6 ms·

I often point to the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election[1] as an example. Polling was awful (Ventura was given no chance). Reporters were jokingly dismissi

I often point to the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election[1] as an example. Polling was awful (Ventura was given no chance). Reporters were jokingly dismissive, and the comments coming out of the University of MN were downright shameful. Election night was a "big surprise". I get the feeling the US is going through that scenario writ larger. I get the feeling (I'm not from UK) that Brexit was similar. The BBC seemed like it picked a winner, and the US media does the same while dismissing all others. If I remember right the last UK election was pretty surprising to the BBC and its pollsters. In the US, the average person has grievances, is made fun of constantly on TV, and watches as people argue solutions that don't seem to have anything to do with the problem but sure fit their "let no crisis go to waste" mentality. Religious people are always portrayed as secretly corrupt or idiots[2]. Your jobs can get shipped off, replaced by someone on a visa, or a robot will do them. Celebrities are constantly shown knowing more about your job than you and calling you stupid or a villain. It seems chalk on a sidewalk with a candidates name is a national trauma? Never mind the number of government agencies that can just take your stuff without any recourse on your part. and people wonder why the old Top Gear was so popular I fear its going to get to the point that we really have no common ground left. I hope pasbesoin[3] isn't right, but I've lost a lot of hope. 1) and no, I dislike the winner intensely - suing a widow is a no go 2) MASH, Babylon 5, and The West Wing for the exception. At least The West Wing had the decency to portray Republicans as sometimes heroes. 3) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977593

