* 39 percent of Republicans believe Obama should be impeached, 29 percent are not sure, 32 percent said he should not be voted out of office.Are these views mainstream? If not, how can the Republican party ever win the presidency again?
* 36 percent of Republicans believe Obama was not born in the United States, 22 percent are not sure, 42 percent think he is a natural citizen.
* 31 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a "Racist who hates White people" -- the description once adopted by Fox News's Glenn Beck. 33 percent were not sure, and 36 percent said he was not a racist.
* 63 percent of Republicans think Obama is a socialist, 16 percent are not sure, 21 percent say he is not
* 24 percent of Republicans believe Obama wants "the terrorists to win," 33 percent aren't sure, 43 percent said he did not want the terrorist to win.
* 21 percent of Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2008 election, 55 percent are not sure, 24 percent said the community organizing group did not steal the election.
* 23 percent of Republicans believe that their state should secede from the United States, 19 percent aren't sure, 58 percent said no.
* 53 percent of Republicans said they believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Being Republicans
According to a recent poll of 2,000 Republicans here are some standout figures:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
It is very possible. Scott Brown won is a very liberal state.
Zorro - Yeah, I thought about that but that's one state. My brother is a die-hard liberal and he said he would have found it difficult to vote for Coakley. I also think that Coakley was a bad campaigner, it was a special election, and the Democrats were lax in getting out the vote. The economy also played a major role then. By 2012 perhaps things will look better. Brown also played his cards well, running as a moderate. Palin called him after the election to congratulate him. When asked about it he said that he hadn't spoken with her. Then when challenged he said that he had forgotten. Outside of the 30% of self-described Republicans, do you think others hold these views?
I don't think (this is a wild guess) that these views go far beyond the Republican party. What concerns me the most is the progressives - will they give Obama a break and realize the environment he is working in?
In the past week, he seems to be doing the right things - he seems to have a strategy that might work.
MSNBC is rallying around him. If he can make it obvious that the Republicans could care less about the country, he will be in good shape. I think he has a good chance of pulling this off. He is very bright, likable and funny. The Republicans as a group have none of these traits. To me, in order to be a Republican member of congress, it seems like you must have to pass some sort of 'angry look' test.
"To me, in order to be a Republican member of congress, it seems like you must have to pass some sort of 'angry look' test."
Forget the purity litmus test proposed by the Republican leadership in Congress, eh? Funny, Zorro! I agree about President Obama and wish him much success. We must not forget also that he got the majority vote.I do not think that the majority of the voting electorate share the views in this poll.
here is an interesting book. I heard the author on NPR.
Here Arriana wtite about it.
The main premise of the book (based on science) is the empathy is one of the most basic human characteristics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/only-empathy-can-save-us_b_447685.html
Thanks, Zorro! It sounds like an interesting book. I'll check it out. If on the faces of the Republican leadership reveals whether one has empathy I would be hard pressed to agree. You rightly point out the anger. I think this is why "compassionate conservative" was coined. It was apparent that many lacked compassion by the policies they espoused.
These are quite startling views. I think most Americans are independent as evident of Obama's wins in red states and Scott Brown's win in MA. However, the extreme views are troubling. Palin more qualified to run for President? Hopefully the country remains moderate and doesn't fray to the extremes.
Judith,
A poll by the Daily Kos? 2000 "self identified" Republicans surveyed by phone? If one chooses to believe that those views are mainstream and reflect the views of millions of folks who label themselves "Republicans" or use the responses to explain the elections results in New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts,then the 2010 mid-terms will be a great thing indeed for "Democrats" everywhere.
Let's see...31 percent of 2000 is ?????
Been busy and sick the past few weeks...nice to have a chance to "talk" again!
Dave - I suppose that by your comment you assume that the Daily Kos is bias as Rasmussen. But, if you look at ALL of the numbers closely they are actually diverse. Rasmussen, for example, is always bias across the board. There are typically no variances whatsoever. It also appears that you take issue with surveys done by phone. I don't know how this survey was done, but if I'm not mistaken many polls are done by phone. Can you speak to that directly?
With regards to the states you mentioned, especially New Jersey Corzine, the Democratic former Wall Street employee, is understandable, Massachusetts was explained earlier, and if the Virginia candidate who gave the rebuttal to the SOTU, well, what can I say about him? With regards to 2010, midterm elections are typically very different from presidential elections. The American people are not very patient. If there is no improvement in the economy, mid-term elections usually show discontent. If you read the post again, I expressly made a distinction of 2012, not 2010. The distinction is the presidential election.
