CNN's Schneider asserted that Lieberman speech at RNC could draw Jewish voters, but did not mention polling showing low approval among Jews
SUMMARY: CNN's Bill Schneider asserted that "[t]here are some Jewish voters who still have questions about Barack Obama," and that Sen. Joe Lieberman's speaking role at the RNC "could be a way of drawing some Jewish voters over to the Republican ticket." But Schneider made no mention of a poll released in mid-July that found that 48 percent of Jews have a negative opinion of Lieberman, with 37 percent holding a favorable view. In contrast, the same survey found that 60 percent have a favorable view of Obama, while 34 percent view him unfavorably.
On the August 20 edition of CNN Newsroom, senior political analyst Bill Schneider asserted that "[t]here are some Jewish voters who still have questions about Barack Obama," and that Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) speaking role at the Republican National Convention "could be a way of drawing some Jewish voters over to the Republican ticket." But in speculating on the possible impact on Jewish voters of Lieberman's appearance at the RNC, Schneider did not note that a survey released in mid-July by the Democratic polling firm Gerstein Agne for the progressive group J Street, a self-described "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization, found that 48 percent of Jews have a negative opinion of Lieberman, with 37 percent holding a favorable view. In contrast, the same survey found that 60 percent have a favorable view of Obama, while 34 percent view him unfavorably. According to a J Street press release (available through the organization's website), the findings were the result of a "survey of 800 self-identified adult American Jews, conducted June 29-July 3. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent."
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of CNN Newsroom on August 20:
COLLINS: Yeah. And also, we just got a little bit of news about Joe Lieberman. People probably wondered which convention he'd actually be going to this year.
SCHNEIDER: Yeah. Well, he was on the ticket with Al Gore in 2000. He was the Democrats' nominee for vice president. And here, eight years later, he's going to give a speech at the Republican convention. That is certainly a very rare experience.
This could also be a play to get more Jewish voters. Lieberman is, of course, an orthodox Jewish senator, and this could be an appeal by McCain to get more Jewish support. There are some Jewish voters who still have questions about Barack Obama, wonder about how staunch an ally and supporter he is of Israel, even though he's said many, many times that he's fully in support of Israel.
But with Lieberman on the dais, on the podium, giving a speech at the Republican convention, that could be a way of drawing some Jewish voters over to the Republican ticket, and that could affect the race in some key states, like Florida and Pennsylvania.
COLLINS: Absolutely. All right, our Bill Schneider, standing by there in Denver. Thank you, Bill.
I don't know if it's political ideology or age with some of these commentators. They seem very out of touch that many Americans don't automatically gravitate to the one that's most like them as far as race, religion, sex etc.
The deep-seated "fear of the other" has had a pretty good run, but the country and the world are getting smaller to most people.I know from listening to a lot of the conservative news that Bobby Jindal is seen by the geezers as some real "exotic bait", and I hope they run him for some office, just to open their eyes a little bit.
Time to face facts. Republicans are hommoraging support. No one wants to sign onto McCain because he's just another bush and rove.
From C&L:
Susan Eisenhower Leaving GOP For Good, Cites McCain’s “Rove-Style” PoliticsBy: Logan Murphy @ 9:50 AM - PDTNational Interest:
Eisenhower obliterates the media narrative that John McCain is strong on national security and foreign policy and shows the growing distaste within the GOP for the destructive Rove/Bush, scorched earth politics the McCain camp has unfortunately chosen to adopt. Susan believes the GOP has lost its way and has finally awakened to the destructive nature of the Bush regime - the one her grandfather warned us about all those years ago.
Where did you dig this up snoop? Eisenhower being invoked now? OK, we lost one old lady...Yeah for your side.
Your oft quoted Eisenhower statement about the military industrial complex is well...wrong.
Military spending as a product of GDP has actually dropped over the last forty years.
We're at $0.24 per $10 GDP. America has gone through five major military build up's since WWII. It is cyclical though and there have also been draw downs. The GDP has also grown over that time also and outpaced spending. Also the share of the federal government budget spent on defense has declined substantially.
I see the left take that quote (Ike's ) out of context regularly.
Military spending as a product of GDP has actually dropped over the last forty years
Which has been offset by vastly increased spending on war profiteers.
More MMFA selectivity. When one looks at the poll referenced here, it is very left wing, preferring Obama by 2-1 over McCain and Democrats nearly 3-1 over Republicans, as well as a big thumbs up for Moveon.org . So naturally they feel more positive about Obama than Liebermann, duh.
