Polls - do Americans actually think ? - New England Patriots Forums

***BelichickFan*** · 07-01-2009, 03:50 PM

I just saw a somewhat poll on Cap and Tax on Rasmussen but as he's discredited here I thought I'd look at Gallup and it makes no sense.

There is this question :

""What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?"

The support for this was -10% (54-44 against).

But then there is this question :

""What if it raised the price of things you buy? In that case do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases?""

The support for this was +62% (80-18 for).

So . . . when the specifics of Cap & Trade and costing $25 a month are mentioned people are against it. But when the generics of "regulate greenhouse gases" and "raise the price of things you buy" are mentioned, people can't grasp what that is and are overwhelmingly for it ???

Non partisan, non pro/con issue intended here - how can these polls possibly be from the same group ? I think it's literally the same group of people answering but even if they're from different samples, with a +/- 3.5% MoE . . . I just don't get it.

http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm

Fogbuster · 07-01-2009, 03:56 PM

To answer the question, nowadays 90% do NOT think, except with their stomachs and genitals.

Thank you, churches, education establishment, TV, magazines, and most other cultural "spokespersons".

//

***Leave No Doubt*** · 07-01-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

I just saw a somewhat poll on Cap and Tax on Rasmussen but as he's discredited here I thought I'd look at Gallup and it makes no sense.

There is this question :

""What if a cap and trade program significantly lowered greenhouse gases but raised your monthly electrical bill by 25 dollars a month? In that case would you support or oppose it?"

The support for this was -10% (54-44 against).

But then there is this question :

""What if it raised the price of things you buy? In that case do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases?""

The support for this was +62% (80-18 for).

So . . . when the specifics of Cap & Trade and costing $25 a month are mentioned people are against it. But when the generics of "regulate greenhouse gases" and "raise the price of things you buy" are mentioned, people can't grasp what that is and are overwhelmingly for it ???

Non partisan, non pro/con issue intended here - how can these polls possibly be from the same group ? I think it's literally the same group of people answering but even if they're from different samples, with a +/- 3.5% MoE . . . I just don't get it.

Environment

It's all in the phraseology of the questions; like they first ask the question using a hard number ($25) and specifically cite your electric bill as the target. Electricity prices get messed with enough plus it's a basic utility,it's a necessity.

Then they re-phrase the question into a very general,abstract one. They went from 25.00 to "raise prices", and they changed Electric Bill to "things you buy". The phrase "things you buy" is broad and therefore far less threatening, and it implies having a choice. Maybe it's things like clothing that will go up,buying clothes is something people have more control over and is a less painful place to control one's consumption. Most people are probably only moderately aware that electricity is actually something they "buy",in the strictest terms anyway.

That poll is a great illustration of just how easy it is to get whatever poll results you want simply by constructing and phrasing your questions a certain way. If anyone watches Lou Dobbs (whom I like), his poll questions are a perfect example of that.

It's scary how easily people's minds and thought processes can be manipulated. I'm not sure that indicates stupidity necessarily, but it's indeed a scary place that we're at. I'd call us "brainwashed" rather than stupid.

Good post B, it's hopefully an eye-opener to everybody.

***Leave No Doubt*** · 07-01-2009, 06:37 PM

Gerald Celente calls it Obamageddon. While he acknowledges everything that's going on began a long time ago,he argues that Obama's actions are absolutely unprecedented not just because of their nature but also because of the rapidity of them. He also happens to be non-political,calling himself a "political atheist". Here's Gerald 'Doom but he's rarely been wrong over the years' Celente's take: Gerald Celente on the Cap and Trade Scam

The Decline of Thinking

Quote:

The political establishment’s response to the global warming doubts raised by EPA researcher, Alan Carlin, is remarkable. The mantra chanted by one EPA official - and dutifully echoed across the media - is that Mr. Carlin “is not a scientist.” This fact, of course, has not kept Al Gore from becoming the patron saint of the environmental religion. (Gore received his PhD in which of the recognized sciences?)

***IcyPatriot*** · 07-01-2009, 07:43 PM

I think cap and trade could turn out to be usefull ... time will tell.

I just don't see how it's going to work in terms of new technology.

Solar and wind are okay for rural uses but they cannot solve the big problem.

We're sitting on tons and tons of coal ... more unemployed now.
Less dependancy on foreign oil (dried up oil according to PC) will be good.

In other words I would like cap and trade whole lot better if we were building more nuke plants.
But we're not ... so how exactly will it change anything except our bill going up for like everything?

***BelichickFan*** · 07-01-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leave No Doubt

It's all in the phraseology of the questions; like they first ask the question using a hard number ($25) and specifically cite your electric bill as the target. Electricity prices get messed with enough plus it's a basic utility,it's a necessity.

Yeah, I was STUNNED, though, that putting the small number of $25 vs. the generic statement of "raised the price of things you buy" had such a dramatic effect. Do people really think that "raising the price of things you buy" would be by such a small amount that it would cost less than $25 a month ? Crazy.

wistahpatsfan · 07-01-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Yeah, I was STUNNED, though, that putting the small number of $25 vs. the generic statement of "raised the price of things you buy" had such a dramatic effect. Do people really think that "raising the price of things you buy" would be by such a small amount that it would cost less than $25 a month ? Crazy.

That's exactly how people think in this idiocracy. And it applies to all types and subjects of questions. And what's worse, they went ahead and answered the vaguely phrased question probably without even thinking about the actual number.

This is worrisome, to me. More than the wars, Obama, Wall Street suits.. azzholes of all kinds. This points to a grim future for this country.

***BelichickFan*** · 07-01-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

That's exactly how people think in this idiocracy. And it applies to all types and subjects of questions. And what's worse, they went ahead and answered the vaguely phrased question probably without even thinking about the actual number.

It's almost like they disassociate themselves from "higher prices" figuring it will be someone else paying them - or "the rich" - but SHOCK no way can you add $25 to MY BILL.

***IcyPatriot*** · 07-01-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

It's almost like they disassociate themselves from "higher prices" figuring it will be someone else paying them - or "the rich" - but SHOCK no way can you add $25 to MY BILL.

Obama may be asking the Iranians for advice soon.
When it comes to increase in energy prices we all pay ... except for perhaps the Amish.

wistahpatsfan · 07-01-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

It's almost like they disassociate themselves from "higher prices" figuring it will be someone else paying them - or "the rich" - but SHOCK no way can you add $25 to MY BILL.

No. I don't think that's it. It the difference between words and numbers. The brain is basically mathematic in its basic function and so it attaches more "meaning" to numbers generally. That's why politicians never say how long some project to take until it works or is proven. Even though that number is prolly known by "experts", a politician never gives it, at least not since Kennedy.