Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

Thread: Why Rick Santorum and the GOP need not worry if conservative kids go to college

  1. #1
    First Day On The Internet Calamari Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Province
    Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths
    Oratio
    13,755

    Ignore User

    Why Rick Santorum and the GOP need not worry if conservative kids go to college

    I don't have much editorializing to do on this yet, because I find it surprising (even if it is consistent with my anecdotal experiences).

    N.B., it's pretty long, so you may want to dismiss it without reading even more quickly than usual.

    The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science -- and Reality

    New research shows that conservatives who consider themselves well-informed and educated are also deeper in denial about issues like global warming.

    February 22, 2012 | This essay is adapted from Chris Mooney’s forthcoming book, The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science—and Reality, due out in April from Wiley.

    I can still remember when I first realized how naďve I was in thinking—hoping—that laying out the “facts” would suffice to change politicized minds, and especially Republican ones. It was a typically wonkish, liberal revelation: One based on statistics and data. Only this time, the data were showing, rather awkwardly, that people ignore data and evidence—and often, knowledge and education only make the problem worse.

    Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It’s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.

    Those facts are these: Humans, since the industrial revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the “radiative” properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet. Since about 1995, scientists have not only confirmed that this warming is taking place, but have also grown confident that it has, like the gun in a murder mystery, our fingerprint on it. Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can’t explain what we’re seeing. The only reasonable verdict is that humans did it, in the atmosphere, with their cars and their smokestacks.

    Such is what is known to science--what is true (no matter what Rick Santorum might say). But the Pew data showed that humans aren’t as predictable as carbon dioxide molecules. Despite a growing scientific consensus about global warming, as of 2008 Democrats and Republicans had cleaved over the facts stated above, like a divorcing couple. One side bought into them, one side didn’t—and if anything, knowledge and intelligence seemed to be worsening matters.

    Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better-educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.

    For Democrats and Independents, the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science—among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.

    This was my first encounter with what I now like to call the “smart idiots” effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.

    And most of all, for many liberals.

    Let’s face it: We liberals and progressives are absolutely outraged by partisan misinformation. Lies about “death panels.” People seriously thinking that President Obama is a Muslim, not born in the United States. Climate-change denial. Debt ceiling denial. These things drive us crazy, in large part because we can’t comprehend how such intellectual abominations could possibly exist.

    And not only are we enraged by lies and misinformation; we want to refute them—to argue, argue, argue about why we’re right and Republicans are wrong. Indeed, we often act as though right-wing misinformation’s defeat is nigh, if we could only make people wiser and more educated (just like us) and get them the medicine that is correct information.

    No less than President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept our mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, that it’s an “education problem.”

    But the facts, the scientific data, say otherwise.

    Indeed, the rapidly growing social scientific literature on the resistance to global warming (see for examples here and here) says so pretty unequivocally. Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who say they know more about the topic, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves as well—and are confident they don’t need any more information on the issue.

    Tea Party members appear to be the worst of all. In a recent survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, they rejected the science of global warming even more strongly than average Republicans did. For instance, considerably more Tea Party members than Republicans incorrectly thought there was a lot of scientific disagreement about global warming (69 percent to 56 percent). Most strikingly, the Tea Party members were very sure of themselves—they considered themselves “very well-informed” about global warming and were more likely than other groups to say they “do not need any more information” to make up their minds on the issue.

    But it’s not just global warming where the “smart idiot” effect occurs. It also emerges on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better-educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less-educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.

    The same effect has also been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government “death panels.” According to research by Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama healthcare plan were “paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not.” Well-informed Democrats were the opposite—quite certain there were no “death panels” in the bill.

    The Democrats also happened to be right, by the way.

    The idealistic, liberal, Enlightenment notion that knowledge will save us, or unite us, was even put to a scientific test last year—and it failed badly.

    Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. In their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that’s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria—true or false?”) as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., “If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?”).

    The result was stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.

