The Bush foreign policy, in retrospect

[barfo]

Why is that? Again, you proved my point.

To prove it even further, the Dems ran nothing but real far left leaning guys that whole time and they got clobbered in the elections.

What was your point again?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

What was your point again?

barfo

1. Ran nobody with charisma
2. Country is quite conservative, rejects liberals unless it's "throw the bums out" mentality.

 

[barfo]

1. Ran nobody with charisma
2. Country is quite conservative, rejects liberals unless it's "throw the bums out" mentality.

1. Clinton and Obama yes, Gore and Kerry no. 2 out of the last 4, leading to 3 wins, 2 losses.

2. Could easily make the opposite claim. Control swings back and forth between the two parties. There's a lot of bums to be thrown out.

But I don't dispute that the country is quite conservative. It is, in an absolute sense. And has been for many many years.

barfo

 

[Ed O]

But I don't dispute that the country is quite conservative. It is, in an absolute sense. And has been for many many years.

I don't think it's conservative in an absolute sense.

Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? Mexico? Much more conservative in many many ways.

Compared to many Western European countries, of course, we're conservative, but compared to most of the world I would bet we're liberal/progressive.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

I don't think it's conservative in an absolute sense.

Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? Mexico? Much more conservative in many many ways.

Compared to many Western European countries, of course, we're conservative, but compared to most of the world I would bet we're liberal/progressive.

Ed O.

Yeah, it depends on what set you consider.

My point from last night was this is all a rather pointless exercise - whether we are conservative relative to China or France or any absolute scale matters not much when arguing over who will win the next election here.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

People answering the poll questions have a sense of conservative and liberal from living here, not China or France.

They didn't answer, thinking to themselves, "well, I'm a whole lot to the right of some chinese communist, so I'm conservative."

 

[barfo]

People answering the poll questions have a sense of conservative and liberal from living here, not China or France.

They didn't answer, thinking to themselves, "well, I'm a whole lot to the right of some chinese communist, so I'm conservative."

So, your claim is that the average person in the US is more conservative than, uh, the average person in the US? This is very Lake Wobegon.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So, your claim is that the average person in the US is more conservative than, uh, the average person in the US? This is very Lake Wobegon.

barfo

My claim is their political philosophy is a LOT closer to the right end of OUR spectrum than to the left.

I'd also argue that our right is nowhere near as close to Adolph and Benito as our left is to Mao or Stalin.

 

[barfo]

My claim is their political philosophy is a LOT closer to the right end of OUR spectrum than to the left.

I'd also argue that our right is nowhere near as close to Adolph and Benito as our left is to Mao or Stalin.

So you are saying that American extreme left-wingers are further from the average citizen than American extreme right-wingers? Even if that were true, which it probably isn't, it doesn't seem very important, unless of course you happen to belong to one of those fringe elements yourself.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So you are saying that American extreme left-wingers are further from the average citizen than American extreme right-wingers? Even if that were true, which it probably isn't, it doesn't seem very important, unless of course you happen to belong to one of those fringe elements yourself.

barfo

It is true, you got it right.

Since we're talking about polling and how it relates to govt. policies and elections, it matters a lot.

Obama is a pretty smart fellow and knows how to campaign (but not govern, unfortunately). He's clearly rejected the loony left of his base (that was his ATM tho). He sent more troops to afghanistan, is keeping the effort in Iraq going, refuses to get behind fishing expeditions to find dirt on the bush administration, has the gay population furious with him, is destroying the unions (the ones that own GM, you know), and is doing away with social security like no republican before him could.

I'd say he's reading the same polls I am.

 

[barfo]

It is true, you got it right.

Since we're talking about polling and how it relates to govt. policies and elections, it matters a lot.

Obama is a pretty smart fellow and knows how to campaign (but not govern, unfortunately). He's clearly rejected the loony left of his base (that was his ATM tho). He sent more troops to afghanistan, is keeping the effort in Iraq going, refuses to get behind fishing expeditions to find dirt on the bush administration, has the gay population furious with him, is destroying the unions (the ones that own GM, you know), and is doing away with social security like no republican before him could.

I'd say he's reading the same polls I am.

Of course he's reading the polls, and of course he's rebuffing the more extreme elements of his party. As any politician who wants to get reelected would. That all means absolutely nothing.

Unless you believe there is a significant fraction of the population out at the edge. What do you think the distribution looks like? I suggest it is a bell curve. Do you disagree?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course he's reading the polls, and of course he's rebuffing the more extreme elements of his party. As any politician who wants to get reelected would. That all means absolutely nothing.

Unless you believe there is a significant fraction of the population out at the edge. What do you think the distribution looks like? I suggest it is a bell curve. Do you disagree?

barfo

It's nothing like a bell curve. If anything it's skewed far to the right with few extreme right wingers and lots of extreme left wingers.

Something like this:

 

[barfo]

It's nothing like a bell curve. If anything it's skewed far to the right with few extreme right wingers and lots of extreme left wingers.

