Well, yes, but I am a bit confused on how we decide what the mandate is for. Just because a President supports and mentions in the campaign certain policies does not mean that those who vote with him agree with him on all of those policies and that there are not other issues (like creationism in the schools) where they think he is more attuned to their interests even if he didn’t specifically emphasize it.
Also, shouldn’t we really go on what the people who voted for him think he stood for, in which case there is apparently a mandate to participate in the Kyoto treaty (51% of Bush supporters believe this to be Bush’s position), to participate in the treaty banning land mines (72% of Bush supporters…), to participate in the nuclear test ban treaty (69% of Bush supporters…), have labor and environmental protections in international trade agreements (84% of Bush supporters…), and participate in the International Criminal Court (66% of Bush supporters…).
I just can’t help but wonder, if Kerry had won the election 51%-48%, if the Republicans would conceded that the Dems had “thumped” them, and/or that Senator Kerry had a clear mandate for the next four years… :dubious:
Because jshore’s post links to the PIPA report… rather than the debunking of the PIPA report here. And I’m getting tired of pointing out that the PIPA study does not show what jshore said it did.
In the linked thread, Maeglin, a poster with professional experience in the area – and, lest accusations of bias be raised, also “…a Kerry voter, and … an agnostic New Yorker…”
He says:
Now, jshore continues to point to the study, despite being aware of the critique. Tellingly, he does not even allow for the critique’s existence; he points it out as though it’s solid and offers no hint that it’s in dispute. Rather amazing, since he participated in that thread, although his objections to Maeglin’s critique seemed to boil down to: “I don’t understand what you’re talking about.”
Instead, he comes into this thread and smugly offers up the seemingly rock-solid PIPA study, and then you, Evil Captor, smugly wonder why there is no conservative response? Perhaps my brethern in the minority are tired of pointing out the same thing over and over.
You should revisit that thread Bricker because it is flat out wrong to say it “debunked” the PIPA report.
That having been said, the thread contained a number of posts referring to the proper way to invoke the PIPA report in support of debate assertions. jshore, please step into the principal’s office. Emphasis mine.
Please submit to your teacher the line “The PIPA report provided no data on the voting behavior of the respondents.” written two hundred times. The larger point is still valid, that self-identified Bush supporters think he stood for…, but this is different from “people who voted for him”. Please remember to dot your t’s and cross your i’s next time.
Woah there! Did we read the same thread? It is true that I have been trouble understanding what Maeglin’s objections are because he has said a lot of things that are sort of all over the map. But, I think we have rebutted essentially all of the major objections that seem relevant:
(1) We have shown (by back-of-the-envelope analysis) that the statistical significance of the correlations is such that they cannot nearly be explained away as not being statistically significant. Really the only question that remains for detailed analysis is whether they are statistically significant at, say, a 99.999% confidence level or a 99.9999999999999999999999999% confidence level.
(2) We have noted that Maeglin’s objections in regard to causal relationship are mainly besides the point. Apparently, when Maeglin did his work in school, the interest was in determining specific causal relationships…e.g., being able to say that these people voted this way because of this factor. That is very noble but it is also very hard to do (and I would argue that the techniques that Maeglin argues should be used will still yield highly uncertain results simply because cause-and-effect in people’s decisions is extremely difficult to ascertain). Maeglin seems to have come out of that experience with a rigid belief that this is the only way things should be done, that is to believe that correlations without understanding the cause-and-effect are not interesting in their own right. I would beg to differ. The fact that Bush and Kerry supporters believe what they do is very interesting to me independent of what the cause is and what the effect is.
(3) There were various other objections raised in regards to the poll, for example, an implication (based on absolutely no evidence…and in fact in light of evidence that seems to argue against it) that maybe they over-polled in “red” states. However, we have argued the Knowledge Networks, who actually did the polling, seems to be a very reputable and experienced polling organization. Besides which, the effects seen are generally so huge that you really have to come up with a hugely major problem with the poll in order to get such results as artifacts.
(4) There was an objection raised that the poll is sampling all adults and not just actual, or even likely, voters. This is true and so it is technically correct that the results in that poll apply only to Bush and Kerry supporters and not Bush and Kerry voters. However, I have pointed out that the turnout rate among eligible voters was about 60% and the effects seen in that poll are so huge in many cases that in order to get them to go away amongst a sample of people who consisted only of those who actually voted, you have to posit huge and truly bizarre differences between the voting and non-voting members of each candidate’s supporters in order to believe that what was found qualitatively for Kerry and Bush supporters does not also hold for Kerry and Bush voters (although certainly some fairly small quantitative differences are likely to be found).
