Verdict is in: Zogby poll supposedly demonstrating Obama voters' 'ignorance' was a joke
By David Neiwert Friday Nov 21, 2008 4:00pm
That poll created by wingnut John Ziegler purporting to demonstrate that Obama voters were misinformed by the mainstream media about Barack Obama and Joe Biden (and defended so scatalogically by Ziegler) has been examined by objective polling experts beyond Nate Silver now, and the verdict is unanimous:
"..Interpreted the numbers from the survey in a misleading fashion."
The Zogby summary quotes Ziegler claiming that "the poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace."
The problem, as Silver points out, is that the survey does no such thing. It proves only that Obama voters surveyed were less likely to attribute to Obama or Biden a half dozen statements that were "at best debatable, yet apparently represented as factual to the respondent" ...
... Describing his biased, leading questions as a legitimate test of knowledge is hugely misleading, at best.
Even John Zogby himself is running from this survey, claiming it was put together while he was on vacation. While paying lip service to its ostensible validity, he adds:
“I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”
Worth noting, however: Everyone seems in agreement that this was not a "push poll" in the strict sense of the term, but rather was in a similar vein of being a misleading survey deployed for partisan political purposes.
Ziegler himself has posted a rambling, incoherent defense that attempted to answer the chief issue -- the factual invalidity/dubiousness of many of his questions -- thus:
These questions were carefully chosen to try and identify which news stories broke through the clutter and reached the average Obama voter. Ironically, one of the main reasons that the questions enrage the left is that many of the questions were based on news stories that the left-wing media ignored. In other words, because the left-wing ignored the negative aspects of Obama's past, they weren't reported and therefore weren't significant (or didn't really happen)and so any mention of them is evidence of a right-wing agenda lacking in credibility. Holy circular argument Batman!!
Many left-wing blogs (and many of the thousands of e-mail I have recieved from their readers) are absolutely obsessed with trying to prove that the wording of certian questions was not 100% accurate, as if that would have made any difference at all except in the case of the question about Russia.
Actually, as we already pointed out, the questions were far from 100 percent accurate, and in many cases were nearly 100 percent inaccurate:
-- Joe Biden's plagiarism: While it's true that the media swirl around the "plagiarism" story probably drove him from the 1987 primary campaign, Biden was in fact cleared of those charges.
-- Obama kicked opponents off the ballot: Also false.
-- Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry? Complete bullshit.
-- Obama and Ayers: The claim he began his political career in Ayers' living room is false: "Ayers was one of many who sponsored coffees for Obama in 1995 when he declared for the Illinois Senate. The official campaign launch occurred at the Hyde Park Ramada. Their relationship barely goes beyond serving together on an education foundation board in Chicago."
So what the wingnuts are complaining about is the fact that the news media, for some strange, unknown reason, failed to pick up these falsehoods and loudly broadcast them as factual.
There is a reason, for instance, why the Biden plagiarism story didn't get a lot of play: While it is true that the story hurt Biden enough in the primaries he was eventually forced out, the fact that he was cleared afterward of the charges makes the story largely irrelevant -- except as a cautionary tale about promoting groundless smears in mainstream news reports.
Meanwhile, Nate has some deeper thoughts on the meaning of all this.
Login or Register to post comments.
Ziegler, meet Sarah Palin
Does this clusterf--k get Ziegler FIRED?
Only poor people ever get fired for incompetence. The rich get promoted.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/zogbys-mislea...
"The poll was not, as election forecaster and Obama supporter Nate Silver originally called it, a “push poll,” because it was not an attempt to influence respondents by faking opinion research, as former pollster Mark Blumenthal explained on his blog. Blumenthal nonetheless agreed with Silver’s other criticisms, writing, “Describing his biased, leading questions as a legitimate test of knowledge is hugely misleading, at best.” Silver posted the transcript of his heated interview with Ziegler. Ziegler responded to his critics and to Zogby’s decision not to conduct the same poll with McCain voters."
But I don't suppose it matters that 99% of you called it a push poll?
by strict means, it was not a push poll, only because the election is over....but the questions were meant to garner a certain response...to push the respondant...they were also created by a partisan to be used in a partisan fashion
now you may go back to redstate
hahaha
Wow, you're quite ridiculous.
What does the election being over have to do with it?
And the questions weren't influencing or "pushing" respondents in any way. Read them again, if you ever did. They just might or might not have been based in fact, which is what's being discussed. I agree it's quite possible that the poll is partisan but you should really learn what the hell you're talking about before you post comments. I know it's the tubes, but one expects rationale nonetheless.
