MS and AL polls - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Jim B. · #16 03-13-2012, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The 21% opposed to interracial marriage is the AL number in MS it's 29% and 14% are not sure which means 48% are not in favor of legal interracial marriage in MS. (all of this is amongst likely Republican voters) Those numbers seem to bear out the claim that there is a substantial component of racism involved in opposition to Obama.

Oh, mannnnnnnnn!

*YOU* had to go and spill the BEANS!!!

Dint choo !!!!????

ramonajim · #17 03-13-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The 21% opposed to interracial marriage is the AL number in MS it's 29% and 14% are not sure which means 48% are not in favor of legal interracial marriage in MS. (all of this is amongst likely Republican voters) Those numbers seem to bear out the claim that there is a substantial component of racism involved in opposition to Obama.

The "cross tab" section offers some interesting bits (using MS data):

Interracial marriage should be illegal (29% overall):
31% Woman
28% Man
15% Democrat
33% Republican
13% Independent
33% Evangelical
18% Not Evangelical

Obama's a Muslim (52% overall):
51% Woman
53% Man
34% Democrat
56% Republican
34% Independent
54% Evangelical
45% Not Evangelical

Don't believe in evolution (66% overall)
70% Woman
64% Man
58% Democrat
68% Republican
60% Independent
74% Evangelical
45% Not Evangelical

kerry · #18 03-13-2012, 10:36 AM

The gender split on evolution is intriguing.

MTI · #19 03-13-2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I find it interesting that the Washington Post published a poll that showed Obama's support fell over the last month after the "women's rights" offensive, and the Rush debacle. At the same time they print an article that discusses how Rush has handed over the women vote to the dems---just like JR's thread a week or so ago

here is a link. Yes the article is from the Weekly Standard, but it quotes the Wash Post.
Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate Battle | The Weekly Standard

I have not studied the polls, however there are some questions I would have to explain the conflict. Primarily it's the age and gender of the poll population.

As for the women's vote, it's my understanding that the biggest projected impact of this year's controversy will be to younger women voters that the GOP traditionally had a hard time connecting with. That younger demographic could view the GOP/Right/Conservatives as the group less likely to be sympathetic to their healthcare issues.

JollyRoger · #20 03-13-2012, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I find it interesting that the Washington Post published a poll that showed Obama's support fell over the last month after the "women's rights" offensive, and the Rush debacle. At the same time they print an article that discusses how Rush has handed over the women vote to the dems---just like JR's thread a week or so ago

here is a link. Yes the article is from the Weekly Standard, but it quotes the Wash Post.
Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate Battle | The Weekly Standard

Obama Enjoys Rising Approval Results

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/politics/president-recapturing-groups-won-by-gop-in-2010.html

Quote:

In the latest poll, 49 percent of independents said they favored Mr. Obama, compared with 41 percent for Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama leads Mr. Santorum by 10 points among independents.

The president’s edge among independents is largely due to women. Independent men split closely between Mr. Obama and the leading Republican candidates. But independent women said they preferred Mr. Obama by double digits.

Perhaps a little common sense is in order. When the person most people identify as the face of the GOP calls a young women who is a private citizen a slut and a prostitute, followed by a three day tirade in which it was demanded she put her sex acts on the internet as porno films, it is not going to cause the women's vote to flock to the GOP, no matter what some propaganda poll (which in the GOP's case is usually coming from Rasmussen) says. And believe me, it will also make some excellent campaign commercials, so I would not count on future polls much either.

Oh, and the Weekly Standard? The guys who assured us their were WMDs in Iraq? The guys who told us the Iraq War was like a really, really good idea? Those neo-con clowns have been wrong about just about everything for years.

MS Fowler · #21 03-13-2012, 11:21 AM

^^^ So we have battling polls.

Only November's will count

JollyRoger · #22 03-13-2012, 11:47 AM

Eric Boehlert: The Self-Destruction of Limbaugh, Murdoch and Beck

Quote:

Self-Destruction of Limbaugh, Murdoch and Beck

This week's sudden unraveling of Rush Limbaugh's radio standing as the untouchable king of conservative media strangely mirrors deep difficulties recently faced by Rupert Murdoch and Glenn Beck, two other far-right press titans.

Twelve months ago, all three would have been included on any list that tabulated the most influential media voice in American right-wing politics.

Limbaugh supposedly boast 20 millions listeners (in truth, he likely doesn't come close), and is routinely singled out by Republicans themselves as a GOP kingmaker and someone who must not be crossed. As the proprietor of Fox News, and the vanity publisher of the money-losing New York Post, Murdoch is the Godfather of right-wing media in America, stamping his trademark mendacity onto the conservative press. And not that long ago Beck was drawing three million viewers to his Fox News show, which made him the cable channel's most-watched personality and a rising media superstar.

