“…Too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum…”

Long ago at Kung Fu Monkey:

Friday, October 07, 2005
Lunch Discussions #145: The Crazification Factor

….John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is —

Tyrone: 27%.

John: … you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That’s crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

John: Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behaviour? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification?

Tyrone: Hadn’t thought about it. Let’s split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification — either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy.

John: You realize this leads to there being over 30 million crazy people in the US?

Tyrone: Does that seem wrong?

John: … a bit low, actually….

This, via Public Policy Polling:

December 18, 2015
Trump Lead Grows Nationally; 41% of His Voters Want to Bomb Country From Aladdin; Clinton Maintains Big Lead

….To put some of these findings about real modern day issues and Trump voters in context, 41% of his voters think Japanese internment was a good thing, to 37% who don’t. And 41% of his supporters would favor bombing Agrabah to only 9% who are opposed to doing that. Agrabah is the country from Aladdin. Overall 30% of Republican primary voters say they support bombing it to 13% who are opposed. We asked the same question of Democrats, and 36% of them opposed bombing Agrabah to 19% in support….

I haven’t seen the movie. Does that make me an undecided on Agrabah?

There’s more [pdf]:

[….]

Public Policy Polling surveyed 532 usual Republican primary voters and 525 usual Democratic primary voters on December 16th and 17th. The margin of error for both parties is +/-4.3%. 80% of participants responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet.

[….]

[Republican primary voters]

Q32 Would you support or oppose banning Muslims from entering the United States?
Support banning Muslims from entering the United States 54%
Oppose banning Muslims from entering the United States 25%
Not sure 21%

Q33 Do you believe that thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheered when the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 or not?
Believe thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheered when the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 36%
Do not believe thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheered when the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 35%
Not sure 29%

Q34 Would you support or oppose shutting down mosques in the United States?
Support shutting down mosques in the United States 28%
Oppose shutting down mosques in the United States 47%
Not sure 26%

Q35 Would you support or oppose creating a national database of Muslims in the United States?
Support a national database of Muslims in the United States 46%
Oppose a national database of Muslims in the United States 37%
Not sure 17%

Q36 Do you think the religion of Islam should be legal or illegal in the United States?
Islam should be legal in the United States 53%
Islam should be illegal in the United States 26%
Not sure 21%

Q37 Looking back, do you support or oppose the policy of Japanese Internment during World War II?
Support the policy of Japanese Internment 28%
Oppose the policy of Japanese Internment 49%
Not sure 23%

Q38 Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?
Support bombing Agrabah 30%
Oppose bombing Agrabah 13%
Not sure 57%

[….]

Yeah, those numbers are probably a bit low, actually.

Last week:

Catherine Rampell ‏@crampell

In 2003, most Americans favored invading Iraq. Today most people claim they had opposed it. [….] 6:28 AM – 21 May 2015

Polls in 2003 showed most Americans in favor of the invasion of Iraq, but today those who remember backing the war are a minority

Americans’ memories of their own past beliefs about the 2003 Iraq War are tinged with their current feelings about what has taken place there since and what is taking place there now.  In the latest Economist/YouGov Poll, just 38% admit that they supported sending troops to Iraq in 2003.  Less than a month before that U.S-led invasion, more than six in ten Americans* in a Gallup Poll indicated they favored sending in ground troops….

[….]

I wonder how many of those people with memory problems are among those who flipped me off and yelled at me in 2003?

March 20, 2003

[….] and I left Warrensburg at 4:30 p.m. and made it to the J.C. Nichols fountain at 47th and Main in Kansas City by 5:30 p.m. The organizers had planned for some time to have a 6:00 p.m. protest on the Plaza if hostilities broke out. I had been ambivalent about attending given the ugly rhetoric which is now being directed at those who dissent by the purveyors of right wing talk radio, cable television, and “yellow journalism”.  We had to do something positive and affirming rather than sit at home watching the crap on television which passes for real journalism these days, so we were finally resolved to attend.  As we drove up to the fountain we saw that people were already on the picket line and the TV trucks and cameras were in abundance.  At its peak we had 400 to 500 people.

