|
There's a difference between saying that democrats, in aggregate according to the posted poll, have expressed support for someone who was behind horrible decisions on voting rights (what he said), and that those democrats specifically support those voting rights decisions (what Rust is claiming he said).
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:So can you link the crosstabs on those questions specifically addressing your now repeated claims Democratic voters approve of Robert's VRA decisions please? Oh my god fool of sound posted:There's a difference between saying that democrats, in aggregate according to the posted poll, have expressed support for someone who was behind horrible decisions on voting rights (what he said), and that those democrats specifically support those voting rights decisions (what Rust is claiming he said). yes thank you, disapproving of horrible anti-civil-rights decisions but approving of the man doing it, is not great! E: it's just kinda funny that he gives Republicans like 90% of what they want but they hate his guts because he's somewhat savvy and subtle about it some of the time and they can't tell the difference between that and him being a secret babyeating liberal homosexual (no I don't have a source that they can't tell the difference but we all know it's true, they call him a homo a lot in the freep thread though) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Aug 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:There's a difference between saying that democrats, in aggregate according to the posted poll, have expressed support for someone who was behind horrible decisions on voting rights (what he said), and that those democrats specifically support those voting rights decisions (what Rust is claiming he said). Ah yes, in one case they "grovel before you"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
w/r/t the +23 on Roberts: most Democrats are not liberals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
jeeves posted:w/r/t the +23 on Roberts: most Democrats are not liberals. How do you get that from the crosstabs on that question? The numbers don't really seem to support you. Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Aug 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:How do you get that from the crosstabs on that question? The numbers don't really seem to support you. Do you have some alternative figures or are you JAQing us around?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Do you have some alternative figures or are you JAQing us around? You could go look at the crosstabs yourself if you know how? They're linked above. He's the one making the claim, let him provide the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:You could go look at the crosstabs yourself if you know how? They're linked above. He's the one making the claim, let him provide the evidence. Great so you know how you could demonstrate +23 was wrong, if it was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Great so you know how you could demonstrate +23 was wrong, if it was. No we're currently on how the +23 result shows "most Democrats are not liberals". It doesn't seem to line up with the crosstabs, you see. They seem to me to indicate it's quite likely most of the respondents who answered probably do identify as liberal. A chunk probably identify as "moderate" , obviously. I'm happy to take the respondents at their word as to their conservative/moderate/liberal leanings, because litigating what constitutes 'liberal' is frankly pointless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
Yeah people just are what they call themselves. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Yeah people just are what they call themselves. We're absolutely not going to do "but what does it mean to be a liberal, really?" in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
I didn’t mean to start anything with my comment, it was just kinda my knee jerk reaction to democrats having a favorable opinion of loving Roberts of all people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
Maybe I misread but it seemed like a two digit portion of the population didn't even know who Roberts was and admitted it. I know there had to have been more than zero people who didn't know and wouldn't admit. And then more people whose knowledge begins and ends with like two random cases they remember hearing about, with no idea which justices were on the winning side. Point is that I don't think "do you approve of" polls are worth a lot in a vacuum, and certainly aren't anywhere near sufficient to read tea leaves of respondents larger worldview. Also, this is not a thread where you can just use "liberal" without some kind of context. What would they be instead?