PDA

View Full Version : Elections Newsweek Poll: 59% of voters say Obama shares their values...only 47% say McCain does


jAZ
10-12-2008, 10:57 PM
Wow.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163339/page/2

Further, 59 percent of voters in the poll said Obama shares their values, compared to 37 percent who said he does not. By contrast, 47 percent of voters said McCain shares their values while 49 percent said he does not.

wazu
10-12-2008, 11:11 PM
Neither share my values. McCain is the one that is slightly most likely to fake it, though.

jAZ
10-12-2008, 11:15 PM
Neither share my values. McCain is the one that is slightly most likely to fake it, though.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but you made a pretty broad statement that seems pretty unlikely to be true, IMO. What are your values?

wazu
10-12-2008, 11:25 PM
Not to sidetrack the thread, but you made a pretty broad statement that seems pretty unlikely to be true, IMO. What are your values?

The Constitution is the law of the land, obey it. The end.

Neither candidate really believes in what the founding fathers of this country believed in. Small government, personal responsibility, individual liberties. Instead, both offer different government-sponsored "solutions" to every problem you can dream up. Want to know what my favorite "healthcare plan" is? How about no plan? How about the government stay out of it and not make it worse? That's generally my approach to most supposed "problems facing our country" that the media beats us over the head with.

jAZ
10-12-2008, 11:38 PM
The Constitution is the law of the land, obey it. The end.
That's the only value you have?

wazu
10-12-2008, 11:43 PM
That's the only value you have?

Well, no. But in the interest of not writing a novel the size of "War and Peace", I thought that one value would probably give you a pretty clear picture of what I'm looking for in a presidential candidate, since you asked.

jjjayb
10-12-2008, 11:46 PM
And here's what this poll is based on:

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:

1,035 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
280 Republicans (plus or minus 7)
402 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
325 Independents (plus or minus 7)
839 White (plus or minus 4)
175 Non-White (plus or minus 9)
491 Men (plus or minus 5)
544 Women (plus or minus 5)
126 18-34 (plus or minus 10)
159 35-44 (plus or minus 9)
434 45-64 (plus or minus 6)
283 65+ (plus or minus 7)
247 White Evangelicals (plus or minus 8)
191 White Catholics (plus or minus 8)
401 Other whites (plus or minus 6)
230 Hillary Clinton supporters (plus or minus 8)

Logical
10-12-2008, 11:46 PM
The Constitution is the law of the land, obey it. The end.
...

I assume that we are fine with abortion then, the Constitution does not discuss it.

Women are lesser than men in the Constitution even after they were given the vote. I guess that is fine.

This list could go on and on because the Constitution does not cover 1000s of issues.

I think this is a shortsighted view.

jAZ
10-12-2008, 11:50 PM
Well, no. But in the interest of not writing a novel the size of "War and Peace", I thought that one value would probably give you a pretty clear picture of what I'm looking for in a presidential candidate, since you asked.
I guess my opinion is that you didn't actually offer up a value at all. Here's what I mean.

The consitution isn't a value, but a construct of rules we agreed to adopt and operate within, which is by design, not a fixed set of rules, but an interpretable and adjustable set of rules.

The value that you seem to (err) value... is "play by the agreed upon rules... period".

That's actaully pretty limited in it's scope IMO. So general, that most people wouldn't disagree broadly, IMO.

I'd be interested in the vast array of specific concepts beyond play-by-the-rules... that you value.

wazu
10-12-2008, 11:50 PM
I assume that we are fine with abortion then, the Constitution does not discuss it.

Women are lesser than men in the Constitution even after they were given the vote. I guess that is fine.

This list could go on and on because the Constitution does not cover 1000s of issues.

I think this is a shortsighted view.

They are all covered by Amendment #10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Logical
10-12-2008, 11:53 PM
They are all covered by Amendment #10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So you value really big government at the state level, why on earth did you leave California, this place must have been heaven for you?

jAZ
10-12-2008, 11:54 PM
And here's what this poll is based on:

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:

1,035 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
280 Republicans (plus or minus 7)
402 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
325 Independents (plus or minus 7)
839 White (plus or minus 4)
175 Non-White (plus or minus 9)
491 Men (plus or minus 5)
544 Women (plus or minus 5)
126 18-34 (plus or minus 10)
159 35-44 (plus or minus 9)
434 45-64 (plus or minus 6)
283 65+ (plus or minus 7)
247 White Evangelicals (plus or minus 8)
191 White Catholics (plus or minus 8)
401 Other whites (plus or minus 6)
230 Hillary Clinton supporters (plus or minus 8)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pollsters don't report results based on the raw data, but based on re-weighting.

wazu
10-12-2008, 11:54 PM
I guess my opinion is that you didn't actually offer up a value at all. Here's what I mean.

