Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Archive for the 'Polls' Category

    “Do readers of liberal and conservative blogs live in two different countries?” (Part II)

    Posted by Jonathan on 16th May 2012 (All posts by )

    I put up a post a couple of weeks ago about the BlogAds survey of blog readers.

    Now there’s an updated graphic from BlogAds, based on data from the same survey, providing information about liberal/conservative blog readers’ positions on some questions that weren’t addressed in the initial survey report:

    Survey of Blog Reader Attitudes, Part II

    There certainly are some strong patterns here, not that this comes as a shock to anyone. (Of course my caveat about self-selected data samples applies to these results as it did to the initial results.)

    (Chicago Boyz is a BlogAds affiliate.)

    Posted in Blogging, Politics, Polls | 14 Comments »

    Care to Bet?

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 10th May 2012 (All posts by )

    British Bookmakers William Hill and Ladbrokes both have these odds on the US Presidential race:

    Barack Obama    1/2
    Mitt Romney  13/8

    That means people putting real money on the table are saying that as of today the odds are 2 to 1 in favor of Obama, 8 to 13 in favor, i.e. 13 to 8 against Romney.

    This is consistent with the steady 60 on Intrade in favor of Obama.

    Disregard the polls.

    The betting money says Obama wins.

    It is an uphill race for Romney.

    Posted in Elections, Politics, Polls, Predictions | 30 Comments »

    “Do readers of liberal and conservative blogs live in two different countries?”

    Posted by Jonathan on 1st May 2012 (All posts by )

    The results of a survey of blog readers taken by the BlogAds company. (Some of the survey questions are still running in the upper left sidebar of Chicago Boyz.) The people who responded to the survey are self-selected and it’s not clear how big the sample is, but the results are interesting and worth a click.

    (Chicago Boyz is a BlogAds affiliate, in case this is not obvious.)

    Posted in Blogging, Politics, Polls | 14 Comments »

    Blogging Is for Old People

    Posted by Jonathan on 26th October 2011 (All posts by )

    Is this true? Do younger people now mostly use Facebook, Twitter, phone P2P apps etc?

    Chicagoboyz seems middle-aged; the median age of contributors and commenters here appears to be fifty-something. (Perhaps the age distribution of readers who don’t comment, which is most readers, skews older or younger, but it’s difficult to know.)

    Why is that? This blog has been around for about ten years. That’s a significant chunk of time in anyone’s life. There has been turnover among contributors but those of us who have been here since the beginning are now ten years older. Maybe blogs, or at least blogs that are both 1) around for a while and 2) don’t expand into large enterprises age with their contributors. Blogs, including group blogs, are personal and it’s plausible that the people who read a blog tend to have something in common with the writers. Maybe there’s a cohort of readers aging with the writers, or maybe writers as they age tend to attract older readers. My guess is that it’s a combination, mostly the latter.

    So, is blogging the new TV news, something that mainly older people engage in as either writers or readers? Are older people more likely to blog and comment on blogs because they have free time? Or is reader/writer age an irrelevant variable?

    Feel free to discuss in the comments.

    BTW, here’s a poll:

    How old are Chicago Boyz readers? Please tell us your age (anonymously)…
    Age 20 or under
    71 or older
  free polls 

    Posted in Blogging, Personal Narrative, Polls | 22 Comments »

    Michael Barone weighs on the Wisconsin showdown.

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 22nd February 2011 (All posts by )

    Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.


    Posted in Big Government, Elections, Obama, Politics, Polls, USA | 2 Comments »

    This is (apparently, so far) shaping up to be a political defeat for the unions, the Democrats, and Obama.

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 21st February 2011 (All posts by )

    48% Back GOP Governor in Wisconsin Spat, 38% Side With Unions.

    So far, it looks that way.

    If these sorts of numbers hold up, the unions, the Democrats, and Mr. Obama will have managed to turn a local setback into a major defeat by accepting battle on a ground not of their own choosing.

    (I wanted poll numbers, and I went to Patrick Ruffini’s Twitter stream, knowing if there were any, he’d have them.)

    That poll is a national, not a Wisconsin poll.

    What are the Wisconsin-only numbers? Last week Walker was apparently behind.

    The question was:

    As you may know, Gov. Scott Walker has proposed a plan to limit the pay of government workers and teachers, increase their share of the cost of benefits, and strip some public-employ unions of much of their power. We’d like to know if APPROVE or DISAPPROVE of Gov. Walker’s plan.

