[Peace-discuss] Fw: Fwd: CNN HCR poll

[Laurie Solomon]

> That is bull Carl.  Something can be seen as too liberal but still find it 
> acceptable considering other alternatives to favor it despite its being 
> too liberal for ones tastes and druthers.  We are again engaged in a 
> semantics game.  In point of fact, it is pure speculation what the 
> findings of that poll really mean, what their significance is, or the 
> sampling and polling methodology used was so as to determine what might or 
> might not be artifacts of the methods.  Can you or anyone else document 
> and definespecifically what the respondents considered "liberal" to mean 
> when answering questions that probably asked them to classify themselves 
> in categories that the pollster labeled using the term liberal in the 
> label in accordance with the pollsters definition and use of the term, 
> which is left unspecified?
>
> The same can be said about polls and claims made as to the publics 
> position on the wars and on foreign policy.  Nowhere does anyone give or 
> cite any specifics or evidence as to exactly what the respondents mean by 
> "against the war" or "in support of the war" when they answer polls and 
> interviews. Being in support or against something is not an all or nothing 
> proposition; there are levels and degrees of support and opposition as 
> well as varying conditions under which differing strength of feelings and 
> degrees fo support or non-support apply.  It may be a black and white 
> issue for you; but it probably is not for many of the unwashed populace. 
> Again the same holds for the issues of racism, ethinc biases, religious 
> intolerance, and sexist prejudices.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:44 PM
> To: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: CNN HCR poll
>
>> Come on, John.  Favor + too liberal is a contradiction (if it's "too 
>> liberal," you don't favor it); favor + not liberal enough is not.
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:09 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Glad you saw it.  At least this much & more was wanted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, by 52% of the sample.  But 82% wanted this much or LESS, according 
>>> to
>>> the poll you cited.  I'm still waiting for your point.  Not that I place 
>>> a
>>> great deal of trust in polls, or indeed in "democracy" as we see it in
>>> practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John W. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:29 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu
>>> <mailto:galliher at illinois.edu>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CNN has a new poll on health care reform, taken over the weekend:
>>>
>>> <http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf>
>>>
>>> Results:
>>>
>>> 39%   Favor 43%   Oppose, too liberal 13%   Oppose, not liberal enough 
>>> 5% No
>>> opinion
>>>
>>> So, in favor + not liberal enough = 52%.
>>>
>>> [From Doug Henwood at Left Business Observer.  --CGE]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Favor + too liberal = 82%.  But I'm sure you have a 
>>> point somewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.