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Maybe I misread but it seemed like a two digit portion of the population didn't even know who Roberts was and admitted it. Yeah Roberts had something like 50% of respondents saying either 'no idea who he US's or 'no opinion' about Roberts. (You can get correct numbers from the link, I'm doing this from memory.) Now Roberts is arguably benefitting from the recent well-watched USSC decisions rejecting the Trump attempts to litigate the election and also to let the NYAG get access to Trump's tax records. Plus "decorum" points as the USSC has a high approval rating broadly, Roberts sees less of a bump but compared to Alito or Thomas, he clearly is seen (falsely, say I) as more moderate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Honestly, that's more concerning and damning. Of self-described "liberals": 51% hadn't heard of Roberts or didn't have an opinion 30% had a favorable opinion 11% had an unfavorable opinion So only 11% of "liberals" were actually tuned in enough to have an unfavorable opinion of Roberts and they are outnumbered 3 to 1 by liberals who have been gaslit into having a positive opinion. And of course the "very liberal" folks aren't much better: 46% hadn't heard of Roberts or didn't have an opinion 28% had a favorable opinion 27% had an unfavorable opinion No wonder there's zero urgency to rebalance the courts or even pressure Breyers into choosing his replacement before we have a 7-2 SCOTUS...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1423689464770084871
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
how does this normalize across the other justices…do Democrats just have a higher baseline?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Honestly, that's more concerning and damning. Of self-described "liberals": I've read that the best predictor of a person's political alignment is the alignment of their parents, and I know, like, as an academic fact that most people don't follow this poo poo. But it always shocks me just how little they know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
This is kind of funny but mostly it's dumb because I'm pretty sure "quartering" doesn't apply at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Randazza has always been a bit of a dumbass and has only gotten dumbasser. While I do appreciate potentially legitimate applications of the third amendment (wasn't there one the other year about police temporarily removing people from their apartments while conducting an operation and installing snipers and such?), this is not one. I'm pretty sure reading the filing made me dumber. tldr: the eviction moratorium is forcing landlords to house people on their property against their will, at least one of the people in the country being housed like this is a soldier, therefore third amendment I'm not actually convinced this legal group isn't a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
Wouldn't this same line of reasoning make all tenant protections inapplicable to soldiers? Or is that covered by "as prescribed by law", but they don't believe that the emergency authority of the CDC is "prescribed by law"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
drat these assholes shouldn't be allowed to use a loving cool letter like þ
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Honestly, that's more concerning and damning. Of self-described "liberals": One of those 30% who like Roberts probably drives this car: https://twitter.com/TryCrying/status/1423664196969975813?s=19
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
loving monkey’s paw. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:One of those 30% who like Roberts probably drives this car: What in tarnation
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 06:09
|
|
|
I swear there's someone who lives near a junkyard and just mocks up bait cars for twitter to be enraged at because it's just too complete
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 06:21
|
|
|
Tag yourself, I'm Sinema/Manchin 2024
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 10:04
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Honestly, that's more concerning and damning. Of self-described "liberals": Fun thing about these polls, i got one of them and the option for political alignment were Very conservative Conservative Moderate Liberal Very liberal And thats it. Absolutely worthless Also they only had three option for "who did you vote for", qnd the third was explicitly "did not vote". Not even an option for third party lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 12:03
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I've read that the best predictor of a person's political alignment is the alignment of their parents, and I know, like, as an academic fact that most people don't follow this poo poo. But it always shocks me just how little they know. The number of people who can name all the justices is shockingly low. Not "most people are tuned out" shockingly low but "I figured more than 1 percent of the population is tuned in" shockingly low. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Aug 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 13:32
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The number of people who can name all the justices is shockingly low. Not "most people are tuned out" shockingly low but "I figured more than 1 percent of the population is tuned in" shockingly low. I cant do it, but only cause i cant remember that crazy trump womans name ever