arcanus 10y ago
> made fun of constantly on TV This. I've heard far too many charges of racism and xenophobia, as if many legitimately believe 52% of England are racists. Heaven forbid an electorate that has not been a beneficiary of globalism vote against the staus quo!
- jdietrich 10y ago
  In the British Social Attitudes Survey, 30% of the population said that they have "some level of racial prejudice". Given the stigma of those beliefs, I expect the real number could be significantly higher. Attributing Brexit solely to racism and xenophobia is clearly unreasonable, but it is equally unreasonable to dismiss it entirely as a factor. There are some striking demographic correlations between Leave voters and people who admitted to being racially prejudiced. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-on-rise-in-britain https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-o...
  - tremon 10y ago
    There are some striking demographic correlations between Leave voters and people who admitted to being racially prejudiced. I think self-assessments on negative habits are wrought with problems, I wouldn't rely on those for anything. But your comment made me realize something else: if people identify problems that you recognize, and you then see those people vilified as racists, you may start to question your beliefs. But the second and third time this happens, you may start to question the label itself. I'm not happy with the above phrasing, so I apologize for my runaway train of thought. But I think people are happy to self-assess as racists because they identify with demonized politicians, not necessarily because they are aware of their own racism. It becomes a badge of honour, so to speak.
  - wyclif 10y ago
    There's a rather wide chasm, though, between "some level of racial prejudice" and the fantastical "52% of the UK is racist." The first is plausible, the second is not.
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  Well, there were people voting to leave and using "immigration" as their justification. I would never claim it was 52%, or that 52% of the UK are 'racists'. However, it was a factor for some portion, and it may have been enough of a portion of votes to be part of the few % that gave 'leave' the victory.
  - dageshi 10y ago
    Bear in mind the level of immigration to the UK has risen very rapidly over the past 10-15 years and it has not been evenly distributed across the country. There are places where people have seen the racial makeup of their neighbourhoods changed greatly, where once they could reasonably walk down a street and expect to hear conversations in their own language now it won't be unusual for them to not understand half or more of the conversations going on around them. A lot of people find that quite alienating especially considering it's happened so quickly. When people talk about immigration that's really what they mean, I do genuinely believe that the UK is not a particularly racist place that the huge majority of people even those who cite immigration as an issue believe in "live and let live", but I think they feel that tolerance has been abused by a system that says free movement of people is meant to benefit them but so far as they can see it does not.
    - noobermin 10y ago
      That hypothesis doesn't square with the fact that the most populous regions, London in particular where immigrants are much more likely to settle voted overwhelmingly for remaining.
      - kalleboo 10y ago
        The Guardian has a graph showing how areas with a higher % of immigrants voted to Remain http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/...
- ams6110 10y ago
  I think almost all people are racists if they're coldly honest. Few are. They may recognize the feelings as "wrong" and be ashamed and deny having them, but it's human nature. We are drawn to people who look and act like we do, and we are suspicious of people who look and act differently from our group.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    You're confusing thoughts with behavior, a racist is someone who exhibits racist behavior, those who recognize those thoughts as wrong, and don't act on them, are not racist. All people have wrong thoughts constantly, it's whether they act on them or not that matters.
- pessimizer 10y ago
  In addition, Labor was against the EU before Blair, recently a Labor leader (Corpyn) who has been historically critical of the influence of the EU was voted in with a landslide (and establishment media called them idealistic young idiots); now the only reason to be against the EU is to be a small-minded racist pensioner. edit: This is the cry of financial services who were using the UK as an EU tax vehicle, and the uncritical middle-class are following along with their complete blanketing of the media. The only benefit that the EU gave to the left is that British elites on average hate workers more than European elites. This credibility was completely lost by the way Greece was treated.
arethuza 10y ago
So we don't have "average people" in Scotland - which voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU? Glasgow, which has some of the most deprived inner city condition of anywhere in the UK, voted to remain.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I'm not saying that an you know it. There are other factors, but I'm primarily talking about a set of voters discussed.
- sampo 10y ago
  How did the deprived inner city districts vote?
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Every single area of Scotland voted to stay in the EU - not sure if the detail in the results is clear enough to show deprived areas: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-3659... The only place in Scotland that came close to not voting to remain was Moray, which is quite rural and not really that deprived.
- sbmassey 10y ago
  Scottish anti-Establishment sentiment is usually directed against London rather than Brussels, for historical reasons.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Given that the "Establishment" is seen as a very London thing and very pro EU (see the results for London) I'm not sure that hangs together. Nobody was rebelling by voting Remain!
    - sbmassey 10y ago
      I meant that, from their perspective, "Establishment" wickedness of the sort being discussed in the article comes from London rather than Brussels, so supporting Brexit wouldn't make any sense.
mrec 10y ago
