Poll: Majority of Republicans believe Obama is a 'socialist'

[pfife]

I think the key is...

did every republican have an equal chance of getting selected for inclusion in the study?

It appears the answer is yes.

[shabba4detroit]

Originally Posted by pfife

I think the key is...

did every republican have an equal chance of getting selected for inclusion in the study?

It appears the answer is yes.

I don't think it can be random if exclusion occurs after approach. The overall set of people was random, but if from that set they took the first X amount of people who defined themselves a particular way, or all of the people who defined themselves a particular way, however large that number, then the subset isn't random.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

I don't think it can be random if exclusion occurs after approach. The overall set of people was random, but if from that set they took the first X amount of people who defined themselves a particular way, or all of the people who defined themselves a particular way, however large that number, then the subset isn't random.

The only way this would be true is if the inital sample wasn't random in the first place. You can divide any random sample you want up in any way, and within your division, the sample will still be random. The power of your experiment goes down as your sample size decreases, and your MOE increases, but it seems that they took a fairly large sample to begin with, so this shouldn't be a problem.

The other caveat is that if their method of determining who was and who wasn't a Republican was flawed, than you have a flawed poll, but it's not because your sample wasn't random -- it's because one of your measures (in this case, your measure of political affiliation) was flawed.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

I don't think it can be random if exclusion occurs after approach. The overall set of people was random, but if from that set they took the first X amount of people who defined themselves a particular way, or all of the people who defined themselves a particular way, however large that number, then the subset isn't random.

No, that's not true. There's a study that I am way too intimately familiar with that randomly selects households, and then screens the household members before doing the actual survey (people are supposed to be in a particular age range for inclusion), and it is random.

Further - how can exclusion occur before approach? How do you know whether they should be excluded before you know if they meet the exclusion criteria by applying it to them? The logical upshot from your argument, as I see it, is that it would be impossible to make any random subsample because all subsamples require exclusion after approach.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

The other caveat is that if their method of determining who was and who wasn't a Republican was flawed, than you have a flawed poll, but it's not because your sample wasn't random -- it's because one of your measures (in this case, your measure of political affiliation) was flawed.

But in this study it was self-reported affiliation so that's not an issue.

[hueytaxi]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

The poll was conducted by Research 2000, a non-partisan polling outfit that Kos commissions to do their polls. The poll is pretty partisan in nature, but it does portend one important thing: these people will simply not be willing to compromise with Obama no matter what he offers. There's no use in reaching out to Republican politicians, because any Republican that works with Obama is doomed with his/her own base if they do. These people have been lured too far into a fantasy world by right-wing propaganda, AM Radio and Fox News, and their hate for Obama transcends everything, including and especially reality.

And yes, these kinds of people do exist. I've met many of them in real life walking neighborhoods during the 2008 campaign.

Rather wandering thought process here. First it is the politicians that will not compromise with Obama and then you find them walking the neighborhoods blinded by talk radio, etc. Which is it....the politicians or the conservative populace that was polled? I imagine most conservatives view Obama as leaning toward socialism. I certainly do.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

I imagine most conservatives view Obama as leaning toward socialism. I certainly do.

This is the thing I'm not understanding - many of the results to the questions seem to be similar to notions I've heard from posters here. Not all, some.

[hueytaxi]

Originally Posted by pfife

This is the thing I'm not understanding - many of the results to the questions seem to be similar to notions I've heard from posters here. Not all, some.

We've read the official spin and the lib chant on here, but some conservatives view a government takeover of banking, GM and healthcare along with redistribution of wealth a madcap rush to socialism.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

Rather wandering thought process here. First it is the politicians that will not compromise with Obama and then you find them walking the neighborhoods blinded by talk radio, etc. Which is it....the politicians or the conservative populace that was polled? I imagine most conservatives view Obama as leaning toward socialism. I certainly do.

The Republican politicians are afraid of their own base, because even if Obama has good ideas to fix things, if Republican politicians cooperate with him, their base will vote them out during the Republican primaries. The Republican base wants Republican politicians to oppose Obama no matter what he does. Obama's healthcare bill is similar to what Republicans proposed to Clinton just 17 years ago, and now a bill that Republicans used to support is called "socialist" by Republicans simply because it's Obama's bill. But nothing has changed. ObamaCare is basically a Republican bill.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by pfife

But in this study it was self-reported affiliation so that's not an issue.