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:The number of people who can name all the justices is shockingly low. Not "most people are tuned out" shockingly low but "I figured more than 1 percent of the population is tuned in" shockingly low. I went into the crosstabs and while you can quibble with the absolute ordering the relative seems about right accounting for recency biases, other than no one realizing how partisan a hack Alito is and how not-insane Kavanaugh has been. pre:Net favorable: Alito: +18R, -11D Barrett: +53R, -40D Breyer: +01R, +22D Gorsuch: +27R, -13D Kagan: -03R, +34D Kavanaugh: +54R, -53D Roberts: +04R, +23D Sotomayor: -10R, +60D Thomas: +43R, -26D Descending (R) Kavanaugh: +54R, -53D Barrett: +53R, -40D Thomas: +43R, -26D Gorsuch: +27R, -13D Alito: +18R, -11D Roberts: +04R, +23D Breyer: +01R, +22D Kagan: -03R, +34D Sotomayor: -10R, +60D Descending (D) Sotomayor: -10R, +60D Kagan: -03R, +34D Roberts: +04R, +23D Breyer: +01R, +22D Alito: +18R, -11D Gorsuch: +27R, -13D Thomas: +43R, -26D Barrett: +53R, -40D Kavanaugh: +54R, -53D
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
Those Alito D numbers are insane, he is by far the worst justice
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Piell posted:Those Alito D numbers are insane, he is by far the worst justice For people who are paying attention, sure. But as terrible as he is he's sort of middle of the road as far as publicity goes - Roberts is the Chief Justice and Thomas gets a lot of media attention and internet discussion for being entertainingly weird, and the other three were recent appointees plus the Trump factor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I went into the crosstabs and while you can quibble with the absolute ordering the relative seems about right accounting for recency biases, other than no one realizing how partisan a hack Alito is and how not-insane Kavanaugh has been. Also for Alito it mostly is that no one knows who he is. Alito's -11 is 11fav vs 22 unfav, two thirds have no opinion. Similar for Breyer who is 10/9 for Republicans. Thomas is 19/45 among dems, Barrett is 9/49. So there are two things going on with comparing net ratings like that, one is that among people with an opinion Alito's -11 is pretty close to Thomas' -26, the second is that I think there's a core of decorum Supreme court knowledgeable people who give everyone a base fav rating to start. Also there's some kind of weighting going on in there that I wonder about : https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/MLSPSC03Crosstabs.html#C1:_favunfav:_Alito  3 Another gender people, each giving a different response, each given very different weight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:I cant do it, but only cause i cant remember that crazy trump womans name ever
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:I cant do it, but only cause i cant remember that crazy trump womans name ever Supreme Court handmaid ACAB.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:One of those 30% who like Roberts probably drives this car: This is carefully calculated to piss off Berniecrats
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:This is carefully calculated to piss off Berniecrats
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Also there's some kind of weighting going on in there that I wonder about : This is extremely common in opinion polling because they usually employ persistent panels with sampling that differs from fully representation in a number of ways, both because of sampling logistics / multiple recruitment strategies and to ensure that smaller groups of interest have adequate sample sizes for sub-population analyses. The detail their weighting mechanisms in the methodology report. In this case they combine: - a base weight that adjusts for the the effects of recruiting only one individual per household into the persistent panel, the effects of using both telephone-based and addressed-based sampling schemes for the initial panel recruitment, and the effects of having multiple recruitment sources using each strategy. - a "raking" post-stratification weight used to adjust the demographics of the final survey sample to the demographic characteristics of the US as a whole. For instance, if women were underrepresented in the final sample relative to the US population, then the responses of women in the sample would be given more weight. They used a bunch of demographics - sex, age, education, race, etc. You can see that the sample proportions mostly match the US distribution but their are a couple of categories that are more heavily weighted: 55+ college educated was overrepresented by about 30% and most of the HS or less categories underrepresented, for example. Ideally this allows for more accurate and less biased population-level estimates from the survey sample, though raking does risk exacerbating unaccounted sampling biases or increasing estimation if opinions vary more widely within a raked demographic than in the whole population. Polls that report raw percentages without any sort of weighting are typically ignoring sampling bias and producing questionable results. Stickman fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Aug 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Yeah, I understand sample weighting, but I didn't realize a) the weighting extended to the crosstabs and b) that the weighting could be so strong that one category of person would be given over 3 times the weight of another. I guess it makes sense to extend it to cross tabs in that now that I think about it, and I never noticed since most pollsters would blank that out as too small of a sample. Another curiosity:  n being 4 rather than 3 makes the weightings more within the range of weightings I would have expected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2021 04:12
|
|