It was overcast, cold and windy – temperature in the 40s.  We took our place on the line. We had decided earlier to only bring our pacifist signs. “Peace on Earth”, “In the Name of God, Stop Killing, In the Name of God”, and my graphic peace sign – it’s getting tattered from so much use…

Somewhat subdued, we quietly spoke on the line.  My favorite new sign: “War is so 20th century”. The response from passing traffic was overwhelmingly positive – a lot of honking and peace signs.  One well pickled Republican matron rolled down her car window and asked, “Don’t you people know the war has already started?”  This kind of cluelessness shouldn’t surprise me anymore.  There were occasional pro-war shouts and one “bird”, though I was surprised that they were not as ugly and aggressive as they were last Sunday – I suppose they’re sated because they are getting their crappy little war.

We stood next to a veteran (there were many there tonight).  We were joined by an old friend and several colleagues.  After a while the organizers called us to the fountain.  Some folk singers sang a witty and satirical “12 days of war” song.  We had brought candles (and plastic cups as wind shields), so we lit them and stood listening to the music.  The singers had us all join in singing “Peace, Shalom, Salaam”.  There were several speakers.  In the most peaceful moment of the day for me, as we stood there with our candles, we were barely aware that a photographer from the Kansas City Star took our pictures (when he finished he asked for our names and where we were from, writing the information down).  After the announcements were finished, the host marched through the Plaza shopping district.

The marchers stayed on the sidewalk, chanting in a call and response “Tell me what democracy looks like. This is what democracy looks like” and “What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!”  As we marched into the Plaza we passed the glassed in front of one of those upscale dining establishments.  Lo and behold, two older women were standing watching us and flashed us peace signs!  We looped back around and passed several clothing establishments.  Some people shopping in the stores or watching us from the doorways flashed peace signs.

After we made it back to the fountain we walked to our car for the hour long drive home.

And Bill Kristol still pontificates on television. The Universe has a sick sense of humor.

This evening, via phone:

[….]

Interviewer: [reading name of incumbent, after asking for recognition, and for a positive or negative rating.]

Me: Yeah, I know who he is. He’s a moron.

Interviewer: Heh.

[….]

A front page story in today’s Kansas City Star is all about the campaign consultant industrial complex. And that, of course, is tied into unlimited money.

There is this little gem within the bigger story:

….In the mid-1990s, consultants and strategists helped Republicans draft the Contract with America, a set of poll-tested policy positions that helped the GOP win control of the House….

Well, mostly no.

About that poll:

AAPOR Finds Frank Luntz in Violation of Ethics Code

Wednesday, April 23, 1997 — The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) announced Wednesday that a 14 month investigation found pollster Frank Luntz violated the Association’s Code of Professional Ethics and Practices.

AAPOR found Luntz, who heads the Luntz Research Companies in Arlington,Virginia, repeatedly refused to make public essential facts about his research on public attitudes about the Republicans’ “Contract with America.” In particular, the AAPOR inquiry focused on Luntz’s reporting, prior to the November elections in 1994, that his research showed at least 60 percent of the public favored each of the elements in the GOP “Contract.” When later asked to provide some basic facts about this research, Luntz refused.

AAPOR holds that researchers must disclose, or make available for public disclosure, the wording of questions and other basic methodological details when poll findings are made public. This disclosure is important so that claims made on the basis of opinion research findings can be independently evaluated. Section III of the AAPOR Code states: “Good professional practice imposes the obligation upon all public opinion researchers to include, in any report of research results, or to make available when that report is released, certain essential information about how the research was conducted.”

