I don't know why people agreeing to these polling questions is surprising. The charactization of Democrats that is regularlly printed in the media and even the Dispatch is so far out that its unbelievable. Sure there are people for whom gender identity is important and they may even be Democrats, but that all Democrats think is important or even think about it at all is not realistic. Same with defunding the police. Some far left Pol in Minnesota or some other state made that comment and the media ran with it, and said it was a major Democratic position. No it isn't and never was. I'm not in the least surprised by this poll.
Unfortunately anybody who runs on Ruy's platform guarantees an election where there's 24% turnout. The people want bread and Circus. They must be entertained.
If Ruy can get five Republican members of Congress to say any two of the quoted poll questions out loud in front of a camera, I'll buy into his repeated scolds of Democrats. Until then, I'll be unconvinced that doing what he advises would influence any significant bloc of voters, and least of all anyone from the GOP rank and file, to move to the Dem column.
I’m a scientist and actually took a class that had a section on writing good questions. The questions in the Teixeira poll are *not* well written. 1) They were written to see whether or not his thesis that Democrats are more extreme than their Republican counterparts who believe in certain supposedly *common sense* comments is flawed because the “common sense - no rational person could disagree with this” statements were worded in a way that reads differently if you’re a Democrat. But unlike what Texeira believes based on his priors - it’s *not* because there are fewer Democrats who believe in “centrist/moderate views”.
This comment would be too long if I went through all the questions with problematic wordings but here’s a hypothetical:
Question: “Even though Black Lives Matter, since there is no inherent difference between races, would you say it’s fair to say that “All lives matter?”
Teixera would probably say the answer should be a no brainer, common sense *YES*” and if fewer Dems answer “yes” than “no”, he would consider that proof that Republicans are more “centrist/moderate” on common sense positions but you would need to be either ignorant or disingenuous to deny that such a question is badly worded and drops a lot of context.
Ruy is a con man. Don’t buy his stuff even if Charlie feels the need to lap it up to justify supporting him.
If conservative writers and journalists and Republican Politicians actually talked to Demicrats across the country, you would not be surprised that the vast majority of Democrats are very reasonable, thoughtful people. I am an Independent, but have many Democratic friends and acquaintances and I'm surprised by the things they say about Democrats, and what I hear and from Republican journalists, politicians and talking heads about Democrats.
Why are the three most popular governors Republicans in deep blue states? Because they would agree with every majority answer to the Centrist Survey!!!!
\My great wish is that there would be 2024 Presidential lane for Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan --- but, sadly, there isn't.
Bill Lueders certainly understands by now that Republican candidates considers any question they don’t want to answer as a “hostile” question. Remember Trump’s “nasty question” claims. Jyst like news they don’t like is “fake news”.
Been a Bulwark fan for a while but never read the comments. Not sure I'm coming back - my God the cognitive dissonance is screaming in here.
First off, the poll is accurate and informative because unless you assume there's a bunch of typos or someone is lying, real people were asked real questions and they answered them in the way that's described. You may not like the questions or the answers but to say "bullshit" or "useless" or "whatever poll" just means you don't agree with it and makes you no better than the right wing idiots you're complaining about.
Second, this poll is like a knife that cuts directly to what is wrong with our democracy at this point in time. All of these people agree with these statements but no legislator has the courage to write any actual laws that model what these vast majority of people agree with. Several of you say that it's impossible to do just that and in response I quote the most useful idiot Tommy Tuberville - bullshit.
Let's take immigration. The quote is “America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.” This isn't anodyne or pie in the sky - it's simple, basic stuff. But two years of all Democratic control under Obama and two years of all Republican control under Trump with both sides screaming about immigration and there wasn't a single decent effort at actually doing immigration reform. Why? Because any compromise in any legislation doesn't work in the primaries required to get elected. It's really that simple. I could sit down and write legislation today that both beefed up southern border security (it's pennies relative to our overall budget), set appropriate targets for immigration and provided a path to citizenship for those that are here. It's just not that hard.
*Rolls eyes* on the centrist bull crap. As Teixeira notes himself the statements are too broad to disagree with. That doesn't make them common sense it makes them worthless. How do you make policy from that drivel? I agree with all of those statements but I'm very much sure that I'll disagree with many on how to act on them. The only way to capitalize on them is to do nothing except speak supportive generalities. That way everyone can fill in their own specifics and no one can be disabused. Hard pass on taking that page out of the Republican playbook. I actually want some changes in order to make some of those statements a reality, not just winning for winning's sake.
Side note: America is pushing hard toward my tipping point on patriotism. If that statement is supposed to mean anything more than, "I was born here so I'm going to root for it regardless," then the country actually has to continue to be worthy of pride. If Jan 6th had been successful then it would have stopped. That threat continues to loom.
