Are Republicans More Often Sheeple Compared to Democrats?

[Scuba Pete]

I did.

Citation?

 

[Acim]

The only reasonable conclusion to draw though is that there is insufficient evidence in the article to answer the question.

This is you being reasonable.

 

[Nous]

"Back in 2015, nearly a third of Republicans said they wouldn’t support him if he were the GOP nominee. It’s hard to argue he’s become objectively more appealing since then, but he has become the leader of the party, and partisans followed him. "

A June 14 Bloomberg Politics national pollof likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders -- 55 percent -- plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...f-of-sanders-supporters-won-t-support-clinton


The conventions did move some Sanders voters to Clinton. In national pollstaken right before the conventions, Clinton was winning around half of Sanders supporters when Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were included as an option — 57 percent (per CNN and Marist) and 44 percent (per YouGov).1Now, Clinton is at 69 percent (CNN), 65 percent (Marist) and 49 percent (YouGov).

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...pporters-still-arent-backing-hillary-clinton/

So, you're saying the YouGov numbers are wrong?

 

[Nous]

In much the same way his claims are substantiated, mine are as well.

False. You haven't cited any evidence.

 

[Nous]

The only reasonable conclusion to draw though is that there is insufficient evidence in the article to answer the question.

Any other conclusion based on the article alone would just be wrong.

Did someone instruct you that you should limit your "conclusion based on the article alone"? I didn't see that instruction.

Did you read the book that Sunstone linked to?

 

[Acim]

False. You haven't cited any evidence.

I have. I've brought forth the evidence that there are more Republicans than what the poll interacted with. Such that if the poll says 20% of Republicans, it really means: 20% of the Republicans polled, and not all Republicans. The evidence is based on information that transcends this (and all) poll(s). Which is why it is erroneous to word it the way it is in the linked article. Had it consistently said "Republicans sampled in the poll" then likely less erroneous. The other way is misrepresenting, and I would argue not actually scientific. Realizing the type of argument that could ensue, it would be one dealing with philosophy of science. I'm up for that debate, cause I do not see polling as scientific, even while it is evidence in the way that all pseudo scientific claims base their findings on (erroneous) evidence.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I've brought forth the evidence that there are more Republicans than what the poll interacted with.

You've missed the whole concept of "sampling", haven't you. The point is to extrapolate from a much smaller number. It's a math thing. It might plum elude you.

 

[Acim]

You've missed the whole concept of "sampling", haven't you. The point is to extrapolate from a much smaller number. It's a math thing. It might plum elude you.

How one words the results is not a math thing. But hey, keep making points about my character. Helps realize all you have to bring to the table.

 

[Revoltingest]

Citation?

No, it was a terrible car.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, it was a terrible car.

It reminds me of you... rusty and that holier than thou attitude!!!

 

[Acim]

Bob Altemeyer, the research psychologist who spent his career studying people who prefer to follow authoritarian leaders like Trump, has noted that a few decades ago these authoritarian followers were more or less evenly distributed between the Republican and Democratic Parties. However, surveys now indicate that they are leaving the Democratic Party and are concentrating in the Republican Party, perhaps in response to the polarizing effect of right wing media like Fox News.

Authoritarian followers have a number of interesting traits including a marked tendency to believe moral whatever their leaders tell them is moral, and to show little or no value for the truth when the truth comes into conflict with what their leaders tell them is true. They are, perhaps, the closest humans ever come to being habitually sheeplike in terms of following someone.

However, they tend to be highly aggressive towards people they perceive as "other", especially when they feel they have the upper hand or outnumber the "other".

So much of this is disputable. Then when you go to the link, you find more that is disputable.
And this nonsense passes for "evidence?"

It's like in OP where it says:

For instance, two polls show that 83-84% of Republicans now give their support to Trump, whereas last year a third of Republicans said they wouldn't support Trump if he were the nominee.

So apart from the erroneous wording regarding Republicans, there the idea that a year ago, when Trump was nominee, and so were 16 other candidates, not all of them were then on the Trump train, but now some to many of them are. Isn't this true with all elections?

If we polled Bernie's people a year ago how many would support Hillary as the nominee, I'm thinking it would be higher number today than what was claimed a year ago. Newsworthy would be the opposite. If say a year ago, 80% of Bernie supporters that were surveyed said they would surely support Hillary, but today 40% of them (same sampled group) said they would, thus half of the original number, that would be interesting information.