    Instead, here was the result. If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science—e.g., a political conservative or “hierarchical-individualist”—then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group—“egalitarian-communitarians” or liberals—who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change—which, of course, is precisely what we see in the polls.

    So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.

    What accounts for the “smart idiot” effect?

    For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

    What this suggests, critically, is that sophisticated conservatives may be very different from unsophisticated or less-informed ones. Paradoxically, we would expect less informed conservatives to be easier to persuade, and more responsive to new and challenging information.

    In fact, there is even research suggesting that the most rigid and inflexible breed of conservatives—so-called authoritarians—do not really become their ideological selves until they actually learn something about politics first. A kind of “authoritarian activation” needs to occur, and it happens through the development of political “expertise.” Consuming a lot of political information seems to help authoritarians feel who they are—whereupon they become more accepting of inequality, more dogmatically traditionalist, and more resistant to change.

    So now the big question: Are liberals also “smart idiots”?

    There’s no doubt that more knowledge—or more political engagement—can produce more bias on either side of the aisle. That’s because it forges a stronger bond between our emotions and identities on the one hand, and a particular body of facts on the other.

    But there are also reason to think that, with liberals, there is something else going on. Liberals, to quote George Lakoff, subscribe to a view that might be dubbed “Old Enlightenment reason.” They really do seem to like facts; it seems to be part of who they are. And fascinatingly, in Kahan’s study liberals did not act like smart idiots when the question posed was about the safety of nuclear power.

    Nuclear power is a classic test case for liberal biases—kind of the flipside of the global warming issue--for the following reason. It’s well known that liberals tend to start out distrustful of nuclear energy: There’s a long history of this on the left. But this impulse puts them at odds with the views of the scientific community on the matter (scientists tend to think nuclear power risks are overblown, especially in light of the dangers of other energy sources, like coal).

    So are liberals “smart idiots” on nukes? Not in Kahan’s study. As members of the “egalitarian communitarian” group in the study—people with more liberal values--knew more science and math, they did not become more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worried—and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.

    You may or may not support nuclear power personally, but let’s face it: This is not the “smart idiot” effect. It looks a lot more like open-mindedness.

    What does all of this mean?

    First, these findings are just one small slice an emerging body of science on liberal and conservative psychological differences, which I discuss in detail in my forthcoming book. An overall result is definitely that liberals tend to be more flexible and open to new ideas—so that’s a possible factor lying behind these data. In fact, recent evidence suggests that wanting to explore the world and try new things, as opposed to viewing the world as threatening, may subtly push people towards liberal ideologies (and vice versa).

    Politically and strategically, meanwhile, the evidence presented here leaves liberals and progressives in a rather awkward situation. We like evidence—but evidence also suggests that politics doesn’t work in the way we want it to work, or think it should. We may be the children of the Enlightenment—convinced that you need good facts to make good policies—but that doesn’t mean this is equally true for all of humanity, or that it is as true of our political opponents as it is of us.

    Nevertheless, this knowledge ought to be welcomed, for it offers a learning opportunity and, frankly, a better way of understanding politics and our opponents alike. For instance, it can help us see through the scientific-sounding arguments of someone like Rick Santorum, who has been talking a lot about climate science lately—if only in order to bash it.

    On global warming, Santorum definitely has an argument, and he has “facts” to cite. And he is obviously intelligent and capable—but not, apparently, able to see past his ideological biases. Santorum’s argument ultimately comes down to a dismissal of climate science and climate scientists, and even the embrace of a conspiracy theory, one in which the scientists of the world are conspiring to subvert economic growth (yeah, right).

    Viewing all this as an ideologically defensive maneuver not only explains a lot, it helps us realize that refuting Santorum probably serves little purpose. He’d just come up with another argument and response, probably even cleverer than the last, and certainly just as appealing to his audience. We’d be much better concentrating our energies elsewhere, where people are more persuadable.

    A more scientific understanding of persuasion, then, should not be seen as threatening. It’s actually an opportunity to do better—to be more effective and politically successful.