    43% approved, 53% disapproved. But that was last week, the question is slanted, events have moved on and that is only one poll. (That same poll found that by 55/36 people wanted the Democrat senators to return to the capitol.)

    I don’t see any other Wisconsin-only polls. If anyone knows of one please put a link in the comments.

    It is too early to say how this will all play out.

    Posted in Big Government, Elections, Politics, Polls, USA | 12 Comments »

    Info Gathering

    Posted by Dan from Madison on 29th July 2010 (All posts by )

    I have a very important poll up at Life In The Great Midwest. If you have a keen eye for fashion (and I know most of the readers here do), please stop by and vote in my poll. Here is the link. Thanks!

    Posted in Polls, Style | 6 Comments »

    The Great Unifier

    Posted by Ginny on 16th June 2010 (All posts by )

    To win wars, clean up oil spills, or define domestic policies, don’t we need to work together? Isn’t the president’s most important duty – the one that lies under all those others – to unify? I suspect that was the founders’ thoughts, since the presidency is the one post for which the entire country votes.

    Sure, I saw enough of BDS to suspect Bush less culpable than his audience; I’m trying to be objective. And the leftist pundits are unhappy. Still, crazy as they are, they aren’t the thugs at polling booth doors – nor responsible for the large numbers at Tea Party rallies.

    Surfing responses, I was struck by Luntz’s focus group: the more Obama talked the more reactions diverged; his audience became intensely argumentative. Some were attracted to populist rhetoric and others turned off by it.

    My impression of past polls is despite a good-sized discrepancy on many issues, the lines were roughly parallel. The more knowledgeable might remark whether this divergence is common. Perhaps it isn’t a big deal. I hope not. We don’t need an increasingly polarized country. But though I would like us all to at least minimally get along and be more productive, that doesn’t mean I’m buying much if any of the goods Obama was selling last night.

    Posted in Obama, Politics, Polls | 8 Comments »

    Statistical Tie in Massachusetts?

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 10th January 2010 (All posts by )

    Democrat pollsters PPP show Scott Brown one point ahead of Martha Coakley in the race for the now dead Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

    As Michael Barone puts it: Wow.

    This is still a long shot, but not, apparently, a forlorn hope.

    (There is also a poll from the Boston Globe showing Coakley 15 points ahead. I believe the Globe, about anything, about as much as I believe the North Korean Communist Party’s official pronouncements. Rasmussen had Coakley ahead by 9 points on January 5, 2009, and there is no way she has picked up six points since then.)

    I liked Brown’s TV ad, showing JFK’s tax cut message. Nicely done.

    The fact that this race is even close shows that the Obama / Reid / Pelosi leadership is failing miserably for the Democrats.

    I was in Massachusetts in 1980 when the state confounded everyone by voting for Reagan. I am hoping it surprises everyone again.

    UPDATE: A friend wrote, expressing concern about vote fraud in this race. While I don’t discount this entirely, this was my response:

    I am not so sure about massive fraud. Massachusetts is a funny
    place. It is very liberal, but it has very civic minded populace, and
    blatant Chicago style crooked elections don’t really happen there. I
    grew up there and got to compare it to Chicago. Chicago does not come
    off favorably. The race will also be closely scrutinized. I am not
    sure how much of an issue that will be. If it was Illinois, you could
    count on it.

    UPDATE II: A friend out in Mass tells me she is seeing people holding signs for Brown, not seeing that for Coakley, and also way more Brown yard signs. This seems to show the energy level is with Brown, which is consistent with other things I am reading. She also pointed out something about Brown that I hadn’t thought of: He is like Obama seemed to be in 2008: “He’s also likable, handsome and different than usual.” Yes. Right. Obama ran against the status quo, and won. Brown is running against the status quo. He’ll probably lose, but he is making a real race out of it.

    Funny. Brown as Obama 2.0 — returned to Earth as a Conservative.

    Also: Good to see people sending money Brown’s way. The last few days will matter a lot, and money talks.