To the Pubs that won't support Trump today, what makes sense to a fellow Pub (me) is a) you're not going to vote at all or b) you're going to vote Libertarian. Saying you'll support Hillary, doesn't make sense, and if you are a) going to vote and b) don't want to waste your vote (on GJ), then you'd make sense if you vote Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

It reminds me of you... rusty and that holier than thou attitude!!!

You think that car has a holier than thou attitude?
Pbbbtttt!
Citations are very humble.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Citations are very humble.

But that one has a lot of holes in it. This is like the roof joke: it went right over your head.

 

[Augustus]

So, you're saying the YouGov numbers are wrong?

Just pointing out the fairly obvious point that people on both sides change their minds during election season.

Did someone instruct you that you should limit your "conclusion based on the article alone"? I didn't see that instruction.

It was to point out that despite rebuking others for not presenting evidence, you have presented nothing of note yourself.

What are your opinions on the topic and the article you quoted?

Did you read the book that Sunstone linked to?

No I didn't read the entire book. What pertinent points would you like to highlight from it?


People in general are not very rational, not very good at independent thought, modify behaviours and opinions based on social pressures, are hypocritical and practice self-deception, construct narratives to explain why they are 'right' and others are 'wrong', and interpret 'facts' through a subjective and biased lens seeking to avoid cognitive dissonance, even though most will sincerely believe they do not do these things.

Humans, as a species, are intrinsically 'sheeple'. Left and right both follow the crowd and 'leaders' (be they official leaders or unofficial opinion leaders).

So given that it is in our nature to be 'sheeple' and both parties draw support from a wide cross section of society, absent a very rigorous analysis that demonstrates otherwise, it is fair to assume that there is little difference between the 2 mainstream parties.

 

[Augustus]

I did.

This is you being reasonable.

Dang!

I was positioning myself so history would remember me with the epithet Augustus the Unreasonable, even had a load of merchandise done up and everything

Back to the drawing board...

 

[Revoltingest]

Dang!

I was positioning myself so history would remember
me with the epithet Augustus the Unreasonable, even
had a load of merchandise done up and everything

Back to the drawing board...

I underlined a great moniker for you.

 

[Augustus]

I underlined a great moniker for you.

I've officially adopted it.

Great people should have epithets: Vlad the Impaler, Peter the Great, Sulemain the Magnificent, Richard the Lionheart, Ming the Merciless, Ethelred the Unready, Andre the Giant.

 

[fantome profane]

I've officially adopted it.

Great people should have epithets: Vlad the Impaler, Peter the Great, Sulemain the Magnificent, Richard the Lionheart, Ming the Merciless, Ethelred the Unready, Andre the Giant.

Winnie the poo

 

[Revoltingest]

I've officially adopted it.

Great people should have epithets: Vlad the Impaler, Peter the Great, Sulemain the Magnificent, Richard the Lionheart, Ming the Merciless, Ethelred the Unready, Andre the Giant.

Bravo!

 

[Nous]

Just pointing out the fairly obvious point that people on both sides change their minds during election season.

The YouGov poll didn't find that.

In any case, there is a hell of bigger difference between Trump and the elected representatives who ran in the Republican primaries than there is between Clinton and Sanders.

It was to point out that despite rebuking others for not presenting evidence, you have presented nothing of note yourself.

Come again? What does "it" in your sentence refer to?

Again, no one here has suggested that you limit your conclusions to what can be deduced from the evidence that Mellman cited.

What are your opinions on the topic and the article you quoted?

Mellman cites some of the evidence indicating that Republicans have more of a tendency to be sheeple, to follow the leader, to change their stated views and values in order for partisan purposes.

No I didn't read the entire book. What pertinent points would you like to highlight from it?

Precisely what Sunstone noted.

People in general are not very rational, not very good at independent thought, modify behaviours and opinions based on social pressures, are hypocritical and practice self-deception, construct narratives to explain why they are 'right' and others are 'wrong', and interpret 'facts' through a subjective and biased lens seeking to avoid cognitive dissonance, even though most will sincerely believe they do not do these things.

Humans, as a species, are intrinsically 'sheeple'. Left and right both follow the crowd and 'leaders' (be they official leaders or unofficial opinion leaders).

So given that it is in our nature to be 'sheeple' and both parties draw support from a wide cross section of society, absent a very rigorous analysis that demonstrates otherwise, it is fair to assume that there is little difference between the 2 mainstream parties.

Evidently, again, you forgot this:

5. He who asserts must prove. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it. Facts must be accurate. Visual materials are permissible, and once introduced, they become available for the opponents' use if desired.​

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm