Slashdot Mirror

Was thinking the same thing. A additional 15% took an extra 4 or 5 years of partying before starting work. Graduate dumber, but better indoctrinated, than when they started.

Not just 'for profits', all schools are offering lots of watered down degrees, not that * studies wasn't already worthless 30 years ago.

It could also be globalism.

Jobs leaving the country create an excess of workers, so the remaining jobs can be offered for lower salaries. It's simple supply and demand.

Is there another economic explanation that could account for the difference between then and now?

Ignoring government numbers because of various controversies in how they are measured, the Gallup Poll survey puts us at 9.2% real unemployment, and less than half of those are rated "good" jobs.

We're supposedly out of the depression, the economy is doing great, and yet people are making 20% less than average from 30 years ago.

What other major economic forces could account for this?

From The Telegraph, Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is no longer an atheist:

The Facebook founder [...] said he believed religion was "very important". It comes after a year in which Zuckerberg, who was raised Jewish, met the pope and [...] praised the Buddhism of his wife Priscilla Chan, posting a photo of himself praying during a visit to a pagoda in Xi'an.

Last week, Zuckerberg posted a message on his own Facebook page wishing followers a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. In response to a comment asking if he was atheist, he said: "No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."

This makes perfect sense for a wannabe politician: A 2012 Gallup poll concluded that potential voters were more likely to refuse to vote for an atheist candidate (43%) than a candidate that was Muslim (40%), gay/lesbian (30%), Mormon (18%), or Jewish (6%). Similar results were found in a 2014 Pew survey that found 53% of those surveyed would reject an atheist presidential candidate, leading "never held office" (52%), age 70-80 (36%), adulterers (35%), and gay/lesbian (27%). Both polls concluded that being atheist was among the least positive aspects as well (Gallop had atheists at the bottom of the list with 54% positive, beating Muslims (58%) and gay/lesbians (68%), while Pew had atheists as tied with gays/lesbians at 5% positive, with the only less supported group being adulterers (2%).

The Gallup poll also tracks favorability of these traits over time, demonstrating that support for an atheist presidential candidate is very slowly improving from 1978's 40% to 1999's 49% to 2012's 54%. Contrast that to the support for a Jewish presidential candidate, which has grown from 82% to 92% to 91% in the same respective polls. They also break these figures down by political party: Republican voters care more about these sorts of things, and their atheist/Jew favorability gap (48% vs 95%) is far greater than the Dems' (58% vs 92%). The GOP's 95% willingness to vote for a Jew is even larger than their willingness to vote for a woman (92%).

Zuck may milk the Jew+Businessman stereotype for personal gain but he is also showing his diversity through the aforementioned visit with the pope. Expect to see similar press-friendly stories on his 50 state tour, whose primary objectives will probably be publicity and then research for where he wants to align his political platform.

It is an organization we fear, rather than one we trust (such as to hunt the scammers down). And they had this image problem for so long now, one can begin suspecting, it is not just a perception...

You're veering off-topic but if you do a relatively small amount of research into the topic including Gallup polls, you find that social trust in the United States has plummeted for many years and the latest generation, the Millennials, have the lowest social trust. It's been gradually declining: Silent > Boomers > Gen X > Millenials. If you really care about this issue do your research because it's going to take a monumental effort to change the course of our culture. We're essentially devolving back into a more tribal society.

are no different from what mainstream Muslims follow, and specifically, do NOT disown. There have been surveys of Muslims worldwide that pretty much reinforce this.

What the hell? Did you even read the article on the other end of your own link?
It says exactly the opposite of what you claim.

How do Muslims feel about groups like ISIS?

Recent surveys show that most people in several countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and 94% in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably. In some countries, considerable portions of the population do not offer an opinion about ISIS, including a majority (62%) of Pakistanis.

Favorable views of ISIS are somewhat higher in Nigeria (14%) than most other nations. Among Nigerian Muslims, 20% say they see ISIS favorably (compared with 7% of Nigerian Christians). The Nigerian militant group Boko Haram, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, has sworn allegiance to ISIS.

More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified, including 92% in Indonesia and 91% in Iraq. In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say that such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified in these circumstances.

In a few countries, a quarter or more of Muslims say that these acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 40% in the Palestinian territories, 39% in Afghanistan, 29% in Egypt and 26% in Bangladesh.

In many cases, people in countries with large Muslim populations are as concerned as Western nations about the threat of Islamic extremism, and have become increasingly concerned in recent years. About two-thirds of people in Nigeria (68%) and Lebanon (67%) said earlier this year they are very concerned about Islamic extremism in their country, both up significantly since 2013

Furthermore, in the US the religious group (including atheists) least likely to support terrorism (violence by small groups or individuals against civilians) are muslims.

Your worldview is toxic and destructive. Stop trying to drag us all into war because of your bigotry.

You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it. Maybe it's just who I hear from.

You must be in a bubble of your own. It really is a commonly-shared sentiment. Or, at any rate, was as recently as this summer.

Hardly surprising, given the personal politics of the overwhelming majority of journalists.

"The Democrats continue to yammer on about gun control despite a HUGE portion of the population being against gun control (yep, I said it - the polls the liberals like to say showing the opposite are BS, plain and simple, and it wouldn't be at all surprising to find out a majority are actually NOT on their side)"
You say you don't like polls, but anyway here's some trends contradicting you. Gallup
Why not give us some evidence for your assertion?

It might have been 'steadily declining' but the rate of decline increased drastically starting in mid 2008.
http://www.tradingeconomics.co... (switch it to line graph)

And just because someone has a 'job' doesn't mean it's a good job - in fact there are a lot of very skilled people who are working shit jobs just to put food on the table because their previous jobs have never come back. Gallup has a very nice ongoing poll that shows just how bad it really is:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125...

> Levin estimated fewer than 50,000 people are members of white supremacist groups

Membership in the KKK is not equivalent to being generally supportive of white supremacy.
And yet you are equating muslims who hold positive views towards terrorism as the equivalent. And none of that takes into account all of the other factors, like living in 3rd world countries where there is sectarian violence that is mostly about resource competition and religion is just the uniform the terrorist wear, not the motivation.

Lets look at like to like comparisons. Gallup explicitly compared support among different religious groups for violence directed at individuals. The results don't fit your narrative:

When is it justified for an individual or a small group of person to target and kill civilians?
Muslims 89% never
Protestants 71% never
Catholics 71% never
Jews 75% never
Mormons 79% never
Nonreligious 76% never

What speaks more about bigotry is how liberals will get their panties in a bunch when someone mentions jihadist mass murderers, as if acknowledging the problem is the same as not making the difference between "normal muslims" and radicals.

If I call all liberals baby killers. If I call all conservative abortion clinic bombers. If I call Americans mass murderers. If I don't make a distinction between Islamic jihadists and Muslims in general. Yep, I do get my "liberal" "panties" (even though I'm neither liberal nor female) in a bunch when we do not make a distinction because the mentality of hating a whole group for some a small minority is involved in without any consideration of trying to deal with the actual violent people misses the point.

Here's real numbers for you. Around the world, there are roughly 75 million muslims that condone and/or support terrorist activities. It's a small percentage (there's around 1.5 billion muslims total) but there's no other religion with such a massive following of fanatics.

Where'd you get that number from the link you provide? Is it extrapolation from the populations and their support of suicide bombing? Because Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq can be used to argue ~108 million of eligible American voters (a larger actual number if you count non-voters) supported the killing of thousands of civilians over obviously false evidence--THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE INSPECTOR; Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War spells it out. Why the support? Blind support of nationalism over some vague claim of an existential threat from a dictator--someone who honestly is more of a threat that your 75 million number as the actual forces at their disposal are a lot less. Because they're Muslim and lead by a mad man--both being true but his support being driven politically and his actual acts unlike to hurt anyone outside the Middle East of which the US had allies but wouldn't be directly harmed.

Now if you want to make your mission in life to defend the honor of the remaining 1.425 billion (that nobody except for their own lunatic fringe is putting on trial by the way), go for it. Maybe if someone you care about happens to be in a stadium or supermarket when "freedom fighters" show up with bomb vests and AK-47 your perspective will change. One thing is for sure, if that happens, it's not a Bible or a Torah that those "freedom fighters" will carry with them.

I defend the honor of any group that is demonized to the point that people will actively kill them for being members of the broader group. I mean, for fuck sake: "someone you care about happens to be in a stadium or supermarket when "freedom fighters" show up with bomb vests and AK-47 your perspective will change"? Yea, that happens ALL the fucking time. Oh, right: "it's not a Bible or a Torah that those "freedom fighters" will carry with them" is almost certainly true because consistently most mass murderers in the US are home-grown lunatics who apparently simply hate people without any religious, national, political, etc association. It's almost as if the vast majority of Muslims are non-violent, those who support violence tend to NOT live in the US (because they hate the US), and even then a small minority of those that support violence actually engage in it.

But it's ok, coward. Go on and make me (or anyone who doesn't embrace the politically correct bullshit) the bad person while ISIS is out there burning, raping, torturing and killing people. I'm not a real threat and I don't have bombs so it's easier to focus your anger on people like me while safely draping yourself in the cloth of the self-righteous.

Since the election I've been fascinated with the idea that only 1/3 Americans have a great or fair amount of trust in the media* while at the same time an increasing number of people prefer news from a single-source or whatever they find on facebook.**

What leads so many people to say that investigative journalism is a sham? If there is no free media, how do we trust any news. I'm sure not able to read the thousands of Wikileaks e-mails and do the research necessary to determine what is pertenant.

* http://www.gallup.com/poll/195... ** http://www.gallup.com/poll/193...