    Posted in Politics, Polls | 8 Comments »

    Bribes With Other People’s Money Aren’t Always That Attractive

    Posted by Ginny on 30th December 2009 (All posts by )

    We have our faults. We are tempted by power and money – that’s no less true of Americans than any other nation. But we aren’t fatalistic. We are pretty sure that God helps them that helps themselves. And we may covet but we don’t believe that is a sign of injustice but rather of sin. So, all in all, I’m feeling pretty good about us; Obama’s attempts at turning us on bankers or insurance companies or. . . Well, we haven’t been turning in anger or with our raised fists. The biggest movement of the last few months may be anti-tax, but it seems more an argument for standing on our own feet, for independence, for liberty. And if Ben Nelson can be bought, I can (with some pride) point out that Nebraskans can’t be. The poll isn’t some kind of middling, some kind of, well, we’re glad to get the money but it’s a nasty business. It’s I don’t want any of that tainted lucre.

    It’s been a long time since I left, but one of my daughters is thinking of moving there. She’s the one with the “Sowell Bro'” t-shirt. I’m hoping she’ll be happy.

    Posted in Health Care, Politics, Polls | 3 Comments »

    Who’s Left?

    Posted by James R. Rummel on 18th July 2009 (All posts by )

    The headline reads “Obama losing some support among nervous Dems”. Fair enough, but I found the following paragraph to be very interesting.

    “In Missouri, which Obama narrowly lost to McCain, Democratic strategist Steve Glorioso said hardcore base voters were as enthusiastic as ever for Obama but that there was a sense of disappointment about him among less committed Democrats and independents.”

    So the dyed-in-the-wool Dems are still rah-rah-rah for their guy, but the shine has worn off for independents and “less committed” Democrats.

    Look at it like this. True Conservatives will always balk at Obama because of his statist policies. Those who drank the Liberal kool-aide will always love their guy no matter what.

    That means the phrase “less committed Democrats and independents” actually refers to just about everyone who might change their minds. Right?

    (Hat tip to Glenn.)

    Posted in Leftism, Politics, Polls | 5 Comments »

    Vote for McCain, He May Win

    Posted by Jonathan on 3rd November 2008 (All posts by )

    Probably most of the people who read this blog want McCain to win. He may not, as the odds appear to be against him. (As I write this, the evil conservative propagandists on Faux News are more or less predicting an Obama landslide, and are helpfully suggesting that the election will be over as soon as Obama wins Indiana. Thanks, guys. Don’t expect your fair-mindedness to buy you much consideration from an Obama FCC.)

    But, if you can vote, you should vote for McCain despite the apparent odds. You should do this because no one really knows what the odds are. The Obama campaign, the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) want Republican voters to believe that the election is a done deal and that voting Republican is wasted effort. They want to discourage McCain votes and votes for other Republicans down the ticket. They are doing this because McCain and the other Republicans still have a chance to win. That chance will be reduced to the extent Republican voters take the Democrats’ advice. Don’t fall for it, vote for McCain.

    It would be a shame if Republicans made media prophecies self-fulfilling by allowing themselves to be talked out of voting. Ignore media projections and vote for McCain. The only poll that matters is the election itself.

    UPDATE: Rand Simberg has similar thoughts.

    Posted in Politics, Polls | 27 Comments »

    Why Most of Us No Longer Read The Economist

    Posted by Jonathan on 2nd October 2008 (All posts by )

    I just received a press release promoting The Economist‘s new survey of academic economists about McCain’s and Obama’s respective economic programs. Here are the results:

    What’s going on here?

    This is a junk survey. Look at the data. Now look at the article.

    Here’s The Economist‘s explanation of how they generated a survey sample:

    Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

    The stuff about 683 research associates and the NBER is meaningless. What matters is that this was an Internet poll arbitrarily restricted to academic economists and with a self-selected sample. This is a problem because:

    -Academic economists are likely to be more leftist than economists as a whole.

    -Only 14 out of the 142 respondents identified themselves as Republicans.

    -There is no way to know why only 10% or respondents identified as Republicans, but several possibilities implying gross sampling error are obvious. In other words, either most academic economists lean as far to the Left as do other academics, which seems unlikely and would impeach the survey results, or the sample is unrepresentative and impeaches the survey results.

    -The labels “Democratic economist”, “Republican economist” and “unaffiliated economist” are self-selected and may be inaccurate. My guess is that most of the unaffiliateds usually vote for Democrats even if they are not registered Democrats. In this regard I am reminded of media people who claim to be independent even though everyone knows they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

    So this is a worthless survey for research purposes. It is not, however, worthless, for business purposes, as I am sure it will generate a lot of discussion and outraged debunking by bloggers, and therefore a lot of traffic for The Economist‘s Web site. It may also help to get Obama elected, and perhaps that is part of the plan.