Answering the question one way acknowledged/agreed with a "fact" which was, at the very least, debatable. Answering the other way made the respondent "ignorant." Either way confirms the pollster's biased agenda.
Is it technically a "push poll"? I don't know. But it is definitely biased and partisan.
Well, the poll was about (Obama) voters and the media. And the questions were based on "facts", let's say "stories" that permeated the media during the election season. The poll really couldn't have been done much different under those preconditions.
Am I wrong?
Yes, you are. The "preconditions" were biased.
The level of "ignorance" of the Obama voters has no real relevance without comparing it to McCain voters or all voters in general.
How about asking these questions of McCain supporters:
Which candidate referred to attendees of his/her crowd as "prisoners"?
Which candidate thinks that Iraq borders Pakistan?
Which candidate defines middle class as anything under $5million per year?
Which candidate referred to the "northern neighbor" of the United States as China?
Which Candidate doesn't read newspapers?
Which candidate wants to bomb Iran?
Which candidate thinks Putin is president of Germany?
I don't remember the network media focusing at any great length on any (most) of those stories, either. I guess that would prove that the media is "in the bag" demonstrating a McCain bias.
Do you even read what I write? I said that I agree that it's quite probably that the poll is biased.
That doesn't change the fact that it's not a push poll by definition.
Also, I feel that claiming the preconditions are biased is quite absurd. And claiming that learning the data of such poll (regardless of how it was conducted) without "comparison to the opposing group" is even more so.
I don't care if it is called a push poll or a pull poll or a happy bunny poll. The fact that that people are incorrectly calling it a push poll doesn't change the fact that it's a crappy poll. There is no way to answer it without affirming the bias of the pollster. I wrote that before. Did you read it?
Answer the last question that I posed above. Which candidate thinks Putin is the president of Germany? McCain actually referred to Putin as the president of Germany, therefore I am making that the "correct answer" to the question in my poll, much like Ziegler does. Now, any McCain supporter will know that McCain doesn't ACTUALLY think that, but if they paid attention, they know that "McCain" is the only "correct answer" to that question. So they can either affirm that McCain thinks that Putin is president of Germany, or they can show their "ignorance" of the issues by giving what they know the pollster will regard as an incorrect answer.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I don't agree with the "facts" stated in the poll. I don't think Obama voters are more ignorant than McCain voters. The fact is the poll is about Obama voters and Obama's presence in the media. That's how it is presented, that's how it's conducted, and I'm sure Ziegler carefully structured it so he could use it in whatever he was trying to prove against Obama and his imaginary media bias for Obama.
I don't think it's a good poll, for many reasons. But I don't think the reasons you keep giving make it bad, or are even relevant to the discussion.
There is no way to answer it without affirming the bias of the pollster.
As I said, the poll is about Obama voters and the media. The questions don't have to point to facts, but only to stories that permeated the media airtime during the election season.
The only thing I might've changed about the questions is adding a caveat;
"Which candidate, according to prevailing media stories, ..."
Or something like that, anyway. It would need a bit more thought.
But Ziegler is claiming that the Obama voters were ignorant of these stories and that that ignorance is because the mainstream media didn't play the stories because they were biased towards Obama. Yet the real reason the stories didn't get play (and hence people weren't aware of them, or ignored them) was because they were not factual.
Hmm. Yes, you're absolutely right there.
Actually my view is that most of them got far more play than they deserved. But still, to anyone who follows politics they would have been known.
And, with the caveat I proposed, I would struggle to find the poll objectionable.
Zogby's conclusions of what the poll represents will undoubtedly serve his purpose of attacking Obama and his candidacy. However, I severely disagree with the poll itself being a push poll, as Nate characterized it, and 90% of the people here. I shudder at tribalism and groupthink and must speak out.
Anyhoo, bedtime, nice talking to you.
What I'm still not clear on after all this is if you are defending the poll as a valid exercise or merely objecting to the description of it as a "push poll."
I suppose that by a strict - if you will, "classical" - definition, it's not a push poll since that term originally referred to a poll that was intended to "push" a respondent away from a particular candidate by presenting negative information in what was supposed to be a neutral setting.
On the other hand, the questions did contain untrue or at least questionable information presented as fact, which would tend to push respondents toward accepting those false assertions as true. And the overall purpose was to push a certain result: Obama voters are ignorant and are so due to media bias.
So whether or not it was a push poll depends on how strictly you want to define the term.