    Indeed, if we believe in evidence then we should also welcome the evidence showing its limited power to persuade--especially in politicized areas where deep emotions are involved. Before you start off your next argument with a fact, then, first think about what the facts say about that strategy. If you’re a liberal who is emotionally wedded to the idea that rationality wins the day—well, then, it’s high time to listen to reason.
    (source)



    I don't think CF and I agree on much at all, and probably not this. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 28 June 2011

    I find myself in full agreement with CF. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 1 July 2011


    Larry Sanders 2016!

 

  • #2
    One thing I seldom see in articles like these: rather than attributing it to a wholesale denial of Science as a whole, the particular thing about climate change is that it is also an Environmental issue. Republicans, for the most part, despise Environmental issues because of two reasons, one valid and one not.

    1 - They remember a lot of the scare tactics environmentalists have used in the past, to the point that it becomes like warnings about diet sodas: strident, alarmist and ultimately proved either wrong or trivial. Indeed, this is the reason that, for the most part, climate change has not captured the hearts and minds of many Americans. It's too close to shit we've heard before, so people simply ignore it regardless of the accuracy of the science behind it.

    2 - Environmental issues are, almost always, Bad for Business and Republicans are a friend to big business. They cost money and they create oversight in areas that most businesses would really rather not have anyone watching what they do. Regardless of all the 'We Go Green' advertising today, we know and remember what many businesses are like when they think no-one is watching. That's when you have barrels of pesticide dumped into open rivers, or toxic heavy metal waste left to sink into ground water.

  • #3
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

  • #4
    new dads don't sleep either Belen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Province
    South Carolina
    Oratio
    9,757

    Ignore User
    Wow...another article justifying how liberals are the best people ever! They are so smart that they should just rule the world and tell lesser folk what to do.
    Sam: But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

    Frodo: What are we holding on to Sam?

    Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.

  • #5
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Belen View Post
    Wow...another article justifying how liberals are the best people ever! They are so smart that they should just rule the world and tell lesser folk what to do.
    Your brain is broken, so your pathetic wrongness is forgivable in the coming uptopia of right properly thinking minds!

    It's SCIENCE!
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

  • #6
    First Day On The Internet Calamari Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Province
    Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths
    Oratio
    13,755

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Belen View Post
    Wow...another article justifying how liberals are the best people ever!
    That's not the claim, dude.

    Liberals don't have to outrun the bear...

    In any event, as Mooney points out, that's the wrong game anyway. Just look how the careful, empirical reasoning sweepstakes have dictated the outcome of the GOP primaries.



    I don't think CF and I agree on much at all, and probably not this. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 28 June 2011

    I find myself in full agreement with CF. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 1 July 2011


    Larry Sanders 2016!

  • #7
    Look for my new book, "Corellation studies on the Political Activism of Democrats and the Herd Patterns of Free-range Sheep", due in April.
    "I learned a long time ago, Reuven, that a blink of an eye in itself is nothing. But the eye that blinks, that is something. A span of life is nothing. But the man who lives that span, he is something. He can fill that tiny span with meaning, so its quality is immeasurable though its quantity may be insignificant. Do you understand what I am saying? A man must fill his life with meaning, meaning is not automatically given to life."

  • #8
    Official Topic Approver COMMUNITY SUPPORTER Strithe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Province
    3rd circle of hell
    Oratio
    1,299

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneLigon View Post
    1 - They remember a lot of the scare tactics environmentalists have used in the past, to the point that it becomes like warnings about diet sodas: strident, alarmist and ultimately proved either wrong or trivial. Indeed, this is the reason that, for the most part, climate change has not captured the hearts and minds of many Americans. It's too close to shit we've heard before, so people simply ignore it regardless of the accuracy of the science behind it.
    Also, it doesn't help when some of the climate change "science" turns out to be less than truthful or accurate. Granted, it's not usually the scientists that are the worst offenders, but when the self appointed spokespeople for Gaia say things like we'll have massive coastal flooding within a decade due to melting ice caps, and they buy multi-million beachfront homes. Or they claim that Katrina is the fore-runner of a series of massive climate-change-induced mega-hurricanes.... that don't show up. Or they act like the slight temperature decline we've experienced since 1998 isn't happening, and that anyone who says so is a paid off patsy of the oil industry (as opposed to someone who can do basic addition & subtraction). Or my personal favorite, the ones who claim any questioning of environmentalist dogma is anti-science because "the science is settled."

