https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/poll-republicans-beat-democrats-among-hispanics-at-27-among-black-voters/
" The survey also found Republicans making gains among minority groups. By 9 percentage points, Hispanic voters in the new poll said they would back a Republican candidate for Congress over a Democrat. The two parties had been tied among Hispanic voters in the Journal’s survey in November."
" Democratic margins also eroded among Black voters, who favored a Democrat for Congress by 35 percentage points in the new survey, down from 56 points in November. Support for a Republican candidate rose to 27% among Black voters, up from 12% in November."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-of-the-brave-rip-war-poll-democrats-fight-enlist-vietnam-soldiers-invasion-ukraine-patriotism-culture-war-isolationist-military-recruitment-11646929607
I was listening to an interview with Franz Nicolay the other day talking about the piece he just wrote for Spin Magazine. He was reporting on how his friends in the music scene in Ukraine were handling the invasion. At one point he was asked about the contrast between the ethos of most musicians of being anti-establishment was balancing with the defense of Ukraine. His response was something like, "While the progressive leanings of most musicians would lean toward pacifism, there comes a point when it's necessary to fight for what's important." (The interview is available on SXM Volume 106, Debatable from earlier this week). I've always thought that pacifism was never an absolute, it was always a matter of getting to something important enough to set aside your convictions. Unfortunately, progressives in the US don't have quite as much fortitude as their Ukrainian counterparts.
To be fair, the numbers might change for the positive with actual boots on the ground in the US, but I kind of think that if they can't tell the pollster they won't run away, they likely won't be more willing to pick up a weapon if faced with an actual invasion.
16 comments:
News from Gallup seems to undermine these GOP fantasies.
Over the last ten years, Latino support for Democrats has remained in the 56-62% level.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/389093/hispanic-americans-party-updated-analysis.aspx
For whatever reason, I can't find similar info about the black vote, but you can be sure with the way that the GOP is treating voter depression laws, there's no huge bump there from African Americans.
That's interesting, because I've seen similar information about the black vote as well, I've even posted about it.
The problem here is not these specific polls, but the notion that polls somehow always (mostly/usually/reliably/accurately/etc) represent the Truth (or proof/evidence/etc). Fortunately, I rarely offer polls as proof of anything.
Polls are a real science. They effectively capture a snapshot of people at a moment in time. That's what polls are doing. Any one poll can be more or less effective/accurate, but when you take polls together in aggregate, you get reasonably accurate understanding of the data.
Is it the case that you don't understand how polls work or that you think that you know better than people who have studied and done polling science? Or is it just the case that you don't know enough to trust it? That's a fine thing to admit. I would be hesitant to say that I know more than those who have actually studied and worked in the field, though.
This assumption that "we know better than experts" is a problem in modern conservative thinking.
Unfortunately, I was unable to access the NR polling data to learn how many took part in the survey. I'd wager it's about the same amount of people in Dan's poll. If true, they cancel each other out.
If Dan's poll more accurately reflects reality, the numbers suggest a clear lack of intelligence among Hispanics. Here we have two strange dudes whose trajectories diverged starkly in terms of policy effects on the nation. To remain loyal to the Dem party in light of that requires immense stupidity,
I don't need your condescending lecture on what polls are. I did the work in college and learned more about polling than I'd ever need.
But that's not the point of the post, and I think you know it. It's more about those like you who embrace polls as Truth when they agree with the results, and are less than enthusiastic when the results don't agree with them. Which you've demonstrated quite well.
Art,
I suspect that Dan (and his poll) are counting on the hope that these various groups will continue to vote in the same monolithic way as they always have. They're counting on these groups not simply voting DFL because that's how they've "always voted".
I addressed this before the last election when we saw similar polling. The fact is that if the GOP gets half of the swing that this poll suggests, the DFL will lose heavily. The reality is that assuming that voting patterns will always stay the same out of habit, is a bad strategy.
Craig... ". It's more about those like you who embrace polls as Truth when they agree with the results, and are less than enthusiastic when the results don't agree with them."
Yet another stupidly false claim. I've never said I only accept polls I agree with. That's just fiction.
Polls are a useful tool - Especially for those of us who value group support of important ideas - to help understand the thinking of groups of people. If, for instance, the polls were saying that minority racial groups were actually moving away from the democrats and towards conservatives - or that LGBTQ folks were - that would be informative to me and I would want to know that. But the polls don't say that.
Craig... "I suspect that Dan (and his poll) are counting on the hope that these various groups will continue to vote in the same monolithic way as they always have."
