This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, March 7, 2011

What You Can Learn About Wisconsin Dispute From Differences in Poll Questions




guy faulkes said...

This goes to show one has to go to different sources in order to form an opinion. It also proves one must read the entire article so as to understnad exactly what was asked.

The Gallup poll admitted it was flawed when it said the poll did not question how many where for budget reduction, only for lessening the union's power.

This poll was sort of like Watauga Watch, where only the information the person in charge supports is given voice.

NewGuy said...

It's more than just how questions are phrased. It's als about who is questioned.

You can't ask everyone in the country for their opinion - so you ask a 'representative' and statistically significant number of people. If you don't have the right statistical balance of people, you are going to get distorted answers.

For example, if you ask the same question to a group of people who are union members and separately, to a group of white collar/exempt employees, you are going to get seriously different answers.

Selecting the people to be polled is probably the most difficult part of polling.

oatz said...

Off topic but did you see the you tube video by James Okeefe with NPR executives meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood.

NewGuy said...

I didn't watch the video, oatz, but I did read a summary/transcript of most of the conversation.

Telling, isn't it? Certainly not going to help their case for government subsidies!

And, on the budget cut front. The house bill cutting 61 BIL from current expenditures sits dormant in the senate without even a vote being scheduled yet! Harry Reid is trying (imho) to position the Republicans as wanting to "shut down the government" and is willing to shut it down if he thinks he can get away with it and blame Repubs.

But how, when the Repub House has sent him a bill and he refuses to schedule a vote on it, can the Repubs be blamed.

A stupid, dangerous, POLITICAL game they are playing. Reid wants to delay debate on the bill until it's too late to reach a compromise and then accuse the Repubs of trying to shut govt down.

Meanwhile, helping the cause, Obama has named Biden as his "point man" in negotiating a budget bill with the house. Biden then, with the current "stop-gap" appropriation running out on March 18, took off Monday to visit Europe and Russia for a week.

Democrats are counting on the stupidity of their liberal sheep to believe that Repubs will be at fault if govt 'shuts down'.

Repubs are likely to just put another 2 week stop-gap bill together. Let's hope this time they cut at least 5 Billion in current spending levels for those 2 weeks.

Maybe we can eat this elephant one bite at a time!

guy faulkes said...

Good point, New Guy. It turned out the Gallup poll was heavily skewed with union members or members of union families that were questioned.

NewGuy said...

Speaking of Polls....what kind of results do you think we will see reported from this one:

From Roll Call

"A top union and a top liberal blog announced Tuesday that they'll team up to sponsor polling through the 2012 elections.

Daily Kos and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) said they will join forces to conduct issue and campaign polling in key states and races over the next two years.

Public Policy Polling will be the pollsters used for the data collection. They are almost exclusively used by dems and consistantly report dem candidates as running stronger than what election results eventually show.

NewGuy said...

Correction to my above post.

The source was "The Hill".

guy faulkes said...

Maybe they can have Libealproverbs18:2 create the questions and do the math for them.

NewGuy said...


Here is an article I think you might like.

Liberal POV said...


Why do you Know Nothing continue to attack working American much like you own families?

Why do you support the greediest of American Capitalist who want to strip wage earning Americans of all rights and political power?

At what point do you think the greed capitalist will be content with the profits and wealth they receive while you and your own families live go without a slice of the American Pie?

Just because some of you maybe private contractors doesn't make you a player with the wall street capitalist they will and do drive your standard of living down.

This Wisconsin deal is about the standard of living all American can expect not just union teachers. Why are you FOOLS working against you own family's interest?

Blogger's got his Social Security and I'll bet a state or federal pension and works against fellow working Americans?

The billionaires you support don't support you or your family nor do they have any allegiance what so ever to the United States or the American people. Why do they deserve your support over other working Americans like yourselves?

Jack said...

I laughed pretty hard when Coulter referred to John Lott as a "highly regarded economist". The commentary kinda loses all credibility after that.

Anywho, here's the paper to which she was referring. It's interesting to note that it's a "working paper" from 1999, meaning that no peer-reviewed journal (liberal, conservative, or neutral) has thought it acceptable enough to publish.

