Real Clear Average - Polling for Support of Impeachment

[Sam]

It's not "the belief", Sam --- you honestly are naive enough to think the Democrats are doing this because they are honorable and principled? Really?

That's the wrong category of question, not least because ascribing one motive to hundreds of congress members is pretty futile.

The right question is whether there's a factual and compelling basis for doing this. And that's a question that doesn't require divination or justify cynicism.

"Federal Criminal Offenses and the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump", Andrew Weissmann et al.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

That's the wrong category of question, not least because ascribing one motive to hundreds of congress members is pretty futile.

The right question is whether there's a factual and compelling basis for doing this. And that's a question that doesn't require divination or justify cynicism.

"Federal Criminal Offenses and the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump", Andrew Weissmann et al.

--Sam

Perhaps Schiff and his political hacks should have consulted you instead of focus groups, Sam.

[Starlight]

Perhaps Schiff and his political hacks should have consulted you instead of focus groups, Sam.

You've been mentioning focus groups a lot recently, as if you've just discovered them and think it would be the height of evil if any Dems were to have ever used one.

But focus groups are just another form of polling and in the modern era are used regularly by politicians and campaigns. The person most famous for doing focus groups (weekly) was the Republican's top pollster Frank Luntz. Here's an article here by him about why focus groups are good.

One way to think of focus groups is "politicians paying attention to the views of the people", which is exactly what politicians ought to do.

[Mountain Man]

That's the wrong category of question, not least because ascribing one motive to hundreds of congress members is pretty futile.

The right question is whether there's a factual and compelling basis for doing this. And that's a question that doesn't require divination or justify cynicism.

"Federal Criminal Offenses and the Impeachment of Donald J. Trump", Andrew Weissmann et al.

--Sam

You say that the case against Trump can be made without "divination" and "cynicism", and then link to a cynical series of essays, the first of which openly admits that the case against the President is lacking key evidence (even more cynically, he says that we know "in our gut" that the President must be guilty despite the lack of evidence) but then tries to divine a strong case based on the writer's assumption that really damning evidence must be out there if only the House could find it!

The fact is that not only does the case against Trump not reach the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", it doesn't even reach the much lower standard of "preponderance of evidence".

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, since studies done have found no such anti-conservative bias dominating Facebook. A whole lot of right-wing types whining about shadow-banning and censorship that didn't hold up to factual scrutiny.

Regardless, Facebook has numerous senior executives and lobbyists who were/are deeply entwined with the Republican party, either as campaign officials, strategists, even a senator. The idea that the companies "lean left" is not only too nebulous to be of any use, it's factually-challenged at best. Big tech companies, it's safer to say, are self-interested parties willing to work both sides when profitable.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

You've been mentioning focus groups a lot recently, as if you've just discovered them and think it would be the height of evil if any Dems were to have ever used one.

I've mentioned them several times, but have never said or implied that it would be "the height of evil". That's just dramaqueenery on your part, Star.

[lilpixieofterror]

You say that the case against Trump can be made without "divination" and "cynicism", and then link to a cynical series of essays, the first of which openly admits that the case against the President is lacking key evidence (even more cynically, he says that we know "in our gut" that the President must be guilty despite the lack of evidence) but then tries to divine a strong case based on the writer's assumption that really damning evidence must be out there if only the House could find it!

The fact is that not only does the case against Trump not reach the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", it doesn't even reach the much lower standard of "preponderance of evidence".

[rogue06]

Yes, since studies done have found no such anti-conservative bias dominating Facebook. A whole lot of right-wing types whining about shadow-banning and censorship that didn't hold up to factual scrutiny.

Regardless, Facebook has numerous senior executives and lobbyists who were/are deeply entwined with the Republican party, either as campaign officials, strategists, even a senator. The idea that the companies "lean left" is not only too nebulous to be of any use, it's factually-challenged at best. Big tech companies, it's safer to say, are self-interested parties willing to work both sides when profitable.

--Sam

Maybe someone should inform Mark Zuckerberg. He's on record admitting that there has been bias. For example: Facebook's Zuckerberg says there 'clearly was bias' in controversy over 'censorship' of pro-life group Live Action.