On a related note and by the same logic, it shouldn't be called a "poll" at all but rather a "survey" since by a strict definition the former term refers to examining opinions and this one was (supposedly) about knowledge.
And claiming that learning the data of such poll (regardless of how it was conducted) without "comparison to the opposing group" is even more so [absurd].
Really? I forget the numbers, but let's say that the poll found that 70% of Obama voters were ignorant of the issues. You'd say, "WOW!! That's really bad. Obama voters are ignorant." But then we give result for the rest of the respondents that show that 74% of all voters are ignorant of the issues and 77% of the McCain voters are ignorant of the issues. Well, that means Obama voters are above the average. Frankly, as is the case here, I'd seriously question the validity of the questions and answers in the poll.
I forget the numbers, but let's say that the poll found that 70% of Obama voters were ignorant of the issues. You'd say, "WOW!! That's really bad. Obama voters are ignorant."
Actually, what I'd say is "70% of Obama voters were ignorant of the issues, according to the poll". I would have no point of reference whether such a percentage is "good" or "bad".
If said poll also polled another candidate's voters, then I would have some base for comparison. As it is, it provides absolute, raw data, as presented, with no means of comparison.
{Edited, If you don't like the site in it's current format, Hit the road. SiteMonitor}
Yet Ziegler is doing exactly that - claiming that it means Obama voters are ignorant ... and that it's the media's fault.
Exactly - raw data without any sort of comparison or relevance is useless. Now you're making my case.
Hmm, actually no. I have no doubt that Ziegler will claim that Obama voters are ignorant. He can claim the poll says all kinds of things. But that would make his conclusions biased, and frankly, BS, not the poll itself.
Nothing you've stated makes the poll inherently wrong. It only makes Zogby's interpretation of it biased.
You edited my post?
Will you seriously deny me the right of speaking out (nostalgically) in support of the old site layout? How is that your duty as a site monitor?
{ I edited the title of your comment. It's getting worn Nikola.
If you don't like it here, you have the option to leave. SiteMonitor.}
Thank you for introducing my options to me. I wouldn't have known. My other option (other than leaving, that is, which you seem to want) is to express nostalgia for the old layout. Which is what I'm doing.
I liked the old format too! I'm hitting the road now.
LOL :)
Frankly, as is the case here, I'd seriously question the validity of the questions and answers in the poll.
How, exactly, would asking similar McCain-related questions to his own voters, prove or disprove the Obama poll? They would each be a independent set of data for analysis, without affecting each other. They could each (or both) be "valid" (or not).
that you're incorrect:
1) "Wow, you're quite ridiculous.
What does the election being over have to do with it?"
The fact that the election is over is the main determinant as to why it's not a "push poll." Push polls are used in political campaigns to spread half-truths as opposed to actually caring what the responses are. While some push polls include "loaded" or "leading" questions, it isn't a necessary component. "Push polling" doesn't mean that one tries to push a respondent one way or another in answering, but rather it means that the "pollster" (which is, itself, inaccurate in this situation) is trying to "push" a voter in one direction or another. While the paraphrasing of Blumnethal in this instance seems to contradict this, it doesn't. "Because it was not an attempt to influence respondents by faking opinion research" is correct, but the only reason it is correct is that "influencing respondents" (or "pushing" voters, as I stated) was not the intent, here, per se. If taken completely out of context, which you seem to have done quite naively, one might pragmatically infer is that a requirement of a push poll is the inclusion of leading questions, but that's not the case. "Influence" is key, and that is done by campaigns or surrogates. As far as I know, the McCain campaign is over, because the election is over. Relatively speaking, though, this could be called a "push poll," if you're looking forward to 2012 (which is pretty desperate and pathetic, "kind of like" John Ziegler is--and which, in turn, would make him incorrect, again--"kind of like" you, Nikola).
Bottom line: "Quite ridiculous," indeed, you erudite rube.
2) "Well, the poll was about (Obama) voters and the media. And the questions were based on "facts", let's say "stories" that permeated the media during the election season. The poll really couldn't have been done much different under those preconditions. Am I wrong?"
No, you are incorrect. It could have been conducted millions of different ways, literally. It is apparent (as you noted), that the poll is biased in the "stories," let's say "fucking fairy tales," about which it asks. Was there a "how many times has John McCain crashed a public and/or private plane?" question? Nope. I read them.