Since the election I've been fascinated with the idea that only 1/3 Americans have a great or fair amount of trust in the media* while at the same time an increasing number of people prefer news from a single-source or whatever they find on facebook.**

What leads so many people to say that investigative journalism is a sham? If there is no free media, how do we trust any news. I'm sure not able to read the thousands of Wikileaks e-mails and do the research necessary to determine what is pertenant.

* http://www.gallup.com/poll/195... ** http://www.gallup.com/poll/193...

But Bill wasn't running. You don't vote for the spouse. Bill went through his trial, and the backlash led to GWB's presidency.

There are several points here.

One, the whole movement to impeach Clinton in general was viewed unfavorably by the public. He was still a popular President. If anything, Gore hurt himself by trying to distance himself from Clinton.

Second, it was advertised that you were getting Bill as part of a package deal because he was experienced and liked, and he campaigned for her.

And third, Hillary stuck by and defended her husband through all of that (and by the accounts of accusers, she viciously defended him). The emotional impact of putting the question to her during the debate would have been devastating: Was her husband fit for the Presidency?

The bottom line is that Presidential womanizing is nothing new. After the shock value of the hot mic tape wore off, it didn't factor much in how people voted.

Well the Tea Party has killed the RNC.

The Tea Party was an astroturf movement that was conceived to shore up the GOP's shrinking voter base. They gradually came to understand they were being used and exploited, and once a suitable leader came along (Trump) they revolted and took over.

The old GOP is dead. Even if they somehow eject Trump and his movement, they will never be nationally relevant again without extreme changes.

the number of Trump female supports who still support him yet believe he sexually assaulted those women

People can differentiate between (alleged) private behavior and a person's ability to do the job required.

See also: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Other than the polls rarely being right, no.

Polls are almost always right.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/944...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

Sheesh. And here I thought it would take 5 years for self-driving vehicles to become common.

By my previous estimate, around 5 million jobs in the US alone could be replaced or severely curtailed by self-driving vehicles (about 3.5 million jobs are driving tractor-trailers). I now think that's a low estimate, considering delivery vehicles, taxis, US mail, school busses, and so on.

The first self-driving tractor trailer hit the road about 18 months ago. Yes, they probably won't work in snow. Yes, they probably won't work in some situations, such as finding and backing into the loading dock. You'll still need humans for those situations.

But for the vast majority of cases, they will work for the long-haul across the US. (If you've ever driven across the US at night, you know that the highways are a never-ending chain of tractor trailers in the right-hand lane.) They don't need down time, they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they can work 24/7. They can learn from each others' mistakes. They don't need salary or benefits.

This is demonstrably better from a safety and cost point of view, and it takes away a lot of tedious work from humans--giving them more free time--but it'll wreck our current economic system.

We currently have about 170 million workers, and sitting at about 10% unemployment. This one technological advance could push that up to 15%. Economically speaking, 10% unemployment is the beginning of the "this is bad, we should do something" level. We only recently dropped below that number from the great(-est) depression.

(How we deal with illegal immigrants is another big chunk of potential workers that could affect unemployment. Not to make this a partisan argument, but if we *do* have amnesty, it should be done in a layered, progressive fashion with an eye on unemployment so as not to tank the economy. Refugees are too few in number to affect unemployment.)

By 2020, 80% of adults on earth will have an internet-connected smartphone.

In the U.S.*, operating a smartphone for a year (to say nothing of purchasing one to begin with) costs well north of $50x12=$600.

The median per capita income worldwide is something like* $2,920.

Even if the 50% of world adults above the median all bought smartphone service, he'd need to get another 30% of adults from below the median to reach his 80%. Those people would be spending something like* 20% of their yearly income on this. No way.

*To be sure, this post uses several approximations (U.S. data plan costs, Gallup's income methodology, etc.), but 80% is a still a fantasy.

The reason for hiring them, at least in Silicon Valley, is not to pay a bargain basement wage, but to enable US companies to hire the best and brightest in the world. It's got nothing to do with a shortage of US workers. [...] Now, if US employers were forced to hire based on immigration status - citizens first, then green card holders, then it would be a distinct advantage to be a citizen. It'd also probably result in US employers not having the smartest people in the world working for them.

So let me see if I get your point.

The important issue in your mind is that US employers get the smartest people in the world.

And this is a more important issue than US citizens having a job.

Additionally, why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?

(I'm all for helping people in other nations, and note that we've brought a lot of people out of poverty... but do we have to bring our own population into poverty to promote that goal?)

Greed.

Capitalism.

Two powerful forces that put the US on the map as a global powerhouse in business today.

Also, two powerful forces that could give a flying fuck about your native poverty issue.

And yes, there should be an advantage in being a citizen. Again, see above.

The reason for hiring them, at least in Silicon Valley, is not to pay a bargain basement wage, but to enable US companies to hire the best and brightest in the world. It's got nothing to do with a shortage of US workers. [...] Now, if US employers were forced to hire based on immigration status - citizens first, then green card holders, then it would be a distinct advantage to be a citizen. It'd also probably result in US employers not having the smartest people in the world working for them.