- first, as you state yourself, “746 LIKELY Dem primary voters”. Begs the question, how many weren’t. And please note that Ds we’re over 50% in every category while Rs in the 90% for most. Proves to me, the Rs triggered by the words used around it 👇, not the actual questions. Not surprising but quite the leap to accuse Ds of having a problem. You call 90 percentile responses centrist and 50-80% a problem? If Ds weren’t centrist, I’d think 1-30% is where you’d find them.
- second, the words used for the categories alone would net these 90 percentile trigger results
On such happy agreement between Rs and Ds: “why do so many Democrats have trouble saying these things?”
The answer to that is in the questions asked - they are all “on one hand this but on the other hand that”. The devil is always in the details. Saying something like “there are still many things to be decided” or “still questions that need answering” are anodyne because it is in the details where the two parties disagree.
The takeaway is that there is a lot of general agreement that could be the beginning of negotiating bi-lateral deals if partisanship didn’t poison the waters.
I would argue that equality of opportunity is not possible, though it may be a reasonable and good principle. The same thing for meritocracy.
Both are ideals, but are rarely, if ever, realized. Our modern technological society has widened the opportunities for a large number of people--even if it has not equalized them--and there is a difference between wide opportunity and equal opportunity.
There is a very high degree of randomness in success--moreso than people realize or want to admit (especially the successful people). People wish to believe that they succeeded because of who and what they are, noit because of random factors (including things like who their parents are or because a teacher or professor or boss took a liking to them, etc).
Of the common people who rise, it seems to me (and it would be interesting if data could be collected on it) that while many who rise have merit/skill that there is an equal or greater number who have the same merit/skill but do not rise. The interesting question is why is this so? Why this person and not that person.
My supposition is that it largely comes down to random or contingent factors--what you might call the right place/right time factor. You bumped into the right person. Your job interview was before this other person's interview. Somebody liked your look or outfit or whatever.
In order to more closely approach equality of opportunity you would have to do something similar to the Spartan child-rearing structure, where children are not raised by their parents but are raised in a collective/collegial fashion.
.
Sykes: "And, as it turns out, his argument was tested in a remarkable poll in Wisconsin.
"The survey by Public Policy Polling was conducted in early May, and included the responses of 675 GOP and 746 likely Dem primary voters."
A poll consisting wholly of facile sound-bites is not scientific, and of little worth
.
I don't know why people agreeing to these polling questions is surprising. The charactization of Democrats that is regularlly printed in the media and even the Dispatch is so far out that its unbelievable. Sure there are people for whom gender identity is important and they may even be Democrats, but that all Democrats think is important or even think about it at all is not realistic. Same with defunding the police. Some far left Pol in Minnesota or some other state made that comment and the media ran with it, and said it was a major Democratic position. No it isn't and never was. I'm not in the least surprised by this poll.
Unfortunately anybody who runs on Ruy's platform guarantees an election where there's 24% turnout. The people want bread and Circus. They must be entertained.
If Ruy can get five Republican members of Congress to say any two of the quoted poll questions out loud in front of a camera, I'll buy into his repeated scolds of Democrats. Until then, I'll be unconvinced that doing what he advises would influence any significant bloc of voters, and least of all anyone from the GOP rank and file, to move to the Dem column.
That Teixiera survey assumes Republicans can read complex sentences, and that they don’t just see the word “police” and mark “hell yeah!”
I’m a scientist and actually took a class that had a section on writing good questions. The questions in the Teixeira poll are *not* well written. 1) They were written to see whether or not his thesis that Democrats are more extreme than their Republican counterparts who believe in certain supposedly *common sense* comments is flawed because the “common sense - no rational person could disagree with this” statements were worded in a way that reads differently if you’re a Democrat. But unlike what Texeira believes based on his priors - it’s *not* because there are fewer Democrats who believe in “centrist/moderate views”.
This comment would be too long if I went through all the questions with problematic wordings but here’s a hypothetical:
Question: “Even though Black Lives Matter, since there is no inherent difference between races, would you say it’s fair to say that “All lives matter?”
Teixera would probably say the answer should be a no brainer, common sense *YES*” and if fewer Dems answer “yes” than “no”, he would consider that proof that Republicans are more “centrist/moderate” on common sense positions but you would need to be either ignorant or disingenuous to deny that such a question is badly worded and drops a lot of context.
Ruy is a con man. Don’t buy his stuff even if Charlie feels the need to lap it up to justify supporting him.
Is my perception accurate that Mona keeps moving slowly, quietly leftward?
If conservative writers and journalists and Republican Politicians actually talked to Demicrats across the country, you would not be surprised that the vast majority of Democrats are very reasonable, thoughtful people. I am an Independent, but have many Democratic friends and acquaintances and I'm surprised by the things they say about Democrats, and what I hear and from Republican journalists, politicians and talking heads about Democrats.
Why are the three most popular governors Republicans in deep blue states? Because they would agree with every majority answer to the Centrist Survey!!!!
\My great wish is that there would be 2024 Presidential lane for Charlie Baker or Larry Hogan --- but, sadly, there isn't.