Finally, I should note that I am not really claiming that I think Bush has a mandate to do the things that I listed above. I am merely pointing out that if one is going to start arguing what he has mandates for on the basis of how people voted then you are really opening up quite a can of worms. And, one of the things you have to look at is what those people seem to believe in regards to both reality and in regards to how they think the candidate they voted for stands on various issues.
I tend to think that claiming mandates for almost any policy on the basis of an election, especially one as close as this, is problematic.
Fair enough. Punishment humbly accepted. I did correctly label the percentages as being those of “Bush supporters,” not Bush voters but I guess the line about looking at what the people who voted for him think does seem to imply that I might be presenting data on actual Bush voters.
That said, I would note that in order to get significantly different numbers among actual Bush voters, one would have to posit a difference in knowledge between voting and non-voting supporters that is really very large. And, while one might expect some differences in knowledge, I believe (without having looked in detail) that there is no evidence that such hugely cavernous knowledge-gaps usually exist between voters and non-voters. (I believe that Maeglin in his most recent post in that PIPA poll thread referred to knowing of some studies that looked at differences in education…and maybe knowledge…between voters and non-voters and find that the differences are not that great.)
P.S. - Technically, there was in fact one question in the PIPA survey related to voting behavior. It asked the respondents whether they had voted in the 2002 off-year election and I think 62% said they had. One would expect even more to vote in this Presidential election than voted in that one since turnout was greater (as it generally is for Presidential election years). On the other hand, I would suppose that on a question about whether or not one did or did not vote in a previous election, there might be some percentage of people who do not answer truthfully because they are embarrassed to admit they didn’t (or they even wrongly remember that they did when they really didn’t).
Bush was not a candidate in the 2002 elections(so your statement that the PIPA report gave data on “people who voted for him” is still incorrect), but feel free to amend your homework to add the phrase “in elections where Bush was a candidate.”
The mandate against gay marriage seems clear in those states that had the specific issue on the ballot. Other than that, I don’t think you can say there is a mandate in the nation against gay marriage. The sentiment may be rampant throughout the country, but I think it’s short-sighted to claim this on the basis of the presidential vote.
I think you misunderstand me…I think it’s quite clear in those locations that had it on the ballot. And I think that there are plenty of other states that would support such a ban. I just don’t think that the **presidential vote ** was a mandate against gay marriage. There are just too many other factors to consider. Was it the primary concern of Bush voters in certain states…almost certainly (I know I don’t have a cite, but still…). Was it the primary factor for most Bush voters…I don’t think that’s clear at all. I still think that the terrorism fear was pretty important. But then again, living in a “swing” state, I was inundated with wolf and ostrich ads.
Aside to Mr. Moto: WPTT was great back in the day. Ah, the days when people didn’t have to be affilliated. Hours of Three Stooges every day…the halcyon days of yore!
And again, I must point out that I wasn’t referring to the presidential vote. The gay marriage bans were on the ballot separately, and the plain fact is that they polled better than either presidential candidate everywhere they were on the ballot.
jshore was claiming that a mandate couldn’t be discerned merely from election results. I was saying that these results show a clear mandate on the face of it.
But a mandate for what? It’s clear that most voters don’t want a federal constitutional amendment, so what would Bush do? I see it more as a mandate, and a very strong one, for the state legislatures-- not for Bush.
He might think that it will be necessary in the future of the SCotUS rules there is a right to SSM. But if that were to happen, he could get his amendment passed in about 30 seconds. As of now, there is nothing stopping the states from doing what they want.
I guess I was a little vague…But, I meant to be talking about a candidate having a mandate for doing any specific things on specific issues based on the fact that he won a narrow victory. I wasn’t talking about votes on specific referenda.
And, as I implied in my first post from which this whole discussion posed, I think that the vote, in combination with exit polls, suggests that positions of Bush and the Republicans that aren’t very popular with our libertarian-leaning conservative crowd here may have been more influentual in determining the outcome of the election than voters endorsing Bush’s ideas on reforming social security or tax simplification or increasing NASA spending. In fact, I noted specifically that I thought if one was going to argue for mandates, one might be able to argue for there being as strong or stronger a mandate for discriminating against gays as for some of these libertarian pipe-dreams.
I wanted to see how much our libertarian-leaning friends still believe in this election being a mandate when you note all the issues where President Bush’s views are not in alignment with theirs. It is very easy to interpret an election as a mandate of the winning candidates positions that you happen to endorse anyway; it is a little more challenging to do so with positions that you don’t like.