Something like this:

Got any evidence to back that up?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

40% of people say they're conservative. That would skew it to the right like that.

if it were 50% conservative and 50% liberal (in varying degrees), it'd be a bell curve.

 

[mook]

40% of people say they're conservative. That would skew it to the right like that..

I really wonder what "40% say their conservative" means to the people asked this question. Obviously, if you think a lot about politics, "conservative" has got a reasonably clear definition.

But a lot of people who are asked this question may be thinking, "I'm conservative in that I don't want too much change at once." But that might be in reference to their own personal lifestyle--they like living in the same town they grew up in, they don't like changing jobs, etc. It might have nothing to do with their opinions about abortion or medicare or the war in Iraq.

My brother, who is a great guy but not always the brightest bulb, might consider himself "conservative" because he thinks conservation is pretty cool.

I don't think "liberal" has such a broad range of positive implications. A "liberal" is some hippie in the 60's who doesn't shower. A liberal use of grease on a cake isn't really a positive.

"Liberal" is often used as one step away from "excessive." Add in that there's been a pretty successful campaign to demonize the term ever since Reagan, and it's not hard to see why fewer people self-identify as liberal.

Because such labels are so tainted by unintended connotations, it seems that they aren't terribly useful in describing a population. It's a lot more direct and instructive to just ask people what they think about a topic, as opposed to how they paint themselves with a broad label.

 

[mook]

Here's an interesting article on the topic by conservative reformer David Frum:
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/97743/The_urgent_case_to_reform_conservatism

A big conservative bloc does not automatically translate into a big Republican vote. Republicans managed to lose elections in 1992 and 1996, and lose the popular vote in 2000, even though conservative voter identification in those years reached 43 percent, 40 percent, and 40 percent, respectively.

Obviously, 40 percent of the vote is not a winning margin in a two-party system. Even if we assume that every single one of those self-described conservatives votes Republican, the GOP still needs to pick up another 10 points or so from moderate voters. Ironically, it is the very strength of conservatism that makes it more difficult for Republicans to appeal to moderates. The Democrats know that their core group, liberals, is relatively small. Better still, the liberals know it, too. Sensing their own weakness, liberals allow their party to make compromises: to position itself closer to the center, to say things that appeal to moderate and conservative ears.

The large conservative bloc within the GOP feels no such need for compromise. It feels free to chase moderates away. Who needs them? The result is to divide the American political system between a cohesive and highly ideological Republican Party and a less ideological but larger Democratic coalition extending from the left through the middle.

Voters under 30 look very different from voters over 30. Gallup divided the sample into four categories by age: 18–29, 30–49, 50–64 and over 65. Conservatives were the largest block in each of the latter three groups: 48 percent among the over 65s; 42 percent among the 50–64s; 41 percent among the 30–49s. Under 30, however, moderates were the largest group, with liberals and conservatives practically tied: 31 percent for liberals, 30 percent for conservatives.

Maybe these young people will grow more conservative with age. But they differ from their elders in a number of ways that will not change: They are less white, less religious, and more highly educated—all risk factors for voting Democrat. If conservatism draws its strength from those segments of the electorate that are fated to fade in the years ahead, conservatism will fade with them.

 

[Denny Crane]

mook,

You're echoing what I've been saying in this thread.

Especially this bit:

The Democrats know that their core group, liberals, is relatively small. Better still, the liberals know it, too. Sensing their own weakness, liberals allow their party to make compromises: to position itself closer to the center, to say things that appeal to moderate and conservative ears.

And this is what I wrote in post #63:

What the numbers show is that the more left wing Obama's programs are, the less the populace likes it. The polls show that, too.

 

[barfo]

40% of people say they're conservative. That would skew it to the right like that.

if it were 50% conservative and 50% liberal (in varying degrees), it'd be a bell curve.

I don't think your survey means anything, but if you are going to worship it, then you have to pay attention to it. According to the survey, there are more "very conservative" than "very liberal" . You are claiming the opposite.

Reality is, it's a bell curve. Put the center wherever you like.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't think your survey means anything, but if you are going to worship it, then you have to pay attention to it. According to the survey, there are more "very conservative" than "very liberal" . You are claiming the opposite.

Reality is, it's a bell curve. Put the center wherever you like.

barfo

It's mathematically impossible it's a bell curve given the polling data and the data verified by mook's posts.

The far right wing nutcases would be the militias and neo-nazi types, right? Well there just aren't that many of those.

The far left wing nutcases would be dailykos and Bernie Sanders types.

I was quite happy with that graph I found fitting. Additionally, it is a good visual about what portion of the electorate either side has to get to win.

 

[barfo]

It's mathematically impossible it's a bell curve given the polling data and the data verified by mook's posts.

The far right wing nutcases would be the militias and neo-nazi types, right? Well there just aren't that many of those.

The far left wing nutcases would be dailykos and Bernie Sanders types.

The poll that you like so much disagrees. Take another look, there are almost twice as many very conservatives as very liberals.

Reality is, it is a bell curve. Everything like this is.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The poll that you like so much disagrees. Take another look, there are almost twice as many very conservatives as very liberals.