> The BBC seemed like it picked a winner, and the US media does the same while dismissing all others. If I remember right the last UK election was pretty surprising to the BBC and its pollsters. I don't know anything about Minnesota, but wrt this referendum and the last UK General Election it wasn't so much "picking a winner" as that relentless vilification of the non-establishment side led to people concealing their actual voting intentions from pollsters. In the case of the GE this even applied to exit polling, i.e. after people had voted. There wasn't any official exit polling for the referendum, but some major banks did it privately and I think Leave's premature concession early in the results points to the same thing happening there. Thank you for a very thoughtful and measured post, by the way; we could do with more of that. The atmosphere here in the UK at the moment is just poisonous, with some fairly mortifying behaviour on both sides.
- protomyth 10y ago
  > relentless vilification of the non-establishment side led to people concealing their actual voting intentions from pollsters I get the same thought and would love to know how someone would do a study on the subject. I know it was true in MN at the time (who wants to admit they're voting for a wrestler because they are sick of the other two)[1]. > The atmosphere here in the UK at the moment is just poisonous, with some fairly mortifying behavior on both sides. Yep, the edges always show up, more to prove the other sides point than help really. 1) I clenched my teeth and voted by party, although I couldn't say I was surprised by the outcome - and here I am doing the exact thing by making it clear I didn't vote for him - sigh.
  - mrec 10y ago
    > would love to know how someone would do a study on the subject It's normally called the "Shy Tory Factor" in the UK; Wikipedia has a page [1] but it's a bit thin. After the 2015 GE the British Polling Council commissioned an independent inquiry on the subject, whose findings you can read here [2]. (Disclaimer: I haven't.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor [2] http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf What strikes me is how counterproductive this all is - in this week's case the inaccurate polling made the final result far more of a shock and thus presumably far more disruptive than it would otherwise have been. It may even have caused the final result - I think turnout for the under-25 demographic, which skewed heavily Remain, was only about a third, and I've seen several comments to the effect of "I didn't think I needed to vote, Remain was ahead anyway".
reitanqild 10y ago
This, a number of times. Ridiculing ordinary people over years is what made Brexit and made Trump a possible candidate. I did not argue for Brexit (I knew too little) and I don't like Trump but I am smart enough to understand why people are fed up. Your point about Christianity rings true as well: I understand why a religious villain makes a better character in a plot but somewhere it has to stop (unless someone is pushing an agenda but they don't do do they ? ;-)
djhworld 10y ago
The BBC purposefully tries to be impartial, the "picking the winner" part was based on polling data and the actions of the financial markets. Other media organisations did the same. As there was no exit poll, they had nothing to talk about for 2 hours before the start of the results came in so just had endless speculation from pollsters and their ilk If there is one lesson to be learned, it's never ever trust polling organisations, they get it wrong time and time again, but somehow keep getting paid?
- mrec 10y ago
  I think the BBC does a reasonable job of remaining neutral between political parties - as you say, the complaints more or less balance out. But as an institution they very definitely have a strong ideology (pro-EU, pro-multiculturalism) which doesn't accurately reflect the country as a whole. Part of that is just the London filter bubble, but not all of it. A recent memo by the BBC's head of political research admitted this: “It seems to me that the London bubble has to burst if there is to be any prospect of addressing the issues that have brought us to our current situation. There are many millions of people in the UK who do not enthuse about diversity and do not embrace metropolitan values yet do not consider themselves lesser human beings for all that. Until their values and opinions are acknowledged and respected, rather than ignored and despised, our present discord will persist. Because these discontents run very wide and very deep and the metropolitan political class, confronted by them, seems completely bewildered and at a loss about how to respond (“who are these ghastly people and where do they come from?” doesn’t really hack it). The 2016 EU referendum has witnessed the cashing in of some very bitter bankable grudges but I believe that, throughout this 2016 campaign, Europe has been the shadow not the substance.”
- plafl 10y ago
  They give at least an estimation. I think that giving some error margins would make them more useful but I doubt the general public would appreciate it. Take for example the data here: https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/ https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/ Percentage for remain varies a lot depending on the poll on June 22, from 41% to to 55% (although some polls don't seem to consider undecided voters, not sure how it affects the result).
noobermin 10y ago
>Never mind the number of government agencies that can just take your stuff without any recourse on your part. I keep hearing this on the internet being portrayed as if the "average person" thinks "taxes are too high". The truth is this[0], it isn't just that they are too high for some groups, it's actually a plurality who feel taxes are too low on some groups and institutions. [0] http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
- protomyth 10y ago
  uhm, I was referring to asset forfeiture[1]. As to your statement, the first question[2]: Do you consider the amount of federal income tax you have to pay as too high, about right, or too low? 2016 Apr 6-10 ------------- 51% Too high 37% About right 3% Too low 3% No opinion Is pretty much what I expect. I would imagine the whole "feel taxes are too low" on others is generated by the large people not paying federal taxes, and the constant barrage of news about others having these loopholes that the normal person just doesn't get. 1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/#13595bdf5dda http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p... 2) http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/f73ndtswreiovzyizga00q.png http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod... - gotta love png instead of a table
  - noobermin 10y ago