    I love the last one because it contains not only a patently untrue statement about scientific method, but it also reveals the supreme arrogance of these twits. Wow, you guys figured out everything there is to know about the Earth's climate in just a couple of decades? I guess physicists must all be morons because they continue to do basic research a century after that science was "settled" by the establishment of relativity theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by WayneLigon View Post
    2 - Environmental issues are, almost always, Bad for Business and Republicans are a friend to big business. They cost money and they create oversight in areas that most businesses would really rather not have anyone watching what they do. Regardless of all the 'We Go Green' advertising today, we know and remember what many businesses are like when they think no-one is watching. That's when you have barrels of pesticide dumped into open rivers, or toxic heavy metal waste left to sink into ground water.
    I always find it fascinating when people talk like environmentalists are all just grass-roots hippies with the best interests of Mother Earth at heart. You know, down-to-earth regular guys like T. Boone Pickens or Jeffrey Immelt, who were lobbying heavily for wind power out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because they were looking to make a fuckton of money off of green energy subsidies.

    And then there's the fact that the ever-increasing number of environmental regulations has spawned a whole industry dedicated to helping corporations comply with the laws, deal with clean-up issues, etc. I've got a catalog on my desk that's dedicated solely to industrial spill containment, clean-up, and prevention products. I get calls from companies that offer "green energy assessments" for a fee.

    The idea that environmental legislation is bad for the business community is about as outdated as the notion that Republicans have ever actually reduced the size & scope of Government. "Green" legislation may be bad for some businesses, but it's the lifeblood of others. The only difference is the "non-green" businesses are generally able to function without massive government subsidies.

    Plus, the Senator primarily responsible for putting cap & trade in legislative limbo in 2009 was Robert Byrd. Before he died, his brain was strictly Democrat and he was all for "going green" (and looking out for the safety of miners) as long is it didn't hurt the coal mines that are the backbone of his state's economy.

  • #9
    Official Topic Approver COMMUNITY SUPPORTER Strithe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Province
    3rd circle of hell
    Oratio
    1,299

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Belen View Post
    Wow...another article justifying how liberals are the best people ever! They are so smart that they should just rule the world and tell lesser folk what to do.
    It doesn't really say that. It's more about how the myth that being educated automatically makes you more logical, or better equipped to make intelligent decisions. Having actually gone to college & discovering that some of the biggest idiots on campus had the most impressive-looking degrees, I tend to make the opposite conclusion.

  • #10
    First Day On The Internet Calamari Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Province
    Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths
    Oratio
    13,755

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Strithe View Post
    Or my personal favorite, the ones who claim any questioning of environmentalist dogma is anti-science because "the science is settled."

    I love the last one because it contains not only a patently untrue statement about scientific method, but it also reveals the supreme arrogance of these twits. Wow, you guys figured out everything there is to know about the Earth's climate in just a couple of decades? I guess physicists must all be morons because they continue to do basic research a century after that science was "settled" by the establishment of relativity theory.
    This is both right and wrong (typical liberal sort of assessment!).

    It is on the one hand true that, in full generality, science is never settled. Not in any field. It is always open to new findings challenging, modifying, or overturning existing models.

    On the other hand, this does not mean that every scientific conclusion has the same low level of confidence attached to it. Some things are as settled as they can be (plane trigonometry, conservation of angular momentum), and others are less so.

    CERN's claim of neutrinos that exceeded the speed of light last year is a good example. They were skeptical of their own findings, but after being unable to uncover the experimental culprit, they took their results to the scientific community.