Exactly. So this poll is probably pretty accurate. The only thing I can think of is that some people with a better grasp of reality might have strongly identified as Republicans but hung up after hearing many of those questions, thus leaving those who have a looser grip on reality but strongly identified as Republicans to stay on the line to finish the survey and over-represent the views of those who strongly identify as Republican. I could see how some people might get annoyed with being asked those questions. You could probably see this, though, with elevated attrition rates from those answering the first question or two with a more moderate response.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

We've read the official spin and the lib chant on here, but some conservatives view a government takeover of banking, GM and healthcare along with redistribution of wealth a madcap rush to socialism.

The massive, massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to banks is a socialist idea? really?

I always thought socialism was stealing from the rich to give to the poor, not stealing from the poor to give to the rich.



The idea that the taxpayers should have some say over what happens with their 700b is a socialist idea? really?

Sounds more like democracy to me huey.

is it 1984?

neither event was a takeover. Both GM and the banks chose their plight. Personal responsibility.


Why don't you consider the stealing of taxpayer money to rebuild the infastructure of Iraq to be socialism?

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by pfife

The massive, massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to banks is a socialist idea? really?

Government control over the banks is the socialist idea.

[pfife]

I'd also like to know what is socialist about the most recent Senate health care bill. When I asked that before, I was given 2 articles about a dead bill in the house.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Government control over the banks is the socialist idea.

no it isn't, its a totalitarian idea that didn't happen in this nation - that's hyperbole. Everyone knows the banks own the government. Even Dick Durbin knows that. "Takeover" is an interesting word for "give 700b with few strings attached" but hey, whatever you need to say to make your point I guess.


The idea that the government have some say in what the banks do with taxpayer money is democracy.

The fact that the banks have taxpayer money in the first place is anything but socialism - that is, unless you redefine socialism to its exact opposite true meaning.

[pfife]

Oh, and again, Chrysler and GM chose their path. That's not a takeover - that's asking for money and accepting the strings attached in order to get the money. There's a reason the government isn't all up in Ford's business like they are Chry and GM.

[hueytaxi]

Originally Posted by pfife

The massive, massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to banks is a socialist idea? really?

I always thought socialism was stealing from the rich to give to the poor, not stealing from the poor to give to the rich.



The idea that the taxpayers should have some say over what happens with their 700b is a socialist idea? really?

Sounds more like democracy to me huey.

is it 1984?

neither event was a takeover. Both GM and the banks chose their plight. Personal responsibility.


Why don't you consider the stealing of taxpayer money to rebuild the infastructure of Iraq to be socialism?

We view these events quite differently..
I'd go on, but it would degenerate into another boring debate with no conclusion. We see it from opposite sides.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

We view these events quite differently..
I'd go on, but it would degenerate into another boring debate with no conclusion. We see it from opposite sides.

ok. Disappointing, but obviously your choice.

[DetroitFolly]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Government control over the banks is the socialist idea.

Yep, they sure stopped those banks from paying out those bonuses...and they sure forced them into modifying all those mortgages, uh...errr....

[pfife]

Originally Posted by DetroitFolly

Yep, they sure stopped those banks from paying out those bonuses...and they sure forced them into modifying all those mortgages, uh...errr....

"takeover" is a weird way to characterize "BOHICA". 1984.

[ewsieg]

Originally Posted by pfife

Oh, and again, Chrysler and GM chose their path. That's not a takeover - that's asking for money and accepting the strings attached in order to get the money. There's a reason the government isn't all up in Ford's business like they are Chry and GM.

You can't blame GM and Chrysler for looking to the gov't for a loan after the government chose to get into the business of loaning money. Unlike what they did with that banks though, they forced a private company to get rid of their CEO and appointed their own. To not realize that GM and Chrysler were the original problem is absurd, but to not see the implications of the gov't dictating a private company seems a little absurd as well.