    I mistook your comment on asset forfeiture as another "the poor man thinks taxes should be lower on the rich." I agree with your sentiment about asset forfeiture, which I'd argue is an indirect consequence of tax cuts on the wealthier end of the spectrum being made up by "revenue" in the form of fines and seizures from the lower and middle classes. ...but since you referenced my comment, I think its context needs to be validated. In order to give context to this, I'll post the information from the poll here. I'll just list data from the most recent poll, April 6-10, 2016. As I read off some different groups, please tell me if you think they are paying their FAIR share in federal taxes, paying too MUCH or paying too LITTLE? First, how about ... ? LOWER-INCOME PEOPLE 31% Fair share 46% Too much 20% Too little 3% No Opinion MIDDLE-INCOME PEOPLE 39% Fair share 53% Too much 6% Too little 2% No Opinion UPPER INCOME PEOPLE 21% Fair share 15% Too much 61% Too little 3% No Opinion CORPORATIONS 16% Fair share 12% Too much 67% Too little 5% No Opinion I encourage all to actually look at these polls to see how the attitudes have changed over time. It's important to realize the sentiment of the American populace as it stands now; it certainly helps us keep from creating cartoon versions of the "average person" as the OP submits some do. [0] http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/j2xilr08j0gifawf6lyegq.png http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...
threatofrain 10y ago
I don't think the US news media works that way. I think that the news media makes every person feel that they are the sensible person of non-extreme nature, and that to the sensible person their views are so obvious, and that other outside people are hostile and ignorant. I don't think anyone would tolerate even 5 whole minutes (!) of mockery from their favorite news distributors. I also think most people aren't looking for news, but opinions. They want already-respectable sounding narratives that they can adopt themselves without spending any effort. So no, I don't think religious people of America watch in pain as their news distributors, represented by a few faces, mock them for their stupidity, but I do think that news distributors sell a very poor-hostile message to poor people as part of an aspirational twist. You aren't the lowest, you're actually kind of normal, but elites have been stepping all over you. But the people below you, those are the losers, and those people don't deserve help because they're lazy, they're drug users, they're impulsive, they're unprincipled and selfish, they're Godless, and if the government gave them any help they'd spend it all on drugs and having 6 babies. You can just picture that dirty-faced skank with ultra-short denims and a tank top, an utterly unkempt look of unabashed poverty, with her no-good boyfriend. She probably votes Democrat all the time because if the government gave her a handout, hey of course she's going to vote for them, the Democrats are basically buying drugs for her. (to be read in the voice of a younger Rush Limbaugh)
- pandaman 10y ago
  > I don't think anyone would tolerate even 5 whole minutes And we don't. Still, it's called "mass media" for a reason. If you don't watch TV, you read the same on the internet, billboards, in the movies, video games, from your friends and family, co-workers, people calling your home at the dinner time etc. etc.
  - threatofrain 10y ago
    One of my subpoints was that what you call "mass" media is not that mass, but quite segmented and self-selecting, as are friends, and I also think that political belief and frame tend to be passed down through family.
celticninja 10y ago
Why is whether someone is a widow or not relevant to whether or not they can be sued in your mind? Would it be different if it was a widower? Or is that acceptable because men can deliver with things like that whereas women can barely cope with the grief of losing a man let alone all the legal stuff that is probably way over their head.
- protomyth 10y ago
  He was basically suing a widow because of a remark her husband made in a book (husband's version of a story). In other words, the person who he had a problem with was killed. He then continued to sue the estate (widow). "Would it be different if it was a widower?" I would still have a problem with continuing a lawsuit because of something a man's wife said. "Or is that acceptable because men can deliver with things like that whereas women can barely cope with the grief of losing a man let alone all the legal stuff that is probably way over their head." sigh... Its lines like this that make me think the divide is too great and our better angels are long gone. Sadly, I'm reluctant to give up my seat on buses or hold the door open these days because I don't know if I'll offend. Its so much easier to just ignore others and tune it all out and make like I'm oblivious.
  - IOT_Apprentice 10y ago
    The person he was suing wrote a book and repeated the story. In addition to claiming it on a talk radio show. Dead or not the story was now to a national audience due to even more publicity from the movie about Kyle. A jury judged that story a lie. Having a widow has no bearing on this situation. Would you let a lie about your character and stating you wanted more SEALs killed stand?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      > Would you let a lie about your character and stating you wanted more SEALs killed stand? I would fight the lie (if it is a lie), but I would never continue to sue when the person who has offended me is dead. It just makes you a bully. Your reputation is the important thing and not the money. Frankly, going after the money just shows its was probably true. The appeals course reversed the judgement, we'll see how he continues it.
plafl 10y ago
> In the US, the average person has grievances, is made fun of constantly on TV, and watches as people argue solutions that don't seem to have anything to do with the problem but sure fit their "let no crisis go to waste" mentality. Religious people are always portrayed as secretly corrupt or idiots[2]. Your jobs can get shipped off, replaced by someone on a visa, or a robot will do them. Celebrities are constantly shown knowing more about your job than you and calling you stupid or a villain. I'm not from the US but I find this surprising. My experience is that politics and the media tell the people what the people want to hear which most of the time are simple solutions to complex problems. Most of the time the problems are someone else's fault, of course. So, yes, people have been deceived but the solution is not yet another vote for absurd reasons. BTW, tomorrow we have (again) elections in Spain. Whatever the result the discussion has already left me dissapointed.

