Following Paul Krugman, John Sides considers how one might measure the ideological position of conservative political commentator Michelle Malkin. I'd heard the name but I don't have any TV reception and didn't really know what she stood for. Going to her webpage, I see she's written three books: "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores," "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror," and "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild." From her blog, she also appears to have conservative economic views, although it's hard to separate this from partisanship without going back to posts from previous years.
Krugman wants a "scale of positions on political matters ... we might find that only 19 percent of Americans are to the right of Michelle Malkin, while 23 percent are to the left of Michael Moore." I don't have enough of a sense about Malkin, but I'm pretty sure that much less than 23% of Americans are to the left of Michael Moore. In chapter 8 of Red State, Blue State is this graph from Joe Bafumi and Michael Herron estimating the ideological positions of congressmembers and voters:
From this graph, it appears that fewer than 20% of Americans are more liberal than the average Democratic congressmember (as of 2006). Accepting the indisputable claim that Michael Moore is quite a bit to the left of the average Democrat in Congress, we can conclude that only a tiny fraction of Americans is to the left of Moore. Maybe 1%.
Bafumi and Herron's analysis can be disputed on methodological grounds and put into context in different ways (here are graphs showing the breakdown in Republican, Democratic, and battleground states), but I think it's a good starting point.
Placing Malkin on the ideological scale could be trickier: she's certainly a partisan Republican and strongly identifies as a conservative, but her book topics on immigration and racial profiling only capture a small subset of the issues usually used to measure ideology. Being "left" or "right" on immigration doesn't necessarily correlate with positions on economic issues. In any case, if you believe that Malkin is well to the right of the average Republican congressmember, you'll find from Bafumi and Herron's graph that far fewer than 19% of Americans would be to her right.
A statistical measurement issue
Sides does a quick try at placing Malkin's ideology by adding the responses to three survey questions from the National Election Study, each on a 1-7 scale (from 1=most liberal to 7=most conservative), graphing where Americans stand on these issues (on this combined 3-21 scale), and the seeing how Malkin would compare to this distribution, if her responses were a 6 on each question. I have some problems with John's graph (the data are discrete and run from 3 to 21, yet his curve seems to have more than 19 different points on it; the y-axis doesn't go down all the way to zero, making the curve look like the distribution drops down to zero at the extremes when it doesn't really do so), but I think it's great that he brings data and specific issues into the picture. In support of his idea, I have a couple of comments. First, the particular method he uses--taking some questions and seeing how someone with an average response of 6 out of 7 would look in the distribution--will be highly sensitive to the number of questions used in the analysis. The more responses you add, the more the person-with-average-score-of-6 will be an extreme in the distribution. If you added the responses to 20 questions on a 1-7 scale, I expect you'd get almost nobody with an average score of 6 out of 7. People's responses to these different questions are not so highly correlated as we political junkies might expect.
One final point
Moore and Malkin may each be more ideologically extreme than 1% of Americans (or maybe 5% of watchers of the Stephanopolous show). But a lot more than 1% of Americans think Michael Moore has something important to say (and, I assume this is true of Malkin as well).
8.06.2009
How Conservative are Michelle Malkin and Michael Moore?
@ 11:46 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
70 comments
Can Propoganda be important? I don't know. Riefenstahl's films are important I guess, but only as historical record, not for their content really.
Malkin and Moore are slanderers and charlatans. They debase debate. They do not elevate it. Both are obstreporous. Neither is important.
I think that graph is probably pretty good - but the tails are probably alot fatter for the actual population - i.e. actual communist, black panthers, seperatist - contrarians in general
"Moore and Malkin may each be more ideologically extreme than 1% of Americans "
Do you mean less ideologically extreme than 1%?
I don't buy into old, twentieth century ideas of what is 'liberal' and what is 'conservative.'
For example, I consider myself a liberal. Personal freedom is very important to me, so therefore I believe that unless there is a compelling societal interest in not allowing it (and I set the bar high for 'compelling societal interest') you should be free to read what you want, download what you want, smoke what you want, do what you want in your bedroom with any consenting adult, marry who you want, and own what you want. Including any gun that you want to buy.
I arrive at my views on gun ownership (which I am glad the NRA is out there fighting on behalf of my views) by the exactly the same logic and personal conviction as leads me to support marijuana legalization, internet gambling and same sex marriage and oppose censorship. So tell me, does this make me a 'liberal' or a 'conservative?'
I kind of agree with the first poster, although I would put Moore in a slightly different place than Malkin. For all his flaws, he does bring some things to light that might not have been otherwise (e.g. Bush sitting for seven minutes on 9/11), and he isn't actually a "partisan" for the Democrats at all, often attacking them (and also coming to the conclusions that guns aren't all bad in "Bowling for Columbine"). Basically, although I agree with the general sentiment expressed against him, I do think he carries a bit more value than Malkin.
Anyway, that chart does look very accurate to me. I think it's very hard to "quantify" either commentator that way though which makes this tricky; members of Congress at least have votes that they can be judged on for this.
-Jeremy
politics.com
The plot fits neither my intuition or anecdotal experience, for what that's worth. First of all, to get elected, all politicians move towards the center - that's how you capture more than half the vote to win. Politicians have to please more than half the population to stay elected. As such, they almost always - unless they're particularily charismatic or make a very successful appeal to their constutients that actually changes minds, qualities that are few and far between - move towards the center. Democrats and Republicans are watered-down versions of more pure ideological and philosophical positions, and the positions they advocate on issues tend to butt right up against each other. My point is, if that plot is true, how are people getting elected?
Further is my anecdotal experience. I'd be quite willing to bet that 80% of residents of my city, Minneapolis, are more liberal than the average democratic legislator. All you have to do is look at the bumper stickers and the people we elect locally. And I'd hazard I guess that's typical of many similar medium-sized cities.
Hard to get my mind around a poster at a political analysis site who has never been exposed, even second-hand, to the intellectual styling of Ms Maglalang. Here's a couple of links to shed some light on how she operates. Admittedly, they are harshly satirical and occasionally use adult language (NSFW, if people can read over your shoulder easily) but there's no attempt to exaggerate her intent. I don't think it's possible.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=site%3Asadlyno.com+malkin&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=site%3Atbogg.firedoglake.com+malkin&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
I find some of the criticism Michael Moore gets somewhat off kilter. I have been a long term watcher of his, and whilst all his work is clearly from a left wing point of view, I think his views are far more mainstream than is assumed. I certainly wouldn't characterize him as a 'Limbaugh of the left'. I think his films have raised several important issues in a reasonably fair and intelligent way. Thats not to say you have to agree with them, but that the content adds to the debate.
Malkin I don't know anything of at all really. But I am thinking I wouldn't agree with her on much.
First, Eli, you are a libertarian (check out: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz-pdf.pdf).
Second, Andrew, you seriously had never seen any of Malkin's stuff? I guess that proves how far out she is on th fringe. I have read several of her columns and seen the papers they are published in. She is so wack-job right (think Palin/Bachman) that I refuse to even pay attention to anything she writes or says.
Malkin is insane, and just to the right of Orly Taitz.
Nate - I am still awaiting state-by-state analysis of red/blue currently.
I think we are conflating ideology with partisanship and demeanor.
Malkin is simply a run of the mill conservative, most conservatives would have no problem agreeing with her basic ideological tenets.
What sets her apart, and puts her in the category of Limbaugh or Coulter is the manner in which she expresses her ideology. She is a rabid partisan who uses every tool available to get noticed in this modern media environment that celebrates sensationalism.
Moore is much the same, although significantly less rabid.
How do you get "From this graph, it appears that fewer than 20% of Americans are more liberal than the average Democratic congressmember (as of 2006)."?
It doesn't give any hint as to where the Democratic congressmen start and where Republicans begin. And from what I've seen, the Democratic party has a lot more "blue dogs" than the Republican party has "RINOs".
And I'd like to know what your method of deriving numbers from this graph was. It's pretty data-opaque to me.
In assessing anyone's political views, you have to take into account that there often is a difference between how people describe themselves and how they behave in practice. You see this with politicians a lot, espousing one philosophy while governing in a different way. Even commentators sometimes behave like politicians, flip-flopping on an issue to appease a constituency. In 2004, Michael Moore backed away from his harsher attacks on Israel and adopted a generically pro-Israel stance. His movie Fahrenheit 9/11 hardly mentioned Israel at all, which is odd if you've read some of his earlier books or essays on his website. It was clear to me what was happening. He wanted to get Bush voted out of office. He said so, many times. Coming off as anti-Israel would have strongly risked marginalizing him, keeping many Americans from listening to his criticisms of the Bush Administration.
I think it's clearly another case of the left being the party of the fat white guy and the right being the party of aceptance of minorities and women.
I generally agree with Michelle Malkin, but think her presentation can be off-putting at times. Same thing with Hannity & Glenn Beck. It's the melodrama, I guess. We know things are bad, but claiming they're apocalyptically bad isn't really helpful.
I'm a little disappointed that you only go as far as citing a (almost purely theoretical) graph of public opinion vs. legislative opinion to guesstimate where Malkin would fall.
There are much more direct ways to look at this. Polling data among them.
Furthermore, you implicitly buy into the notion of political ideology being unidimensional, when it is clearly anything but.
This graph shows precisely why we need ranked choice voting in the United States. Winner-take-all creates a polarized two-party system which sets them up to compete against each other, not for the betterment of the country and it's citizens.
I'm sure nearly all Americans are to the right of Marx and Engels, but I still think people should read The Communist Manifesto as part of a general college-level education. Extremists will always be around, and it's good to hear what their actual opinions are.