Jack said...

To repeat a post I made on 1/29/11:

As for John Lott (the author of “More Guns Less Crime”), he is not held in high esteem.

Lott’s analysis has been denounced as “fundamentally flawed”. The National Academy of Sciences condemned his methods, stating “while it is true that most of the reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several are positive and many are statistically insignificant."

His “research” is shady at best and has never been replicated by other academics. Nor have a majority of his papers been peer-reviewed. His national “survey”, from which he bases his findings, has been “lost”. Lott has been unable to produce the raw data, he has been unable to show evidence of hard-copies of either the survey or answer sheets, and he, somehow, has no record of the students that assisted with the work.

As if it isn’t enough that Lott’s data was fabricated or that his analysis of his pretend data was seriously flawed, Lott created an online fake persona in an attempt to enhance his credibility. He created “Mary Rosh” and presented her as a former student of Lott. As “Mary Rosh”, Lott praised his own works and even called himself “the best professor I ever had.”

Sarkazein said...

"I laughed pretty hard when Coulter referred to John Lott as a "highly regarded economist". -Jack

Jack, would you put your academic accomplishments up against John Lott's? Has Ann Coulter ever heard of you much less hold you in high regard? Did you really
"Laugh pretty hard" and are you mentioned in Wikipedia?

Sarkazein said...

From Wiki:The work was immediately controversial, drawing large amounts of support and opposition. Numerous academics praised Lott's methodology, including Florida State University economist Bruce Benson,[11] Cardozo School of Law professor John O. McGinnis,[12] and University of Mississippi professor William F. Shughart.[13] The book also received favorable reviews from academics Gary Kleck, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell.[14].///

This makes you incorrect as he is held in high regard by many.

Anonymous said...


Jack uses a study from a Union organization to show that union members are under paid.

Then he denigrates John Lott?

Tell us about your education Jack. Where did you get your degree in economics?

You lose credibility every time you post. I used to think you had some well thought out positions and spoke with some degree of intelligence.

Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that everyone noticed that Jack doesn't offer any challenge to the data - only an attack on the source.


Jack said...

"doesn't offer any challenge to the data"

Lott's data was fabricated.

As for the Economic Policy Institute's study, Anonymous, in fact, "doesn't offer any challenge to the data - only an attack on the source."

guy faulkes said...

Jack, Lott's work is highly respected, so much so it is used as definitive evidence in the judiciary system.

You claim his data is fabricated. Where is your proof?

Once again you do not agree with someone so you make groundless accusations about them. This is a typical tactic of the left.

As has already been asked, who has the superior professional reputation, Lott or you?

Jack said...

Through dozens of requests, Lott has been unable to produce the raw data, he has been unable to show evidence of hard-copies of either the survey or answer sheets, and he, somehow, has no record of the graduate students that assisted with the work.

"who has the superior professional reputation, Lott or you?"

I would say I do. I haven't used pretend data or created a fake persona to laud myself.

Liberal POV said...


Sark Wikipedia is not a reliable reference particularly on controversial subjects.

"Lott asserts "Virtually no criminal guns are obtained from gun shows." He offers no data or expert opinion to support this contention. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, on the other hand, has concluded:

The access to anonymous sales and large numbers of secondhand firearms makes gun shows attractive to criminals. … The access to anonymous sales and large numbers of secondhand firearms makes gun shows attractive to criminals. … Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations.
So, on the one hand, we have the unsupported assertion of a person who has previously been caught using fraudulent data about guns … and on the other, we have a report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms."

Sarkazein said...

POV- Disprove my comment. Disprove Wiki's paragraph showing people having a high regard for John Lott's study.

By the way, every gun I have purchased at a "Gun Show", I have filled out the paper work and was never offered not to.

Sarkazein said...

I am waiting for Jack to comment about Milton Friedman having high regard for John Lott's work.

" Milton Friedman, tsk tsk scoff scoff, I am amused"-Jack

Liberal POV said...

Gun and Conservative Cultist

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck aren't journalist, nor news reporters or anchors but snake oil entertainers.

