Your analysis is flawed. In addition to the ordinary self-selection bias, you ignore the international Dopers. The war was overwhelmingly unpopular outside of the U.S.
Doesn’t vbulletin have a poll function, that lets every member vote once and only once, the result being displayed at the start of the thread as a nice bar chart?
I’ve seen it on other boards such as the one at JREF.
Maybe that function could be implemented instead of yet another emoticon. Hell, get rid of a few to pay for the overhead.
I’m pretty sure this board is overwhelmingly American. The percentage of international Dopers is not nearly enough to skew the results to that extent.
The selection bias is valid to a degree. But the fact is that every thread is subject to the same selection bias. If we assume that selection bias caused the skewed results of that thread, there is no reason to assume that the very same selection bias won’t skew any other thread about the war. So if the intention was to prove what the Doper community believed in their hearts, you would have a stronger point about selection bias. But if the intention is only to show what is manifested in threads, your point is a lot weaker.
Of course, any one thread can’t prove anything. (I’m also not convinced that support for the war was fully as high as 80%). Still, it supports the overall picture.
Debaser is also greatly overstating the level of support among the American public. As I recall, only a small majority were in favor of the war without UN approval. The IMHO thread did not make that distinction.
Cite, from a late-February story.
Cite, from March 6.
This is simply incorrect. On the first page alone, there are at least six international Dopers, five of whom were opposed to the war.
The “poll data”, if it’s accurate at all, can also be taken as evidence that the population of SDMB posters is more thoughtful and perceptive than average, not that there’s any essential bias. After all, we have, to our great sorrow, been shown to have been essentially right.
Beagle, the new kid on the block was very specifically referring to Nelson Mandela, if you read the thread (which I don’t recommend; life is too short).
Which supports my point. There are about 42 responses on the first page. subtracting the 5 international opposers would not significantly change the results.
Debaser, there’s another self-selecting facet of that poll. Most of the Americans who responded to that SDMB poll are likely not the 45% of Americans who are ignorant fucking fools who made their decision to go to war based on what has yet to be shown as anything other than fantasy: that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks of 9/11.
And Scylla, when you re-cast your argument it makes a little more sense to me, if I make an assumption about how you define a particular word. Since the term “liberal” has been so broadened by people such as George Bush #41–and, of course, Rush–to encompass virtually anyone who refuses to goose-step with the conservative party line (for example, “liberal” Republican John McCain), it rather makes sense that the “liberals” can only agree upon a major issue such as reversing the economic, social, and geopolitical disaster that is the Bush administration. We “liberals,” per the Rush definition,* are a heterogeneous group with disparate objectives, but also with a common enemy.
- “All you have to do to be a good liberal is to say yes to everything except cutting spending and downsizing government. Just say yes. Government should do more to end homelessness. It should spend more on education. It should provide day-care. You name it; the omnipotent, central government should do it. All you have to do to prove your compassion is say yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. What could be easier?”
Source: See, I Told You So, p. 87-89 Jul 2, 1993, excerpted on Issues2000.
Dumbguy,
I specifically worded my post in a (I believe) non confrontational manner. No insults or name calling as I do not believe they are constructive. You can post whatever you like, of course, but posts that consist only of ridicule and sarcasm are petty and mean spirited.
I can see how you might have read Izzy’s post that way. As Izzy has already addressed this (by noting that he didn’t say anything about the importance of the other goals conservatives were pursuing) I don’t feel I need to say anything about it. It sounds like this was an honest miscommunication so I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume (until otherwise clarified) that you’re not being pointlessly snarky.
I don’t think so.
Your poll numbers are months, and weeks away from the time of the SDMB poll I linked to.
Here is an ABC News poll from March 24th.
Also, the small chart on the page says that the 72 % figure is unchanged from March 20th.
And from a [also on March 24th.
Here is another poll from [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82357,00.html]Fox News](]CBS News poll[/url).
On March 25-26 they ask the question:
“7. Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein? Is that strongly (support/oppose) or only somewhat (support/oppose)?”
78% approve (66% strongly) and 18% oppose (10% strongly).
Back in March 11-12th they ask:
“Do you support or oppose U.S. military action to disarm Iraq and remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein?”"
71% approve (54% strongly) and 20% oppose (14% strongly).