You suspect incorrectly. I take nothing for granted. I think it would be wise for for democrats and Republicans to listen to minority voices... It's vital. No one should take it for granted.
Read for understanding, not for making assumptions and passing on false guesses about what other people think.
Yet strangely enough, you treat polls that support your opinions as if they represent Truth, while you minimize/ridicule/or criticize those polls that don't align with your opinions.
You referred to the poll I cited as "GOP fantasies.".
I don't know how to put it. If the GOP believes that black people are gonna start voting them in mass, that is a fantasy. There's no evidence of that. Could it happen? Sure. Is it happening now? There's no data to support such a claim.
"I've never said I only accept polls I agree with."
Not in so many words. Never in so many words. But you say it nonetheless.
I get what folks like to believe about the value of polls. They all said Hillary was a slam dunk. The best polls are elections. No other poll is worth a damn.
---They rarely survey more than a thousand or two people.
---They never survey equal numbers of lefties, indies or normal people.
---They ask questions poorly and then spin the results.
---Those who do the polling are regarded by loons as "experts" who provide info and data of value.
---Loons are influenced by polls.
"I don't know how to put it. If the GOP believes that black people are gonna start voting them in mass, that is a fantasy."
Well, 2020 showed a small movement toward black voters voting for conservatives. Certainly I haven't seen anyone claiming that they'll be a massive switch anytime soon. What I AM hearing is that IF we see the 95% of blacks voting DFL drop to 87-90% (along with similar swings from Latino voters) could result in significant losses for the DFL. I understand how discussing these possibilities might cause you concern.
"There's no evidence of that."
Well, the poll I referenced would seem to be evidence, as well as previous polls indicating similar trends. Obviously, we'll see over the next few elections how accurate these polls are. But the reality is that we are seeing black/Hispanic respondents to polls, answering these questions the way they are would seem to mean something.
"Could it happen? Sure. Is it happening now? There's no data to support such a claim."
Other than the data I've cited in this and other polls. What you might be ignoring is the fact that these voters don't have to switch sides, as much as just stop voting monolithically for the DFL.
It occurs to me that this is part of the problem between folks like me and folks like you all...
Dan:
"I've never said I only accept polls I agree with."
Marshal:
"Not in so many words. Never in so many words. But you say it nonetheless."
The differences on this point between us appear to be:
1. I DO recognize the legitimacy of polling sciences.
2. I DO value all results of good polls.
3. And WHEN a poll says that ideas/people/policies I support have waning interest, I take it as GREAT information to know. IF the majority of the people, for instance, truly didn't believe that we needed to do anything about climate change or that anthropogenic impact upon climate change, itself, was not a real thing, then I absolutely do not dismiss that information. That is VITAL and valuable information. It would tell me that we need to do a better job of informing the people.
4. I therefore OF COURSE value all legitimate opinion polls and the ones that show unfavorable support for causes I support even moreso! Because that's what rational adults do. We don't hide our heads in the sand if it appears that public opinion is against a candidate or cause because that doesn't help anything.
These are my thoughts about polls. You all, on the other hand, appear to find it so incomprehensible that opinion polls you disagree with could possibly be valid that you presume that other people would also dismiss opinion polls they don't "like."
Nothing could be further from the truth.
So, no. Factually, I do NOT say I only listen to polls agree with, not in words and not in "not so many words." That's just factually and ridiculously wrong.
YOU all may think (as Marshal says) that "no other poll is worth a damn."
Rational adults disagree. Of course.
Lord have mercy.
I try to stay out of conversations between you and Art, but maybe if you could demonstrate instances where you've accepted a poll with results contrary to your narrative as being "right" and modified your narrative accordingly.
Maybe if you could present ANY poll that was a scientific poll that I've not "accepted" it. If you all want to make a stupidly false claim based on completely nothing, the onus is on you to support the charge.
Good God in heaven!
Maybe if you could provide evidence that any poll questioning a mere 1-2 thousand people can accurately reflect the sentiments of over 320 million, that would be a good starting point. The only polls I've ever referenced which weren't actual election results, were referenced as a means to refute and rebut your moronic positions BECAUSE you regard polls as reliable in reflecting the sentiment of all America. You ignore those BECAUSE they contradict your position. Thus, you only ever accept polls with which you agree.
Stop referencing God. You've proven you don't believe in Him.
So you can't do what I respectfully asked you if you could do. Are you really claiming that you've never been presented with "ANY" poll that lives up to your standards of being "scientific" enough?
FYI, I made no "charge. I asked a question that cuts through all the bullshit. Your response is probably enough to give me an answer, but I thought I'd try.
Post a Comment