Since you admit the questions, in toto, were one-sided, I'm torn as to why you would say "really couldn't have been done much different[ly]" (correction added) out one side of your mouth and then mention that it a) generally speaks to one candidate, cherry-picking the questions (you call it a "caveat," but asking twice the number of questions, in order to balance it out, is much more than a simple exception), b) only recruited Obama supporters as respondents (half, again), and c) "I agree that it's quite probably that the poll is biased" (no idea how to paraphrase that masterpiece of an attempt at a sentence).
Bottom line: No, you are incorrect, again.
3) "Also, I feel that claiming the preconditions are biased is quite absurd. And claiming that learning the data of such poll (regardless of how it was conducted) without 'comparison to the opposing group' is even more so."
That's as absurd as saying, "The poll really couldn't have been done much different under those preconditions." It simply makes no sense. Done under preconditions? A "precondition" is either a prerequisite or a set of terms laid out before two parties negotiate. I fail to see how either applies. "Conditions" is the proper term (nice try at "looking smart," though). Your argument becomes doubly dubious with the addition of "comparison to the opposing group" (see point 2, above).
You say, "As it is, it provides absolute, raw data, as presented, with no means of comparison."
Bottom line: Again, I concede: it couldn't have been done any other way. Are you trying to say the poll is "objective?" That's pretty much the definition you laid out. Here's a hint: "objectivity" doesn't exist, at least not among humans. With "no means of comparison," data are meaningless. Things only take on meaning in comparison to other things. As such, there could be no interpretation, yet, somehow, there, is, which demonstrates my point.
4) "You edited my post? Will you seriously deny me the right of speaking out (nostalgically) in support of the old site layout? How is that your duty as a site monitor?"
Bottom line: Is that an attempt at humor, or are you simply insane? (There's an example of a loaded question for you; unfortunately for you, they're your only real options).
5) "How, exactly, would asking similar McCain-related questions to his own voters, prove or disprove the Obama poll? They would each be a independent set of data for analysis, without affecting each other. They could each (or both) be 'valid' (or not)."
First, scientific polls don't "prove" anything. Have you not made it past positivism? Well, then, I should have wound up the car and taken you to a talkie (to console you for getting ripped by Uncle Joe -- ouch). The only thing we can know for sure is that we can't know anything for sure. This helps illustrate why objectivity is a myth.
Second, "valid" is the proper term to have been used in this instance; so there's no need for your little snarky "quotation marks." "Valid" basically means that a scale measures what it is supposed to measure. "Reliable," on the other hand, means a scale will give you similar readings time and again, even though those results aren't capturing the essence of the concept (such scales often are measuring a confounding correlate).
Bottom Line: Sure, they can both be "'valid,'" but that lends your argument no support. As you said, they could each be valid, and the results from one wouldn't affect the results of the other. However, without a means of comparison (to one another or to non-Obama supporters), the data are meaningless. They may be descriptive, but explanatory value is key to meaning. Perhaps unfortunately, that's not possible with these data.
Ridiculous is being a VP candidate who doesn't know what magazines or newspapers one reads or imagining the question, itself, is a slight on your state's citizenry (reason for concern, there, ya think?).
I'm loving your post, and your effort to reply. I'll try and respond to what I find questionable. (and to some things you don't seem to think I agree with, for some reason)
The fact that the election is over is the main determinant as to why it's not a "push poll." Push polls are used in political campaigns to spread half-truths as opposed to actually caring what the responses are.
Actually, one of the most important reasons this isn't a push poll is the sample size. Push polls have huge sample sizes, as any telemarketing effort.
This is a decent poll, the results of which are interpreted with bias by Ziegler to push the narrative for his documentary.
Since you admit the questions, in toto, were one-sided,
Actually I don't. And even if they were "one-sided" (which I presume means negative towards Obama?) it wouldn't necessarily be condemning of the poll itself under the goal it has, which is exploring the influence of the media narrative on Obama voters. A poll can be of value as a source of hard data. To imply a comparison is required, otherwise it's useless, is ludicrous.
Was there a "how many times has John McCain crashed a public and/or private plane?" question? Nope. I read them.
It's true, that question wasn't there. However, you're implying that no questions asked about "bad" things in the McCain/Palin campaign. This is completely incorrect, and you would know this if you read the questions. Here are the questions (quite "negative") about McCain/Palin:
Which candidate could not say how many houses they own?
Which candidate said they could see Russia from their house?
Which candidate wore clothes that their political party reportedly spent $150,000 on?
Which candidate currently has a pregnant teenage daughter?
That's 4 questions. Out of 12. Not "in toto" at all, eh?
b) only recruited Obama supporters as respondents
That doesn't make the poll itself invalid. The poll was there to get raw data on Obama voters and the media.