This poll is hardly representative.
Sloppy misinformation MMFA.
Col, Obviously the poll responders were heavily skewed to the left, just look at their responses and favorables/unfavorables. So of course they are going to view Obama more favorably than Liebermann, so the poll is invalid in this context. Find me a poll that is independent, MMFA could use that poll, but not this one.
If Schneider had used this poll as some evidence that Obama is more popular among Jewish voters than Liebermann then the right would have every right to call it liberal misinformation.
Gerstein | Agne Strategic Communications designed the questionnaire for this survey of 800 self-identified adult American Jews, conducted June 29 - July 3, 2008. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent; the margin of error in the split samples is +/- 4.9 percent. Gerstein | Agne contracted the research company YouGovPolimetrix to administer the survey by email invitation to its web-based panel, which is regularly updated and consists of 1.2 million Americans.
Conducting reliable and affordable surveys of American Jews is a challenging task due to the small number of Jews as a proportion of the overall United States population. Advances in technology and sophisticated web-based panel techniques have greatly helped researchers seeking to gain a trustworthy understanding of small populations, such as American Jews, and web-based panels are a rapidly growing method across numerous audiences that are difficult to reach by traditional land line telephone surveys.
It's not a biased poll.
It's a poll of Jews, who lean left. Not only do they lean left, they don't have a very favorable view of Lieberman.
Somehow you think that the poll is biased because they say that they like Obama a lot? That they dislike Bush a lot? That doesn't make it biased. That makes it a poll of Jews, and Jewish people lean towards the liberal end of the spectrum.
"It's not a biased poll. It's a poll of Jews, who lean left"
Dear Lord, that is a classic Sue-ism. A real keeper, stamp it "Saved"
No, and the fact that when confronted with your failings, you think that calling me Sue helps deflect from your failings is a sad commentary - that you're the best they could find and pay to help their cause.
It's not my failing that stops you from understanding that there's a difference between a flawed poll and a poll that accurately takes the pulse of a specific group.
A biased poll would be one that polled only self-selected people yet tried to claim that it was a poll that accurately reflected the public as a whole. A biased poll would be one that used improper wording in questions aimed at getting a pre-determined result. Polling of a group to get that groups' opinion is not a biased poll.
So Schneider would be spreading misinformation if he cited that poll? Why? Because YOU think the poll is biased? Really? Wow..you've got quite an ego, don't you?
If Schneider would have said, "Polling of Jewish voters shows otherwise..." or something to that effect (and then given the source so people can look it up), would that have made it better? Again, the issue isn't whether the poll is biased. It's the advancement that if Lieberman speaks at the Republican convention, more Jews will vote Republican. False. That's the same thing as saying, "Rosie O'Donnell is going to speak at the Democratic Convention, so gay folks are going to vote for the Democratic candidate. Duh...we vote Democratic most of the time anyway. So, the misinformation is in the fact that Schneider advanced the premise that Jews will vote for McCain because Lieberman supports him - and then failed to leave room for any possibility of the opposite happening, even when there are polls out there which show otherwise. How silly.
Look at the thread topic Sue, Schneider would be a tool of misinformation if he even mentioned this poll, that is the point MMFA tries to make and along with your and the others, fail to make.
What are you talking about? Gosh, how you ever had credibility on this site is beyond me - you must have been more lucid years ago, because you rarely exhibit any sanity, and especially not on Fridays.
CNN's Schneider asserted that Lieberman speech at RNC could draw Jewish voters, but did not mention polling showing low approval among Jews
His commentary is conservative misinformation. It is misinformation because it's not accurate information. If he had used this poll, if he had done his research, he wouldn't try to claim that having Lierberman at the RNC might lead to more Jews voting for McCain.
Schneider wouldn't be a "tool of misinformation" if he used this poll! He was a tool of misinformation because he didn't do the research that would have informed him of the results of the poll. A poll that surveys Jewish people being used to talk about the feelings of Jewish people isn't a skewed poll. The results of that survey will document the opinions of Jewish people, but if the methodology is good, it's not a skewed poll!
The problem is you not understanding the difference between polling a specific group and reporting on their particular take on an issue and a skewed poll that misrepresents the real views of a group because of some polling bias or methodology problem.
You can't be serious? Don't you think polling liberals will give a skewed result favoring liberals? Look at the poll results and tell me they had a representative sample of all ideologies. They did not. The poll is one-sided which makes it invalid. It can't be made any clearer. If you don't get it, never mind.
