Comments on: New York Times/CBS Poll Misleads Voters http://patterico.com/2004/11/27/inew-york-timesicbs-poll-misleads-voters/ Harangues that just make sense Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:00:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: BigFire http://patterico.com/2004/11/27/inew-york-timesicbs-poll-misleads-voters/#comment-6532 BigFire Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2368#comment-6532 Since when does truth matter to MSM? Truth is for the philosophers and theologians. They are newsmen. News is what they said it is. Since when does truth matter to MSM? Truth is for the philosophers and theologians. They are newsmen. News is what they said it is.

]]> By: Xrlq http://patterico.com/2004/11/27/inew-york-timesicbs-poll-misleads-voters/#comment-6533 Xrlq Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2368#comment-6533 Philosophers, anyway. Theologians are like journalists in this regard, except that they don't pretend to be unbiased. Philosophers, anyway. Theologians are like journalists in this regard, except that they don’t pretend to be unbiased.

]]> By: Kevin Murphy http://patterico.com/2004/11/27/inew-york-timesicbs-poll-misleads-voters/#comment-6534 Kevin Murphy Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2368#comment-6534 Philosophers only care about truth in the abstract. Consider the Philosopher-Kings (ok, 7 Kings, 2 Queens) on the High Court. You can't convince me it's all epistomology. Philosophers only care about truth in the abstract.

Consider the Philosopher-Kings (ok, 7 Kings, 2 Queens) on the High Court. You can’t convince me it’s all epistomology.

]]> By: The Raving Atheist http://patterico.com/2004/11/27/inew-york-timesicbs-poll-misleads-voters/#comment-6535 The Raving Atheist Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2368#comment-6535 You think that poll's bad? Look at the <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm" rel="nofollow">question</a> AP was floating in early November: "The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe. v Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision or nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?" First <i>three</i> months? Try first six (for no reason at all) or nine (for almost any reason). Technically, though, reversing Roe v Wade <i>would</i> make abortion immediately illegal in whichever state brought the suit. I don't think the NYT poll results would have come out much differently if the question were changed to "do you think he is likely to appoint Justices who will vote to keep abortion legal OR Justices who will vote <i>to permit states</i> to make abortion against the law?" You think that poll’s bad? Look at the question AP was floating in early November:

“The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe. v Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision or nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?”

First three months? Try first six (for no reason at all) or nine (for almost any reason).

Technically, though, reversing Roe v Wade would make abortion immediately illegal in whichever state brought the suit. I don’t think the NYT poll results would have come out much differently if the question were changed to “do you think he is likely to appoint Justices who will vote to keep abortion legal OR Justices who will vote to permit states to make abortion against the law?”

]]> By: The Interocitor http://patterico.com/2004/11/27/inew-york-timesicbs-poll-misleads-voters/#comment-6536 The Interocitor Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2368#comment-6536 <strong>Overturning Roe? Not as good an idea as you might think</strong> Patterico correctly points out that, should a Bush-appointed Supreme Court majority overturn Roe (and Casey), it would not automatically make abortion illegal. What it would do is toss the issue back to the states, or, arguably*, to Congress. I think... Overturning Roe? Not as good an idea as you might think
Patterico correctly points out that, should a Bush-appointed Supreme Court majority overturn Roe (and Casey), it would not automatically make abortion illegal. What it would do is toss the issue back to the states, or, arguably*, to Congress. I think…

]]> By: The Interocitor http://patterico.com/2004/11/27/inew-york-timesicbs-poll-misleads-voters/#comment-6537 The Interocitor Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=2368#comment-6537 <strong>Overturning Roe? Not as good an idea as you might think</strong> Patterico correctly points out that, should a Bush-appointed Supreme Court majority overturn Roe (and Casey), it would not automatically make abortion illegal. What it would do is toss the issue back to the states, or, arguably*, to Congress. I think... Overturning Roe? Not as good an idea as you might think
Patterico correctly points out that, should a Bush-appointed Supreme Court majority overturn Roe (and Casey), it would not automatically make abortion illegal. What it would do is toss the issue back to the states, or, arguably*, to Congress. I think…

]]>