arcanus 10y ago

> made fun of constantly on TV This. I've heard far too many charges of racism and xenophobia, as if many legitimately believe 52% of England are racists. Heaven forbid an electorate that has not been a beneficiary of globalism vote against the staus quo!

jdietrich 10y ago
In the British Social Attitudes Survey, 30% of the population said that they have "some level of racial prejudice". Given the stigma of those beliefs, I expect the real number could be significantly higher. Attributing Brexit solely to racism and xenophobia is clearly unreasonable, but it is equally unreasonable to dismiss it entirely as a factor. There are some striking demographic correlations between Leave voters and people who admitted to being racially prejudiced. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-on-rise-in-britain https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/27/-sp-racism-o...
- tremon 10y ago
  There are some striking demographic correlations between Leave voters and people who admitted to being racially prejudiced. I think self-assessments on negative habits are wrought with problems, I wouldn't rely on those for anything. But your comment made me realize something else: if people identify problems that you recognize, and you then see those people vilified as racists, you may start to question your beliefs. But the second and third time this happens, you may start to question the label itself. I'm not happy with the above phrasing, so I apologize for my runaway train of thought. But I think people are happy to self-assess as racists because they identify with demonized politicians, not necessarily because they are aware of their own racism. It becomes a badge of honour, so to speak.
- wyclif 10y ago
  There's a rather wide chasm, though, between "some level of racial prejudice" and the fantastical "52% of the UK is racist." The first is plausible, the second is not.
mgkimsal 10y ago
Well, there were people voting to leave and using "immigration" as their justification. I would never claim it was 52%, or that 52% of the UK are 'racists'. However, it was a factor for some portion, and it may have been enough of a portion of votes to be part of the few % that gave 'leave' the victory.
- dageshi 10y ago
  Bear in mind the level of immigration to the UK has risen very rapidly over the past 10-15 years and it has not been evenly distributed across the country. There are places where people have seen the racial makeup of their neighbourhoods changed greatly, where once they could reasonably walk down a street and expect to hear conversations in their own language now it won't be unusual for them to not understand half or more of the conversations going on around them. A lot of people find that quite alienating especially considering it's happened so quickly. When people talk about immigration that's really what they mean, I do genuinely believe that the UK is not a particularly racist place that the huge majority of people even those who cite immigration as an issue believe in "live and let live", but I think they feel that tolerance has been abused by a system that says free movement of people is meant to benefit them but so far as they can see it does not.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    That hypothesis doesn't square with the fact that the most populous regions, London in particular where immigrants are much more likely to settle voted overwhelmingly for remaining.
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      The Guardian has a graph showing how areas with a higher % of immigrants voted to Remain http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/...
ams6110 10y ago
I think almost all people are racists if they're coldly honest. Few are. They may recognize the feelings as "wrong" and be ashamed and deny having them, but it's human nature. We are drawn to people who look and act like we do, and we are suspicious of people who look and act differently from our group.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  You're confusing thoughts with behavior, a racist is someone who exhibits racist behavior, those who recognize those thoughts as wrong, and don't act on them, are not racist. All people have wrong thoughts constantly, it's whether they act on them or not that matters.
pessimizer 10y ago
In addition, Labor was against the EU before Blair, recently a Labor leader (Corpyn) who has been historically critical of the influence of the EU was voted in with a landslide (and establishment media called them idealistic young idiots); now the only reason to be against the EU is to be a small-minded racist pensioner. edit: This is the cry of financial services who were using the UK as an EU tax vehicle, and the uncritical middle-class are following along with their complete blanketing of the media. The only benefit that the EU gave to the left is that British elites on average hate workers more than European elites. This credibility was completely lost by the way Greece was treated.