The IMHO poll here at the SDMB took place from March 16 - March 20th. The CBS, NBC and FOX News polls do not mention UN support, and neither does the IMHO poll. It doesn’t make sense for you to inject it into the analysis.
The fact is, nearly 80% of American’s at the time of that poll supported the war in Iraq.
spooje wondered:
Debaser offered:
Well, to take the second part first – I like to think neither. But that is just me. Since you appear to only be able to come up with those two options, and you can’t know what my day is like, I guess that only leaves you one option. That’s your choice.
As to getting personal with Scylla – Not to get into a big he said/she said, but, well, I really disliked the way he kicked the door down to enter the discussion by calling everyone snide, miserable pieces of shit. Subsequently he launched into what I strongly felt was a baseless whine about the persecution he and other brave conservatives are subjected to regardless of what they post. So I called him on his whining. Eventually he implied I was an asshole, and then dropped the F-bomb on me. I’m not saying these were outside the parameters of the tone I had adopted, but you guys sound like I was picking on a poor defenseless toddler (and in some ways, judging by the maturity of his rhetorical skills, perhaps you have a point).
Historically, we don’t have a blood feud, to my knowledge. It really is just that I have rarely seen a post from him that was well-reasoned, and I have seen him flat out say that he intentionally prevaricates for the sake of advancing an argument. I also found his treatise on racism in the context of the persecution of his grandfather to be highly offensive and nothing more than racism itself, with a little sheet on. I guess I am thus predisposed to respond vigorously when he spews his particular brand of shit. So, if you find this to be unfair, there is little I can do about that.
I’ve been around approximately a year, so not all that long, and I don’t post at the rate that many folks here do. Yet, it feels long enough to know a bit about Scylla’s rhetorical tactics (not that that requires any particular clinical insight).
However, it does appear that out little tete a tete isn’t in line with the current direction of the thread, and I apologize for that. Perhaps either he and I need our own pit thread, the topic of “conservatives - good good, liberals - bad bad” needs its own thread, or we can let it go for now. I’m content with any of those options, but I just have a hard time suffering nonsense lightly.
Well, now it sounds like you are admitting there is a bias on the SDMB. Your just falling into that liberal habit of thinking that the common folk are far too foolish to make intelligent decisions for themselves. We elites who have free time enough to debate issues on a message board are far more qualified to decide such things.
elucidator earlier in the thread posted:
Also Olentzero back in the polling thread posted:
So which is it, lefties?
Is the SDMB representative of the US population as a whole and the notion of myself, Scylla and other conservatives that there is a liberal bias total bunk?
Or, is are the intellectually superior liberal thinkers naturally attracted to a message board devoted to fighting ignorance?
You can’t have it both ways.
I said there were AT LEAST six int’l Dopers on the first page. Those are only the ones where you can identify their nationality. Most folks, you can’t even tell.
And hey, Debaser? Listing a bunch of polls from [after the war started doesn’t support a damn thing about what the American public thought at the time the IMHO thread was going on. That 80% figure you tossed out remains a steaming pile of lies.
The kid has had a rough start. Let’s face it, the name alone put him on the “usual suspects” list.
I can hide independenty behind my follow-my-nose pseudonym. Unfortunately, I also eat shit occasionally.
WTF are you talking about minty?
I clearly posted the date range of the IMHO poll and the date ranges of the polls I linked to. The polls I linked to were taken a few days before and a few days after the poll in IMHO. You posted crap that was months removed. It’s you who are being dishonest and you who are a liar. If there is a steaming pile of crap in here is because you are spewing it.
I don’t know the secret handshake or anything, but can you show me the list?
Considering the quote you pulled to respond to this…would it be your contention then that the people who believed that Saddam was personally responsible for 9/11 were * not * ignorant?
WHAT LIST?!
sounds of shredding
That sounds like a cop out to me. If your comment wasn’t meant to suggest that conservatives are more likely than liberals to have a stock portfolio, then what was it meant to say?
Don’t come in swinging and then get all cuddly and PC. elucidator isn’t backing off his suggestion that liberals are better thinkers. If you think conservatives are more likely to be successful, then spill it. If you really didn’t mean anything by mentioning stock market message boards, then all your statement boils down to is, “there aren’t more conservatives here because they’re somewhere else.” If that was really your point, then I guess I agree.
No reason he should. We are.