Half right, half wrong.
They didn't poll looking for a specific ideology, they polled through a religious/racial designation. Now it turns out that that group trends towards the left which would throw off the results if the poll were meant to be indicative of the American population as a whole, but it isn't.
Turns out about 20% of the respondents identify themselves as conservatives. If the pollsters were looking just to poll liberals why would they keep those respondents in the sample?
The poll isn't heavily skewed to the left though.
Skewed means unfairly leaning that way.
It was a poll of people who lean that way. The media source was talking about how those people feel, and so a poll of those people is what we're looking for. And the results of that poll tell us how they feel. The results are accurate - you have no evidence that there was anything wrong with their polling methodology.
It's because their poll leans left and is skewed is the reason Schneider need not mention it, as MMFA insists he should. You keep missing that Sue and that is the crux of the thread, and why it's a major WITH.
Obviously it's you who has tough Fridays, you make less sense on this day than any other.
You can't be serious? Don't you think polling liberals will give a skewed result favoring liberals?
That doesn't make it a biased poll. It's a poll of Jewish people. Did you miss that?
Look at the poll results and tell me they had a representative sample of all ideologies.
They weren't trying to get a representative sampling of all ideologies. They were trying to get a poll of American Jews. Again, did you miss that?
They did not. The poll is one-sided which makes it invalid.
The poll isn't one-sided. The poll is of one interest group because the point the media source made was about that one interest group, American Jews!
It can't be made any clearer. If you don't get it, never mind.
If you can't understand that there's a difference between a biased poll and a poll of a biased group, aimed at polling that group so that that group's opinions can be gathered and examined, then the problem is yours, not ours, and not Media Matters! It can't be made any clearer.
Here is some basic information on how polls are conducted from the Gallup website. These lines are, I think, pertinent:
Thus, it is Gallup's goal in selecting samples to allow every adult American [or, in this case, American Jew] an equal chance of falling into the sample. How that is done, of course, is the key to the success or failure of the process.
Many Americans [Tommy?] contact The Gallup Organization each year... to ask how our results can differ so much from their own personal impressions of what people think.
You're missing the entire point, Tommy.
They polled Jews, exclusively. Not liberals. Jews were the reason for the poll, not liberals. They actively sought out Jews for the poll, because they wanted to know what Jews thought. Get it?
Just as Craig said - Jews must be more liberal than you thought.
"Look at the poll results and tell me they had a representative sample of all ideologies."
I never did believe those polls that showed that 90% of black people favored Democrats over Republicans. When they poll 50% conservative blacks and 50% liberal blacks, then those poll results will be believable.
Don't poll a group of people and tell me that they're not evenly split between the ideologies, because that just doesn't make any sense. There's two major parties, so it's like flipping a coin. In any group you're going to get an even split.
Oh, and you're all a bunch of partisan whiners for disagreeing with me. Have a nice weekend!
So basically what you're saying, Tommy, is this:
This poll is not correct because it doesn't give the results I think it should give. This must be a left-leaning poll because the respondents to the poll have chosen Obama by a 2-1 margin. That just can't be right!
You're saying that because the poll shows results favorable to Obama by such a large margin that it's incorrect? Is that your basis? Almost every poll shows Obama leading McCain - and that's registered voters - a wider sample. This poll, if I remember correctly, was based on 800 Jewish voters, a smaller sample.
If this isn't what you mean, please explain further.
Let me make it easier for you. If a poll were taken here among MMFA readers on who has the more favorable rating, Obama vs McCain, would you expect that poll's validity not to be questioned? Of course it would be, it would be heavily skewed which would render it worthless.
Or what about the polls that Bill O'Reilly runs on his website, do you accept those results as valid and representative? No, and you shouldn't. This poll is no different based on their responders. Which means it is worthless, which is probably why Schneider didn't mention it.
It's you who needs something made more easy to understand.
Most Jewish people lean to the left. Most Media Matters posters lean to the left.
If someone were to say "Tommy should draw Media Matters posters to his side, since he is a prolific poster at Media Matters", you'd laugh at that incredible claim.
It's the same thing. The fact that you're a member of the group of Media Matters posters doesn't mean that we'd support you. And if Media Matters posters were polled, they'd support progressive ideals, just like the pollsters found the Jews they interviewed did. That would not make it a biased poll. It would make it a poll of partisan people. There's a difference between biased polls and biased people being polled.