So let me see if I get your point.

The important issue in your mind is that US employers get the smartest people in the world.

And this is a more important issue than US citizens having a job.

Additionally, why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?

(I'm all for helping people in other nations, and note that we've brought a lot of people out of poverty... but do we have to bring our own population into poverty to promote that goal?)

Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.

You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.

Would you look a that?
Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least.
And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".

Hmm... where did I hear that kind of rhetoric recently... Calling personal political goals "the will of the people"? Oh that's right!
It's the guys running for office in order to shut down the government against the will of the ACTUAL people.
Imagine people like that also labeling as "trolls" anyone disagreeing with them. Naaaah... They wouldn't do THAT?

The fact is that America is no longer a conservative country. For example, for the first time in history there are more "nones" (people with no religious affiliation) than any other voting block. That statistic is never going to go back down, ever. That's clearly not the sign of a conservative country.

I'm not sure that this is the best metric of a "conservative country," but where do you get this data from??

Here's the history of Gallup polls on religion for example. According to them, in 2015, 38% of people identified as Protestant, 23% as Catholic, 9% as other Christian... that's 60% Christian right there. The "None" only accounted for a measly 17%. Pew polls put the number more at 70% Christian in 2014, with only 23% unaffiliated.

Moreover, when you start looking down that Gallup Poll list, you find stuff like, "Do you believe in God?" 1944 - 96%, 2016 - 89%. A downtick for sure, but hardly the sign of lack of religious belief.

"Do you believe in heaven?" 1968 - 85%, 2011 - 85%
Hell - 1968 - 66%, 2011 - 75%

Belief in angels is still up there in 2016 at 72%, which is a little lower than it was in the early 2000s, but about the same as it was back in the 1970s.

And heck, 73% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, including about 1/3 of your "unaffiliated" no-religion group.

Now, there are other polls that put the numbers a little lower. The Harris Poll for example only puts belief in the virgin birth at 57%, with 68% saying he is the Son of God.

Religious belief and attendance is down more than ever before in history. There are fewer churches and places of worship in this country than ever before in history. Religion is dying off here, both figuratively and literally.

Is church attendance down? Yes. And the percentage of folks who say religion is "very important" in their lives is down (though still the MAJORITY of Americans, according to polls). But given that the majority of Americans still seem to strongly subscribe to religious beliefs, including significant numbers of your "unaffiliated" folks, I'd hardly say it's "dying off" yet.

I have absolutely no idea where you get your idea that there are more "nones" than any other voting block. It may be true that the majority of Americans no longer attend church every week, but it's still a highly religious country.

the fact is that America is slowly but steadily moving towards more liberal social and political systems, not away from them. It's been doing this since the late 50's, but has sped up a bit considerably the last decade or so.

I agree with this, though to go back to your previous point -- the number of people identifying as "Evangelical Christians" has been fairly constant over the past few decades. It hasn't even declined as much as the other general religion numbers. So... it's not like the true "conservatives" (in terms of religion) are going away... it's more like the people in the middle are becoming less concerned about religious values holding sway over their lives. But there's still a rather huge contingent of people with far right values (certainly larger than your "none" contingent), and that block isn't going away anytime soon.

Pot is now fully legal for recreational use in multiple states with more coming (count on it). That's not the sign of a conservative country.

We MIGHT just be getting back to the level of acceptance of recreational/medicinal drug use enjoyed in the 1900-1930 era or so. If that's "liberal" and "progressive" to you... well, gosh, that's great!

America is a liberal country - Love it or leave it.

Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal. (source).

Point 2: "Love it or leave it" is effectively "shut up and sit down". It calls for a suppression of free speech typical of tyrannical, abusive dictatorship. Turkey can say "love it or leave it" with some justification. America cannot.

That criminal witch is untouchable [...]

Insults are the domain of the Democrats, have some couth. Republicans don't generally use insult as a substitute for rational thinking, that's a Democratic play.

We could easily build stories about Hillary being Marie Antoinette ("let them eat cake"), or Lucrecia Borgia (for all Clinton's opponents who have died under mysterious circumstances), or even Lilith ("Mother of demons"). Some of them would even have a rational basis. It would be a counterpoint to Trump being Hilter, Stalin, or Cthulhu.

But we don't, because we believe the head rules the heart. We have smart people here at Slashdot, we don't have to descend to common name calling.

"Heart rules the head", IOW emotional thinking, is what Democrats do.

We don't *need* to spout lies or insults.

Don't descend to their level.

(And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)

When will people wake up and realize the fix is in? You know those ties between the media and the Democrats that the right complained about for years? Have you realized yet that the question about using facebook to prevent a Trump presidency wasn't rhetorical?

Bernie's supporters have started to wake up and realize that they are just as excluded as the right. The only difference now is that things are being exposed in plain text for the world to see. Only big business and congress have worse credibility ratings that the media.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159...