These people are selling bullshit using fear and hate. Facts and knowledge have no place in their agenda only hyping things that piss you off and truth plays no part in what they say.

Income is their motivation not idealogy and you're the mark.

They have no allegiance to the United States or the American people. Why do they deserve your support over other working Americans like yourselves?

Sarkazein said...

So thats a "I can't disprove it" then I take it.

guy faulkes said...

Jack is unable to explain why Lott's work is one of , if not the, most highly reguarded studies on the guns vs. crime issue. People like Jack have been trying to tear Lott down for years, to no avail.

Have you read his Book, Jack? I have. The book indicates where much of his data comes from. Also, the statement that most guns are used by criminals are stolen comes from law enforcement sources.

You made a statement. Prove it.

It is hard for you to have a better reputation than Lott as you have no reputation at all except as a liberal skeptic, Jack.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes- This is why people should not be allowed to enter college until they are 60.

NewGuy said...

Since everyone seems to enjoy Ann Coulter, here is her newest column - Once again hitting the nail on the head!

Blogger said...

48% of Wisconsin Voters Want Public Employee Pension Increases Approved by Voters
Today's Rasmussen

Liberal POV said...


"48% of Wisconsin Voters Want Public Employee Pension Increases Approved by Voters"

Why was that question ask?

Has that been a request of the teachers?

Please post a link to this as a issue?

NewGuy said...

True enough...but at the same time 57% of them don't want 'collective bargaining rights' reduced and Governor Walker's approval ratings are dropping among Wi voters.

Prediction: you will see some compromise on the bargaining 'rights' issue. Probably the mandatory collection of Union dues from those who don't want to be in the union will be eliminated. But, I doubt you will see any requirement for a 're-certification election' every year! Nor, in my opinion, should such an annual election be required.

In private industry (covered by the National Labor Relations Act) there are proceedures for de-certification of a union. It's similar to the certification process that brought them in to begin with. When a sufficient percentage of the bargaining unit petitions that the union be de-certified, then the NLRB holds an election and majority rules!

I don't see why that wouldn't work in Wi.

I am leaving aside for the moment, the entire question of what bargaining rights a public union should have...such as the right to strike, or binding arbitration.

Mandatory dues witholding? No, I am a believer in 'right to work'.

Annual re-certification. Also NO. Totally unnecessary as long as a fair and legitimate process exists for de-certifying a union.

Blogger said...

Lib link requested

Anonymous said...

See, blogger?

Even you fall into his traps.

If he is too stupid to Google "Rasmussen" on his own, why bother?

He's just trolling, and he got ya!

Anonymous said...

I actually get a kick out of Jack.

He checks in on the board quite often looking for a position taken by one of the regulars. Any position will do as long as it's remotely conservative.

Then, even though he has no knowledge, or oftentimes probably no opinion on the matter, he searches the internet furiously until he can find something, anything, to post in disagreement with the regular poster. When he can't find any data which disagrees with what has been posted, he searches for something, ANYTHING, which will discredit a source used by the original poster.

His arguing about local issues is a great example. He doesn't live here, he obviously has little or no knowledge of the area, the issues, or the politics, but yet will, after a furious internet searech, jump right in with whatever he can find to challenge what he's seen here.

Once you learn how to pull his strings, he can be entertaining.

Whatsamatter Jack...nobody reading your blog?

Liberal POV said...


The first two question are the only ones with merit to reality in Wisconsin.

1* In the dispute between the governor and the union workers, do you agree more with the governor or the union for teachers and other state employees?
Fifty-seven percent (57%) are opposed to Walker

"It’s also interesting to note that among households with children in the public school system, only 32% approve of the governor’s performance. Sixty-seven percent (67%) disapprove, including 54% who Strongly Disapprove.
2* Do you favor or oppose a proposal to weaken the collective bargaining rights of state employees?

"Fifty-seven percent (57%) are opposed."

Why poll the questions that have nothing to do with the debate between the Teachers and Walker?

guy faulkes said...

