Subscribe to

Consider This

in Apple Podcasts

Apple Podcasts

in Google Podcasts

Google Podcasts

in Stitcher

Stitcher SmartRadio

on Android

Subscribe on Android

or the “podcatcher”
of your choice

RSS

Polling Archives

Is offense the chief concern?

Starting with the 2019 baseball season, the Cleveland Indians will get rid of their logo, named Chief Wahoo. They did it because critics considered it culturally offensive.

But what of those critics? I have no problem with the team deciding to change the logo, for whatever their reasons. It’s their team to do with as they wish, and if they decide to change based on being sensitive to pressure from outside, that’s fine. But I just wonder about whether those outside critics are representative of those they supposedly represent.

Mentioned links:

Christian Daily Reporter

Cleveland Indians will abandon Chief Wahoo logo next year

Poll: Native Americans’ attitudes toward the Washington Redskins team name

I’m dropping my protest of Washington’s football team name

‘Redskins’ question in 2004 Annenberg study cited anew in controversy

Episode 143: UK NHS SOS, and the Washington Redskins (Non-)Controversy [Consider This podcast]

Read the rest of this entry

What does this chart actually mean?

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?” That’s the question that Gallup polling asks people to get that magic number called the Presidential Approval Rating. But what does that mean to the respondents? Does that mean they approve of how effective he is at getting his agenda passed? Does that mean they approve of his agenda at all? Does that mean they approve of his personality while getting his agenda passed? Or does it just mean they approve of his personality regardless?

My guess is, it all depends on the person hearing the question to interpret it in whatever way they think.

Mentioned links:

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

Complete List of President Trump’s Major Accomplishments in First 100 Days

Read the rest of this entry

Thoughts on the 2015 Election Results

No podcast episode coming out  regarding this, but I did want to weigh in.

Not a huge number of results, but some results were huge in this off-year election day.

The “hugest” could be considered the election of a Republican Tea Partier as governor of Kentucky.

Matt Bevin, a Republican political novice, wealthy Louisville businessman and Tea Party favorite, was elected Kentucky’s next governor on Tuesday and swept fellow Republicans into statewide office with him. The stunning victory heralds a new era in a state where Democrats have held the governor’s mansion for all but four of the last 44 years.

In beating his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Jack Conway, by almost nine percentage points, Mr. Bevin, 48, shocked people in his own party, who believed that the climate in Kentucky was ripe for a Republican but feared that Mr. Bevin, a charismatic conservative with a go-it-alone style, was too far out of the mainstream and too inexperienced to win.

A few things about this. First, I have noted before that when Democrats get to run places like the big cities of Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore for decades, with few to no Republicans in that time, and when we see these cities crumbling when they have this free hand, it’s hard to understand why the voters in those cities keep electing folks from the same party over and over. It’s like they think that the same guys who got them into this hole can now dig them out of it using the same shovels. I’m hoping that this signals a change in the voters of Kentucky; that they’ve finally said, “Enough is enough.”

Bevin, as noted above in the NY Times article, was a Tea-Party-type. The Republican establishment was concerned that he was too conservative, or “too far out of the mainstream” to win. It appears that perhaps the “mainstream” isn’t necessarily where those pundits think it is. It may be running more to the political Right.

Read the rest of this entry

Getting it wrong

Getting it wrong

The recent election results in the UK have called into question the accuracy of opinion polling, especially since the polling got the election results so wrong. Is polling a legitimate science, or just some black art? Do people often say one thing and do another? How does the enforcement of politically correct speech skew polling, and why does it always seem to be skewed in one direction?

You’ll hear my thoughts, but don’t forget to let me know your thoughts.

Mentioned links:

Conservative Voters Give Pollsters Politically Correct Answers . . . and Then They Vote

Massive NBC Prediction Fail: Network Wrong as Conservatives Surge to Power

Read the rest of this entry