Richard A. Kulka, chair of AAPOR’s Standards Committee noted that AAPOR’s investigation of Luntz began in January 1996, after receiving a complaint from a member. According to Kulka, “AAPOR tried on several occasions to get Luntz to provide some basic information about his survey, for example, the wording of the questions he used. For about a year, he ignored these requests. Subsequently, he provided partial information, but still refused to let us make any of the information public, arguing that the results were proprietary, even though he had been discussing the conclusions of the survey in public for nearly two years.”

AAPOR’s President, Diane Colasanto, adds “When researchers make public arguments based on their research data, then refuse to say how their research was conducted, that harms the public debate on issues and reduces he credibility of all survey and public opinion research.”

AAPOR is an organization of over 1,400 research professionals from government agencies, colleges and universities, non-profit organizations, and commercial polling firms. It is the primary professional association representing public opinion researchers, and has a strong interest in protecting and strengthening the credibility of survey research. The organization was founded in 1947 by such pioneers of polling as George Gallup, Hadley Cantril, and Paul Lazarsfeld.

Luntz is not a member of the organization.

And media repeated the spin.

From Rolling Stone:

How Wily Newt Pulled the ‘Contract with America’ Scam

By Rick Perlstein

….The Contract With America was a hustle from start to finish. It never really was about conservatism at all – practically the opposite….

….Gingrich devised a document micro-tailored to turn at least 70 percent of Perot voters, however fleetingly, into Republicans in time for November of 1994. “Republicans knew,” Stone and Rapoport write, “that the traditional Republican congressional campaign” – which is to say, conservatism – “would be insufficient to get this support.” This realization was the genesis of the Contract for America….

….Gingrich and Co. were able to get away with it because the plain facts of what the Contract actually was (a strategic erasure of Republican conservatism) almost entirely escaped the political press – at the time, and ever since….

[emphasis added]

It was a game in 1994. And people with short attention spans repeat the same media narrative almost twenty years later.

Via the Missouri Secretary of State:

U. S. Senator (3320 of 3387 Precincts Reported)

Claire McCaskill Democrat 1,442,997 54.2%

Todd Akin Republican 1,057,492 39.7%

Jonathan Dine Libertarian 163,906 6.2%

William Dean Write-in 246 0.0%

Bernard J. (Spark) Duraski, Jr. Write-in 0 0.0%

Bernie Mowinski Write-in 2 0.0%

Charlie L. Bailey Write-in 2 0.0%

Arnie C. (AC) Dienoff Write-in 0 0.0%

Ted Kimzey Write-in 1 0.0%

Total Votes 2,664,646

[emphasis added]

Why, that’s a margin of 15.5%. Go figure.

Interesting:

SurveyUSA: Claire (D) 51, Akin (r) 36 and the polling of parallel realities (November 4, 2012)

Oopsie:

PPP – 11/4/12: McCaskill (D) – 48%, Akin (r) – 44% (November 4, 2012)

And, from a Claire McCaskill (D) internal campaign poll:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D): up by 14 points in Kiley Poll (October 27, 2012)

McCaskill – 53%

Akin – 39%

Other – 1%

Not sure – 7%

Close. And as a consequence, not even close.

A republican candidate for governor of Missouri pandering to the 27% today, via Twitter:

Dave Spence @spenceformo

Gov. Nixon fails to protect Religious Liberty. Is this right for Missouri? Sound-off here and RT our Poll! #MOGOV [….] 11:42 AM – 21 Feb 12

At Dave Spence’s (r) campaign web site: “Governor Nixon opposes rules that protect Religious Liberty from Obamacare. Do you support this?”

Uh, quite probably:

February 14, 2012 6:30 PM

Poll: Most back mandating contraception coverage

….According to a survey, conducted between Feb. 8-13, 61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage.

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the requirement, while 32 percent oppose it….

Dave Spence can’t think he’s appealing to Independents or Democrats. But that appears to be a problem for many republican candidates:

CBS News Polls: 2/14/12

….q41 Do you think the Republican presidential candidates have been mostly talking about issues that matter to all Americans, or mostly talking about issues that mainly matter just to Republicans?