    Where have we seen this kind of politically driven statistical analysis before?

    UPDATE: The vagueness of the self-reported categorizations, “Republican”, “Democrat” and “independent” is obvious. One wonders why the survey did not also, or as an alternative, ask respondents to report for whom they voted in recent elections.

    Posted in Anti-Americanism, Leftism, Media, Politics, Polls, Statistics, The Press, USA | 20 Comments »

    Jim Bennett on Sarah Palin

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 8th September 2008 (All posts by )

    I have been as guilty as anybody of indulging in Palin-Mania, or Palin Obsessive Disorder. Like most people, my thinking has been overly fact-lite, if not fact-free, about Gov. Palin.

    So, as the need to think about other things asserts itself, it is a relief to read a brilliant summary from Jim Bennett based on facts and history, which presents Gov. Palin’s story as a coherent narrative.

    Bennett’s article in the Telegraph is the single best thing yet written by anybody about who Sarah Palin is and what she has accomplished.

    Most news reports and other commentary, both fair and foul, have dwelt on “exotica – the moose shooting, her Eskimo husband” without comprehending or explaining how “a woman can go from being mayor of a town of 9,000, to governor, to prospective VP within the space of a few years.”

    Bennett explains how Palin worked her way up in a rugged political environment, how she built her political base, and how she came to realize “that Alaska had the potential to become a much bigger player in global energy politics.”

    As with most poor, distant places that suddenly receive great natural-resource wealth, the first generation of politicians were mesmerised by the magnificence of the crumbs falling from the table. Palin was the first of the next generation to realise that Alaska should have a place at that table.
    Her first target was an absurd bureaucratic tangle that for 30 years had kept the state from exporting its gas to the other 48 states. She set an agenda that centred on three mutually supportive objectives: cleaning up state politics, building a new gas pipeline, and increasing the state’s share of energy revenues.

    She proceeded to execute this strategy, as chairman of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and as Governor.

    Far from being a reprise of Mr Smith Goes to Washington, Palin was a clear-eyed politician who, from the day she took office, knew exactly what she had to do and whose toes she would step on to do it.
    The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska’s energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes – the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having “no international experience” particularly absurd.

    The prospect of Palin in Washington has caused “her enemies in Alaska” to break out in a cold sweat, according to Bennett, “at the thought of Palin in Washington, guiding the Justice Department’s anti-corruption teams through the labyrinths of Alaska’s old-boy network.”

    Obama would not be the first person who has gone down to defeat underestimating Mrs. Palin.

    Read Bennett’s piece for the rest of the details.

    UPDATE: Two responses by Helen Szameuly, here and here are very much worth reading.

    UPDATE 2: A balanced, fair, unemotional assessment of Palin’s track record as mayor and governor, on economic issues. (Via The Right Coast.) See also this equally good one contrasting Palin and Obama on ethics and reform. Both from CATO. Both are nice companion pieces to Bennett’s article.

    UPDATE 3: Michael Barone weighs in with a capsule history of Obama’s career as a community organizer, and his initial entry into politics. His conclusion, we need not treat this part of Obama’s career with “reverence”.

    Barone is also astute to observe that community organizing only makes sense, if it ever does, where the political process does not work. A one-party machine-run city is the perfect example, and Chicago is the epitome of that. Alinsky was the doppelganger of the first Mayor Daley, for a reason. Most places, if there are rotten services or whatever, that is an invitation to a political challenge by the “out” party. Only where that political option is foreclosed does it make sense to resort to guerilla activity on the Alinsky model, a/k/a “organizing”.

    Posted in Anglosphere, Elections, Energy & Power Generation, Media, Polls, The Press | 7 Comments »

    Chicagoboyz Poll on Iraq

    Posted by Chicago Boyz Archive on 27th August 2008 (All posts by )

    Which best describes your view of the Iraq War?
    Knowing what we knew at the time, it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
    Knowing what we knew at the time, it was right to invade Iraq.
    Knowing what we know now, it was a mistake to invade Iraq.
    Knowing what we know now, it was right to invade Iraq.
  free polls

    Posted in International Affairs, Iraq, Military Affairs, Polls, War and Peace | 4 Comments »

    New! – Your Chicagoboyz Daily Poll

    Posted by Jonathan on 20th August 2008 (All posts by )

    Which of these is NOT a US ally?
    The UK
    The CIA
    The State Department
  free polls

    Posted in Humor, International Affairs, Polls | 3 Comments »