If a poll were taken here among MMFA readers on who has the more favorable rating, Obama vs McCain, would you expect that poll's validity not to be questioned?(Tommy)
If a reporter suggested that McCain learn to use a computer in order to attract people who visit MMFA (computer users), and it was implied that this would cause a significant shift in the posters here towards supporting McCain, the survey would be very valid at pointing out the reporter's faulty reasoning.
Well, again, you derailed the freaking thread. Good work.
The topic of this conversation is whether or not Jews will vote for McCain because Lieberman is scheduled to speak at the Republican convention. The reporter posits that Jewish votes for McCain will increase due to Lieberman's appearance at the convention.
Available polls suggest otherwise.
Why even question such a thing? The reporter says it may indeed cause Jewish voters to move into the McCain camp. I think it's a given that many Jewish voters are on the democratic/progressive end of the political spectrum. Lieberman speaking at the convention in support of McCain doesn't (in my opinion) cause Jews to rethink their vote. If, in fact, Lieberman were to change Jewish voters minds, because, you know, Jews vote for Jews, right? <sarcasm>, it would have already happened - and the poll might have come out differently.
Again, it's the basic (possibly racist) premise here that Jews vote for Jews - like African-Americans vote only for African-Americans and fundies always vote for fundies. Except this time, it's more of a racial thing. The rigties just cannot leave race in America alone, can they? They have to inject it into every political discussion they have.
Just my two cents...probably not worth even that, by my opinion is just as valid as yours.
Apples, oranges and for some reason horseshoes. A poll taken of MMfA users would be skewed but it wouldn't be invalid. If proper methodology was used it would be an accurate representation of MMfA users, but not of the general population.
On-line polls are useless because there is no methodology in selecting the respondents and usually no controls over how many times a person can respond if they have some sort of motivation to skew the results.
So why does MMFA claim that Schneider should mention a skewed poll that leans left, and because he doesn't, it's misinformation? That is ridiculous. - Tommy
-------------------------------------------
Uh..MMFA doesn't claim that Schneider should mention a skewed poll that leans left. MMFA claims misinformation because there is information that exists that what Schneider is saying is wrong - and he didn't mention it - and that's not balanced reporting. How can you not see that?
Nice try, though. Your quote up there is the perfect example of how corrupt pollsters looking for a certain outcome tend to word their questions - skewed toward a certain poll response. Classic Repub bs.
"Uh..MMFA doesn't claim that Schneider should mention a skewed poll that leans left. MMFA claims misinformation because there is information that exists that what Schneider is saying is wrong - and he didn't mention it - and that's not balanced reporting"
Do you have any clue how you just contradicted yourself from the beginning of your statement with the end of it? Probably not, forget it.
I don't believe I contradicted myself. Take a remedial reading course and try again. Until you've finished that class, let me make it a bit easier for you:
You claimed that the poll is skewed toward the left. Fine. Even people with the thought process of a mollusk understand the difference. Either you choose not to understand the difference, or you're irretrievably stupid.
You claim that MMfA is marking this as misinformation because Schneider didn't mention (as YOU call it) a skewed poll. MMfA doesn't see the poll as skewed. Do you see the point now? You just tried to change the dynamics of the conversation here simply by adding the word 'skewed'. I didn't see MMfA or any of the enlightened posters here refer to the poll as skewed. YOU added that in there. Like I said, nice try.
Have a good weekend.
I'm still waiting for him to say that you're fixing to be banned because you said that he's irretrievably stupid. I called him a moron, and he has said that my comment will get me banned. I can't wait til he tells you the same thing.
<sarcasm off>
Skewed and biased don't mean the same thing. A skewed result is one that shows more than a majority of the respondents chose the same answers. A biased result is one in which the poll was intentionally designed to produce a skewed result.
Polls are pretty simple tools in political communication but they are not all-purpose. You seem to be demanding that the pollsters ask respondents their political affiliations first and then formulate the sample group so that an equal proportion of all possible affiliations is represented. That would be creating an artificial and unrepresentative poll group and completely invalidating any results.
Now, I'm not actually 100% behind this particular poll, but it certainly has a lot more credibility than some twerp of a pundit claiming that putting Alf's adoptive father up on the podium for McCain will make all the Jews in America suddenly say to themselves "Hey, one of us likes McCain, we all better go with him."
