Political quiz and report from the Pew Research Center

[Hank77]

Stressed Sideliner here. Some of the description fits but not all.

 

[wing2000]

"Establishment Liberal"
(Hold your fire MAGA folks : )

• Liberal on most issues -- in today's political context, probably accurate

• Favor political compromise. -- yep

• Strong Biden supporters. - moderate supporter

 

[public hermit]

Is it me, or is it odd we aren't we seeing more "faith and flag" conservatives? This thread makes it look like CFers are primarily moderates with a hip shake to one side or the other. Ha! We know better than that.

 

[wing2000]

Is it me, or is it odd we aren't we seeing more "faith and flag" conservatives? This thread makes it look like CFers are primarily moderates with a hip shake to one side or the other. Ha! We know better than that.

Maybe they don't trust surveys?

 

[public hermit]

Maybe they don't trust surveys?

That struck me as obvious only after you said it. Of course! Alas, bless them.

 

[98cwitr]

Is it me, or is it odd we aren't we seeing more "faith and flag" conservatives? This thread makes it look like CFers are primarily moderates with a hip shake to one side or the other. Ha! We know better than that.

Hi

 

[DamianWarS]

Another Canadian apologizing for something they haven't done! I think the intent was not to make you the (hypothetical) voter feel bad, but rather to show that the parties aren't a comfortable home for many people. Can the parties respond to attract the more ambivalent people into the tent? Or will they bar the doors and try to keep their energetic bases from escaping?

or as the article suggests we could look "Beyond Red vs. Blue" maybe another colour?

 

[DamianWarS]

The USA has a 2- party system. As for the headline, I think its about the constituency and not the parties.

as I said my Canadianism has skewed how I look at it and since Canada has a multiparty system it makes sense I don't fit into a binary mold but also conservative/liberal views in Canada don't fully align with conservative/liberal views in the US such as military values and "faith and flag" identities. Whether about constituency or party the premise was "beyond blue vs red" but the results seemed to be shades of blue vs shades of red and to me, anti-climatic as the goal seemed to still be about slotting you into blue/red views.

 

[PloverWing]

I will however comment on the labels that terms like "Outsider", "Stressed", "Ambivalent" have negative or displaced associations making you feel like you've answered something incorrectly or need to fix something. it is clear they are pushing you to fit in a 2 party system which seems counterproductive to the headline of "Beyond Red vs. Blue..." Since the groupings are in threes with upper 3 for right, lower 3 for left, and the middle 3 for "displaced" they should have identified a new group to allow individuals to feel their political identity is correct without feeling like they are pushed one way or the other.

Based on the Newshour interview I listened to, I think the intent of the study was to look at the coalitions that make up the two major parties in the US. Neither party is a group of people who hold to uniform beliefs; both are alliances of groups with different values and priorities, with similar enough interests that they can work together. The Pew study was trying to identify and analyze some of those smaller groups.

I don't think the labels "outsider" and "ambivalent" were meant to be negative value judgments. Rather, they suggest to me a person who voted Democratic (or Republican) in the last election, because that choice was the best among the mediocre available choices, but who is unhappy with significant aspects of the party and would like to see the party change, or perhaps is unhappy with the whole political system.

I'll agree that I'm not sure why the "sideliners" are "stressed". Given the description of that group in the report, maybe "uninterested sideliners" or "undecided sideliners" is a better label.

 

[DamianWarS]

Based on the Newshour interview I listened to, I think the intent of the study was to look at the coalitions that make up the two major parties in the US. Neither party is a group of people who hold to uniform beliefs; both are alliances of groups with different values and priorities, with similar enough interests that they can work together. The Pew study was trying to identify and analyze some of those smaller groups.

I don't think the labels "outsider" and "ambivalent" were meant to be negative value judgments. Rather, they suggest to me a person who voted Democratic (or Republican) in the last election, because that choice was the best among the mediocre available choices, but who is unhappy with significant aspects of the party and would like to see the party change, or perhaps is unhappy with the whole political system.

I'll agree that I'm not sure why the "sideliners" are "stressed". Given the description of that group in the report, maybe "uninterested sideliners" or "undecided sideliners" is a better label.

I just find their choice of words interesting. in the results, outsider/ambivalent are used for the same thing which is 1 away from the center (or 1 away from stressed). it could just as well be outsider right and ambivalent left. I see however the middle 3 as a third group that doesn't fit anywhere and the language they use fits this.

if we sort them by number we have 1-2-3, 4-5-6, 7-8-9. Now 6 has more unity with 4 than it does 9 and likewise, 4 has more unity with 6 than 1 and what emerges is a third group. Canada has a multiparty system but the in practice the "blue" and "red" are the only elected parties and every 1-2 terms they rotate no different than the US. What's different however is alternative parties that actually gain traction and keep the system in balance or the blue/red from becoming too polarised in their views creating more of a healthy competitive system than if the other guy is 'x' I must be 'y' system. It's not that an alternative option can't work in the US they just don't work but if more progress could happen in this space the polar ends take notice and the product is that they are less polarized which is more beneficial to the country as a whole. I think the US has a polarised problem right now that I believe the 2 party system manifests and I believe a middle ground is needed rather than forcing blue/red sides.

 

[wing2000]

or as the article suggests we could look "Beyond Red vs. Blue" maybe another colour?

IMO, I wish the media had never reverted to describing the voters or regions as Red or Blue. It grossly over simplifies the political complexity that makes up the US and has contributed to the binary thinking that is so prevalent in US political discussions...including here.

 

[DamianWarS]

IMO, I wish the media had never reverted to describing the voters or regions as Red or Blue. It grossly over simplifies the political complexity that makes up the US and has contributed to the binary thinking that is so prevalent in US political discussions...including here.

I agree and I think PRC could have been more creative with their scale. they teased a beyond blue/red thinking but then disappointed when their results were based on a blue/red reference. if they removed the binary labels they could have been more expressive allowing a wider range of political identities.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your best fit is…
Ambivalent Right

Somewhat surprising living in Seattle but consistent with my small town upbringing.

Also ambivalent right.

The hardest question was about "people who study something for years being policy experts".

Jane Goodall studies apes and chimps. I've no doubt she knows how to answer questions about chimps....she's probably right more often than wrong.

However, if I were to ask her to write a policy about how to keep chimp populations alive....she needs a lot of knowledge far outside her expertise and an understanding of preexisting law.

There are fields that integrate these things like economics. The problem is that even they have spotty records at writing policy.

There's other fields like women's literature where I wouldn't expect any amount of expertise (if you can call it that) to translate into policy.

I had to answer no....though I suspected that it was a covert question about virologists and the CDC.

I ended up ambivalent right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe they don't trust surveys?

There's a study a few years back that showed an unexpected conclusion.

Those on the right understand the positions of the left better than the left understands the right.

If you want to know why...blame left wing media.

CNN knows that portraying vaccine mandate disapproval as mainly an issue of bodily autonomy and government overreach won't engage their audience. It might even become a discussion.

I'd say it's the number one reason why conservatives resist mandates.

If I were to poll the left though, I would think they imagine that the right is largely engaged in a delusional fantasy involving computer chips, end times, and blood sacrifice because a very tiny number are...and they get 95% of the attention of the media.

Similarly, the CRT thing is portrayed as delusional thinking about a college only course that is in no way being taught in schools. It doesn't matter that national teacher organizations have admitted they are teaching CRT concepts in schools. Portrayal is of racist, history hating, delusional parents.

If you only listen to Breitbart or something like that on the right....you probably have a similarly distorted view of the left. That's very hard to do though because left wing views are expressed everywhere from Saturday Night Live to Twitter to CNN.

It's a much broader and more moderated picture....so the result is that the left has only a caricature of the right, and the right pretty closely understands the left.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree and I think PRC could have been more creative with their scale. they teased a beyond blue/red thinking but then disappointed when their results were based on a blue/red reference. if they removed the binary labels they could have been more expressive allowing a wider range of political identities.

I think the concept of political labels are only useful if they are connected to political values.

If someone asked I could tell them that I genuinely value freedom of speech even if it causes extreme offense or sadness. I believe in individual freedom through a system of protected rights. I think when considering the economics of society, we should look at a life of dignity for the least capable of competing and base our standards on that. It should be the minimum for which we provide and if we decide to provide more, we can choose to do so by our individual efforts or group charity. Generally speaking, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against by any characteristics they are born with unless it can be shown a requirement for employment. I believe in the right to property and individual guilt only....because one cannot possibly bear group responsibility.

I think everyone should be treated equally under the law understanding that perfect equality is the goal but not obtainable.

I believe in the right to choose and believe for oneself is important and not to be cast aside lightly. I believe war is only justified by a clear threat to the existence of the nation, but once justified, so are any means of victory. I don't believe in moral actors in warfare. It's a state without enforceable law and fundamentally arises from a disagreement of what should be. I don't believe in war crimes.

I don't believe that the government can mandate traditional values of acceptable norms like "family" but I also don't think they should be cast aside without careful consideration of the purposes they serve and how they arose.

I don't like aspects of religion but I've come to appreciate their ability to resist the manipulation of impassioned or disingenuous moral actors. I think it's a defining feature of moral codes. It requires a declaration of in-group status before you can move the group en masse.

I genuinely believe in mutual good conduct and civility in honest discourse. I don't think it's a quick method for acceptance...but I do think it's the only method.

I could probably guess about half of the values of any conservative in the US after a few questions. The funny thing is that I used to be able to do it with the left too. I can explain their beliefs about things...but I don't know or understand the values that should be the basis for those beliefs.

It's extremely bizzare to me. If I had to guess what the values are...or the central tenet of them....I'd probably be banned from the forum lol.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Although, I don't think a person's full political profile can be adequately defined in 16 questions.

Ambivalent is defined as "contradictory ideas"...so I guess if you're looking at in the context of a two party US political system, that may be fitting. As if you're in favor of gay rights and gun rights simultaneously, that's a conflict in the US binary system. But in terms of the spectrum of "anarchy <-> totalitarianism", there's no inherent conflict or contradiction between those two ideals.

But I guess based on their definition of it:
Ambivalent Right are a GOP-leaning group as a whole – 68% identify as or lean Republican – and they make up a substantial share of all Republicans and GOP leaners (18%). But this group also includes a significant number of Democrats: A quarter of Ambivalent Right either identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, and a similar share (25%) voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election.

With 63% of Ambivalent Right adults under the age of 50, they are substantially younger than other Republican-oriented groups. About two-thirds (65%) are White, 17% are Hispanic, 8% are Black and 5% are Asian, making this group more racially and ethnically diverse than other GOP coalition groups.

Ambivalent Right differ from other GOP-aligned groups with their support for legal abortion and less negative views of the impact of same-sex marriage. They also are distinct from other Republican-oriented groups in their views of Donald Trump. Whereas large majorities of each of the other Republican-oriented groups say they feel warmly toward Trump, Ambivalent Right are somewhat more likely to say they feel coldly toward the former president (46%) than warmly (34%). And most (63%) would not like to see Trump continue to be a major national political figure for many years to come.

It's somewhat accurate, I'd be in the 25% percent that voted for Biden, and in the 46% who felt "coldly" toward Trump, and I'd definitely be in that 63% that would not like to see Trump continuing to be a major political influencer.

 

[wing2000]

There's a study a few years back that showed an unexpected conclusion.

Those on the right understand the positions of the left better than the left understands the right.

If you want to know why...blame left wing media.

CNN knows that portraying vaccine mandate disapproval as mainly an issue of bodily autonomy and government overreach won't engage their audience. It might even become a discussion.

I'd say it's the number one reason why conservatives resist mandates.

If I were to poll the left though, I would think they imagine that the right is largely engaged in a delusional fantasy involving computer chips, end times, and blood sacrifice because a very tiny number are...and they get 95% of the attention of the media.

Similarly, the CRT thing is portrayed as delusional thinking about a college only course that is in no way being taught in schools. It doesn't matter that national teacher organizations have admitted they are teaching CRT concepts in schools. Portrayal is of racist, history hating, delusional parents.

If you only listen to Breitbart or something like that on the right....you probably have a similarly distorted view of the left. That's very hard to do though because left wing views are expressed everywhere from Saturday Night Live to Twitter to CNN.

It's a much broader and more moderated picture....so the result is that the left has only a caricature of the right, and the right pretty closely understands the left.

Okay. I thought you were going to share more about mistrust of surveys -- not the media.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay. I thought you were going to share more about mistrust of surveys -- not the media.

I'm mildly suggesting that the picture of the right is more diverse than "white militia member who loves god, oppressing minorities, and believes that the founding fathers were saints engaged in politics".

 

[public hermit]

I'm mildly suggesting that the picture of the right is more diverse than "white militia member who loves god, oppressing minorities, and believes that the founding fathers were saints engaged in politics".

The survey results are fairly nuanced and not just left/right. Did you take it?

Edit: Sorry, I see now.

 

[bekkilyn]

Also ambivalent right.

The hardest question was about "people who study something for years being policy experts".

Jane Goodall studies apes and chimps. I've no doubt she knows how to answer questions about chimps....she's probably right more often than wrong.

However, if I were to ask her to write a policy about how to keep chimp populations alive....she needs a lot of knowledge far outside her expertise and an understanding of preexisting law.

There are fields that integrate these things like economics. The problem is that even they have spotty records at writing policy.

There's other fields like women's literature where I wouldn't expect any amount of expertise (if you can call it that) to translate into policy.

I had to answer no....though I suspected that it was a covert question about virologists and the CDC.

I ended up ambivalent right.

I think I answered "yes" on that question because I decided not to overthink it and still got ambivalent right.