[eastside billee]

Thank God this is only about Republicans and not about Conservatives.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by pfife

Oh, and again, Chrysler and GM chose their path. That's not a takeover - that's asking for money and accepting the strings attached in order to get the money. There's a reason the government isn't all up in Ford's business like they are Chry and GM.

The government also chose their path by giving taxpayer money to private organizations. I understand why, but I can understand why someone would label it borderline socialism when the government buys a publically traded company with taxpayer money, and then tells them what they must do. For the sake of Michigan, I am glad they did it though! On the other hand, I can understand the fear and criticism of the government doing it.

Originally Posted by pfife

I'd also like to know what is socialist about the most recent Senate health care bill. When I asked that before, I was given 2 articles about a dead bill in the house.

These are just the things I heard that people have labeled the bill at least a step closer to socialized health care: (correct them if they misconceptions or have been eliminated....I'm confused on which bill is what now!! )

1) The government would require nearly every American to carry insurance

2) It would ban the insurance industry from denying benefits or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.


Here is an article I read recently that questions whether it really helps small businesses:

6 problems with Senate Health Care Bill - Oregon Business News

[CMRivdog]

What I don't get is why 'conservitives' get so upset about the GM "takeover", but never mention that the government did the same thing to AIG under the previous administration. The head of AIG was also "fired" under the agreement.

GM is paying us back (and should be completed by the end of the year). We never hear a peep about AIG, except for their bonuses.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

What I don't get is why 'conservitives' get so upset about the GM "takeover", but never mention that the government did the same thing to AIG under the previous administration. The head of AIG was also "fired" under the agreement.

GM is paying us back (and should be completed by the end of the year). We never hear a peep about AIG, except for their bonuses.

aig took our money (taxpayer dollars) and paid off their debts to companies like goldman sachs at 100%. how many taxpayers got 100% of their retirement investment back when enron went bankrupt? what about madoff's clients? is the government paying them?

cornel west on obama:

We've got to make sure he is protected, we have to make sure he is respected, but he also - we have to make sure he is corrected when he's not leaning toward the weak and supporting the poor and supporting working people, as opposed to being tied in to Wall Street investment bankers and the corporate oligarchs and plutocrats at the top who have been embezzling and sometimes just outright looting when it comes to just making money based on predatory lending, obsessed with profits that are so excessive in a nation in which 20 percent of his children live in poverty in the richest nations in the history of the world. What kind of society are we? What kind of people are we given that kind of wealth inequality and greed running amok?

Cornel West, 'Living And Loving Out Loud' : NPR

[pfife]

Originally Posted by ewsieg

You can't blame GM and Chrysler for looking to the gov't for a loan after the government chose to get into the business of loaning money.

Yes I can. It was their business model that sucked, thereby necessitating the loans in the first place.

Not only that, there were many folks from your side of the aisle that suggested that it would be better for GM & Chry to not accept any help from the govt. Now they can't be blamed for doing such?

Unlike what they did with that banks though, they forced a private company to get rid of their CEO and appointed their own.

No they didn't - they told GM that they had to do this in order to get the money. And their own just happened to be the next guy in line? Pretty coincidental...

Again, there's a reason the govt didn't push any other private company to bounce their CEO... care to guess what that reason is?

They didn't take govt money.

To not realize that GM and Chrysler were the original problem is absurd, but to not see the implications of the gov't dictating a private company seems a little absurd as well.

I'm not failing to see the implications - I just strongly disagree w/ the notion that any of this was forced upon GM. They asked for it, and they accepted the deal. And they had to ask for it because of their own decisions.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

The government also chose their path by giving taxpayer money to private organizations. I understand why, but I can understand why someone would label it borderline socialism when the government buys a publically traded company with taxpayer money, and then tells them what they must do. For the sake of Michigan, I am glad they did it though! On the other hand, I can understand the fear and criticism of the government doing it.

So do you think it was socialism when Bush gave them loans before Obama did?

