FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Was Washington Post-ABC News Poll partisan?





deanhills
Apparently the popular verdict is that votes regarding campaign funds in the Supreme Court had been split along party lines with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The Republicans obviously were very happy with the decision and the Democrats and Obama very unhappy. So if a poll shows that the people of the United States had been "vehemently" opposed to the decision, does this mean that the Poll could have been partisan as well? If a Supreme Court that is supposed to be the ultimate in unbiased justice cannot make unpartisan decisions, how can a poll be unpartisan?

Quote:
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

Source: Yahoo!News
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Quote:
Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."


I smell a conspiracy...

A way for congressmen to increase their popularity 'by fighting to limit the influence of special interests'. But what if they worked with the court to get the law revoked to begin with?
It that's the case, they can be popular by appearing to fight special interests, while actually making the law less restrictive...

All it would take would be a few (or even one) congressman, and the support of half the supreme court. This could be a Republican plot to shake off the 'party of no' moniker, while simultaneously curtailing the restrictions on their campaign funds. Once the supreme court decision had already been made (thanks to the loyal conservative judges), the Democrats in congress would have no choice but to go along with the plan.
coolclay
Corporations and Unions spending money on campaigns? Is this something new? You should have seen the campaign records of Clinton, Obama, and McCain this last campaign they had $100s of thousands of dollars from oil companies and all manner of companies and organizations. You can actually see dollar for dollar where each campaign gets their money from listed on the internet.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I smell a conspiracy...

A way for congressmen to increase their popularity 'by fighting to limit the influence of special interests'. But what if they worked with the court to get the law revoked to begin with?
It that's the case, they can be popular by appearing to fight special interests, while actually making the law less restrictive...

All it would take would be a few (or even one) congressman, and the support of half the supreme court. This could be a Republican plot to shake off the 'party of no' moniker, while simultaneously curtailing the restrictions on their campaign funds. Once the supreme court decision had already been made (thanks to the loyal conservative judges), the Democrats in congress would have no choice but to go along with the plan.
Looks as though the whole Ruling from beginning to end must have been politicized. Will be interesting to see whether Congress will make a ruling against, because if the the Poll is correct in that the majority of the people are against the ruling, then by implication all the Republicans should be against it too and Congress would then vote against it. If Congress does not vote against it, then the poll must have been partisan.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
If Congress does not vote against it, then the poll must have been partisan.

Kind of a shaky conclusion... You assume the politicians will follow the will of the people exactly. Not a sure thing, especially if the peoples' will and the politicians' career interests are opposed.
Related topics
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Mainstream Media Continues Operations Toward US Destruction
First phone records and now banking records, what's next?
Democrat US Senator Joe Lieberman booted for war-hawk stance
Global Warming
Who is sicker, Foley or the ones who kept it a secret?
Obama
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
Obama wins fight to limit fighter jets
Republican poll numbers crashing
Most Americans+Repubs support tax raise on wealthy
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.