** REGISTERED VOTERS **

*** Party ID ***

Matter to all Americans

Total – 33%

Rep – 61%

Dem – 14%

Ind – 28%

Mainly to Republicans

Total – 58%

Rep – 29%

Dem – 78%

Ind – 62%

DK/NA

Total – 9%

Rep – 10%

Dem – 8%

Ind – 10%

[emphasis added]

Distraction by wedge issue is a feature, not a bug.

Why they fight, today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C111205 02/21/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Patrick Heath 704 Havenwood Ct. St Louis MO 63122 ALMCO Sales 2/21/2012 $1,000.00

C111205 02/21/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Tracy Hart 56 Hill Dr. Glendale MO 63122 Tarlton Contractor 2/21/2012 $1,000.00

C111205 02/21/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Parker Condie Jr 8 Colonial Hills Dr. St Louis MO 63141 Coin Acceptors Executive 2/21/2012 $2,500.00

C111205 02/21/2012 SPENCE FOR GOVERNOR Chemline Inc. 5151 Natural Bridge St Louis MO 63115 2/21/2012 $5,000.00

They can’t care about contraception, can they?

The pollsters start talking about 2012:

Monday, November 8, 2010

The 2012 Senate Class

There were a ton of competitive Senate races in 2010 and the playing field could be even wider in 2012. Since the beginning of August PPP has polled on the approval ratings of 18 Senators who are up for reelection next time around…

…The three least popular and conceivably most vulnerable Senators up next time that we’ve polled on are Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, and Debbie Stabenow….

…Missouri was extremely brutal for Democrats this year and McCaskill has not built up a lot in the way of crossover support from Republicans and independents during her first term in the Senate…

Claire McCaskill

Approval [%] 40/53

Spread [%]-13

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): try as you might, you can’t do much when you’re in the minority party (January 29, 2010)

Uh, Claire, you got to dance with them what brung you (January 21, 2010)

What do Democrats stand for? (January 20, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): take the job for a spin and see what it’ll do (January 1, 2010):

…A question. If the only two Democratic U.S. Senators to the right of you by voting record are Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson, and the right wingers and teabaggers in Missouri won’t vote for you anyway, and you’re not overly concerned about re-election, why don’t you take the job for a spin and see what it can do rather than cater to all the fear mongering obstructionists and the inside the beltway cocktail weenie circuit…?

Those teabaggers will never vote for you, Claire. They never have, they never will. Work on turning out your base.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) – because insurance company profit margins need to be protected (September 17, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): open forum in Hillsboro – photos (August 11, 2010)

Rude, loud, and obnoxious. And to think that there wasn’t a dirty anti-war hippy anywhere in sight.

After driving five hundred miles (in eight and a half hours) round trip I had time to reflect and process the event at Jefferson College in Hillsboro. The seemingly impotent rage coming from some of the people in attendance was stunning in its force.

They’re pissed that Obama is president. They’re pissed that McCain isn’t. They’re pissed that Jim Talent isn’t their senator. They probably voted for George W. Bush twice (and probably his daddy twice). They’d probably be pissed if you pointed out that dubya is and was a monumental screw-up – it reminds them that they made that particular choice. They didn’t vote for Claire. They’ll never vote for Claire. They’re outraged that their sense of entitlement about calling the shots in what others should believe and even how the open forum should have been run isn’t accepted or catered to.

To them a late entering African American woman breaking the “sign rule” is an outrage upon civilized society and is pointed out instantly. It is enough of an outrage so that some jerk can jump out of the stands and try to rip it away (for God’s sake, it was a Rosa Parks poster). Yet, a bunch of people can stand after that with their “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and there’s not a whisper from the crowd.

They’re pissed that Claire asked how many of them were on Medicare (several hundred) and then asking how many wanted off (a handful) – pointing out the crowd’s hypocrisy about government health care. No matter what anyone does they’ll be pissed and stay pissed. And they ain’t voting for any Democrats. Ever.…

[emphasis added]

What did we tell you?