Liberalproverbs18:2, you keep missing the point. It is not about education or unions. It is about a budget that does not have the money to keep subsidizing the bread and circus gravy train teachers want. Broke is broke. There is no way to pay for the extravagances the union wants.

As an entitlement baby, I guess this is difficult for you to understand, you dolt.

NewGuy said...

Returning you now to our regularly scheduled programming -

Idaho had changed their rules for public employee collective bargaining...

From Reuters...

CHICAGO (Reuters) – The Idaho state legislature approved a bill on Tuesday to strip public school teachers of many of their collective bargaining rights while protesters in six states rallied against Republican efforts to curb union power.

The Idaho bill, which excludes issues like class size and workloads from negotiations for the state's 12,000 unionized teachers, was given final approval by the Republican-led House and is expected to be signed by Republican Governor Butch Otter.

The bill also eliminates teacher tenure, limits the duration of teacher labor contracts to one year and removes seniority as a factor in determining the order of layoffs.

Liberal POV said...


" It is about a budget that does not have the money to keep subsidizing the bread and circus gravy train teachers want."

Hell no it's not about the budget Walker gave tax cut to special interest to create the short fall as his first act as Governor.

Liberal POV said...


" There is no way to pay for the extravagances the union wants."

Again you and your conservatives are misinformed with Rush shit.

The union has agreed to all concessions except the the right to collective bargaining.

What you're to foolish to understand these union are also in your family's interest.

Sarkazein said...

I have noticed POV never misspells the four letter words.

Liberal POV said...


You want to address the issues?

guy faulkes said...

Sark does stick to the issues, Liberalproverbs18:2. You are the one that attempts to change the subject because you cannot argue the issues. All you can do is chant La la La La La as taught by your political masters. we all try to call your attention to this fact.

Sarkazein said...

In all the issues posted, battling the Left is in there somewhere.

NewGuy said...

Well, the good news is that Wisconsin has separated the budget issues (which require a quorum of 20) from the collective bargaining issues.

They have passed most of the bill without the absent democrat signatures.

News is sketchy at this point..mostly just the headlines.

Looks like a victory for the taxpayers of WI.

Johnny Rico said...

The Republicans in Wisconsin just took a play out of the Reid/Pelosi/Hussein Obama trifecta playbook. They busted the unions in a big way; all without spending a penny. Governor Walker is a hero. Walker/Palin in 2012.

Johnny Rico


PS The POVs are gnashing their stained teeth right about now. Rack one up for freedom and AMERICA.

PS I'm sure that one stings. LOL!!

Johnny Rico said...

Democrats pushed through health care against what a majority of Americans wanted. Republicans voted in favor of busting tax robbing unions in FAVOR of what a majority of Americans wanted. This, my liberal idiot smuck friends, is the difference between a traitor liberal and a Patriotic Conservative (notice capitalization). LOL!!!

This ought to get you idiots spinning!!!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Ben Eastmen

Anonymous said...

Wisconsin State House has passed the Senate's bill on cutting back the unions!

Dems, who left the state and hid out in Illinois in order to try to circumvent the democratic process are now complaining that republicans didn't play fair.

Wisconsin taxpayers are the winners!

Elected representatives are receiving death threats, harassment, etc. Jesse Jackson and out-of-state gangs of thugs storming the capital, entering through windows, screaming at legislators who are trying to do the business the people elected them to do, So much for dialing back the rhetoric like Obama said he wanted.

Wonder when he will come out and comlain about the rhetoric in Wi???

Dont hold your breath.

Johnny Rico said...

Hey you liberal socialist sheep POVs, you are crying in your cereal this morning aren't you!! LOL!! Pathetic fools.

Also, how come you schmucks aren't speaking out against the violance threatened against Republican Senators from that state. I thought your messiah, Hussein Obama, said not to do that type of thing. Did you idiots think we would forget when you criticized Palin for heated rhetoric? Now you dunces are doing the same thing you wrongly criticized us of doing. Can you say hypocrite? LOL

Your ole pal

Sarah Jimenez

Johnny Rico

Stings don't it

Sarkazein said...

I have heard the Union thug's stay at the Capital has caused a few $Million in damage and maintenance.