arethuza 10y ago

So we don't have "average people" in Scotland - which voted heavily in favour of remaining in the EU? Glasgow, which has some of the most deprived inner city condition of anywhere in the UK, voted to remain.

protomyth 10y ago
I'm not saying that an you know it. There are other factors, but I'm primarily talking about a set of voters discussed.
sampo 10y ago
How did the deprived inner city districts vote?
- arethuza 10y ago
  Every single area of Scotland voted to stay in the EU - not sure if the detail in the results is clear enough to show deprived areas: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-3659... The only place in Scotland that came close to not voting to remain was Moray, which is quite rural and not really that deprived.
sbmassey 10y ago
Scottish anti-Establishment sentiment is usually directed against London rather than Brussels, for historical reasons.
- arethuza 10y ago
  Given that the "Establishment" is seen as a very London thing and very pro EU (see the results for London) I'm not sure that hangs together. Nobody was rebelling by voting Remain!
  - sbmassey 10y ago
    I meant that, from their perspective, "Establishment" wickedness of the sort being discussed in the article comes from London rather than Brussels, so supporting Brexit wouldn't make any sense.

mrec 10y ago

> The BBC seemed like it picked a winner, and the US media does the same while dismissing all others. If I remember right the last UK election was pretty surprising to the BBC and its pollsters. I don't know anything about Minnesota, but wrt this referendum and the last UK General Election it wasn't so much "picking a winner" as that relentless vilification of the non-establishment side led to people concealing their actual voting intentions from pollsters. In the case of the GE this even applied to exit polling, i.e. after people had voted. There wasn't any official exit polling for the referendum, but some major banks did it privately and I think Leave's premature concession early in the results points to the same thing happening there. Thank you for a very thoughtful and measured post, by the way; we could do with more of that. The atmosphere here in the UK at the moment is just poisonous, with some fairly mortifying behaviour on both sides.

protomyth 10y ago
> relentless vilification of the non-establishment side led to people concealing their actual voting intentions from pollsters I get the same thought and would love to know how someone would do a study on the subject. I know it was true in MN at the time (who wants to admit they're voting for a wrestler because they are sick of the other two)[1]. > The atmosphere here in the UK at the moment is just poisonous, with some fairly mortifying behavior on both sides. Yep, the edges always show up, more to prove the other sides point than help really. 1) I clenched my teeth and voted by party, although I couldn't say I was surprised by the outcome - and here I am doing the exact thing by making it clear I didn't vote for him - sigh.
- mrec 10y ago
  > would love to know how someone would do a study on the subject It's normally called the "Shy Tory Factor" in the UK; Wikipedia has a page [1] but it's a bit thin. After the 2015 GE the British Polling Council commissioned an independent inquiry on the subject, whose findings you can read here [2]. (Disclaimer: I haven't.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor [2] http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3789/1/Report_final_revised.pdf What strikes me is how counterproductive this all is - in this week's case the inaccurate polling made the final result far more of a shock and thus presumably far more disruptive than it would otherwise have been. It may even have caused the final result - I think turnout for the under-25 demographic, which skewed heavily Remain, was only about a third, and I've seen several comments to the effect of "I didn't think I needed to vote, Remain was ahead anyway".

reitanqild 10y ago

This, a number of times. Ridiculing ordinary people over years is what made Brexit and made Trump a possible candidate. I did not argue for Brexit (I knew too little) and I don't like Trump but I am smart enough to understand why people are fed up. Your point about Christianity rings true as well: I understand why a religious villain makes a better character in a plot but somewhere it has to stop (unless someone is pushing an agenda but they don't do do they ? ;-)

djhworld 10y ago

The BBC purposefully tries to be impartial, the "picking the winner" part was based on polling data and the actions of the financial markets. Other media organisations did the same. As there was no exit poll, they had nothing to talk about for 2 hours before the start of the results came in so just had endless speculation from pollsters and their ilk If there is one lesson to be learned, it's never ever trust polling organisations, they get it wrong time and time again, but somehow keep getting paid?