Wake up sheeple.

A recent slashdot reply caught my eye, because it succinctly sums up the situation in the UK.

In her department, which requires high-end medically-skilled professionals, her boss posted after Brexit. The basic gist was "Don't worry, everyone, your cancer diagnosis will still be safe in the hands of our department consisting almost entirely of Spanish, Italian, German, French, Polish, Greek, ...... personnel for the time being".

The important part of this post is that the jobs in this lab are denied to UK citizens due to globalism.

Of course, proponents of globalism will tell us that the UK citizens can easily move to Greece and get an equivalent job.

It could happen - right?

Globalism was sold to us as a way to increase our standard of living. It was well known that salaries would stagnate, but (we were told) the lower prices on imported goods would more than make up for the difference.

In hindsight, we see that salaries did stagnate, and also unemployment went up while per-capita gdp about doubled.

Globalism is good for a handful few people, while it has driven half the workforce to the brink of poverty.

The economic rationale says that the economy is doing great (which it is, actually) and ignores the dissatisfaction of millions of citizens as valueless.

Why should *any* country sacrifice the welfare of its citizens for the benefit of people in other countries?

If want to argue globalism, please include the analysis that indicates why having 75 million households on the brink of poverty and 10% unemployment is a good thing.

It's the difference between a rationalization and actual evidence.

To put things in perspective, consider some numbers:

My town's population is about 10,000.

My town's labor force is about half that (5,000)

The "250 unemployed" represents more than 4.999% of the workforce.

If a headhunter can't find people in the town and has to import, my question is this: is globalism bad for my town?

Globalism is taught as the one-true-religion in economics circles right now, but I'm wondering if this is a dodge. While globalism has made a handful of companies richer, it drives the people into poverty.

Is it possible that we have too much globalism?

Sound stupid, yet? Btw, your begging the question with "it drives the people into poverty". The evidence is that it stagnates wages in developed country while boosting the wages substantially in developing and undeveloped countries. The real issue is that "a headhunter can't find people" is often itself a dodge. As others point out, companies want fully trained employees and will basically hire someone less skilled outside the area for a pittance as a "compromise". Often this occurs even when people in the area will work for a pittance.

There's just a heavy presumption: local people will leave if the job sucks (or they're lazy) but foreigners will basically commit no matter what (which makes all those "lazy illegals" stories such crap). It's a shitty approach to getting "loyal" employees. Just as the idea of waving more money is no sort of answer. But the real difficult task of getting good managers to actually, you know, spot and hire good employees is too much.

Hmmm...

Using the Mensa standard of 2%, those 250 unemployed people should have about 5 geniuses. It doesn't take much imagination to see that perhaps 50 of those 250 should be trainable in any real sense.

The evidence is that it stagnates wages in developed country while boosting the wages substantially in developing and undeveloped countries.

Let's tell the whole story here, shall we?

In the US, wages have stagnated and unemployment has gone up and inflation has averaged about 2%. That's a net loss for US citizens.

In the US we've about doubled our per capita GDP since we started globalization, and since wages have stagnated this means that a select few people became rich, all the while everyone else has had a net loss.

And finally, and most importantly, why should the US citizens sacrifice their well being and accept being driven into poverty for people in other countries?

I mean really - I see this argument all the time. "Our people are miserable, but just look st all the 3rd-world people we're helping!"

The evidence is that it stagnates wages in developed country while boosting the wages substantially in developing and undeveloped countries.

Really... that's what sounds stupid!

Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)

Unfortunately, this is quite wrong. The numbers you get depend heavily on how you ask the question, but recent polling suggests that a plurality of Republicans (48%) believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time vs. only 27% of Democrats. About a third of *all* adults in the U.S. hold this position. If you ask whether God created humans in their present form, it's closer to 40%, and has been for decades. You can find other polls here showing similar results.

Regardless, overall popular support turns out to be less important than one would hope. What matters more is who's politically involved -- who votes in primaries, who runs in school board elections, who causes trouble when politicians vote the "wrong" way. The Republican party is also much more disciplined than the Democratic party, so you'll regularly see the Republican-controlled House and Senate voting in lockstep against even against ideas that have majority support among their base. (Gun control laws are the most recent example.)

The answer is the same as the answer to this.

Congressional approval numbers are really pathetic. I was trying to find general senatorial numbers, or Elizabeth Warren numbers, but right now the only specific Senate polling is on the seats up for vote this year.

So the author thought that ignoring her position in the Senate, and trying to distract public attention from considering how she could benefit from the populace accepting her statements, would be the best chance at tending a specific outrage and hatred on this subject.

Your allegation is that there's a significantly larger number of Democrat voters than Republican voters. I'm disproving it by pointing to the Presidential elections.