But Malkin probably isn't a real political extremist. I suspect her actual policy views are shared by half of the Republicans in Congress. It's her personality that's extreme. Any valuable viewpoints she might have are drowned out by weird outbursts about Rachael Ray's scarf and so on. With people like her, I think the wisest advice is DNFTT.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
George Carlin
It is always the bottom half of the bell curve dragging us down.
Michele Malkin is batshit crazy. It's hard to put her on a political spectrum, but she's pretty much off on the far right, and down in crazyville.
Michael Moore shares her initals but not much else. He's a more thoughtful provocateur and on the left. But he's definitely not batshit crazy.
In my opinion, this is the wrong axis to be graphing Malkin and other media commentators on. Sure, it's a little useful to know where they stand on left-right, but more important, as most people have been saying on this thread, is where they stand on the reasonable-moonbat/wingnut axis. Malkin is moderately right on most issues, hard right on immigration, but on the reasonable-wingnut axis, she's pegging the needle.
It's basically a necessity in today's Google News-driven game. Look at Bill Kristol - his political positions really haven't changed over the last fifteen years, but he's cranked the wingnuttery knob all the way up.
Michele Malkin is batshit crazy. It's hard to put her on a political spectrum, but she's pretty much off on the far right, and down in crazyville.
Michael Moore shares her initals but not much else. He's a more thoughtful provocateur and on the left. But he's definitely not batshit crazy.
I think a prerequisite to analyzing who is and isn't "batshit" should be that you aren't one yourself.
Otherwise, you get something like the (un-)objective blathering above.
Bottom line: Michael Moore and Michelle Malkin are both ideological extremists ("batshit crazies", if you will). If you sympathize with either one, consider yourself part of that group. Bottom line. No questions asked.
I think bringing Moore into this, when it's clearly spurred by Malkin is an attempt to create a "this and that" kind of comparison that fails exactly because it is forced.
Moore is a more compelling thinker because he examines whereas Malkin reacts and spends most of her time trying to create a narrative to force somebody to adopt her position.
But why worry about political spectra - why not instead consider the merits of individual arguments? If one is arguing a point simply because it fits comfortably on her own idea of her political spectrum, the argument will probably fail. The most convincing points are made by people who think about issues, not politics.
I think Moore is actually focused on issues more than Malkin - though to what extent I can't really say.
Comparing Malkin and Moore is like comparing a sloganeer to a writer. Whether or not one agrees with Moore, one would, on examination, I think, agree that they are doing two very different things and that in Moore's case it goes beyond shouting and defaming.
I think that while there are some worthwhile thoughts in this post, it fails because of the conceit it starts from, and because it chose two models poorly suited for comparison.
As with most of the posts above, I have to agree that these graphs and the analysis/story provided fall prey to simplifying far too many variables (by imagining a unidimensional political spectrum) and ignoring inconsistencies in language (e.g. are we talking about "Americans" or "voters"?).
I would add to the particular debate about wingnuts on either side, that everyone who has accused someone of fitting into the class or has acknowledged that such a class exists is missing the point. We all define as "fringe" that which is far away. Michael Moore seems conservative to me, and the whole of the Republican party seems to be a reactionary subculture stuck in the 1980's. I understand that this is not realistic however, and will never in public debate accuse them of being "radical," because their views are clearly rational from their own perspective. Rather than make these sorts of ad hominem attacks, why don't we just stick to debating particulars. There is no left and right: there are problems and competing solutions, some of which will work, and some of which will not. Let's argue about which solutions are which, not call each other names.
@Tedshubris who said "you implicitly buy into the notion of political ideology being unidimensional, when it is clearly anything but."
I think you'd be surprised, though it depends on how questions are asked. If you ask how liberal or conservative a person is on economic issues and then on social issues (2 items) you have correlations floating around .7 and .8 (these are big). When you ask about specific policies there will be more movement (i.e. less inter-correlations), but still the basic dimensions.
There are multiple potential reasons for this. One could be that people organize their beliefs around what their favorite party says is right and thus organize seemingly incompatible beliefs into the the same ideology (ie. free market, but not free personal lives).
It could also be that some policies better cluster around other 3rd variables, like psychological traits. John Jost a social psychologist at NYC suggests this sort of idea.
Malkin's book will debut on the bestseller list at number ONE on 8/15.
This follows a pattern of conservative authors climbing the charts on book sales and reaching no.1 (Levin, Morris, O’Reilly). And these people do it with virtually mo publicty in the MSM.
This may prove nothing more than Liberals are too stupid to read!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Michael Herron's graph of ideology is complete nonsense. It shows more Conservatives than Liberals in both Houses of Congress. That's apart from having no scale on either axis, and providing no useful information on the data used to create the graph.
http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/2008/07/answers-to-questions-about-our-graphs-of-left-right-ideology-of-voters-congressmembers-and-senators/
"What evidence did we use to estimate ideology of voters and congressmembers?
"House members and senators’ positions are estimated based on their votes in Congress. Voters’ positions are estimated based on some survey questions where people were asked their views on a number of issues that had also been voted on in Congress."
And one other thing:
President Obama is trying to turn the American people into informants and snitches with his new email addy for people to report "fishy" criticism of his healthcare reform plan!
How so much like Gestapo and Josef Stalin. There is an air of arrogant authoritarianism about this administration that stinks like one of Rahm Emmanuel's dead fishes! January 2013 cannot come soon enough for this disgusted citizen!
Be sure to email Obama and let him know how outraged you are! flag@whitehouse.gov
petekent01 (on twitter)
Ass Rider,
Watch or read anything Malkin does. She is clearly insane. Of course, you are just as fucktarded and racist as she is.
PK,
Just because a few people on the right buy a few thousand copies each of her scribblings doesn't make the right more literate. Few on the right has little in the way of critical thinking and reading comprehension skills.
Malkin is simply batshit insane, someone to ignore. She scores much higher on the insanity scale then Mann Coulter, Glen Beck, Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. All are equally retarded.
Only one percent of Americans are to the left of Michael Moore? Surely you jest. The following are results of some polls taken in 2009.
Rasmussen - 20% prefer socialism to capitalism
Time 49% prefer a single-payer health insurance program
AP 53% oppose the war in Afghanistan
Gallup 36% believe that the U.S. made a mistake sending troops to Afghanistan
CNN 46% prefer life imprisonment to the death penalty for murder
CNN 21% believe gun ownership should be restricted to militias
NBC 53% support an assault weapon ban
USA Today 21% believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstance
AP 51% believe that sex education and birth control are the best way to reduce teen pregnancy
ABC 63% believe that Affirmative Action programs are still needed to counter the effects of discrimination
CBS 33% believe that same-sex marriage should be legal
Gallup 60% believe that the wealthy pay too little in taxes
Gallup 67% believe that corporations pay too little in taxes
How so much like Gestapo and Josef Stalin. There is an air of arrogant authoritarianism about this administration that stinks like one of Rahm Emmanuel's dead fishes!
I realize you are an ignorant troll, but did you pay attention to what Bush and Cheney did? What has Obama done that is like the Gestapo? Bush and Cheney relied not only on the Gestapo, but used the same fear tactics and quotes that the Nazis used to gain and hang onto power.
Even you are so stupid to be ignorant of the crimes of the previous administration. Apparantly you are stupid enough to buy the insanity of Malkin since you think that Obama is evil. So when Obama takes the oath of the office again in Jan 2013, are you going to cry or just hide in your trailer?
Of course, you are just as fucktarded and racist as she is.
Thanks for your brilliant insights. I now wait on bated breath for Cugel, Mike in MD, and PorridgeGun to build on your commentary with intellectual fodder of their own.
P.S. When all you can do is come back and call me "fucktarded" and "racist" after I've given equal condemnation for Moore and Malkin, then it's pretty clear to anyone with an IQ bigger than their waist size how much of a fringe loon you are.
Just STFU. You don't add anything of substance. Ever.
I had thought this post was too insulting to PK, but beavis has now gone there, so:
I'll qualify my statement that we shouldn't call people wingnuts with a bit of agreement with beavis. There ARE people we should IGNORE. not because their views are "crazy" necessarily, but simply because they're not actually trying to help solve problems, but simply make money, or indeed simply don't have the intellectual capacity to deal with an argument that references things and advances a point of view via logical steps whether inductive or deductive. PK clearly falls into this category.
__________________________________
-----"PeteKent said...
And one other thing:
President Obama is trying to turn the American people into informants and snitches with his new email addy for people to report "fishy" criticism of his healthcare reform plan!
How so much like Gestapo and Josef Stalin. There is an air of arrogant authoritarianism about this administration that stinks like one of Rahm Emmanuel's dead fishes! January 2013 cannot come soon enough for this disgusted citizen!
Be sure to email Obama and let him know how outraged you are! flag@whitehouse.gov
petekent01 (on twitter)"-----
__________________________________
Anybody who takes debate seriously knows that the request for having opponents assertions shared is not to track the opponent but to track the arguments so that they can be considered and/or countered.
Petekent-
78% of the highest educated districts vote democratic
88% of the least educated districts vote republican
81% of scientists are dem or dem leaning
Who is the dumb party again?
I like most of the commentary on 538, but this article pissed me off. Saying that the extremes of American (or western) political though are represented by Moore and Malkin is to ignore the nature of political discussion and confine it to only "the stuff on the Sunday Morning talk shows". And it also ignores the full context of what both of these people say.
I wrote a long rebuttal and maybe I'll post it as a blog entry -- but I'm too pissed off at this article to post it yet
I see that some commenters here seem to have pointed out the fallacy of Gelman's piece already. I appreciate that.