mrec 10y ago
I think the BBC does a reasonable job of remaining neutral between political parties - as you say, the complaints more or less balance out. But as an institution they very definitely have a strong ideology (pro-EU, pro-multiculturalism) which doesn't accurately reflect the country as a whole. Part of that is just the London filter bubble, but not all of it. A recent memo by the BBC's head of political research admitted this: “It seems to me that the London bubble has to burst if there is to be any prospect of addressing the issues that have brought us to our current situation. There are many millions of people in the UK who do not enthuse about diversity and do not embrace metropolitan values yet do not consider themselves lesser human beings for all that. Until their values and opinions are acknowledged and respected, rather than ignored and despised, our present discord will persist. Because these discontents run very wide and very deep and the metropolitan political class, confronted by them, seems completely bewildered and at a loss about how to respond (“who are these ghastly people and where do they come from?” doesn’t really hack it). The 2016 EU referendum has witnessed the cashing in of some very bitter bankable grudges but I believe that, throughout this 2016 campaign, Europe has been the shadow not the substance.”
plafl 10y ago
They give at least an estimation. I think that giving some error margins would make them more useful but I doubt the general public would appreciate it. Take for example the data here: https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/ https://ig.ft.com/sites/brexit-polling/ Percentage for remain varies a lot depending on the poll on June 22, from 41% to to 55% (although some polls don't seem to consider undecided voters, not sure how it affects the result).

noobermin 10y ago

>Never mind the number of government agencies that can just take your stuff without any recourse on your part. I keep hearing this on the internet being portrayed as if the "average person" thinks "taxes are too high". The truth is this[0], it isn't just that they are too high for some groups, it's actually a plurality who feel taxes are too low on some groups and institutions. [0] http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

protomyth 10y ago
uhm, I was referring to asset forfeiture[1]. As to your statement, the first question[2]: Do you consider the amount of federal income tax you have to pay as too high, about right, or too low? 2016 Apr 6-10 ------------- 51% Too high 37% About right 3% Too low 3% No opinion Is pretty much what I expect. I would imagine the whole "feel taxes are too low" on others is generated by the large people not paying federal taxes, and the constant barrage of news about others having these loopholes that the normal person just doesn't get. 1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/#13595bdf5dda http://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/p... 2) http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/f73ndtswreiovzyizga00q.png http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod... - gotta love png instead of a table
- noobermin 10y ago
  I mistook your comment on asset forfeiture as another "the poor man thinks taxes should be lower on the rich." I agree with your sentiment about asset forfeiture, which I'd argue is an indirect consequence of tax cuts on the wealthier end of the spectrum being made up by "revenue" in the form of fines and seizures from the lower and middle classes. ...but since you referenced my comment, I think its context needs to be validated. In order to give context to this, I'll post the information from the poll here. I'll just list data from the most recent poll, April 6-10, 2016. As I read off some different groups, please tell me if you think they are paying their FAIR share in federal taxes, paying too MUCH or paying too LITTLE? First, how about ... ? LOWER-INCOME PEOPLE 31% Fair share 46% Too much 20% Too little 3% No Opinion MIDDLE-INCOME PEOPLE 39% Fair share 53% Too much 6% Too little 2% No Opinion UPPER INCOME PEOPLE 21% Fair share 15% Too much 61% Too little 3% No Opinion CORPORATIONS 16% Fair share 12% Too much 67% Too little 5% No Opinion I encourage all to actually look at these polls to see how the attitudes have changed over time. It's important to realize the sentiment of the American populace as it stands now; it certainly helps us keep from creating cartoon versions of the "average person" as the OP submits some do. [0] http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/j2xilr08j0gifawf6lyegq.png http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Prod...