The consitution isn't a value, but a construct of rules we agreed to adopt and operate within, which is by design, not a fixed set of rules, but an interpretable and adjustable set of rules.

The value that you seem to (err) value... is "play by the agreed upon rules... period".

That's actaully pretty limited in it's scope IMO. So general, that most people wouldn't disagree broadly, IMO.

I'd be interested in the vast array of specific concepts beyond play-by-the-rules... that you value.

The Constitution by itself may not be a "value", but there were many fundamental values involved in it's creation, and most of them I agree with wholeheartedly. The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the one by far most trampled on.

wazu
10-12-2008, 11:57 PM
So you value really big government at the state level, why on earth did you leave California, this place must have been heaven for you?

So...because I don't like big government at the federal level, you assume I must be looking for my "big government fix" at the state level? No wonder you are such a jellyfish when it comes to political discussion and you're supposed past "conservatism". At the end of the day, it's clear that you feel government has to be the solution somehow, someway.

jAZ
10-12-2008, 11:57 PM
The Constitution by itself may not be a "value", but there were many fundamental values involved in it's creation, and most of them I agree with wholeheartedly. The Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the one by far most trampled on.

You seemed to suggest in your post, that neither candidate shared any of your values at all.

I doubt that's the case, which is why I'm asking you to enumerate your values. I'd rather just cut this disucssion short and agree that both candidates probably share many of your values, but you aren't really satisfied by either candidate because there are certain issues that you disagree with both men on profoundly.

Fair?

wazu
10-13-2008, 12:03 AM
You seemed to suggest in your post, that neither candidate shared any of your values at all.

I doubt that's the case, which is why I'm asking you to enumerate your values. I'd rather just cut this disucssion short and agree that both candidates probably share many of your values, but you aren't really satisfied by either candidate because there are certain issues that you disagree with both men on profoundly.

Fair?

So I agree with them both, but I'm not satisfied with either because I disagree with them so much? Sorry, not following on that one.

I give a slight edge to McCain because I think the damage he does is likely to be less un-doable long-term than what Obama would do. But I'm not currently planning to vote for either, because I think neither represent me, especially after the bailout plan.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 12:07 AM
So I agree with them both, but I'm not satisfied with either because I disagree with them so much? Sorry, not following on that one.
How is it possible that you don't follow that? You are a very smart person, and your recitation was entirely correct... so you aren't reading it wrong.

You agree with them both on many of values, but not all of them. And not on the deal-breakers.

Logical
10-13-2008, 12:12 AM
So...because I don't like big government at the federal level, you assume I must be looking for my "big government fix" at the state level? No wonder you are such a jellyfish when it comes to political discussion and you're supposed past "conservatism". At the end of the day, it's clear that you feel government has to be the solution somehow, someway.True, big government will always exist in a country this size, the only question is whether it is at the Federal, State, or Local level.

For Education I would prefer it be locally, for Defense federally, for Judiciary federally but with some local and state mixed in. For Foreign Relations federally. For infrastructure mainly at the state level, but some at the federal level for interstate transportation.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 12:14 AM
True, big government will always exist in a country this size, the only question is whether it is at the Federal, State, or Local level.

For Education I would prefer it be locally, for Defense federally, for Judiciary federally but with some local and state mixed in. For Foreign Relations federally. For infrastructure mainly at the stated level, but some at the federal level for interstate transportation.

That's that engineer coming out of you. Not ideolog, but pragmatist.

wazu
10-13-2008, 12:14 AM
You agree with them both on many of values, but not all of them. And not on the deal-breakers.

I guess the word "many" is my biggest problem here. I hear these two debate and feel like I am watching two people answering all the wrong questions with all the wrong answers.

I think they are both probably decent people at their core. We all three care about this country. But IMO they are both so profoundly wrong on the role of government that I can barely stand to even listen to them debate each other.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 12:19 AM
I guess the word "many" is my biggest problem here. I hear these two debate and feel like I am watching two people answering all the wrong questions with all the wrong answers.