This is about MMFA's criticism of Schneider for not referencing a poll, call it skewed, call it biased, I don't care. He is not obliged, nor should he, mention a poll that is biased or skewed towards any ideology. That is the point that many of you refuse to consider. And that is why this is not misinformation as MMFA sees it.
It is a big WITH!
Ok, throw out the poll. Now we just have some guy claiming that a speech by Lieberman will somehow sway the Jewish vote to McCain just because Joe is also a Jew.
Still misinformation. First it continues the myth of some sort of monolithic Jewish hive mind that automatically follows some imaginary leader. Then it assumes that charisma challenged Joe is somehow that leader.
Bonus myth in the subtext- Jews are not true to political ideologies of their own, they only care about Isreal related issues.
No, the poll is not the issue.
The conservative misinformation is the issue, moron.
Stop acting moronic and I'll stop calling you a moron.
Stop showing everyone that you're scared to death of a poster who hasn't been here in years, wimp.
Your argument is fallacious and totally without merit, and you've been told that every way possible. The fact that you still can't understand it means you're a moron.
Because that screen name and discussions about that screen name have come up before in the 6 months I've been here, that's how.
Just like I know that Tommy somehow has a reputation as a reasonable rightie for some reason, although he's almost never demonstrated any reasonableness that I've seen in the six months I've been here, so I know that his reputation must pre-date my posting here.
It's not that difficult.
This is about MMFA's criticism of Schneider for not referencing a poll, call it skewed, call it biased, I don't care. He is not obliged, nor should he, mention a poll that is biased or skewed towards any ideology. That is the point that many of you refuse to consider. And that is why this is not misinformation as MMFA sees it.
It is a big WITH!
Totally, 100% wrong.
1. Media Matters doesn't care if he 'referenced' that poll or not. It's that his information was incorrect, his misinformation furthers the conservative agenda, and if he had some some research, he could have found that out.
2. It's not a skewed or biased poll. The results show what Jewish people believe. They lean left. That doesn't mean that there's anything flawed in the polling methodology. It's not a biased poll. It's a poll of left-leaning people. The fact that they support Obama 2 to 1 is even more evidence that having Lierberman speak at the RNC won't cause them to vote Republican! There's a difference between a skewed or biased poll and an accurate poll that surveys partisan people!
3. It's not a biased toward any ideology. It's a poll that surveyed Jews. They're the partisan group that Schneider was talking about, so their opinions are what matters here. It's not biased towards any ideology though - Jews are more likely to label themselves liberal. Would you poll all Americans and list those results if you wanted to learn the feelings of blacks? Of course not. You'd either poll all Americans and then pull out data from blacks or you'd simply just poll blacks alone, then look at that data. That's not biased towards blacks. It's simply polling data from blacks.
4. It's not that we aren't willing to consider anything. It's that your point is invalid, and we've explained why about 16 different ways and times. It's you who refuses to understand a simple concept.
5. It is misinformation, and it must scare your supervisors a lot if they're directing you to put this much effort into derailing this thread. Unreliable information about how Jewish people might vote, and claiming that Lieberman's appearance at the RNC will influence Jews's voting choices furthers the conservative agenda.
"1. Media Matters doesn't care if he 'referenced' that poll or not"
Sue, Sweety, read the headline, they do care. You are really slipping today, either grab a pill, or go for a walk,CNN's Schneider asserted that Lieberman speech at RNC could draw Jewish voters, but did not mention polling showing low approval among Jews.
Schneider said one thing, but the available facts disprove what he said, so what he did was give unreliable information that furthers the conservative agenda!
The poll of Jewish people is evidence that what he claimed about Jewish people was not correct.
It's you who's showing your typical Friday afternoon "I'm totally batsh!t crazy and make no sense on Friday afternoons" behavior.
If a poll were taken here among MMFA readers on who has the more favorable rating, Obama vs McCain, would you expect that poll's validity not to be questioned? Of course it would be, it would be heavily skewed which would render it worthless. Tommy
Let me make it easier for you. If a poll were taken of Media Matters readers about Obama vs McCain, and they got a representative sampling of the posters here, and the results said that posters here supported Obama 5 to 1 over McCain, then the results wouldn't be worthless and the results wouldn't be skewed. They'd be the results of a poll of people here! It would be an accurate portrayal of the feelings of the posters here.
If someone were to dishonestly then represent those poll results and claim that they were the survey results from Americans in general, that wouldn't be right.