threatofrain 10y ago

I don't think the US news media works that way. I think that the news media makes every person feel that they are the sensible person of non-extreme nature, and that to the sensible person their views are so obvious, and that other outside people are hostile and ignorant. I don't think anyone would tolerate even 5 whole minutes (!) of mockery from their favorite news distributors. I also think most people aren't looking for news, but opinions. They want already-respectable sounding narratives that they can adopt themselves without spending any effort. So no, I don't think religious people of America watch in pain as their news distributors, represented by a few faces, mock them for their stupidity, but I do think that news distributors sell a very poor-hostile message to poor people as part of an aspirational twist. You aren't the lowest, you're actually kind of normal, but elites have been stepping all over you. But the people below you, those are the losers, and those people don't deserve help because they're lazy, they're drug users, they're impulsive, they're unprincipled and selfish, they're Godless, and if the government gave them any help they'd spend it all on drugs and having 6 babies. You can just picture that dirty-faced skank with ultra-short denims and a tank top, an utterly unkempt look of unabashed poverty, with her no-good boyfriend. She probably votes Democrat all the time because if the government gave her a handout, hey of course she's going to vote for them, the Democrats are basically buying drugs for her. (to be read in the voice of a younger Rush Limbaugh)

pandaman 10y ago
> I don't think anyone would tolerate even 5 whole minutes And we don't. Still, it's called "mass media" for a reason. If you don't watch TV, you read the same on the internet, billboards, in the movies, video games, from your friends and family, co-workers, people calling your home at the dinner time etc. etc.
- threatofrain 10y ago
  One of my subpoints was that what you call "mass" media is not that mass, but quite segmented and self-selecting, as are friends, and I also think that political belief and frame tend to be passed down through family.

celticninja 10y ago

Why is whether someone is a widow or not relevant to whether or not they can be sued in your mind? Would it be different if it was a widower? Or is that acceptable because men can deliver with things like that whereas women can barely cope with the grief of losing a man let alone all the legal stuff that is probably way over their head.

protomyth 10y ago
He was basically suing a widow because of a remark her husband made in a book (husband's version of a story). In other words, the person who he had a problem with was killed. He then continued to sue the estate (widow). "Would it be different if it was a widower?" I would still have a problem with continuing a lawsuit because of something a man's wife said. "Or is that acceptable because men can deliver with things like that whereas women can barely cope with the grief of losing a man let alone all the legal stuff that is probably way over their head." sigh... Its lines like this that make me think the divide is too great and our better angels are long gone. Sadly, I'm reluctant to give up my seat on buses or hold the door open these days because I don't know if I'll offend. Its so much easier to just ignore others and tune it all out and make like I'm oblivious.
- IOT_Apprentice 10y ago
  The person he was suing wrote a book and repeated the story. In addition to claiming it on a talk radio show. Dead or not the story was now to a national audience due to even more publicity from the movie about Kyle. A jury judged that story a lie. Having a widow has no bearing on this situation. Would you let a lie about your character and stating you wanted more SEALs killed stand?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    > Would you let a lie about your character and stating you wanted more SEALs killed stand? I would fight the lie (if it is a lie), but I would never continue to sue when the person who has offended me is dead. It just makes you a bully. Your reputation is the important thing and not the money. Frankly, going after the money just shows its was probably true. The appeals course reversed the judgement, we'll see how he continues it.

plafl 10y ago

> In the US, the average person has grievances, is made fun of constantly on TV, and watches as people argue solutions that don't seem to have anything to do with the problem but sure fit their "let no crisis go to waste" mentality. Religious people are always portrayed as secretly corrupt or idiots[2]. Your jobs can get shipped off, replaced by someone on a visa, or a robot will do them. Celebrities are constantly shown knowing more about your job than you and calling you stupid or a villain. I'm not from the US but I find this surprising. My experience is that politics and the media tell the people what the people want to hear which most of the time are simple solutions to complex problems. Most of the time the problems are someone else's fault, of course. So, yes, people have been deceived but the solution is not yet another vote for absurd reasons. BTW, tomorrow we have (again) elections in Spain. Whatever the result the discussion has already left me dissapointed.