I think they are both probably decent people at their core. We all three care about this country. But IMO they are both so profoundly wrong on the role of government that I can barely stand to even listen to them debate each other.

That's why I asked to you list your values. So far, you've only said one. "Follow the rules, always".

It's hard to resolve this without a detailed list, which is why I thought we could cut this short by saying you probably share some values with both guys. Maybe I shouldn't have skipped to saying "many". I just mean more than "none".

wazu
10-13-2008, 12:33 AM
That's why I asked to you list your values. So far, you've only said one. "Follow the rules, always".

It's hard to resolve this without a detailed list, which is why I thought we could cut this short by saying you probably share some values with both guys. Maybe I shouldn't have skipped to saying "many". I just mean more than "none".

Okay, fine. A few basics (don't hold me to this, I had a few beers earlier, this is off the cuff):

1. Small government (meaning very small government spending.)
2. Fiscal responsibility (starting with a balanced budget.)
3. Personal liberties (freedom of speech, gun rights as examples)
4. Low taxes (easy to do if the first three values are met)
5. Pro-life (yes, I realize this makes me a bad Libertarian)
6. Border Security
7. Military defense
8. Free trade
9. Gay marriage = Hetero marriage in the eyes of the law (NOT GAY)

Okay, that's all I have for now.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 12:40 AM
1. Small government (meaning very small government spending.)
2. Fiscal responsibility (starting with a balanced budget.)
3. Personal liberties (freedom of speech, gun rights as examples)
4. Low taxes (easy to do if the first three values are met)
5. Pro-life (yes, I realize this makes me a bad Libertarian)
6. Border Security
7. Military defense
8. Free trade
9. Gay marriage = Hetero marriage in the eyes of the law (NOT GAY)

Okay, that's all I have for now.

McCain clearly agrees with you on 4, 5, 7, 8... Obama clearly agrees on 2, 7, 9.

Guru
10-13-2008, 10:35 AM
And here's what this poll is based on:

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:

1,035 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
280 Republicans (plus or minus 7)
402 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
325 Independents (plus or minus 7)
839 White (plus or minus 4)
175 Non-White (plus or minus 9)
491 Men (plus or minus 5)
544 Women (plus or minus 5)
126 18-34 (plus or minus 10)
159 35-44 (plus or minus 9)
434 45-64 (plus or minus 6)
283 65+ (plus or minus 7)
247 White Evangelicals (plus or minus 8)
191 White Catholics (plus or minus 8)
401 Other whites (plus or minus 6)
230 Hillary Clinton supporters (plus or minus 8)

Well that is just slightly skewed.

RJ
10-13-2008, 10:49 AM
Well that is just slightly skewed.


How do you mean that?

jAZ
10-13-2008, 11:00 AM
Well that is just slightly skewed.

Since jjj didn't see or respond to my comment on this, maybe you can assist.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pollsters don't report results based on the raw data, but based on re-weighting.

Garcia Bronco
10-13-2008, 11:39 AM
The Constitution is the law of the land, obey it. The end.

Neither candidate really believes in what the founding fathers of this country believed in. Small government, personal responsibility, individual liberties. Instead, both offer different government-sponsored "solutions" to every problem you can dream up. Want to know what my favorite "healthcare plan" is? How about no plan? How about the government stay out of it and not make it worse? That's generally my approach to most supposed "problems facing our country" that the media beats us over the head with.

Amen

Guru
10-13-2008, 11:44 AM
And here's what this poll is based on:

SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR REGISTERED VOTERS SUBGROUPS:

1,035 Registered voters (plus or minus 4)
280 Republicans (plus or minus 7)
402 Democrats (plus or minus 6)
325 Independents (plus or minus 7)
839 White (plus or minus 4)
175 Non-White (plus or minus 9)
491 Men (plus or minus 5)
544 Women (plus or minus 5)
126 18-34 (plus or minus 10)
159 35-44 (plus or minus 9)
434 45-64 (plus or minus 6)
283 65+ (plus or minus 7)
247 White Evangelicals (plus or minus 8)
191 White Catholics (plus or minus 8)
401 Other whites (plus or minus 6)
230 Hillary Clinton supporters (plus or minus 8)

How do you mean that?

Since jjj didn't see or respond to my comment on this, maybe you can assist.

