Econlib Resources
Subscribe to EconLog
XML (Full articles)RDF (Excerpts) Feedburner (One-click subscriptions) Subscribe by author
Bryan CaplanDavid Henderson Garett Jones More
FAQ
(Instructions and more options)
|
TRACKBACKS (3 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/446
The author at The Club for Growth Blog in a related article titled Thursday's Daily News writes:
COMMENTS (11 to date)
Paul N writes:
Whose "traditional values"? What "things" should be left to individuals and businesses? Each person who hears these questions will project their own ideas of what specific things they refer to. These questions are too vague for anything to be made of the results. Posted January 31, 2006 11:21 PM
Lord writes:
Yes. Liberals would leave civil rights to individuals while conservatives would leave social programs to individuals. Liberals would leave religion to individuals while conservatives would leave equality to individuals. Posted February 1, 2006 1:05 AM
Robert Schwartz writes:
A better hypothesis is that pollsters speak a different language than ordinary Americans. Most people do not have a coherent ideology and will answer specific questions, particularly ones that are not in the front of the public agenda in a very offhand way. Also an enormous amount depends on polling technique, question ordering, pollster-citizen interaction, sample construction, etc. As I always say, you tell me the results you want from a poll and we can get them. Posted February 1, 2006 1:43 AM
William Anderson writes:
I wonder if there is a basic misunderstanding here. In some political science work since the early 1990s, the liberal/conservative binary division has been replaced by a four-fold table derived from two axes. Interviewees are asked questions that relate to government intervention in the economy. They are also asked questions related to government intervention in society. If they are pro-government intervention on both, they are "populists." If they are anti on both, they are "libertarians." If they are pro on economic but not social, they are "liberal." Etc. It seems to me that is the kind of poll we are looking at here. So measurement error is NOT the explanation. Posted February 1, 2006 3:19 PM
spencer writes:
Why is it that when you find a poll that supports your biases it is great, but if it doesn't polls are no good? Is that what the taxpapers of the Commonwealth of Virginia pay you to teach your students? A little more consistency would be appreciated. Posted February 1, 2006 3:24 PM
Timothy writes:
GMU is a public university? Could've fooled me. Posted February 1, 2006 5:41 PM
liberty writes:
>It seems to me that is the kind of poll we are looking at here. So measurement error is NOT the explanation. Why does that mean that error can't explain it? Posted February 1, 2006 7:53 PM
Daniel writes:
spencer apparently didn't even read the post, otherwise he would have seen that Bryan is knocking a poll that *does* support his beliefs - the poll says that 20% of Americans are libertarian, and he is saying that it is *LESS* than that even though the poll result would be favorable to his side. Come on! spencer, I've seen you around, over at Cafe Hayek too. It seems that you only come to libertarian blogs to troll ignorantly. How's that workin' out for you? Posted February 1, 2006 9:21 PM
Bill writes:
Measurement error, fine. But 25%? That seems rather high. Posted February 2, 2006 2:30 AM
liberty writes:
>Measurement error, fine. But 25%? That seems rather high. It normally would be, but a poll that asks just a few questions and is sort of vague and depending on how/when/to whom it is asked (eg the example of a quick phone call at dinner time, and of people who may not have thought deeply about the subject before), could potentially have a very high error rate. Posted February 2, 2006 1:46 PM
Mr. Econotarian writes:
Regardless of polls, the political results are the results of public choice. Religious bigots (I'm sure they mean well) have joined forces with those who support mildly reasonable economic policies (despite some recent strife between the two). Religious non-bigots have joined forces with the atheist intellectual socialists. The two groups carve up the power pie... Posted February 3, 2006 11:57 AM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||