It is not my allegation. The data, going back over a decade and right up until last week, shows this. Go down the list and count how many months more people claimed to be Republican than Democratic. Compare that to the number of months that showed there were more Democrats. Now look to the right at the numbers for people who "lean" one way or the other. The difference is either more striking.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153...

Because I'm a decent guy, I'll give you a talking point on the house: You can say that really there are more Republicans, but a significant number of them are too ashamed to admit it. That could work. You could also say that Gallup is rigged against Republicans. That's always a good look and goes to the "it was rigged" excuse that Donald Trump and his supporters will definitely be using come November.

But really, there is a structural advantage that the Dems have. There are simply more of them.

Go look at where the US ranks in

It's not even clear what those "rankings" are supposed to mean. Do you think spending a lot of money on welfare is good or bad? Because the US actually ranks first in welfare spending. Do you think a high voter turnout or a low voter turnout is good for democracy? You may have had it drilled into you that high voter turnout is good, but that's not ncessarily so.

etc etc etc, its not good, and its getting worse. The USA 40-50 years ago was a MUCH better place.

The US is by far the most popular destination for emigrants, and for good reason.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153...

Speaking as an immigrant to the US myself, I agree: the US is still by far the best place in the world to live in, except if you're part of the global ruling class; for the global ruling class, Europe is much more friendly.

If you define success as who has the richest people, then GDP per capita is one measure.

This sentence is self-contradicting...

If it matters to you that financial success and economic security be reasonably well distributed among the population

It does matter to me, incidentally, but that can not be the goal in itself. This "reasonably even distribution" comes as a consequence of good governance.

If you pursue it as a goal, you'll make everyone equally poor — take from someone, who grew up in the USSR.

Some quotes from a CNN article on happiness

Happiness is not quantifiable and can not be discussed in this context.

The desirability among would-be immigrants, however, can be. Yet, you chose to ignore that measure even though I proposed it right along the per capita GDP. Could it be because the US is winning on it, huh? Maybe, it is time for you to leave the country, to which your ancestors fled from wherever that was — and vacate the space for new freedom-seekers?

How is a survey asking people how happy they are any less quantifiable than a survey asking them which country they'd like to live in? In my mind, the former is more telling because it asks people to evaluate what their lives are actually like rather than what they imagine they'd be like living somewhere else. But if you don't like comparing by "happiness", then comparing by standard of living puts a lot of the same counties in the top. In neither of these lists does the US do badly, but there are countries with larger, more left leaning governments that do better (and worse).

As far ignoring desirability among potential immigrants goes, I ignored it because it's a measurement of perception rather than reality. I honestly didn't know where the US ranked but assumed that it ranked highly or you wouldn't have selected it as a measure. It is interesting to note who wants to come here and where they tend to be from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/153...

It's not from countries that do better on happiness or standard of living scale. I do agree that if getting rich is your goal and that if opportunities are limited where you currently live, the US is a great choice that's relatively easy to get into. And it's a better place on almost any measure than where lots of these would-be migrants currently live. However that doesn't mean a smaller government = a better place to live.

Do you all think it's accidental that as soon as we know who the candidates for president are going to be that Obama's approval ratings go up?

Not only don't I think its accidental, I don't think its true. Obama's numbers have been going up since November 2014. The only thing that's coincidental with is his last election.

I've seen two schools of thought on the reason for this:

School 1 is the "he's out of F*cks" theory. Not having to face reelection again, he's just doing what he wants to do, and what he thinks best without regard to Republican complaints about it. This is the kind of behavior his supporters were wanting all along, so they are happier with him now.

School 2 is that now that there's no longer any real gain from tearing the guy down, the Republicans have aimed their massive media slime machine elsewhere. Particularly at Hillary (and to a certain extent at each other). So now his popularity is no longer being artificially dragged down by their attacks, and its rising back up to something resembling its natural level.

Trump will need 70% of the white male vote to win the election without votes from every other voting bloc that he so far had managed to alienate. Not happening.

The overwhelming fact about American general elections right now is that white male voters just aren't as powerful as they used to be. In 1980, when the electorate looked very different than it does today, Ronald Reagan cruised to an easy victory by winning 63 percent of white males, according to exit polls. In 1988, George H.W. Bush took 63 percent of that group in his rout of Michael Dukakis. By 2004, however, winning 62 percent of white men barely got George W. Bush past John Kerry in a squeaker. And eight years later, Romney won 62 percent of white men—and lost to Barack Obama by 3.5 million votes.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699

It doesn't help that 70% of women don't like him either.

Donald Trump's image among U.S. women tilts strongly negative, with 70% of women holding an unfavorable opinion and 23% a favorable opinion of the Republican front-runner in March. Trump's unfavorable rating among women has been high since Gallup began tracking it last July, but after rising slightly last fall, it has increased even further since January.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx

And the vast majority of Christians I know would agree.

Vast majority? No.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150...

A majority of Christians still support the death penalty, although the number is falling. I applaud your convictions, though.