    Sure enough, confidence in Einstein's relativity was warranted. Turned out an unplugged fiber optic cable on a computer was juking their results.

    Can we have the same level of confidence in any scientific result that godly people do in a book of Bronze Age superstition? Of course not. The main epistemic function of religious scripture is to provide assurances that cannot possibly be overturned in the face of any sort of evidence or argument.

    But first, that's not how science rolls, and second, the existence of apodictically certain propositions from divinely-inspired literature does not render all less-certain propositions equally uncertain. The Sasquatch is not on the same footing as Maxwell's Equations. Neither is wholly certain or disproven, but we have vastly more confidence in the latter than in the former.



    I don't think CF and I agree on much at all, and probably not this. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 28 June 2011

    I find myself in full agreement with CF. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 1 July 2011


    Larry Sanders 2016!

  • #11
    First Day On The Internet Calamari Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Province
    Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths
    Oratio
    13,755

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Strithe View Post
    It doesn't really say that. It's more about how the myth that being educated automatically makes you more logical, or better equipped to make intelligent decisions.
    More specifically, it says that for people who hold a constellation of views that we tend to label as "liberal", education does tend to work this way.

    And, for people who hold a constellation of views that we tend to label as "conservative", it doesn't.

    Having actually gone to college & discovering that some of the biggest idiots on campus had the most impressive-looking degrees, I tend to make the opposite conclusion.
    Can you clarify? The most "prestigious" of academic degrees, a Ph.D., was probably held by a heavy majority of the faculty at your institution. It's not exactly a differentiator. To a first approximation, every single applicant to a tenure-track position at an American university has one.

    (Or, for one starting out, has his or her defense coming up and expects to pass, yadda yadda...)



    I don't think CF and I agree on much at all, and probably not this. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 28 June 2011

    I find myself in full agreement with CF. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 1 July 2011


    Larry Sanders 2016!

  • #12
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,180

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Calamari Face View Post
    More specifically, it says that for people who hold a constellation of views that we tend to label as "liberal", education does tend to work this way.

    And, for people who hold a constellation of views that we tend to label as "conservative", it doesn't.
    Using what standard?
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    I think ovi's right.

  • #13
    This thread has the most predictable call and response since Hey ho/Let's go.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Fine, I'll say it because it's obvious -- VK is 100% right

  • #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Using what standard?
    I guess this is the clash between faith and science. Creationism VS biology and archaeology, neoclassical economy vs climatology and so on.
    When you are so adamant in your faith (be it in the holy scriptures or the invisible hand) that you can't accept any fact contradicting it, then you will reject scientific consensus without much problem.
    In the other hand, liberals being faithless and often spineless have less difficulty accepting challenging scientific results.

  • #15
    First Day On The Internet Calamari Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Province
    Band of Workermootly Kithish Commonwealths
    Oratio
    13,755

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Using what standard?
    Did you read the article?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    That's a "no", then.

    Apparently, the method was a small battery of competency tests assessing elementary scientific, mathematical and statistical literacy (which I'm guessing a significant number of posters to this forum could have passed while still in high school--see how mean my posting style is?).

    Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues set out to study the relationship between political views, scientific knowledge or reasoning abilities, and opinions on contested scientific issues like global warming. In their study, more than 1,500 randomly selected Americans were asked about their political worldviews and their opinions about how dangerous global warming and nuclear power are. But that’s not all: They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g, “Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria—true or false?”) as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., “If Person A’s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in 10 years, and person B’s risk is double that of A, what is B’s risk?”).
    Ah, I remember those threads where the spittle flew over whether 1,500 was a reasonable sample size for the American electorate.

    Somehow I suspect that the mouths will change, but the song will remain the same...
    Last edited by Calamari Face; February 29th, 2012 at 04:42 PM.



    I don't think CF and I agree on much at all, and probably not this. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 28 June 2011

    I find myself in full agreement with CF. -- Ovinomancer, The Senate, 1 July 2011


    Larry Sanders 2016!

  • Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

    Tags for this Thread

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •