Two interesting polls.....
- Thread starter JimDiver
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If the choice came down to two issues - gun control or a tax cut, American voters prefer a president who is tough on guns.[/quote] <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What we asked: "If the issue was narrowed down to a tax cut or gun control -- how important would it be in your choice of a president?"[/quote] <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Republicans favoring firearms restrictions barely edged out a tax cut, 15.7%-15.2[/quote]That is a breathtakingly stupid analysis. Saying a president's position on gun control is important to you is not saying that you want a president who is "tough on guns!"
------------------
Support the US Olympic Shooting Team!
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
------------------
Support the US Olympic Shooting Team!
Protect your Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
I agree that the tax cut/ gun control poll is stupid and misleading.
I find it interesting that amongst Democrats in the second poll, only 57% said that the NRA has too much influence on elections. This implies that 43% think it has the right amount, not enough or don't care. You have to consider that Clinton and Gore have pounded this theme to death over the last year, but barely a majority of folks who consider themselves to be Democrats agree with them.
We are not far from ridding the Democratic Party of Clinton's anti-constitutional herasies. We need both major parties to take strong Pro Bill of Rights stands to win this in the long run. I think that if Gore falls on his face next November, we will push the Democrats even further from anti-constitutional positions.
I find it interesting that amongst Democrats in the second poll, only 57% said that the NRA has too much influence on elections. This implies that 43% think it has the right amount, not enough or don't care. You have to consider that Clinton and Gore have pounded this theme to death over the last year, but barely a majority of folks who consider themselves to be Democrats agree with them.
We are not far from ridding the Democratic Party of Clinton's anti-constitutional herasies. We need both major parties to take strong Pro Bill of Rights stands to win this in the long run. I think that if Gore falls on his face next November, we will push the Democrats even further from anti-constitutional positions.
Thirty_Handicap
New member
I read this poll at noon today when I was planning on working through lunch. After reading it I was so outraged at the ridiculous, fraudulent analysis that I spent my lunch hour writing e-mail, including one to Reuters, lambasting the article. You have all hit the nail on the head.
Here's what I sent them:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I’m writing to comment about a Reuters/Zogby article about the poll that asked the question “If the issue was narrowed down to a tax cut or gun control -- how important would it be in your choice of a president?”
A more grammatically correct and clearer way to write the question (and still preserve the meaning) might be “If the issue was narrowed down to a tax cut or gun control -- how important would the issue be in your choice of a president?”
Given that, can you honestly say that more people prefer a president who is “tough on guns” (as the article reads), or might it be better to say that the general issue of gun control is more important to people, regardless of their opinions on the issue?
The analysis contained in the article presumes the question was “If the choice was narrowed down to a tax cut or gun control -- how important would it be in your choice of a president?
Can you please explain the fraudulent analysis of the poll in the article? Thanks.
-Dean Fuller
df446@geocities.com[/quote]
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I’m writing to comment about a Reuters/Zogby article about the poll that asked the question “If the issue was narrowed down to a tax cut or gun control -- how important would it be in your choice of a president?”
A more grammatically correct and clearer way to write the question (and still preserve the meaning) might be “If the issue was narrowed down to a tax cut or gun control -- how important would the issue be in your choice of a president?”
Given that, can you honestly say that more people prefer a president who is “tough on guns” (as the article reads), or might it be better to say that the general issue of gun control is more important to people, regardless of their opinions on the issue?
The analysis contained in the article presumes the question was “If the choice was narrowed down to a tax cut or gun control -- how important would it be in your choice of a president?
Can you please explain the fraudulent analysis of the poll in the article? Thanks.
-Dean Fuller
df446@geocities.com[/quote]
------------------
"Anyone feel like saluting the flag which the strutting ATF and FBI gleefully raised over the smoldering crematorium of Waco, back in April of ‘93?" -Vin Suprynowicz
Well, if the Dems truly believe in and run with this error (equating importance of issue with a particular side of the issue), then that great, because they'll be ambushed by their own stupidity at election time, when those of us vote who view LESS control as more important than tax cuts.
Even though King Klinton & Gomer Gore may not be in the White (Red) House in 2001, that DOES NOT mean that the Democrat Party will be free of their Marxist Socialist ideology and their Grand Plan to institute the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Remember one thing that NEVER, EVER changes:
The Marxist Socialist Democrats NEVER, EVER disengage! Perhaps we'll win a battle in 2001, but the WAR will go on and on.
FWIW. J.B.
Remember one thing that NEVER, EVER changes:
The Marxist Socialist Democrats NEVER, EVER disengage! Perhaps we'll win a battle in 2001, but the WAR will go on and on.
FWIW. J.B.