Not in Europe, and European Christians wouldn't consider anyone reading the bible literally a true Christian, more a Muslim Christian if anything, because what separates Christians from Muslims is that they read their holy book literally.

And the vast majority of Christians I know would agree.

Vast majority? No.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150...

A majority of Christians still support the death penalty, although the number is falling. I applaud your convictions, though.

No the point is he shouldn't have to do it.

Considering the large number of vocal white supremacists supporting him, it isn't by itself unreasonable to ask him. Even if you think the reporter shouldn't have asked the question, his initial refusal to disavow was pretty unacceptable as responses go.

Every time there's an election. When the media tends to harass one one candidate more than others, they are clearly being biased. Do you support media bias?

If anything, the media has been incredibly favorable to Trump, giving him ridiculous amounts of free coverage. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/. It also does not follow that if a given candidate his having the media call out a lot of the things the candidate says that the media is being biased. It can also indicate that the candidate is really saying a lot of crazy stuff. (Which in this case is pretty accurate.)

Fourth, the Dragon who endorsed Hillary did so out of essentially a conspiracy theory about her actual policies being different than her stated policies

You probably won't believe it but I have heard people say they are strongly supportive of abortion because minorities get more abortions.

That's completely believable; I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't believe it, nor do I see what point you are trying to make here.

Trump isn't racist and in fact is more closely aligned with blacks on some issues than most candidates, specifically about illegal immigration. Economically, blacks support a higher minimum wage and tighter immigration control.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. You appear to be arguing that he can't be racist because he agrees with blacks on a specific issue. However, the primary racism under discussion is directed at Hispanics, not blacks. Moreover, your claim about blacks and immigration is incorrect. Black Americans are consistently more pro-immigration than white Americans. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx. You can argue that they shouldn't be, but apparently they disagree. And again, you seem to be ignoring what I said in my first comment: I don't know if Trump is racist, but if he isn't, he's going through a lot of effort to appeal to racists.

Since you are not from the US and to help you put this into perspective, I pointed out that religion is much less "public policy" in the US than it is in Europe, both according to party platforms and according to spending.

Well this maybe one of those things were the numbers don't tell the full story.
First we must be careful when we use "Europe" as an example. When most people refer to "Europe", especially as an example of how things can be done better, they refer to North Western Europe (ie Germany, France, Benelux, Scandanavia, UK & Ireland etc). These countries are similar in wealth to the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and have a "Western Culture" so make suitable comparisons.
I only raise this because every other time this has been raised, someone will say, "well yeah America is better than Romania!"
I don't know what these countries spend on religion, but having been to most of them, I know it is as not important as some parts of the US if you don't go along with it.
There have been many Athiest leaders in many countries, but 53% of Americans say they would never vote for one, even if they are the most qualified candidate. That is barbaric, and not progressive using any definition of the word.

Gallup's regular poll of the Most Important Problem doesn't even have Climate Change on the list.

Well then, the poll doesn't tell us anything about public sentiment on climate-change because they didn't ask about it. They did ask about "Environment/Pollution" but that's a poor proxy.

Gallup's regular poll of the Most Important Problem doesn't even have Climate Change on the list.

Sanders is talking about "free" collage education. That is 100% pure socialism.

Like the G.I. Bill that kicked off one of most robust periods of American Capitalism in the 20th century?

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-346, 58 Stat. 284m), known informally as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend university, high school or vocational education, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to every veteran who had been on active duty during the war years for at least one-hundred twenty days and had not been dishonorably discharged; combat was not required. By 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 5.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill/

When you take money from one person and give to another. that is socialism.

That's called taxation. Who else is going to pay for civilization?

Trump has never labeled himself a conservative, nor acted like one.

Apparently, he did. You need to pay closer attention.

"I am a conservative person. I am by nature a conservative person," the outspoken billionaire said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I never looked at putting a label on myself, I wasn't in politics."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-insists-conservative-article-1.2332241/

The biggest group in this country is conservative [...]

Uh, no. Independents are 43%, Democrats are 30% and Republicans are 26%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

Look at Obamacare, it is starting to crumble because it could never work.

Because of ObamaCare, my monthly premiums for healthcare from my employer went from $500 to $180. That's for better coverage at a lower cost.

Nothing is free.

You should take your own advice and stopped listening to the "fact free" drivel that comes out of the right wing echo chamber.

She still hasn't released those speeches she gave to wall street - one of which she was paid $415,00 for. She only changed her position on same-sex marriage after it was obvious which way the wind was blowing. She sent secret information to people who were not supposed to be privy to it (to which the email server is just incidentally involved).

That's three to start.

The current FBI investigation has been going on since last August, but only confirmed in February. And this has nothing to do with republicans - this is an FBI probe under a Democratic president.

Clinton is Not liked or trusted by a majority of the voters.

On the positive side, 8% of Americans say they like her, 7% describe her as capable and qualified, 5% as experienced, 3% as strong and 3% as a good politician. Smaller percentages consider her honest or smart.