Yes, Jeffrey. And those were work camps the Nazis built!
Oh, and Beavis: How very illiberal of you to attack me by suggesting I live in a trailer -- as if one’s particular economic circumstances at any given time determines your character. You, sir, are a fucktard!
Obama is going down and fast. He now seeks to make informants of the people. Not so much to get the information. It's easy enough gathered. Rather his motive is to chill debate and intimidate the people, to make them frightened to object, to question HIM.
Obama has lost control of the healthcare debate and this frightens him. As he once told Senator Harry Reid, "Yes, Harry, I have a gift."
It appears now that that oratorical gift of his is all sonority and no substance.
Indeed if Obama is such a great communicator, why is he failing to communicate the bona fides of his healthcare plan? Especially considering that he has the entire media, save except Fox News, as his megaphone and Amen Chorus.
He must be scared indeed. Like Heath Ledger's Joker he is crumbling inside, the Peter Lawford cool is only a facade.
Y'all should email Obama and let him know how outraged you are by his authoritarian tactics that stink of repression and anti-democratic leanings.
You can be the first to report me! flag@whitehouse.gov
petekent01 (on twitter)
78% of the highest educated districts vote democratic
88% of the least educated districts vote republican
81% of scientists are dem or dem leaning
Who is the dumb party again?
Source?
Doesn't matter. It still doesn't prove anything.
What exactly does "scientists" mean? What makes them a special group compared to the rest of scoiety?
The ripples have started before the major storm. WE MUST BE ON OUR GUARD?
More than ever before, this is the time to ignite the major issues under the feet of all politicians. We need the extraction process of mandated E-Verify composite of the SAVE ACT; to remove illegal labor from the workplace in all businesses Gathered together with local police detainment 287(g), the NO MATCH Social Security law and not to weaken ICE raids. All patriotic Americans who believe in a pro-sovereignty, anti-illegal immigrant must contact their arrogant pandering lawmakers, demanding no amnesty, no chain migration and build the border fence according two original specifications. American Workers and the general public must fight against abhorrent special interest groups, such as US chamber of Commerce, ACLU, La Raza, Council of Foreign Relations, ImmigrationWorksUSA and many more. Say--NO--to ACORN INVOLVED IN THE 2010 CENSUS. Sen. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi are the American Workers worst enemies?
That SANCTUARY STATES like California must rescind illegal immigrant refuge policies. That President Obama's health care renewal plan—WILL--attract millions more impoverished people from around the world. That they can join with the 20 plus million already here, to get free medical care under the Democrats law now passing through Congress. MY QUESTION IS! WHY SHOULD TAXPAYERS SUPPORT THE ILLEGAL LABOR FOR THE PARASITE CORPORATE ENTITIES ACROSS AMERICA? CALL TODAY AND GIVE POLITICIANS AT 202-224-3121 YOUR CRESCENDO OF FRUSTRATION? THAT'S ALL THEY UNDERSTAND--WHEN THEIR JOBS ARE IN PERIL. GOOGLE NUMBERSUSA AND JUDICIALWATCH TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CORRUPTION AND PROFITEERING FROM BOTH PARTIES. OVERPOPULATION will be the irreversible consequences of mass immigration.
Mule Rider said...
Michele Malkin is batshit crazy. It's hard to put her on a political spectrum, but she's pretty much off on the far right, and down in crazyville.
Michael Moore shares her initals but not much else. He's a more thoughtful provocateur and on the left. But he's definitely not batshit crazy.
I think a prerequisite to analyzing who is and isn't "batshit" should be that you aren't one yourself.
Otherwise, you get something like the (un-)objective blathering above.
Bottom line: Michael Moore and Michelle Malkin are both ideological extremists ("batshit crazies", if you will). If you sympathize with either one, consider yourself part of that group. Bottom line. No questions asked.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mule, speaking of batshit crazy:
Mule Rider said...
So you're right - I do think I'll leave permanently.
I'm too good for the buffoons on this site, anyway. I'm just bringing myself down trying to stay in the mix. I'm better than that and will keep it that way.
So long, adios, goodbye!
And one parting shot - piss on all of you hard-core douches at 538! You're nothing more than mentally challenged troglodytes to me who I'll always look down on.
As I leave for good (seriously, this time!!), here's my Most Despised List:
1)Cugel - far and away the front runner
2)Nate Silver
3)Sean Quinn
4)Mason
5)fred
6)David
7)STepper
8)counsellor ben
9)dsimon
10)harold
I might be missing someone, but that's the group that first came to mind. Okay, good riddance!!!
as well as childish, schizoid ...
Dirty Harry said...
Terrible news to report!!
On a couple of other blogs I frequent, the story was being unleased this morning by a few people familiar with the guy that the poster "Mule Rider" who freqented 538 was in an auto accident this morning and died as a result of his injuries.
