I don't remember why I didn't post this when I first came across it (or where I even came across it), but it's interesting and worth a look. I don't even remember what made me remember it, but I just wanted to mention that the girl wearing the "Obama" shirt reminds me of my coworker, in that she, too, cannot say Palin's name without smirking and rolling her eyes. It's almost Pavlovian in its reflexiveness.
The similarity is uncanny.
Also, someone tell ABC that if they're still looking for someone to replace Peter Jennings they should give this girl a call. Maybe they could put her in a little picture-in-picture box during World News Tonight so she can smirk to let the viewers know when they should disapprove of something.
Charles Gibson: "Millions of delusional people gathered in Washington DC this past week for the annual 'March for Life'."
Girl in box: *smirk*.
Haha. Sarah Palin. ::rolls eyes::
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. Honestly, I enjoyed it and I'm sure Paul will too. It's interesting to see how things went down and what people actually know. However, I bet that if you went to wherever those people were and asked similar questions to the McCain voters there, you'd get the same answers.
Actually, Devin, the guy who did that poll did also ask McCain voters the same questions and while the results were not 90-100% correct, there was a significant higher percentage or correct answers. Scroll down to the bottom of the page on http://howobamagotelected.com/
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that I was sceptical when I saw the video and had the same reaction as Devin. Some addtional thinking would probably give evidence that's contrary to that prejudice, but I didn't come to this conclusion until after I read some more information on the site (thanks for the URL Tom). I initially thought some of the questions in the video were badly worded, and I questioned the survey results the filmmaker mentioned on his website. However, after looking at the survey and its results, I must admit that I was shocked and astounded.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who aren't related to me (Joe's in-law known as Mr. Pickles), you may not know that I'm a professional statistician that works on a major survey. I typically look at these types of results with a good dose of sceptism--something I think is required whenever someone presents politically charged results like these. After reading the results I had only one thought going through my head: HOLY %&@@$#!
Tom, I don't think it's quite accurate to simply say that the results are significantly different. The results are astoundingly different! Looking at the odds of giving a correct answer, I think it's a massive understatement to say that McCain voters have a "statistically significant" higher rate of correct responses. For a few questions the odds are 5 to 1. I can't say how significant this is unless I have the data, but my experience tells me that it's astonishingly different (especially given most people's expectations).
It would be fascinating to get a hold of the raw data for this survey. I'm betting you could demonstrate that there's a high correlation between number of correct responses and number/types of media sources.
Unfortunately, I think people will come along with a list of ridiculous arguments against the results--small sample size, nonrepresentative sample, wrong analysis, badly worded questions (al of which are false IMO)--but I think most of these will be emotionally charged accusations because people don't like the results.
I had suspected something like what this guy's website says, but I wouldn't have guessed it was this big. Joe, Tom, thanks for the info. It was eye opening.
--Mr. P