This is a Harvard-Harris poll. It's not finding what they'd like to find, so there's some reason to think it might be accurate; it's an argument against interests.
That's asking different questions than we usually see. Not entirely, but noticeably. There is a social pressure element to polls that say "These are the issues you are supposed to be caring about" that I have long felt worked against conservatives. The pollster tells you what the important issues are. This, if anything swings the other way.
I agree. There were many questions that didn't make me want to snort and say, "There's no way I can answer that question," which is rare.
I thought it was interesting that all questions about the possibility of subpoenaing everyone in sight to explain their views on prosecuting or convicting wrongdoers got sky-high positives, but the idea of Congress launching investigations did very poorly. It seems people are suspicious and dissatisfied without quite knowing how that sort of thing should be approached.
From the thread: A big majority (62%) say people with questionable asylum claims should be immediately turned back to Mexico until their case comes up
This question is a non sequitur. All of those asylum claims--every single one of them--are not just questionable; they're entirely false. They're not here for asylum, no matter their assertions; they've already refused Mexico's offer of asylum.
Hi Tex. I snorted over GUNS8: ' Do you think that gun ownership should be licensed like car ownership or just require background checks? ' Since I've never needed a "background check" to purchase a car the word "just" in the question is difficult to interpret.
The survey abandons follow up, historical perspective, on persons like GW Bush, Condi Rice, Al Franken, Al Gore ... groups like NRA, Greenpeace, PETA, NASA, Move-On, the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter ...
One can self-identify as Antifa or Alt-Right but not "Anti-Idiotarian" :(
Many questions were nuts, but the fact that there were any I could answer was a welcome change.
I get hung up on questions like "are you a social liberal." If that means "do you think the government should butt out of decisions involving household and bedroom arrangements," I'd say yes. If it means "should the government intervene to require people to bake cakes for whoever and pay for abortions and sex-change operations and take away my private health insurance and adopt minimum-wage laws," then no. The idea that I could be tolerant of all kinds of behavior in other people's lives while strict about those same choices in my own life, or that government power should be held to different standards from those applied to private choices, almost never seems to occur to the folks who write survey questions. Does "social" mean "non-governmental" or "non-monetary"? I don't think even they know; they conflate "freedom from police intervention" with "freedom from all natural consequences." I'm free to jump off a building, but not free from gravity.
@ J Melcher - and you don't need a license to buy a car. You can even sit in it and on your own property, start it up, drive around. If you are over 15.5, you can even drive one if you have someone with you who is "teaching" you, and on private property you can drive anyway.
So an equivalent gun license would be that you could not be required to own one unless you discharged it in a public place. But one, carry one anywhere. I'll bet that's not what the license lovers had in mind when they brought up what they thought was a killer argument.
7 comments:
That's asking different questions than we usually see. Not entirely, but noticeably. There is a social pressure element to polls that say "These are the issues you are supposed to be caring about" that I have long felt worked against conservatives. The pollster tells you what the important issues are. This, if anything swings the other way.
I agree. There were many questions that didn't make me want to snort and say, "There's no way I can answer that question," which is rare.
I thought it was interesting that all questions about the possibility of subpoenaing everyone in sight to explain their views on prosecuting or convicting wrongdoers got sky-high positives, but the idea of Congress launching investigations did very poorly. It seems people are suspicious and dissatisfied without quite knowing how that sort of thing should be approached.
From the thread: A big majority (62%) say people with questionable asylum claims should be immediately turned back to Mexico until their case comes up
This question is a non sequitur. All of those asylum claims--every single one of them--are not just questionable; they're entirely false. They're not here for asylum, no matter their assertions; they've already refused Mexico's offer of asylum.
Eric Hines
Hi Tex. I snorted over GUNS8: ' Do you think that gun ownership should be licensed like car ownership or just require background checks? ' Since I've never needed a "background check" to purchase a car the word "just" in the question is difficult to interpret.
The survey abandons follow up, historical perspective, on persons like GW Bush, Condi Rice, Al Franken, Al Gore ... groups like NRA, Greenpeace, PETA, NASA, Move-On, the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter ...
One can self-identify as Antifa or Alt-Right but not "Anti-Idiotarian" :(
Many questions were nuts, but the fact that there were any I could answer was a welcome change.
I get hung up on questions like "are you a social liberal." If that means "do you think the government should butt out of decisions involving household and bedroom arrangements," I'd say yes. If it means "should the government intervene to require people to bake cakes for whoever and pay for abortions and sex-change operations and take away my private health insurance and adopt minimum-wage laws," then no. The idea that I could be tolerant of all kinds of behavior in other people's lives while strict about those same choices in my own life, or that government power should be held to different standards from those applied to private choices, almost never seems to occur to the folks who write survey questions. Does "social" mean "non-governmental" or "non-monetary"? I don't think even they know; they conflate "freedom from police intervention" with "freedom from all natural consequences." I'm free to jump off a building, but not free from gravity.
@ J Melcher - and you don't need a license to buy a car. You can even sit in it and on your own property, start it up, drive around. If you are over 15.5, you can even drive one if you have someone with you who is "teaching" you, and on private property you can drive anyway.
So an equivalent gun license would be that you could not be required to own one unless you discharged it in a public place. But one, carry one anywhere. I'll bet that's not what the license lovers had in mind when they brought up what they thought was a killer argument.
That should be "Buy one."
Post a Comment