That is BAD for AMERICA!
Bill Lueders certainly understands by now that Republican candidates considers any question they don’t want to answer as a “hostile” question. Remember Trump’s “nasty question” claims. Jyst like news they don’t like is “fake news”.
Been a Bulwark fan for a while but never read the comments. Not sure I'm coming back - my God the cognitive dissonance is screaming in here.
First off, the poll is accurate and informative because unless you assume there's a bunch of typos or someone is lying, real people were asked real questions and they answered them in the way that's described. You may not like the questions or the answers but to say "bullshit" or "useless" or "whatever poll" just means you don't agree with it and makes you no better than the right wing idiots you're complaining about.
Second, this poll is like a knife that cuts directly to what is wrong with our democracy at this point in time. All of these people agree with these statements but no legislator has the courage to write any actual laws that model what these vast majority of people agree with. Several of you say that it's impossible to do just that and in response I quote the most useful idiot Tommy Tuberville - bullshit.
Let's take immigration. The quote is “America benefits from the presence of immigrants, and no immigrant — even if illegal — should be mistreated. But border security is still important, as is an enforceable system that fairly decides who can enter the country.” This isn't anodyne or pie in the sky - it's simple, basic stuff. But two years of all Democratic control under Obama and two years of all Republican control under Trump with both sides screaming about immigration and there wasn't a single decent effort at actually doing immigration reform. Why? Because any compromise in any legislation doesn't work in the primaries required to get elected. It's really that simple. I could sit down and write legislation today that both beefed up southern border security (it's pennies relative to our overall budget), set appropriate targets for immigration and provided a path to citizenship for those that are here. It's just not that hard.
*Rolls eyes* on the centrist bull crap. As Teixeira notes himself the statements are too broad to disagree with. That doesn't make them common sense it makes them worthless. How do you make policy from that drivel? I agree with all of those statements but I'm very much sure that I'll disagree with many on how to act on them. The only way to capitalize on them is to do nothing except speak supportive generalities. That way everyone can fill in their own specifics and no one can be disabused. Hard pass on taking that page out of the Republican playbook. I actually want some changes in order to make some of those statements a reality, not just winning for winning's sake.
Side note: America is pushing hard toward my tipping point on patriotism. If that statement is supposed to mean anything more than, "I was born here so I'm going to root for it regardless," then the country actually has to continue to be worthy of pride. If Jan 6th had been successful then it would have stopped. That threat continues to loom.
As to Ruy’s poll:
- first, as you state yourself, “746 LIKELY Dem primary voters”. Begs the question, how many weren’t. And please note that Ds we’re over 50% in every category while Rs in the 90% for most. Proves to me, the Rs triggered by the words used around it 👇, not the actual questions. Not surprising but quite the leap to accuse Ds of having a problem. You call 90 percentile responses centrist and 50-80% a problem? If Ds weren’t centrist, I’d think 1-30% is where you’d find them.
- second, the words used for the categories alone would net these 90 percentile trigger results
FREE SPEECH, PATRIOTISM, EDUCATION, GENDER IDENTITY, RACISM, POLICE, IMMIGRATION,
EQUALITY. All words that would spark 90 percentiles in most Republicans, regardless of the actual question.
A better poll would ask the same question without the trigger words to get a fair analysis of how they really think.
The GOP has become the party of Nihilism cosplaying in in Traditionalist American values. There's no there there.
On such happy agreement between Rs and Ds: “why do so many Democrats have trouble saying these things?”
The answer to that is in the questions asked - they are all “on one hand this but on the other hand that”. The devil is always in the details. Saying something like “there are still many things to be decided” or “still questions that need answering” are anodyne because it is in the details where the two parties disagree.
The takeaway is that there is a lot of general agreement that could be the beginning of negotiating bi-lateral deals if partisanship didn’t poison the waters.
I would argue that equality of opportunity is not possible, though it may be a reasonable and good principle. The same thing for meritocracy.
Both are ideals, but are rarely, if ever, realized. Our modern technological society has widened the opportunities for a large number of people--even if it has not equalized them--and there is a difference between wide opportunity and equal opportunity.
There is a very high degree of randomness in success--moreso than people realize or want to admit (especially the successful people). People wish to believe that they succeeded because of who and what they are, noit because of random factors (including things like who their parents are or because a teacher or professor or boss took a liking to them, etc).
Of the common people who rise, it seems to me (and it would be interesting if data could be collected on it) that while many who rise have merit/skill that there is an equal or greater number who have the same merit/skill but do not rise. The interesting question is why is this so? Why this person and not that person.
My supposition is that it largely comes down to random or contingent factors--what you might call the right place/right time factor. You bumped into the right person. Your job interview was before this other person's interview. Somebody liked your look or outfit or whatever.
In order to more closely approach equality of opportunity you would have to do something similar to the Spartan child-rearing structure, where children are not raised by their parents but are raised in a collective/collegial fashion.