Idiomatic pet peeve:

I would take this with more than a single grain of salt.

...doesn't make sense. The reason you say "take it with a grain of salt" is that the thing in question is so insignificant that any more than a single grain would be overkill. So if you want to emphasize this, you'd say, "Take it with a very *small* grain of salt" or "...take this with no more than a single grain of salt."

I won't comment on the original "poll" because it's clear that only an idiot would give this any credence.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did they turn 33% into a 2 to 1 margin???? Did Karl Rove do the calculations?

You're right; it was actually 2 to 1 did NOT fear an Obama victory. But since only 16% feared an Obama loss, they took the fact that the minority that fear his victory is twice the size (in this poll, at least) of the minority that fear his defeat and made it sound like a 2 to 1 majority fear an Obama victory, when in fact a 2 to 1 majority do not.

That was my point. They weren't comparing approval or desire but fear. We don't know what portion of the sample wants reelection vs. the portion that doesn't; we know what portion fears each. The right will always always have a huge lead there - it's the foundation of their ideologies.

As Karl Rove knows well, psych studies show that the smallest fear stimulus increases support for Reps. I bet just using the word "fear" in a survey skews the results.

One might consider your post to be inflammatory. But actually there is some scientific backing to your statement that fear is a foundation of conservative ideology. Scientists who studied whether ideology has a biological basis found this, for example: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/science/sci-politics19

I guess it is not surprising. Conservatism is a philosophy centered around preserving traditional institutions and values, and a rejection of new and unfamiliar things. That's the dictionary definition. And so the implication here is that biological fear of the unfamiliar causes that.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did they turn 33% into a 2 to 1 margin???? Did Karl Rove do the calculations?

You're right; it was actually 2 to 1 did NOT fear an Obama victory. But since only 16% feared an Obama loss, they took the fact that the minority that fear his victory is twice the size (in this poll, at least) of the minority that fear his defeat and made it sound like a 2 to 1 majority fear an Obama victory, when in fact a 2 to 1 majority do not.

That was my point. They weren't comparing approval or desire but fear. We don't know what portion of the sample wants reelection vs. the portion that doesn't; we know what portion fears each. The right will always always have a huge lead there - it's the foundation of their ideologies.

As Karl Rove knows well, psych studies show that the smallest fear stimulus increases support for Reps. I bet just using the word "fear" in a survey skews the results.

Anonymous wrote:so they sampled a bunch of f'in stupes ... BFD ... lies, damn lies & statistics... the tally would probably be fear by 3:1 or 4:1 of the psychotic republican reactionary boobs, lol.

Do you overstate on a regular basis? Detracts from your credibility.

Lol liberals so mad to see a different view

Anti-intellectual dumbf**ks. I knew they couldn't do biology, geology, or physics. I did not realize they were incapable of statistics. I didn't know that math was anti-Jesus.

Why not poll the same people four times in a row and then call it 8 to 1?

so they sampled a bunch of f'in stupes ... BFD ... lies, damn lies & statistics... the tally would probably be fear by 3:1 or 4:1 of the psychotic republican reactionary boobs, lol.

Anonymous wrote:They only polled private equity guys. They're VERY afraid of the coming campaign!

Speaking of biased samples, since the actual delegates won by Romney probably amount to around a dozen -- at most twenty -- Iowa and NH are really just two very unscientific polls that get taken far more seriously than they have a right to be.

Anonymous wrote:How did they turn 33% into a 2 to 1 margin???? Did Karl Rove do the calculations?

You're right; it was actually 2 to 1 did NOT fear an Obama victory. But since only 16% feared an Obama loss, they took the fact that the minority that fear his victory is twice the size (in this poll, at least) of the minority that fear his defeat and made it sound like a 2 to 1 majority fear an Obama victory, when in fact a 2 to 1 majority do not.

The big question, for me at least, is whether the reporter distorted the result knowingly or out of ignorance.

How did they turn 33% into a 2 to 1 margin???? Did Karl Rove do the calculations?

Seriously, look at who conducted this poll:

"The Synovate eNation Internet poll was conducted December 29-January 2 among a national sample of 1,000 households by global market research firm Synovate"

I took a quick look to find out about the Synovate eNation Internet poll. Notice that it says a "sample of 1,000 households". It doesn't say "random sample". This firm apparently has 1,000 people essentially on retainer and asks them whatever questions they want them to answer. There is no information about the political leanings of the sample or anything to suggest that sample has any legitimacy. I would take this with more than a single grain of salt.

It's hardly news that Reps are a fearful bunch. The coloreds, the gays, the Muslims, the Socialists, the feminists, the French...

If Reps weren't fearful, they'd hardly have anything to talk about.

They only polled private equity guys. They're VERY afraid of the coming campaign!