Now, when Ziegler starts claiming that this proves that Obama voters are ignorant without actually doing a similar poll on McCain, THAT will be bias and partisanship. The poll itself can't be blamed for wrong interpretation of the results.
c) "I agree that it's quite probably that the poll is biased" (no idea how to paraphrase that masterpiece of an attempt at a sentence).
English isn't my first language, but thanks.
"Conditions" is the proper term (nice try at "looking smart," though).
Hello? In toto?
And again, I'm not English.
Are you trying to say the poll is "objective?" That's pretty much the definition you laid out. Here's a hint: "objectivity" doesn't exist, at least not among humans.
Haha. You're all over the map here. If there is no objectivity, why do you single out this poll as not being objective? And I never claimed anything is objective in the absolute sense, let alone a poll.
With "no means of comparison," data are meaningless. Things only take on meaning in comparison to other things. As such, there could be no interpretation, yet, somehow, there, is, which demonstrates my point.
Actually you're right, in a way, but this doesn't remotely prove what you think it does. Any "raw data" is in effect a comparison to the commonly used units, be they units of distance, pressure, power, duration, temperature.
But, you're in essence claiming that if there are 2 cars on the road, and I only measure the speed of one car, the data is in effect meaningless. That is absurd. That data just can't be used to deem the car "fast" or "slow". If you do that, your interpretation of the data is wrong, not the data itself. What Ziegler is doing with the interpretation of his poll is absurd, without comparing a similar poll of McCain voters, not the poll itself.
Bottom line: Is that an attempt at humor, or are you simply insane? (There's an example of a loaded question for you; unfortunately for you, they're your only real options).
I have no idea what you were trying to say here, do explain.
"First, scientific polls don't "prove" anything. Have you not made it past positivism?"
I was speaking in layman terms. Strictly speaking, I misspoke.
And yes, I'm a hopeless (theoretical) positivist.
The only thing we can know for sure is that we can't know anything for sure. This helps illustrate why objectivity is a myth.
Again, you're all over the map without saying anything.
However, without a means of comparison (to one another or to non-Obama supporters), the data are meaningless. They may be descriptive, but explanatory value is key to meaning. Perhaps unfortunately, that's not possible with these data.
Again, just because there's no means of comparison to McCain voters, the data is by no means meaningless. At the very least it can be a reference to a future poll of McCain voters (if anyone takes Ziegler up on his bet).
To say that any data in itself is meaningless is absurd. Data has intrinsic meaning, by definition, no? Just because it doesn't have the depth of actual comparison, doesn't make it meaningless.
What will be meaningless, however, is Ziegler's claim that Obama voters are ignorant, without actually researching McCain voters to compare.
Ridiculous is being a VP candidate who doesn't know what magazines or newspapers one reads or imagining the question, itself, is a slight on your state's citizenry (reason for concern, there, ya think?).
There we agree. Thankfully she was "just" a candidate:/
A push poll is defined as a poll that's designed to INFLUENCE, rather than record and analyze public opinion. Traditionally it's been used to influence public opinion in order to influence an election. But if you take away the election part, it's still meant to influence public opinion, which makes it a push poll. In this case, it was designed to influence the public into believing that Obama was elected because the media didn't faithfuly report what a terrible guy he really is. Thus, finding a tricky way to get the sneaky Republican SMEARS back into the news cycle again, influencing public opinion, and (possibly) influencing the NEXT election.
Let me translate it in a way that a movement conservative would understand. Randomly arresting black people who show up to vote is an example of voter suppression, but throwing 60 000 African American's off the voters list in Florida because they have names that sound SIMILAR to other African Americans who've been convicted of felonies is also voter suppression, even though nobody was actually arrested.
So, you're still claiming it's a push poll? I thought everyone got to their senses by now, but were merely ignoring the fact they were wrong earlier. Even the article itself doesn't claim any longer that the poll is a push poll, care to make your case a bit more clear?
And I'm not a "movement conservative", but thanks for dumbing down the argument for me.
Also, from wiki:
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.
Push polls are not defined by influence to public opinion AT ALL, but the opinion of respondents. Correct polling has to do with not hinting answers at respondents.
Ziegler's poll didn't hint answers to respondents, it's merely its questions that are, haha, in question. But even they are not if you view them as investigating parts of the media narrative, not actual facts. If my caveat from above was applied, there would be nothing suspect about the questions themselves.
