How do Pubbies get away with lying about health-care disapproval?

By which I mean, why do the Dems let them? The Pubs are presenting falsely the fact that “most” Americans disapprove of the health-care bill only by neglecting to state that some disapproval is because it doesn’t go far enough. It is only by combining those who disapprove because it goes too far with those who disapprove because it doesn’t go far enough, that they can cobble together a majority opposed to the health-care bill, which is like claiming to have won the election by claiming for themselves the votes of everyone who didn’t bother to vote. “Only 29% of the eligible voters in 2008 voted for Obama–the other 71% either voted for McCain, another candidate, or expressed some form of disapproval for Obama, so he’s not the President.” (Actually, that sounds a lot more sensible than some of the things they have said.) But why do the Dems often just accept the polls that assert a majority disapproving of the health -care bill in the first place? It’s the whole basis of the Pubbies’ campaign, and it’s bogus–why concede that point at all? Every time a Pubbie asserts “a majority of Americans disapprove…” why isn’t their only rebuttal, “Actually, a minority disapprove of the HCR bill because it goes too far. If you count those who approve, and add those who want it to go further, you’re left with a minority. Now, as you may know, even if you had a majority of those polled, the election results of 2008 are pretty clear anyway, and a majority elected us, so it’s moot whatever a snapshot of Americans are feeling at any point prior to the next election, but you’re pulling numbers out of your ass to make your case anyway, so shut up.”

Nate Silver addresses this in point 7 of his 14 reasons that the Pubbie argument is bogus:

I guess we’ll find out in November.

I hope the Republicans are wrong about this.

Ummm … because they’re disgusting lying scum whose every word is a filthy lie? Does that answer it for you?

The Dems don’t control a whole network, no matter what Fox News would have you believe, to spew their propaganda 24/7

Most of the media is satisfied to “present both sides” regardless of whether a given controversy has two sides of a legitimately disputed question or whether it is has only the side of truth versus the side of bullshit. This saves the effort of distinguishing between the two cases and allows an easy veneer of “fairness”.

How do Pubbies get away with lying about health-care disapproval?

Simple - it’s because we are NOT lying about the disapproval.

It doesn’t matter what the underlying reason is. You ask someone if they approve of the bill, they say yes or no. More than 50% of Americans were saying no. There it is.

So let me take you seriously here, Clothy (probably a mistake–I suspect you take my point perfectly but are merely seeking to have fun with me, a la Palin “hopey-changey” style): If a third of Americans want a Soviet-style Marxian revolution, and a third favors the status quo, and the final third wants a return to Warren G. Harding’s policies, you’re okay with saying that two-thirds of the public is opposed to the status quo, and therefore what the current, elected administration proposes is antithetical to the country’s expressed desires? You think that would be a legitimate argument to base your opposition to the current administration on?

You’ve phrased a poll question so as to lump opposition from the far left and far right together, and you’re in favor of using that carefully parsed poll question to imply falsely that there is united opposition to the administration’s policies, and you think that’s not being dishonest?

It doesn’t matter if someone thinks the bill goes way too far or not nearly far enough? It doesn’t matter? :confused:

Same way the Republicans got away with telling people Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Tell a big lie and figure most of your base doesn’t know enough to tell the difference.

Real life isn’t like the SDMB, where you’d best be factual or at least have cites to back you up. Most people don’t think critically, and when asked don’t even know what the concept means.

This is why claims like “up to 70% off!” get people in your store, believing everything will be 70% off.

Oh, and meant to add… why don’t the MSM hammer this point home?

Because they’re more concerned about profits and access. Plus, they’re a bunch of pussies who want the other guy to go first on anything even approaching controversial.

yes, well, I’m troubled by the notion that democrats will discuss this “opposition” without troubling to point out that it is based on a falsehood. The argument agaisnt the premise is valid even if you accept the premise, of course, but we don’t need to accept it, and in fact should not permit it to be introduced in the first place.

Because the Democrats just aren’t very good at fighting back.
The Republicans can get away with saying crazy shit, because they know the Democrats don’t like to fight dirty.
Democratic candidates will usually focus on their opponents’ records, rather than talking about outrageous statements they may have made in the past or simply fabricating strawmen (as the GOP is apt to do these days). Think of the 2004 campaign and the swiftboaters. If the Democrats wanted to fight dirty they could easily have brought up Bush’s National Guard record. Instead they didn’t even bother initially fighting the swiftboaters and when they did, it was too little too late.

Because people will usually believe the worst news first, and you really can fool most of the people most of the time. Especially when they aren’t interested in finding out the truth.

Who did that?

Dick Cheney, for a start.

You caught me. I was posting with tongue firmly in cheek.

Yes, there are some who would take that exact black and white point of view. I know, because I burned a guy on another message board with pretty much the same response I gave you. It sailed over his head and I had much fun with it.

Good catch.

The same people who insisted Saddam had WMD’s and was ready to use them.

Yes, of course you were, dear, of course.