I see that the Daily Kos poll has brought you out. I think we had a very long exchange the last time it mentioned it. :-) Oh, I don't know exactly what you mean by 31% of 2000, but I assume you are talking about the presidential election decided by the Supreme Court? If so, what exactly about that election are your referencing? One thing that is for certain, the dirty politics of Rove, Ailes, and the like did not prevail in the last election. I am just hoping that we have turned a corner in that regards.
Would love for you to read the post on Ailes, listen to the clip, and get your opinion about it. Also take note of John O'Leary's comment about Ailes and Atwater. Arianna posted more on Ailes' response to Beck, and his Beck's respons, that's sickening.
The Daily Cos contracted the poll to an outside company.
They Daily Cos did not do it themselves.
Zorro - Reading the poll, it appears to be fair as not all numbers are negatively rendered when considering percentages of the whole. I noticed this before publishing the results here.
When they discussed it MSNBC, they made it clear that the company the did the poll was known to be independent.
If I remember correctly, they said even Fox uses the company sometimes.
That's the problem with Fox. Sometimes they are fair and balanced. If they were always unfair and unbalanced, it would be much easier to discredit them.
Good con-men tell the truth now and then for the same reason.
Bravo, Zorro.
Auntie J,
Bias? Actually Judith when I read the Daily Kos, or Drudge, listen to a Bill O'Reily, or Keith Olbermann which I do all of periodically I pretty much know what I'm getting up front. If I see something of interest or want to research further...I do and then decide. In this case I looked at the questions and then read the link on the poll and the methodology. I guess if I were one to dismiss what I read in The Daily Kos, I wouldn't have taken the time to read further. A pretty diverse mix of rather "hot button" and "poll tested" topics and words. A sample size of 2000 is statistically insignificant if you are measuring a group like registered Republican voters. Their methodology stated "self identified" Republicans...an interesting category that means what again? Oh yeah, that wasn't explained. Doesn't matter who collected the data or how the information was collected...what's the point? You can find polls, surveys, or statistics to support any position of any side of any issue. You asked if these results represented the mainstream view. I was a registered Republican who voted for four Democratic candidates, including President Obama. Go figure. I'm thinking no...how about you?
The 31 percent of 2000 was a reference to the question about whether President Obama was a racist. 620 folks out of 2000 thought so. I bet a poll of "self identified" progressives with a question asking if Dick Cheney was actually Satan would find at least an equal number who subscribed to that belief.
I am old enough to remember a time when news was researched and fact checked before publication. That's getting tougher to find. You can however sure find a bunch of opinion, fabrication and unsubstantiated "facts" trying to pass itself off as news everywhere representing both political parties. If I did think The Daily Kos is biased, do you somehow take that to mean I think Fox News isn't?
As I recall our past discussion involved the Daily Kos dude who served four years in the military and a Congressman who never served and the quality of V.A. health care. My point a Congressman who never served could easily be just as knowledgeable about the quality of VA Health care through the complaints and work they do through their constituent services and that ones being a veteran doesn't mean you have accessed or received care through the VA.
I will indeed look at the Ailes clip and let you know what I think.
Thanks, Dave, for your opinion. As always, I am happy to have you here.
"A sample size of 2000 is statistically insignificant if you are measuring a group like registered Republican voters."
A sample size of 2000 is extemely significant. Any sample size above
1000 for a binary response (yes/no question) has a 3% or less margin of error.
"poll of "self identified" progressives with a question asking if Dick Cheney was actually Satan "
Cheney is worse that Satan because Cheney is real.
I'm laughing aloud regarding Cheney. But the reality is the damage that he did was indeed significant. Never before has the United States been seen as a brute force internationally and never before has our standing in the world declined to an all-time low. President Obama is repairing those brutal years of decline from Iraq to discrediting international bodies such as the UN instead of working to make them better.
Zorro - As a graduate student of statistics, I thought you might contribute. That is your field, right?
I'm a grad student in statistics.
Cool! I thought so, Zorro. I also very much appreciate that you taught school in the inner city and was delighted when your students really got what you were teaching. Thank you. I was a substitute teacher when I was a graduate student and I chose the worse areas specifically to try to impart what knowledge I had. I sought to make my one day experience indeed memorable. As an extended sub in some areas, I even did house calls. I loved it!
"A sample size of 2000 is extemely significant. Any sample size above
1000 for a binary response (yes/no question) has a 3% or less margin of error."
I would agree. Sample size can determine accuracy as long as the sample size is a small portion of the total population. Would that be an accurate statement if the the intent was to sample a larger portion of the population? I would then say it wasn't. Of course I'm sure that wasn't the intent of those who commissioned the survey.
Dave - I wish I was bright enough to understand the point you've just made. I'm really clueless. Maybe Zorro will give a whack at it.
Post a Comment