But if they were trying to talk about Media Matters voters, it wouldn't be a problem. Like I said elsewhere, if people were to say that posters here would support you, Tommy, because you're 'one of us', that would be contrary to what I believe the survey of posters would show. That would be misinformation.
The poll was of Jewish people. They're skewed towards Democrats - always have been.
So exactly what is your issue here? This media story said that having Lieberman speak at the Republican Convention should draw Jewish voters in, but a poll of Jewish voters shows that they don't have a very positive view of Lieberman.
How does the fact that they also have progressive attitudes towards other issues disprove what Media Matters asserts?
I think Tommy is also (maybe subconsciously) thinking that they are polling Jewish voters about a Jewish politician speaking at the convention, and that since they are Jews, Lieberman would draw in their votes, based solely on the fact that Lieberman is Jewish. You know, kinda like the Repubs who say African-Americans will all vote for Obama because he is African-American.
But that's just my guess as to why Tommy feels this poll is skewed.
It makes no sense to those of us who vote based on policies and not skin color or religion.
These commentators are reaching for the ever elusive straws,the more they talk,the more I can't wait for this "water torture" to end.
Come on November 5th,then we can hear them tell us what happened and why."the beat goes on".
Dear Boss,
I have enjoyed working here these past several years. You
have paid me very well, given me benefits beyond belief.
I have 3-4 months off per year and a pension plan that
will pay my salary till the day I die and a health plan that
most people can only dream about.
Despite this I plan to take the next 12-18 months to find a
new position.
During this time I will show up for work when it is convenient. In
addition I fully expect to draw my full salary and all the other perks
associated with my current job.
Oh yeah, if my search for this new job proves fruitless, I
will be back with no loss in pay or status. Before you say anything,
remember that you have no choice in the matter. I can and will do this.
Sincerely,
Every Senator or Congressman running for President.
Try that at your job and tell me how it works out.
1. So what is this "poll" that MM refers to? It's from "the Democratic polling firm Gerstein Agne for the progressive group J Street."
Sounds very reputable! </sarc>
C'mon, guys ...
2. Even though Lieberman's numbers may not be great, couldn't the RNC be thinking that allowing the opportunity for Lieberman to express himself may boost his popularity?
MM's objection seems pretty weak, IMHO.
We all know that you're too intellectually lazy to even follow up on your own weak attempts at debate so it should be no surprise that you're too lazy to click on the links MMfA provided that lead you straight to the poll and the organization that conducted it so you could find out for yourself who they are and what they are about.
Typical Shoes.
As a life-long, born in the tribe American Jew, I can honestly say we all think and vote as one. We, as a group, are in utter harmony and when one of our own, like Senator Lieberman speaks, it is more than obvious we will follow his wisdom as we are unable to think for ourselves.
Either that or the media is foolish for trying to portray any specific group as a singular block who votes either one way or other and not as individuals.
4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.
Get to work on that one, Tommy. Looks pretty biased to me.
OT,Tommy, but asserting my elitist cred. I got suckered into meeting with a prospective client today ... at 4:30 in La Palma on a Friday!. Plus side- I'll be sailing through the exotic environs of Hawaiian Gardens!
Let me help you figure it out Governor, maybe it's the LA traffic that has you frazzled today. Would you say this would be silly if this were an MMFA beef;
"CNN's Schneider asserted that Hillary Clinton speech at DNC could draw women voters, but did not mention polling at billoreilly.com showing low approval among women"
Same thing.
It would be similar IF BilldO's female viewers were representative of women in general. I doubt very much that they are. But you're also assuming that women tend to vote for women in the same way that Jews tend to lean liberal. Two assumptions there.
I haven't even hit the traffic yet, I'm just getting ready to leave. Elitist Hawaii(an Gardens) here i come!
And no offense taking at the "governor" thing, I like The Gov.
Don't tell me you two are an item again.
Careful HB, Tommy will only break your heart, again.
Tommy I know you aren't a moron, but I have to wonder why you keep comparing this poll to something like an oreilly.com "poll." It's like you refuse to see the difference between a poll conducted using standard accepted polling methodology and a trivial, play as often as you'd like, internet button click.
Got it. Clearly we are never going to agree then as you believe that the poll was selectively taken of only liberal Jews (Of the respondents about 20% identified as conservative btw). I still think that the pollsters tried to find a representative sample of Jews and it turns out that they have a high amount of liberals in the population, just as if one had taken a poll of Evangelicals it is likely they would find a higher percentage identifying as conservatives. But I don't think we are likely to have a meeting of the minds on that.