I don't know where the numbers came from so I can't defend how factual they are but if they are actual numbers I would say the bolded part would have to raise a question on its validity.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 12:44 PM
I don't know where the numbers came from so I can't defend how factual they are but if they are actual numbers I would say the bolded part would have to raise a question on its validity.

Do you understand the question I was asking? That's not a response to my point, that's why I ask.

Guru
10-13-2008, 12:50 PM
Do you understand the question I was asking? That's not a response to my point, that's why I ask.Show me where I said I was a polling expert.

RJ
10-13-2008, 01:07 PM
I don't know where the numbers came from so I can't defend how factual they are but if they are actual numbers I would say the bolded part would have to raise a question on its validity.


That's about 39% D versus 27% R. From what I can find googling, that's about right for D's while maybe a little low for R's by a few % and a little high for I's.


http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/politics/003449.php

StcChief
10-13-2008, 01:14 PM
In this day and age of our country, error on the side of conserativism, which takes out Obama.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 01:17 PM
Show me where I said I was a polling expert.

I'm not saying you are, but you seemed to be trying to answer my question. Not sure why.

Here's my point. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this poll, but in general, this is how polling works.

The pollster calls several thousand phone numbers at random. They don't know who they are calling, or what their political leanings are. Because its random, in theory they could get 100% Dems or 100% Repubilcans. Usually, they get some mix that isn't representative of the actual overall population they are trying to survey.

So when you look at the raw numbers of the people they actually got ahold of, they are way off. They then reweight the outcome to match some model of the electorate that they predict is the real makeup of the electorate.

Unless you are looking at the reweighted numbers, the raw numbers aren't very useful in talking about the ultimate results of the poll. If you wanted to apply the raw numbers to your own model of turnout and electorate makeup, you could do that. But just looking at the raw numbers doesn't do much.

Guru
10-13-2008, 01:32 PM
I'm not saying you are, but you seemed to be trying to answer my question. Not sure why.

Here's my point. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this poll, but in general, this is how polling works.

The pollster calls several thousand phone numbers at random. They don't know who they are calling, or what their political leanings are. Because its random, in theory they could get 100% Dems or 100% Repubilcans. Usually, they get some mix that isn't representative of the actual overall population they are trying to survey.

So when you look at the raw numbers of the people they actually got ahold of, they are way off. They then reweight the outcome to match some model of the electorate that they predict is the real makeup of the electorate.

Unless you are looking at the reweighted numbers, the raw numbers aren't very useful in talking about the ultimate results of the poll. If you wanted to apply the raw numbers to your own model of turnout and electorate makeup, you could do that. But just looking at the raw numbers doesn't do much.

I wasn't answering your question. I was giving my honest opinion on the numbers reported.

Based on your assessment though, it sounds to me that you can just poll anyone you want and then extrapolate the info you want to get the result you need.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 01:54 PM
...you can just poll anyone you want ...
Given this statement I have to assume you just have no idea what you are talking about, don't really care about the reality of it, and just want to dismiss polling beyond even justified skepticism, just because you don't like the results.

Because that's one hell of a stupid statement.

You *can* do that, but that's not what I said and it's not what major polling companies do. They do *random* polling.

Pollsters can manipulate results, but it has nothing to do with "poll anyone you want". It has to do with "assume any turnout you want".

jAZ
10-13-2008, 01:59 PM
Said another way, polling is part science and part art.

The science part of polling, is the "random" selection of those you are going to poll.

The art part is the modeling of the raw data you collect to match your assumptions of what election day turnout will ultimately look like. That requires a predication that we can't know with certainty. That's the part that can be manipulated, biased, or handled well.

Guru
10-13-2008, 02:06 PM
Given this statement I have to assume you just have no idea what you are talking about, don't really care about the reality of it, and just want to dismiss polling beyond even justified skepticism, just because you don't like the results.

Because that's one hell of a stupid statement.

You *can* do that, but that's not what I said and it's not what major polling companies do. They do *random* polling.

Pollsters can manipulate results, but it has nothing to do with "poll anyone you want". It has to do with "assume any turnout you want".

You have too much trust. You love to throw the word stupid around a lot. Must be a lonely world for you since everyone that doesn't agree with you is just plain stupid. Why would anyone ever consider what you say when you go out of your way to insult them every single time.

I won't bother responding to you anymore as it is a complete waste of time.

jAZ
10-13-2008, 02:10 PM
I won't bother responding to you anymore as it is a complete waste of time.
Thanks, that would have been helpful, at least in this thread.