Reality is, it is a bell curve. Everything like this is.

barfo

Even if your premise were true (it isn't), 2x more very conservatives and 40% conservatives as a whole would skew your bell curve almost exactly like the graph I presented.

A bell curve requires a normal distribution, and the data isn't a normal distribution.

Now, if the data in question were party affiliation, it'd be skewed toward the Democrats, but that is a different matter.

If the data were votes in the last election, the curve would be skewed Obama's way.

Get it?

 

[barfo]

Even if your premise were true (it isn't), 2x more very conservatives and 40% conservatives as a whole would skew your bell curve almost exactly like the graph I presented.

A bell curve requires a normal distribution, and the data isn't a normal distribution.

Now, if the data in question were party affiliation, it'd be skewed toward the Democrats, but that is a different matter.

If the data were votes in the last election, the curve would be skewed Obama's way.

Get it?

Right, if we are talking about the results of that survey, and not anything that actually matters, then the distribution is skewed towards conservatives.

If we are talking about reality, the distribution will be a bell curve.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Right, if we are talking about the results of that survey, and not anything that actually matters, then the distribution is skewed towards conservatives.

If we are talking about reality, the distribution will be a bell curve.

barfo

There's zero data that suggests a bell curve.

 

[barfo]

There's zero data that suggests a bell curve.

No, stuff like this is almost always a bell curve.

You'd need to make a case that this is something special to justify some other distribution.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

No, stuff like this is almost always a bell curve.

You'd need to make a case that this is something special to justify some other distribution.

barfo

The case is 40% say they're conservative, 20% say they're liberal. Skewed by quite a bit to the conservative side of things.

And stuff like this is almost never a bell curve.

 

[mook]

The far right wing nutcases would be the militias and neo-nazi types, right? Well there just aren't that many of those.

The far left wing nutcases would be dailykos and Bernie Sanders types.

I'd say the comparison is more like the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly types would be a better comparison to Dailykos and Bernie Sanders.

The real fringe on either side are the militias/neo-nazis on the right, and the PETA/Greanpeace types on the left. I'm pretty left of center. I'll sometimes read DailyKos, and years ago I read one of Sanders' books. But you'd never catch me at a PETA or Greenpeace rally. I bet most of the liberal posters here would agree with me.

BTW--I think it's pretty nutty to suggest it isn't a bell curve distribution, when you go beyond the silly labels of liberal/conservative and get down to actual issues.

Abortion, the Iraq war, Medicare, gay rights....you name the policy, and the extreme positions of Limbaugh or Sanders don't really represent the centrist positions of the majority of Americans. And the opinions of the general public certainly don't reflect the opinions of militia-types or PETA.

 

[mook]

One other thought--I think you could probably make two separate bell curves. It would bulge a little to the right for people over 30, and bulge a little to the left for people under 30. You'd also see different bulges by states.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'd say the comparison is more like the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly types would be a better comparison to Dailykos and Bernie Sanders.

The real fringe on either side are the militias/neo-nazis on the right, and the PETA/Greanpeace types on the left. I'm pretty left of center. I'll sometimes read DailyKos, and years ago I read one of Sanders' books. But you'd never catch me at a PETA or Greenpeace rally. I bet most of the liberal posters here would agree with me.

BTW--I think it's pretty nutty to suggest it isn't a bell curve distribution, when you go beyond the silly labels of liberal/conservative and get down to actual issues.

Abortion, the Iraq war, Medicare, gay rights....you name the policy, and the extreme positions of Limbaugh or Sanders don't really represent the centrist positions of the majority of Americans. And the opinions of the general public certainly don't reflect the opinions of militia-types or PETA.

Limbaugh/O'Reilly are where the peak of the distribution would be. Look at their audiences, which are huge. Not that I particularly like this fact.

 

[mook]

Limbaugh/O'Reilly are where the peak of the distribution would be. Look at their audiences, which are huge. Not that I particularly like this fact.

Look at the online audience size for liberal blogs like Dailykos, which are also huge. Look at the audience sizes for them liberal media elites at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Time, Newsweek, NPR, etc, which is freakin' enormous.

Pat Buchanan says Limbaugh gets 30 million listeners. I don't know if that's true or not. Others say 20 mil, others say less. Here's an article on why nobody really knows: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603435.html

Anyway, there are 300 million Americans. So 1 in 10 maybe listens to his show. Likely a lot less.

It's not hard to imagine that bunch of listeners filling up some part of the right side of the bell curve. But dominating the middle of it?

Maybe if their waistlines are as big as Limbaugh's, I suppose....

 

[Denny Crane]

Fox dwarfs CNN, Time, Newsweek, NPR, etc. The national networks have a benefit of being accessible over the airwaves, while Fox/CNN are not.

http://trends.google.com/websites?q=nytimes.com%2C+dailykos.com%2C+foxnews.com&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

or better yet:

http://trends.google.com/websites?q...oxnews.com,+msnbc.com&geo=all&date=all&sort=0