Facebook is now blaming "rogue employees" () and "activist fact checkers" for the numerous instances of bias that have been reported.

The fact is that Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence

[Cow Poke]

Updating polling - not moving in the direction Dems would like... 47.6 no, 46.9 yes.

impeachment moving forward.jpg

[seanD]

Maybe someone should inform Mark Zuckerberg. He's on record admitting that there has been bias. For example: Facebook's Zuckerberg says there 'clearly was bias' in controversy over 'censorship' of pro-life group Live Action.

Facebook is now blaming "rogue employees" () and "activist fact checkers" for the numerous instances of bias that have been reported.

The fact is that Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence

Oops. Sam the statist shill foiled again.

[Cow Poke]

Updating polling - not moving in the direction Dems would like... 47.6 no, 46.9 yes.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41471[/ATTACH]

Interestingly enough, the newer polls (particularly those that include 'through Dec 15') show the biggest difference in the "no" over "yes".

[Cow Poke]

CNN's poll (by SRS) shows a 5 point drop in support for impeachment/removal from Thanksgiving(ish) to December 15.

cnn.jpg

cnn.jpg

Again, I want to be clear -- the polls may change, but the "50%" figure was being used as proof that Trump should be impeached. You'd think that after the Democrats got their case before the people, that number would go up. Newer polls actually see the number decreasing.

[Sam]

Maybe someone should inform Mark Zuckerberg. He's on record admitting that there has been bias. For example: Facebook's Zuckerberg says there 'clearly was bias' in controversy over 'censorship' of pro-life group Live Action.

Facebook is now blaming "rogue employees" () and "activist fact checkers" for the numerous instances of bias that have been reported.

The fact is that Facebook has a pretty well documented history of leaning left including targeting conservatives for scrutiny and censorship (Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News) -- even going so far as to censor the Declaration of Independence

Really odd choice to start that out by attributing a statement to Zuckerberg that was actually said by Josh Hawley about an incident where a false video claim about abortion never being medically necessary was labeled false.

Yeah, Facebook is so "leftist" it censored the Declaration of Independence. That wasn't a low-level employee fluke, it was a deliberate Facebook policy to censor the Declaration of Independence as a matter of anti-conservative bias.

There was actually a study done by a commissioned, semi-independent audit, led by former Republican senator Jon Kyl, concerning purported anti-conservative bias at Facebook. Unsurprisingly, it found very little of note and nothing that factually points to systematic censorship or bias against conservatives as a bloc.

But the conspiracies and paranoia must roll on so we get this stuff put up as evidence of systematic anti-conservative bias, understanding that the standard of evidence will never be applied consistently.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Really odd choice to start that out by attributing a statement to Zuckerberg that was actually said by Josh Hawley about an incident where a false video claim about abortion never being medically necessary was labeled false.

Yeah, Facebook is so "leftist" it censored the Declaration of Independence. That wasn't a low-level employee fluke, it was a deliberate Facebook policy to censor the Declaration of Independence as a matter of anti-conservative bias.

There was actually a study done by a commissioned, semi-independent audit, led by former Republican senator Jon Kyl, concerning purported anti-conservative bias at Facebook. Unsurprisingly, it found very little of note and nothing that factually points to systematic censorship or bias against conservatives as a bloc.

But the conspiracies and paranoia must roll on so we get this stuff put up as evidence of systematic anti-conservative bias, understanding that the standard of evidence will never be applied consistently.

--Sam

So please provide a cite where Zuckerberg denied admitting that there was a bias to Sen. Hawley. If it is false as you imply, and considering the coverage it got, Zuckerberg's denial out to be everywhere. It's almost like there is a reason that you forgot to include it.

Once again your hand waving begins. Keep it up Sam you might just attain flight at this rate.

[rogue06]

Interestingly enough, the newer polls (particularly those that include 'through Dec 15') show the biggest difference in the "no" over "yes".

The longer the Democrat's impeachment circus went on the more support for impeachment dropped. I doubt that this was part of their plan.