This is tragic and a very sad day :(
I hope he is at peace and at rest now...
The blogger ID for Dirty Harry was also used by Mule, Libertarian, Mystery Solved, Independent Thinking Genius, Liberal Basher, Diddy Daddy, Sam Watts, Number1Stunner, Nate Silver, Mule Rider, True Redneck Patriot, Wounded Soldier, Barack Obama, Doomsday, Lost Cause, Anonymous, Mad Max, Concerned Citizen, etc. In the comment thread I'm referencing the same blogger ID was used as Richard, Dirty Harry, Anonymous and Dirty Harry again.
Members of the commentariat announce their departure only to return within minutes continuously. They don't generally return to report that they've since died. I took note. I added a comment even further on in the same thread. You were the subject of two paragraphs. My interest persists, in large part, because you persist even after weasel-worded.
Mule, let me be the first to welcome you back! ;)
take care, blessings
Mule Rider:
It's all just about elitism leaders of the Democratic Party: If you are a college grad you are better than the man with dirt under his nails.
Just like Beavis and his supposed insult about my living in a trailer (for all he knows I am 18 years old, living with the rents and working at BK to put me through school), there is now something suspect about being "common" or poor (this despite the fact that he would see my poverty as my being a victim of Bush economic policies!).
With Obama as Philosopher King and Autocrat we are entering an age where the will of the people must be ignored in favor of the command of the elites.
Who better than a Columbia-Harvard grad to bring us this "teaching moment"?
Please write him and tell him how much you admire him -- flag@whitehouse.gov – I think he is feeling a tad forlorn these days.
petekent01 (on twitter)
PeteKent said...
Mule Rider:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PK, let me say hi to you also. You and Mule make quite a team, eh!
take care, blessings
Gee, thanks shiloh. For continuing your obsessive posts about me and littering this page with them.
You find the ridiculous rants of a few impostors who used my name and attribute them to me and keep harping on this to try and illuminate my "lunatic behavior."
Whatever. The shit you're dragging out comes from idiots with fake accounts trying to smear me. But keep hammering away at me if it makes you feel better. I remain unphased.
Mule Rider said...
Gee, thanks shiloh. For continuing your obsessive posts about me and littering this page with them.
You find the ridiculous rants of a few impostors who used my name and attribute them to me and keep harping on this to try and illuminate my "lunatic behavior."
Whatever. The shit you're dragging out comes from idiots with fake accounts trying to smear me. But keep hammering away at me if it makes you feel better. I remain unphased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mule imposters ?!? when you already agreed w/me your initial leap unto 538 was as a raging lunatic troll, so one must assume everything I posted and said about you is true.
And someone had to be pretty "obsessed" with you to make a post w/a top ten list and use your name, eh. No Mule, your not worth the effort, but it was easy for me to copy and paste and make you look like the childish troll which you are. btw, the poster who made the above post re: you was checking google ID #s so he knew it was you. And yes, he may have been a tad obsessed or he just enjoyed keeping a record of your childish behavior, much like I enjoy throwing the truth back in your face.
The truth will set you free!
take care, blessings
p.s. yea Mule, that post has your m.o. written all over it!
ciao
I think that for both Malkin and Moore, demeanor is more important that ideology. Malkin is certainly not the most right-wing commentator or media personality in the US; nor is Moore furthest to the left.
Both, however, are frequently derided, and with much good reason, as excessively obnoxious and offensive. There's a reason that Andrew Sullivan issues "Malkin awards" and "Moore awards" for intemperate partisan/ideological rhetoric coming from media personalities--though its perhaps telling that nobody is ineligible to win Moore awards, and Sully feels the need to exclude Anne Coulter from the Malkin. ("So others will have a chance")--which begs the question--why not simply name the award after Coulter or Limbaugh; both of whom are more prominent right-wing commentators than Malkin is?
Nowadays, Sully rarely hands out a Moore award, whereas he hands out Malkin awards practically every day. I think it's evidence of the leftward turn in his own political outlook, but he no doubt would say it's because the right is just more nut-rich these days (and I wouldn't disagree).
I think the absence of Moore Awards is neither due to a leftward turn by Sully (even though he's an Obama supporter and left-libertarian on many social issues; he still thoroughly despises many segments of the mainstream left); nor by an absence of intemperate leftist rhetoric.
Instead, it's an absence of intemperate leftist rhetoric by mainstream sources.
Recipients of the Moore and Malkin generally aren't lonely isolated cranks, blog commenters, or other writers nobody has heard of; Sullivan hands these out to commentators who command noticeable public attention or respect (even if only among one particular faction). There's plenty of leftist cranks out there; however most of them are marginalized. (And by not awarding them Moore awards, it could be argued that Sully contributes to their marginalization).
