictinginfo.org or something like that that is pretty terrible. But I'm guessing you are talking about dailykos.com. Huffington Post is pretty much Buzzfeed (Less Funny Edition) these days.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1