Overall, 29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative. The rest have either a neutral comment or no opinion. This loosely fits with her overall image among national adults as measured on Gallup tracking, which is 42% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

These are the same number she had in 2008, and she lost then. The only candidate with overall positive numbers as Sanders.

Women are the majority of gun owners

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...

Gun ownership among men: 45%
Gun ownership among women: 12%

Be careful what you wish for.....

The median worldwide per-capita household income is $2,920,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...

Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?

He isn't running for POTUS right now, he's running for the Republican nomination. Only about 27% of voters (about one quarter) right now consider themselves Republican. And those voters respond very differently to polls on issues than independents and Democrats (who on most issues actually seem to differ mostly in degree, not inclination).

So all a Republican candidate has to do is win about 14% of the Electorate to get nominated. If the current front runners (in an amazingly competitive field) both feel the best way to do that is to run FUD campaigns, that may not really be telling you much of anything about the USA electorate, but it tells you a rather large amount about the Republican party.

From Gallup (Dec 2015 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/187...) American's top anxieties are:

#1: Terrorism (16%)
#2: Government (13%)
#3: Economy (9%)
#4: Guns (7%)

>> In 2015, those anxieties are, apparently, concern the rise of science denial, climate change, total collapse

None of those seem to be top-of-mind here.

In other words, using "socialism" and "socialist" as labels to demonize something or someone is mere rhetoric.

And it's a rhetoric that is less and less effective as time goes on.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125...

those of us who aren't sociopaths

Easy with the name-calling. Please, don't hate.

Glass ceilings are a real thing.

Whether that's true or not, there is not one in Linux (nor FreeBSD) project. And yet, the ratio of females there is even worse, than at Microsoft.

People don't have to be enslaved for a workplace to be a very bad place.

If the free people willingly choose to work somewhere, then it can not be that bad.

there is clear and unambiguous evidence that if we allow discrimination based on those criteria that the results are bad both for society and for the individuals

Such a claim sounds rather hollow without citations. Got any?

Your "anti-discrimination" (poorly) fights symptoms, not the problem — which only gets worse because of your efforts, as we are forced to wonder, if a protected minority occupying an important post really deserved it, or got it thanks to the color of his skin. Racial relations today are worse than before — with Blacks especially alienated.

Your approach demonstrably failed. Decades ago we surrendered an essential liberty to your kind in exchange for a promise of harmony, and now we have neither the liberty nor the harmony. Look at Baltimore — despite having Black mayor and Black police commissioner, it still got racial tensions like nowhere else... It is such an egg on your face, your wisest now blame lead paint!

You are a pathetic failure. And yet, instead of pulling back to reflect on what went wrong, your kind doubles and triples down with new charges. Today even the belly-dancing or yoga are off-limits to the Whitey.

Constitution is junk to you — you may preach "tolerance", but wish to ban "hate speech". And that includes everything that makes you uncomfortable.

The market demonstrably cannot fairly deal with this problem.

Because it is not a market problem. In fact, I am not convinced, it is a problem at all. But, if it is, you and yours are the least qualified to address it.

Perhaps you should look again.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116...

46% is less than half, so less than half of the people polled approve of how the president is doing things.

Obama job approval by:
REGION
[East, Midwest, South, West] => [51, 44, 41, 51]

EDUCATION
[High School or less, Some College, College graduate only, Postgrad, All college grads, All college nongrads] => [45, 42, 46, 59, 51, 44]

Don't you get it? 51% of people overwhelmingly agree!

http://www.gallup.com/file/pol...

The numbers are actually kinda shockingly mediocre across the board (as compared to previous Presidents' polling trends). The most notable things I see are the race demos (34% approval by white people, 84% approval by black Americans, 63% approval by hispanics) and age range, which goes 59 -> 45 -> 43 -> 38% approval rating based on age bracket. 60% of people who were maybe barely old enough to vote for him twice approve of his job.

And, of course, the 82/43/10% split between Democrat/Independent/Republican party id, but that's not surprising at all.

46% according to gallup. But let's not argue minutiae, I guess it depends a lot on where you live.

>>Saying that I should be able to sell you raisins at a price we freely agree on and without getting taxed

Let me complete the sentence for you, .. is the same as saying there's not government since there's no taxes and since there's no government there's no law. Like it or not, taxes are the basis for civilization, including taxes on raisins.

If socialist rule is so bad , why are the richest nations also the most socialist?

nations whose income is more than US
norway
\sweden
denmark
'finland

all highly socialist nations. So actually, their money, which they just outright have more of, goes further than American wages out of which comes health and education and other services which are paid for in those nations.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166...

Once you start figuring THAT in the US is really pretty far down the list, far below Canada and France and Germany, all highly socialist nations also.

According to the following gallup poll, 3.8% of adults self-identify as LGBT. You are correct that the percentage is usually overestimated, but you lose credibility when you don't get your facts straight. http://www.gallup.com/poll/183...