Together, the far-right triumvirate helped define the movement's message on a daily, even hourly, basis. They were also seen as invincible forces.

And now look at them.

In the last year the trio has suffered extraordinary setbacks; setbacks that were entirely their own doing and setbacks that highlight the dangers of not operating under simple guidelines of fairness of common sense. Instead, led by the likes of Limbaugh, Murdoch and Beck, the conservative press has adopted a strange brand of radicalism that embraces falsehoods, smears and even law breaking, all of which places their practice well outside the mainstream culture.

In the last year, that brand of recklessness, built upon a foundation of spite, has produced three very public crises for Limbaugh, Murdoch and Beck. All three players have been badly damaged professionally and all three were led astray by their exaggerated belief that the rules don't apply to them.

For Beck, it was the misguided conviction that he could go on national television and denounce the President of the United States as a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." For Murdoch, it was a culture of corruption inside NewsCorp., where his newspaper executives felt that the wholesale breaking of the law by hacking phones and paying off public officials was an acceptable way to report out stories. And for Limbaugh, it was the still-shocking assumption that he could dedicate three days of his national radio show to insulting and denigrating a Georgetown University law student, and do it by name.

In the end, Beck's race-baiting cost him hundreds of advertisers and eventually his job at Fox News. Murdoch's professional reputation has been permanently stained by the phone-hacking scandal while his company has been saddled with nearly a $1 billion legal bill to clean up the ethical messes inside his companies. And Limbaugh is now facing the worst crisis of his two-decade career as advertisers flee his program. (He's become so toxic even one non-profit group asked that its unpaid ad be pulled from Limbaugh's broadcast.)

What's fascinating about their startling falls from grace is that each one represented a clear case of self-destruction. Limbaugh and Murdoch and Beck weren't cut down by their political foes or by partisan dirty tricks. They were cut down by their own moral and ethical failings.

Meaning, Limbaugh's opponents didn't make him call Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute, and liberal didn't force him to spend days smearing the women in the most humiliating ways possible, painting her as a greedy nymphomaniac whose parents ought to be deeply ashamed. Nobody egged him on into doing that. In fact, after the initial "slut" and "prostitute" insults, liberals demanded Limbaugh stop using that kind of ugly language. If anything, Limbaugh's foes tried to save him from himself. (By contrast, many of his partisan fans immediately cheered his Fluke attacks.)

The same is true with Beck and Murdoch. Who on the left would have even dreamt up a plot to somehow get Beck call the president a racist, or to later ramble for weeks about how pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt represented a spear tip to a looming American left-backed Caliphate uprising in the Middle East. Who even thinks like that, other than Beck?

As for Murdoch, he's cultivated a culture of corruption that's so firmly entrenched that one of his newspaper executives allegedly tried to secure a vote in parliament from a conservative politician in exchange for offering favorable coverage in a Murdoch newspaper. Again, who does that? Who works for a newspaper and doubles as a vote whip for a political party?

All of this behavior is reprehensible and of course falls completely outside the purview of journalism, as even loosely defined to include cable and AM talk shows. For the conservative media, there are no checks in place anymore. Instead, all the introspection has been eliminated and replaced by robotic, partisan defense regardless of the circumstances.

The guardrails have been taken down, leaving the way for reckless drivers like Limbaugh, Murdoch and Beck to crash their careers.

davidmash · #23 03-13-2012, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy

Careful David. I recall Texas seceded during the Civil War as well.

I'll move, I don't like it here in this crap hole anyway. Some of these folks scare the crap out of me.

Jim B. · #24 03-13-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The gender split on evolution is intriguing.

THAT would make a GREAT bumper sticker for an old Volvo 740 station wagon in Berkeley.

Jim B. · #25 03-13-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I'll move, I don't like it here in this crap hole anyway. Some of these folks scare the crap out of me.

Then you should THANK them for saving you money on your EX LAX bill.

JollyRoger · #26 03-13-2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

I'll move, I don't like it here in this crap hole anyway. Some of these folks scare the crap out of me.

The DFW area, well, it sucks. I like Houston a little better, but I am still a member of "the only reason I'm in Texas is because I got to make a living" club.

Ara T. · #27 03-13-2012, 02:28 PM

Evomolution? I aint come from no monkey. I is what i is.

Jim B. · #28 03-13-2012, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The DFW area, well, it sucks. I like Houston a little better, but I am still a member of "the only reason I'm in Texas is because I got to make a living" club.

Oh .....the Texas branch of "sluts and prostitutes", I see.

That is bigger club than you think. Maybe it include EVERYONE who works and gets paid dollars for ANYTHING!

It maybe even includes Senators and Congressmen: Just imagine THAT !!!!!