Enjoy your weekend.
You have no reason to believe that they only polled liberal Jews, however.
They polled Jews. Jews are, by and large, liberal.
It's not a biased poll. There's no evidence of that. You pulled it out of your butt, and it still amazes me that posters give you any benefit of the doubt when you make crazyass comments like you have in this thread.
Let me help you figure it out Governor, maybe it's the LA traffic that has you frazzled today. Would you say this would be silly if this were an MMFA beef;
"CNN's Schneider asserted that Hillary Clinton speech at DNC could draw women voters, but did not mention polling at billoreilly.com showing low approval among women"
Same thing.
It's you who needs help, Tommy.
"CNN's Schneider asserted that Hillary Clinton speech at DNC could draw women voters, but did not mention polling at billoreilly.com showing low approval among women"
No. There was no skewed polling of Jews. If they only interviewed women who visited O'Reilly's website, that would be skewed results. That's what we've been trying to tell you over and over again.
"CNN's Schneider asserted that Hillary Clinton speech at DNC could draw women voters, but did not mention polling of American women showing low approval ratings for Clinton among women."
If that's what happened, then Media Matters would report that too! Schneider's comments would be contrary to the evidence at hand! The evidence at hand is that women do support Clinton. It would be conservative misinformation if the reporter did that, just like it's conservative misinformation when Schneider does what he does!
Good post - love the sarcasm.
Again, it's like the African-American "I'm voting for Obama because he's black" meme again. The Repubs just cannot let race go...
Because, you know, Jews vote for Jews because they're Jews. Yeah, right. If you believe that, there's a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you.
This article is a WITH because the premise by Schneider and rebuttal by mmfa is pretty benign.
According to the Virtual Jewish Library...there are about 6MM Jews in America. Over 3MM live in NY,CA and IL...where McCain doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning...leaving the remaining 1% (of the total population) scattered sparsely.
Schneider's point is moot...McCain would be foolish to pick a veep for the Jewish vote...and mmfa's rebuttal was unneeded.
Now here's a little grist for the mill concerning polling. According to the RCP averages...McCain wins the nomination in a squeaker.
¶What seems the most pitiable about this constantly insipid imbroglio, he loves to foment, is the almost groveling responses posted, attempting to redirect his constant errantry and unconsciously hoping he’d consciously wake up from the distastefully bad dreams keenly spins upon others. For Tommy, problem definition abilities are mostly schizophrenic and are fully transparent to his waiting audience. If only those “others” could see through his “Emperor’s New Clothes” ploy. And yet, he is transparent.
Tommy,
Golly ned...it looks like you struck a real raw nerve.
Shame on you for derailing, hijacking, sidetracking and anything else you've done to this thread...by simply stating your opinion...JFAIG...and ROFLMAO.
Yeah, you're right, Tommy sucks, and somehow Wesley thinks that Tommy hit a raw nerve in you?
ROFLMAO in response to the person you agree with being completely confused.Is Wesley just sitting around laughing at himself?
Reminds me of the parakeet I had as a kid. It enjoyed that mirror all day long.
Oh Yeah... LOL!
I need a bigger dic - princeofwheels
Hee hee, POW! I 'm going off to bed with a nice cropped quote!Deny that you ever typed that!
I also read HOGPRINT's take on Defense spending. Of course he didn't include the costs of the two major wars, black programs, or the cost of our "nuclear" programs in his calculation. Most Republican's don't want to face the facts when it comes to these profit driven wars. War on terror?... please define it.
And maybe he is involved in the defense industry as I am and knows more than I do. But I know that since Reagan, the number of deliverable line items have been reduced, (along with the number of contracting persons in both civilian and government activities), while contract dollar values have increased. The number of R&D contracts and unbid contracts have increased to the point where the government doesn't even know what it is paying for anymore. I see contractors at the government ATM every day and all the while the Republican's keep reducing the number of quality assurance, and other auditors. Sure, under Clinton the systematic dismantling of the Government oversight activities continued, but if anybody thinks the Clinton's were democrats, I have a few $1000.00 hammers for you. On second thought at least you got a hammer in the old days for the $1000.00. Kind of like a toy in Cracker-Jacks. Now you get nothing.
The MIlitary-Industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex is alive and has grown up thanks to Bush and his pals. I have to go read Susan Eisenhower's article now.