These are just the things I heard that people have labeled the bill at least a step closer to socialized health care: (correct them if they misconceptions or have been eliminated....I'm confused on which bill is what now!! )

1) The government would require nearly every American to carry insurance

Again, it must be 1984. Forcing people to buy a PRIVATE PRODUCT is socialism? That's not socialism - its corporatism with a nice tint of totalitarianism. Its not, by any stretch of the imagination, taking from the rich to give to the poor. If anything, its taking from the poor to give to the rich.

Socialism has an actual definition. Forcing people to buy a private product is pretty much the exact opposite of that definition. In fact, in true socialism there isn't private property, which would mean that its impossible under socialism to force people to buy private property.

2) It would ban the insurance industry from denying benefits or charging higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Again, how is that socialism? Is it dictating to a private business what it can do? Of course - but dictating to a private business what it can do isn't socialism - its totalitarianism.

[TheCouga]

LOL @ this thread. We have people denying that this poll is accurate, yet we have virtually every conservative on here verifying through example that at least one of the poll questions probably was.

The government bailing out GM and the banks, etc. is in no way socialism. It was just common sense. Anyone who can't see this needs to take off their ideological blinders.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by pfife

So do you think it was socialism when Bush gave them loans before Obama did?

I'm not calling it socialism, just simply stating the reasoning for why others call it socialism. I really wouldn't know what socialism really is.

Again, it must be 1984. Forcing people to buy a PRIVATE PRODUCT is socialism? That's not socialism - its corporatism with a nice tint of totalitarianism. Its not, by any stretch of the imagination, taking from the rich to give to the poor. If anything, its taking from the poor to give to the rich.

ok

Socialism has an actual definition. Forcing people to buy a private product is pretty much the exact opposite of that definition. In fact, in true socialism there isn't private property, which would mean that its impossible under socialism to force people to buy private property.

Thanks for the lesson.

Again, how is that socialism? Is it dictating to a private business what it can do? Of course - but dictating to a private business what it can do isn't socialism - its totalitarianism.

Don't know, never claimed it was.

[pfife]

sorry belcher, I misinterpreted the intent of your post. please accept my apologies.

[Biff Mayhem]

Originally Posted by pfife

So do you think it was socialism when Bush gave them loans before Obama did?

GWB was a CINO.

[screwball]

Some of the banks went running to the Government begging for money, some of which weren't even banks but large hedge funds (Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros) and in other instances potential buyers of the bad institutions would not do so without government guarantee. See Barclays and Lehman, but Barclays backed out.

They are all connected through derivative contracts (like insurance) and exotic swaps. The government and the banks told us if one went down, they could all go down, and the entire economy would crash. All the dealing was primarily done by Treasury (Paulson) and the New York Federal Reserve, the main branch of the Fed (Tim Geithner).

If it would have worked out that way will be argued for years, and books are already being written about it. I don't know if we will ever know the real truth. What we do know, but not told very well by our pathetic media is the real amount of money channeled to these institutions.

This report is quite interesting, and the numbers much larger than the media has told us. It's a link to a Docstoc document complete with graphs and pie charts. Quite interesting.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by Biff Mayhem

GWB was a CINO.

Communist in name only?

LOL

[pfife]

Originally Posted by screwball

Some of the banks went running to the Government begging for money, some of which weren't even banks but large hedge funds (Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros) and in other instances potential buyers of the bad institutions would not do so without government guarantee. See Barclays and Lehman, but Barclays backed out.

They are all connected through derivative contracts (like insurance) and exotic swaps. The government and the banks told us if one went down, they could all go down, and the entire economy would crash. All the dealing was primarily done by Treasury (Paulson) and the New York Federal Reserve, the main branch of the Fed (Tim Geithner).

If it would have worked out that way will be argued for years, and books are already being written about it. I don't know if we will ever know the real truth. What we do know, but not told very well by our pathetic media is the real amount of money channeled to these institutions.

This report is quite interesting, and the numbers much larger than the media has told us. It's a link to a Docstoc document complete with graphs and pie charts. Quite interesting.

qft

it's incredible that most people think only 700b went to the banks.

That ignores the much larger amount the Fed gave them too.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by pfife

sorry belcher, I misinterpreted the intent of your post. please accept my apologies.

No apology necessary! Just trying to add a little to the conversation by what I've heard. Sorry I can't add more to the discussion.