I don't understand why Nikola is so hung up on whether it is labeled a push poll. What difference does it make. I would agree that it is designed to influence opinion, though maybe not directly through the question. Instead it gathers predetermined results which affirm an agenda which then is supposed to influence readers of the poll results. What difference does it make if it is called a push poll?
The results were not predetermined, nor can they be. Their interpretation, however, probably was.
The difference matters, quite a lot. Noone's denying the fact that Ziegler's interpretation of the results is partisan and biased. That does not reflect on the poll in any way, though.
Even the original post quotes the WSJ:
Wall Street Journal:
"..Interpreted the numbers from the survey in a misleading fashion."
It also matters that everyone happily jumped on the push-poll boat, both on Nate's site and here, without giving it any thought... It was republican-bashing time and to hell with logic.
As I said, I hate tribalism and groupthink, so I'm posting now.
parse this crap up your crack.
Don't need misleading questions. Truth is, most voters in supposed democratic nations, know very little about candidates, policies, or anything else government-wise. They could care less. Too damn busy working their asses off to survive. If it wasn't for the media and politicians yacking constantly about how voting is proving democracy, most people just wouldn't vote at all.
Water under the bridge. Time to move on...
not when ziegler gets airtime on fox, and is sure to get airtime when his "documentary" is released
you wanna keep your head in the sand until the full attacks come out...fine....but the rest of us wont
thats what happened during the clinton administration
we all sat around making fun of guys like rush...until it was too late...and we lost the congress and then handed the presidency over to the christian fascists
Whatever, I just voted a straight Democratic ticket. I figured all I needed to know is whether they are Republicans.
He's wrong. He's biased. We should never hear from him again.
Do you mean Ziegler?
It was probably a Freudian slip. But an ACCURATE one! I'm hoping that, by keeping this scandal in the spotlight for a few days, and highlighting the fact that Zogby conducted a push poll FOR Ziegler, it will diminish Zogby's credibility enough to make any legitimate polling organizations THINK TWICE about helping out wingnuts with their push polls. If they want to conduct push polls, let them make their own, obviously biased polling agency, which everybody will then be free to ignore.
Stunts like this are designed to develop the right-wing strategy to de-legitimatize Obama's presidency by calling every facet of it into doubt.
The problem is the target audience isn't going to believe ANYONE who says the attempt is fraudulent. Ziegler made the poll, everyone reacted to it predictably according to their ideology and mission accomplished for Ziegler.
john ziegler is the one employing a tautology, or as he so inelegantly put it, using a circular argument. "I want to ask you these important questions." "Why are they important questions?" "Because I said they were important questions." "Why do you think they're important questions?" "Because these are important questions."
He's also employing argumentum ad reductio with, "In other words, because the left-wing (not proven, non sequitur), media ignored the negative aspects of Obama's past, they weren't reported and therefore weren't significant (or didn't really happen)..." Who said they werent' reported, or that they didn't happen? Only that the auditor wanted some proof that they happened and why it should be important to them.
ziegler also used false authority. Who was the authority that said these were accurate and important stories, himself?
Then of course this is all petitio principii, asking questions not to gainsay new information, but with pre-set responses that he wished to prove.
ziegler's not nearly as clever as he thinks (if he thinks.)
The goat herders (zieglers) who wrote the Bible weren't as clever as they thought either
seriously...you are like the guys who want to insert the jewish conspiracy into every discussion
I saw no Jewish conspiracy in the comment. The Old Testament wasn't that clever, it took Babylonian stories of the First Parents (and then some), Flood Stories that are world wide like Atargatis, Gilgamesh, Deucalion, Atrahasis, Utnapisthtim and others, and even an Axis Mundi approach to the world, with the Monotheism of the Egyptian Pharoh Akhenaten, and a God YHWH who seems to derive his name from the Egyptian town of YHW (pronounced Yahoo.)
However, they could make the argument that they changed the morals and the ethics of the stories. Only fundies take them literally.
I reread the comment of Wire Paladin that you referred to and realized he didn't refer to the Jews at all, but goat herders, and that could include the Christians of the New Testament as well, equally derivative of the cults of Herakles, Mithra, Horus and particularly Attis (lover of the Goddess Cybele).
Praise Bob!!!
i was talking the swipe at the bible and religion
the fact that so many athiests and agnostics constantly swipe at religion bugs me
ziegler is not a religionist...he has just thrown his lot in with them, because he is a sad, pathetic man
for a wingnut who allegedly believes in personal responsibilty, he blames all of his life failures on others...
who the fuck blames the ability to get married on not being pc??? the man is fucking certifiable
It was a statement of opinion, apropos of nothing in particular, other than a response to a comment I made. But then this is site is fairly open.