Right-wing cranks, on the other hand, easily find their thoughts echoed by media sources like Fox or NRO. There is simply no equivalent to either of these on the left; leftist media tend to be milquetoast publications like Sully's present employer, or far-out pamphlets that nobody ever reads. Either that, or drugged out Hollywood types who don't know squat about politics, but use the opportunity of their celebrity (and of willing media outlets like HuffPo) to enlighten the rest of us with their "knowledge".
According to CNN's exit poll, Obama beat McCain by 18 points, 58 to 40, among voters with a postgraduate degree
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1
What's your point, Spud?
According to your same source, people lacking a high school education went for Obama by a 63-35 margin, by far the widest of any educational attainment level.
If you want to make a point about the intellectual savvy of voters by pointing out that the "brilliant" among us predominantly went for Obama, then don't ignore the fact that the least educated among us went for Obama by an even stronger margin.
The best part about Malkin is that she went to a Oberlin, a hyper-left college that finds Obama too far to the right.
Mule Rider
I would say that would be the poorest and the smartest
Jeffrey (12:55)
Only I'm not a libertarian because I support a generous public safety net and funding for better schools, health care, etc. and am willing to pay higher taxes to achieve that.
As I said, old 'labels' like 'liberal,' 'conservative,' and 'libertarian' are simplistic, even though when pushed I would say I am a 'liberal' because in toto that describes my point of view more than any of the other labels. But it still is outmoded.
errr...back to the initial post:
" Accepting the indisputable claim that Michael Moore is quite a bit to the left of the average Democrat in Congress, we can conclude that only a tiny fraction of Americans is to the left of Moore. Maybe 1%."
Ummm, let's see, did you pull that figure out of your ass, Andrew? Moore favors single payer health care: so do 50-55% of Americans in numerous polls (just ask it as medicare for all). Moore favors gun control: Again 50-60% of Americans do as well. Moore is pro-choice - depending how you define it 30 to 70% of Americans do.
Moore is an environmentalist aligned with Al Gore - again, a majority of Americans agree. Moore believes in a living wage: between 40 and 60% of Americans also do, depending how that is presented.
Moore wants to make it easier to unionize - so do a majority of Americans
@GROG:
I think it's clearly another case of the left being the party of the fat white guy and the right being the party of aceptance of minorities and women.
LOL!
Good one, dude.
@michael:
The fact that (for instance) Moore and I could both sensibly be said to favor "gun control" doesn't mean that he isn't far more "left" than I am on that issue.
And even in binary terms, relatively few Americans hold the "left" position on ALL the issues that you mention (and more). This is a point made in the original post: more questions resulting in a lower percentage of respondents with an average response at the extremes; the questions are not all that highly correlated.
@Sarge:
You put it very well. There's no reasonable comparison between Malkin and Moore. The latter's movies are histrionic and polemical, but they're backed by facts. The former wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up, sang "God Bless America," and bit her on the a$$. See Media Matters for a collection of Malkin's falsehoods and hypocrisy.
But...she isn't wacko enough to support the Birthers. (Neither is Coulter, astonishingly enough.) Good for her, on that score.
@Sarge:
You put it very well. There's no reasonable comparison between Malkin and Moore. The latter's movies are histrionic and polemical, but they're backed by facts. The former wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up, sang "God Bless America," and bit her on the a$$. See Media Matters for a collection of Malkin's falsehoods and hypocrisy.
But...she isn't wacko enough to support the Birthers. (Neither is Coulter, astonishingly enough.) Good for her, on that score.
I find ti really offensive when people say that Moore is the ideological equivalent of a Rush Limbaugh. He's simply not. Moore is center-left, if anything, and uses reason and facts in what he presents. Limbaugh (like Malkin) is about lies and fear.
When waiting at the airport, I caught Malkin on FoxNews Sirius, and it was just... there are really no words. It's the complete apocolyptical view of the world, even when their team is in power. I don't see that coming from Moore, who says many things that many people agree with. It wasn't the "fringe lefties" that made Fahrenheit 9/11 the highest grossing documentary ever, after all.
I must disagree with some of my fellow liberals here who argue that Moore sticks to the facts while Malkin lies and distorts.
For the record, I have only watched one of his documentaries in full (F9/11). I felt he did a service by making widely known the clip with Bush in the kindergarten classroom during the 9/11 attacks. I also think Moore has done some nice stunts, such as luring Alan Keyes to do a mosh dive for Rage Against the Machine, and confronting Fred Phelps with a "sodom-mobile."
But I cannot defend the way he presented his case in F9/11, even though I agree with his basic views.