Additionally, the Bible, and the Bible believers deserve an occasional swipe. I remember when I was 17 expressing an opinion to a true believer, that Adam and Eve weren't being punished by the eviction from Eden, but given what they asked for. They desired wisom from the fruit of knowledge, and they couldn't learn that in Eden. One has to leave the nursery and suffer privation and stress away from home to gain in wisdom.
He told me that was blasphemous.
Heck, I tell the believers that god is a woman. They lose their freakin' minds over that one.
I like your version of Adam & Eve though. I'll be using it in the future.
there are rabbinic sages who say much like you do...without knowledge, there would be no growth
staying in the garden, where all one's needs were taken care of, would have also stagnated growth.
It's the Gentiles who interpreted it for their own gain that I've got a problem with.
Well, them and people who don't know that Ziegler is a common German surname that translates to "bricklayer".
But there were more goats than bricks in Old Testament days, if you get my drift!
Goat herders didn't have to watch where they stepped?
...then again, who the fuck cares?
in 88...he was basically a dick back then...he just wasnt a good politician and took every attack and slight to heart
the biden that appeared onstage with palin was not the same biden of the 88 campaign
had it been that biden, he wouldve ripped palin's head off and shat down her neck....and ended the obama run right there
this joe biden is more likable, which is why the gen public thought he won the debate
their reputation is permanently tarnished.
Time for Roger Rabbit
Zogby and Ziegler would have better luck consulting the Zodiac.
that Ziegler is just being a pathetic, whiney-ass crybaby.
So it's the run up to perhaps the most crucial election in our lifetimes and John Zogby claims to have been "on vacation"? Just when the hell does he go in to the office?
Okay, I got a poll for ya right here:
John Zogby:
A) is lying to cover his own ass.
B) is incompetent.
C) is in the tank for the right wing.
D) launched his polling career in the living room of Roger Ailes.
And please remember that you must select four and only four options.
Didn't this poll occur AFTER the election?
But yeah, funny:P
{ I've asked you nicely to stop it Nikola. The old site isn't coming back. So, Please knock it off. SiteMonitor}
What is it exactly that I'm doing wrong? Is discussion of the old site off-limits? I'm not the only one who likes it better, you know. Is it the fact I use the subject line for it? I can easily append it to the end of my posts if that's the problem. A signature function would help.
E) All of the above. - That's my choice.
What's scary is that a Zogby poll was reported as straight news by a reputable overseas news network. They just don't get the facts behind these reports. A great deal of news coming out of the US is Republican biased. No wonder they hate you.
his polls are proof that anything can be ostensibly proven with the properly framed questions. and zogby does it all the time.
so this one "slipped through the cracks", while he was on vacation.
And I have nine Arizona mansions to sell ya.
Living in LA, I used to listen to Zig's showon KFI from time to time. He isn't all bad either, certainly smart and entertaining and often times very sensitive and decent
.
What I see here is his deft use of liberal blogs to get his video hits over a million and "create" a story that puts his name out there and create a buzz. I'd say it's pretty smart and calculated because a lot of people, most of whom are not wingnuts have viewed the ridiculous video and good names like Silver and Zogby have their names associated with it.
While I rarely agreed with Zig, I do have respect for his methods. Publicity, either bad or good, creates a buzz and it feeds on itself. I am sure he is smiling at the attention and doing all the right things to further his cause with the attention.
I am on his mailing list and rec'd a request to "digg" the video. What made me laugh out loud was that he had to explain "digg"ing (?) to the recipients of the em. He knows his core audience and here are a few lines from the em:
"Thanks to you and many, many, others, the video of Obama voters
has been seen by well over a MILLION people in just its first week. This is absolutely incredible, especially for a "conservative" video. One of the things that I have learned is that the deck is very much stacked against videos which liberals, who control the internet at least as much as they control the "mainstream" media, object to (and boy have they objected to this one!!).
So, to try to take the video and its message to the next level, I am asking you to do me a simple favor. Please go to
http://www.howobamagotelected.com and click on the "DIGG" icon next to
the video. Now many of you are probably not yet "DIGG" members,
but it is VERY easy to sign up (you will be given that chance when you click on the icon) and have your "vote" count.
While this may seem silly, it is extremely important in getting the video more widely seen. Unfortunately the left-wing websites have
been "burying" the video so that it is harder to find. Some have told
us that they have never seen a video with this many "DIGG's" that
has not shown up on their home page. I know it is a pain, but every "vote" here really does count."
Pretty effective use of negative publicity if you ask me.
Liberals control the "mainstream" media? Your ignorance is surpassed only by Mr. Zeigler's and Mr. Zogby's. You may now crawl back to your troll both.
Liberal media. ROFLMAO!!!
Hey There NoGWB....
I think you misunderstood my post - it could have been that I didn't italicize the quotes from Zig's email to his "flock". I am on several wingnut mailing lists because I like to know what is coming at us next.
The only point I was making was that by mostly liberals viewing and commenting on his silly video, he was making hay of it. Based on the number of hits he got on his video from those of us who don't agree, he turned around and created a "buzz".
Of course I know the msm is mainly conservative and Zig and Zog I rarely agree with. I made my post to let progressives know NOT to view those type of clips because the number of hits matters.
Perhaps you could re-read the post and realize I was quoting Zig, not me. Apology accepted.
I feel your pain Zeig. Your desired candidate didn't win. You feel like your team just lost the championship to a team of wimps and softies and now the game is tainted. Welcome to 2004 in reverse (2000 doesn't even come close, your team didn't win and have the refs give it to the other guy on review).
In an effort to reach out my "Center Right" "Bipartisan" hand, I made a list of questions for your McCain/Palin voter poll to help salvage your reputation. Each question is based on a fact (based on your interpretation of factual) and phrased in a manner to comfort the demographic.
1. Which party set the record for the filibuster in Congress for 2006/07? (explain filibuster in question please)
A. Democrat Party
B. Gods Party
C. Indepdont's
D. Stinkin' Commie Greenies
E. None of the above, they never actually had to do nuthin'.
2. Which candidate blew up their own aircraft carrier during a time of war?
3. Which candidate was borned in a unAmerican country that is not Hawaii?
4. Which candidate has a wife who was hooked on the drugs and stole fer her habit?
5. Which candidate fucked a lobbyist that looked a lot like his old lady?
6. Which candidate fucked her (oops! is that a tell?) husbands buddy , pissed off god, and got a special needs baby because of it?
7. Which candidate loves them some injun casino gambling, but don't love to report the "winnings"?
8. Who's spokesperson ain't really a plumber, didn't pay their taxes, don't use the name his momma gave him, but is a kick-ass country singer and awesome book writer?
9. Teenage pregnancy is an issue that is:
A. A public disgrace for a democrat.
B. A private family matter for a Republican.
C. A Gift from God.
D. A private family matter between a father and daughter.
E. Usually the result of lack of information/education for the teens.
10. Which candidate will be proven right when the End Times come and can help rid your village of witches?
Bonus. Which candidate bad mouthed his country on tape during a time of war and then stopped the release of POW records to cover this up later when heading a committee to help POW's? Was married to two women at the same time but is not Mormon? Doesn't go church and can't decide which religion he really is? Pushed a crippled POW widow in a wheelchair over when asked for help? Gets punchy during meetings when angry? Reads shitty poetry to other people on vacation? Gropes others wives on vacation? Loves free vacations? Got rich by oozing into a family that made their money off the devil's brew? After cheating on & dumping his crippled first wife? Hates cripples? Is Hated by NANCY REAGAN?
Good Luck.
LOL! Thanks for the entertaining post.
Ziegler is an attention-craving sociopath. Ziggy, I know Darcie dumped you, but this is no way to get back at her. Are the voices coming back again? Poor Ziggy.
Yes, I was one of the people polled by Zogby for this right wing poll.
I have responded to a few Zogby polls in the past and I generally respect Zogby polling and that is why I agreed to participate, but there was something wrong with this poll from the beginning. I am trying to remember the specific questions, but they definitely felt like push polling.
I responded negatively to on the poll to questions about Ayers and the coal industry, not because I ddidn't know about them, but because I knew they were not significant and therefore "as issues" they had no impact on my decision to vote for Obama. That negative response seems to have been reported on Fox as "not knowing about these negative Obama stories" which is entirely false and misleading.
They notion that the only proof needed to indict the media of Obama bias is that Obama won is ludicrous. The media talked about Rev Wright and Ayes at length and found them to have little merrit. But that is not enough for the wing nuts, so they had to commission a "so called study" by Zogby to make their point biased point.
I took the poll and I can tell you from first hand experience that is was a sham.
Good info. You should post this on fivethirtyeight.com for Nate Silver to digest.
It's hilarious how fast Zogby is running from this thing :) LOL
Willful ingorance of republican lies and smears is no vice.
Login or Register to post comments.