For example, in discussing the 2000 post-election controversy, he does little more than air an out-of-context quote from Jeffrey Toobin claiming that Gore would have won the recount "under every scenario." I don't know where that clip came from, when Toobin said it, and what the full context was. But I did read a book by Toobin called Too Close to Call published in Oct. 2001 in which Toobin states that the recount could have gone either way, had it been allowed to continue, and that the results were extremely ambiguous. This was the conclusion of several well-publicized studies by newspapers and research organizations in 2001. Moore mentions none of them. A case could be made that Gore would have emerged victorious if the Supreme Court had not intervened, and I have seen people convincingly make that case. But by no means was it open-and-shut, as Moore's film implied.
People here who defend Moore's honesty and accuracy are letting their biases get in the way. To be sure, Media Matters does a good job of exposing the lies of Malkin and other right-wingers. But there are right-wing sites claiming to expose the "lies" of Michael Moore. And while I am not convinced that Moore has told outright lies, he has clearly engaged in propaganda designed to mislead, which to me is little different from outright lying.
Have to (mostly) agree with AnyEdge when he says "Malkin and Moore are slanderers and charlatans. They debase debate. They do not elevate it. Both are obstreporous. Neither is important."
Thank SOMEONE that Moore was kept off the political stage during the last election. While his brand of idiocy probably wouldn't have actually cost Obama the election, he certainly could have made it a LOT closer. I guess in THAT negative sense, perhaps Moore is important though.
I hardly think of Michael Moore as an example of an extreme liberal
Saying Health Care isn't being run right in this country is far left wing?
Saying GM didn't run its business right is far left wing?
Saying the Iraq war was a mistake is far left wing?
I thought those were more like obvious facts.
Um, remind me again, why are you giving an expert opinion about a commentator with whom you are wholly unfamiliar? Hearing Malkin speak is a far better way to assess her than her book titles. And anyway, you wrote this piece on a computer. Ever hear of YouTube?
All I can say is, I hope to God Michelle Malkin does not represent more than a fraction of the American electorate.
kylopod, in fairness Fahreiheit 911 is not Moore's best. Its a little too vitriolic lacking the normal fun element of Moore's. Sicko, Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me all mix serious coverage of an issue with a sense of fun in its satire.
I think Moore kind of gets his reputation because the right was deseperate for its own figure of ridicule in the same way the left ridicules Limbaugh. But Moore is actually far less bile filled than Limbaugh, and relies far more on the issue than the partisanship of it all.
It's rare that a post form this website is completely off base. 538 is suppose to be about statistics and politics Micheal Moore is more left wing of then 1% of the population?
Right. What planet do you live on?
Clearly not this one - please write a post supporting this theory with facts not myths.
Storytelling
I agree with Jeff (post #6), and would add that all graphs clinging to the obsolete left-right spectrum is of little interest.
kylopod -- I'd like to second markymark's point about Moore's films, and recommend either Sicko or Bowling for Columbine. They have significantly higher IMDB ratings than does F911. Both (particularly Bowling) play a bit fast and loose with facts, but (unlike F911) they aren't designed as polemics. They raise questions about the kind of society we live in, and those questions are well worth looking at. At his core, Moore is a storyteller, not a political commentator.
As to Toobin's book, I also read it (I have it in my lap now) and the conclusion I take from reading pages 278-279 is that if the Gore forces prevailed and got a recount in the four counties, Bush would have won. However, if a full statewide recount was required (which was the conclusion of the Florida Supreme Court) than Gore would have won by either 393 (lenient standard/dimpled chad) or 352 (any ballot perforation).
So yes, Moore isn't complete or nuanced in his one-line depiction of the results, but essentially, he is correct. Given a full state recount and the standard means' of determining voter preference on punch card ballots, Gore would probably have won Florida. But not by any statistically meaningful margin.
FWIW, I felt then (and feel now) that Bush deserved the Florida electoral votes because his team worked harder for them after the election and understood how to win an election. Like Kennedy in 1960, the Bush team pulled out all necessary stops to bring in their result. After reading Toobin's book in late 2001, I had much more respect for the Bush election team than I did before reading it. Unlike Gore's team, they understood that the election still needed to be won, and that the campaign would continue until the decision was final.
I agree with you, Brother Wolf. Unlike most posts here on 538, this one from Gelman seems completely off base to me, both from a leftist and a rightist point of view.
Krugman's estimates of "19% to the right of Malkin" and "23% to the left of Moore" seem closer to the truth to me, even though he freely admits (in his column) that those numbers are pretty much pulled from air.
A real analysis would need defining of left and right, along with polling data on a wide range of specific issues and proper analysis of Moore's and Malkin's views on them including subtleties.
Instead, Gelman's post here narrows the band of discussion to Moore's and Malkin's most extreme positions and then makes declarative statements about those positions.
I like almost everything I read by Nate et all on this site, but Gelman's post just annoyed me. It wasn't just the lack of good data analysis, it was the sense that he really doesn't understand the wide range of political philosophies espoused by many people in this country. Instead he defines "left extreme" as Michael Moore's views and "right extreme" as Michelle Malkin's and posits that 98% of the American population hold political views between those two individuals.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment