Wow.

I don't know which is dumber, the article or the survey itself.

HURR HURR HE'S ON VACATION HURRRRRR

And instead of making up retard number scales, how about if we poll people on actual issues?

Wendy's Chili:

I don't know which is dumber, the article or the survey itself.

c) the headline

/ the whole "so that means Sarah Palin is automatically president..." wanna-be meme blows
// hates Palin

Jon Huntsman most closely aligns with Republicans that don't feel the need to call Democrats traitors to get their point across. Which is exceedingly rare, so he's polling at 2%.

I think Huntsman's played it smart by staying in the race and staying relatively moderate (even though he's not actually a moderate, he is by comparison). Once all the smoke clears and Paul's had his time to shine, Huntsman will likely only be the Romney alternative remaining - and better yet, he's the only candidate out there that has a chance in hell of beating Obama, because he'll pull away some of the moderate democrats.

Worst case, he's got a damn good chance in 2016 or 2020.

"Durr, I dun know who to pick. Mitts Rommey dun know what side issues he pick. We have common ground!"

On a scale of 1 (stupid liberal asshole with a big gaping anus who probably wears eyeshadow and reads Proust) to 5 (awesome conservative superhero with a 9" penis), how awesome are you?

Most Americans self-report as being highly conservative!

Wow.. that is one of the worst political pieces I have ever read. and this guy was nominated for a Pulitzer? Wow//

dletter: On a scale of 1 to 5, with one being crazy liberal and 5 being courageously conservative,

Really, I am supposed to take this seriously then?

This ^. Stopped reading at that point.

Well, that article was a waste of my time. I'm hanging out on FARK, that's how un-valuable my time is, and that was still a waste of it.

This article is so dumb it gave me cancer in my right testicle. Thanks a lot, subby.

They see Newt Gingrich as slightly more conservative at 3.6 with both Ricks, Perry and Santorum, even slightly more conservative at 3.7.

If people think that Rick Santorum is slightly right of center, then people are very insane.

dletter: On a scale of 1 to 5, with one being crazy liberal and 5 being courageously conservative,

Really, I am supposed to take this seriously then?

Loaded questions are loaded.

If they used a scale of 1 to 10 with Blood Thirsty Communist at 1 and Corporation Worshiping Fascist at 10 we would find people grouped around 5, Weak Minded Sheeple.

How about no. IBD is a slightly more respectable analog of WND.

FTFA: On a scale of 1 to 5, with one being crazy liberal and 5 being courageously conservative,

Yeah, no bias in this article at all.

Wow, so according to a Gallup poll more Americans identify with Bachmann's views than Obama's? You guys are farking nuts apparently.

I'd really like to see the 3 of them (and the 'average 'merkan') compared on a good Vosem Chart (considerably more advanced than the turd one on selectsmart).

Am I bad at the intergoogling, or is there really no other sight out there offering one?

/ political compass is too simple and outdated
// meh

ordinarysteve: Wow, so according to a Gallup poll more Americans identify with Bachmann's views than Obama's? You guys are farking nuts apparently.

Whoa, whoa. Let's not be so hasty. It might be a good idea to reverse all this feminism crap and build a generation of women who will do whatever we say, no matter how little sexual pleasure we want to give them in return.

I need pictures!

Pictures of Huntsman's daughters!

If your poll question produces the same result for Romney and Paul, you might want to look at how you're wording the question.

can someone take this meme out behind the memeshed and shoot it?

skullkrusher: can someone take this meme out behind the memeshed and shoot it?

though this was one of the more amusing examples of it I've seen, I must say

gimmegimme: ordinarysteve: Wow, so according to a Gallup poll more Americans identify with Bachmann's views than Obama's? You guys are farking nuts apparently.

Whoa, whoa. Let's not be so hasty. It might be a good idea to reverse all this feminism crap and build a generation of women who will do whatever we say, no matter how little sexual pleasure we want to give them in return.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, yourself. Are you suggesting that Marcus doesn't sexually satisfy Mrs. Bachmann?

i doubt that, this guy is the epitome of manliness
/that said, I would do your country a favor and fark the crazy out of Bachman if given the opportunity, I'd just avoid eye contact

HeartBurnKid: FTFA: On a scale of 1 to 5, with one being crazy liberal and 5 being courageously conservative,

Yeah, no bias in this article at all.

I know, right? It's just redundant to say crazy liberal.

From the poll:

"A USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans to rate their own ideology -- and the ideology of the eight major presidential candidates -- on a 5-point scale with 1 being very liberal and 5 being very conservative."

So 100% of the poll data is subjective. That's some fine work there, Lou.

That poll doesn't suprise me. Huntsman is a rational centrist.

Huntsman is the kind of Republican candidate that Democrats SAY they wish Republicans would nominate. Religious tolerance, multi-lingual, well travelled, bi-partisan, a track record of economic achievemnent through good governance, he believes in science and global warming, and he even adopts.

Huntsman is the kind of Republican candidate that traditional Conservatives wish Republicans would nominate instead of TeaBag BiblethumperSocial conservative morons.

Honestly, for mostly centrist pragmatic mainstream views and the ability to govern, he's probably better qualified than the current President. (Whom he has worked for).

Fingers crossed that he will come out at the end as the "for lack of a better option" or the "least hated by people" or "least polarizing unity candidate" candidate.

But that's just a crack pipe shot in the dark.

I think the biggest takeaway I got from this link is that IBD is biased and unentertainingly snarky. Aren't they supposed to be politically neutral? That's how I always thought of them, though I confess I'd never actually read an article of theirs before.

BojanglesPaladin: That poll doesn't suprise me. Huntsman is a rational centrist.

Huntsman is the kind of Republican candidate that Democrats SAY they wish Republicans would nominate. Religious tolerance, multi-lingual, well travelled, bi-partisan, a track record of economic achievemnent through good governance, he believes in science and global warming, and he even adopts.

Huntsman is the kind of Republican candidate that traditional Conservatives wish Republicans would nominate instead of TeaBag BiblethumperSocial conservative morons.

Honestly, for mostly centrist pragmatic mainstream views and the ability to govern, he's probably better qualified than the current President. (Whom he has worked for).

Fingers crossed that he will come out at the end as the "for lack of a better option" or the "least hated by people" or "least polarizing unity candidate" candidate.

But that's just a crack pipe shot in the dark.

You are the winner of the so-obvious-that-it's-hidden super prize.
Yay for you.

dletter: And on another note, this is just American's "perceived" notions of who they think they align with.... wasn't there polls that said 55-60% of the people were against "Obamacare", but, if you asked about whether the Government should do each thing within "Obamacare" individually, almost everything was supported by 60-70% of the people. I think you'd find similar results with the President in general.

All of the parts, except for one. The individual mandate got only 30% approval, and is the one provision that is always mentioned in Republican stump speeches and press releases. The majority of the public doesn't understand that one won't work without the other.

phygz: You are the winner of the so-obvious-that-it's-hidden super prize.
Yay for you.

I honestly can't tel lif that's a dig or a compliment.

In true counter-Fark fashion, I will take it as a compliment.

Thanks.

/I really do think Hunstman is the only current possibility I could concievably vote FOR, rather than figuring out who I most need to vote AGAINST.

dekko: I got from this link is that IBD is biased and unentertainingly snarky. Aren't they supposed to be politically neutral?

I'm sure they might claim that, but it's basically a right wing mouth piece.

dletter: And on another note, this is just American's "perceived" notions of who they think they align with.... wasn't there polls that said 55-60% of the people were against "Obamacare", but, if you asked about whether the Government should do each thing within "Obamacare" individually, almost everything was supported by 60-70% of the people. I think you'd find similar results with the President in general.

I used to work at a pizza place many, many years ago. The boss had a sense of humor and created a "Royal Deluxe Supreme Pizza" that had everything on it. Ham, bacon, hamburger, sausage, pepperoni, onion, peppers, olives, pineapple, jalapeños, anchovies, EVERYTHING, and it was actually cheaper than the Supreme, and we hardly ever sold one. The problem is that while most of the people liked most of the ingredients, and most people liked any one ingredient ('cept maybe the anchovies), when you threw it all together there was going to be that one thing that, no matter how much they liked the rest of the pizza, was an absolute deal killer. "Obamacare" was the same way. The fact that most people liked most things doesn't mean anything. You're right about finding similar results with the President, no matter how much you may like the rest of what he does, when he does that one idiotic thing you really hate, it pretty much means you don't want him around any more.

Which is why I haven't seen a single candidate worth voting for yet, they ALL have that "one idiotic thing" that prevents me from contributing to their gaining office. Yes, even him, and her, and yes, ESPECIALLY him.

\Goddammit, Jack Ryan for President!

BojanglesPaladin: phygz: You are the winner of the so-obvious-that-it's-hidden super prize.
Yay for you.

I honestly can't tel lif that's a dig or a compliment.

In true counter-Fark fashion, I will take it as a compliment.

Thanks.

/I really do think Hunstman is the only current possibility I could concievably vote FOR, rather than figuring out who I most need to vote AGAINST.

Let's just say I kept myself amused for a few minutes making these yesterday. One for my crazy aunt, one for Fark whiners.

Notice the missing element relevant to this thread?

BojanglesPaladin: phygz: You are the winner of the so-obvious-that-it's-hidden super prize.
Yay for you.

I honestly can't tel lif that's a dig or a compliment.

In true counter-Fark fashion, I will take it as a compliment.

Thanks.

/I really do think Hunstman is the only current possibility I could concievably vote FOR, rather than figuring out who I most need to vote AGAINST.

I need to look a bit more into the guy that just announced libertarian. What I'm hearing sounds good, but I wonder about what I'm not hearing, and the fact that he's going to the Libertarians isn't in the plus column.

\You're still a tap-dancing tinworks.

So Courageous

/Too lazy to find South Park picture

It has been said before, but is still worth mentioning, that IBD is the periodical which stated that Stephen Hawking "...Wouldn't stand a chance in the UK" because the National Health system would have judged him worthless. (Hawking is a UK citizen and has lived there his entire life.)

My brother in law is a regular IBD reader. I think he started because he thinks of himself as an investor, so he found the easiest to read newpaper with "Investor" in the title. He quotes them constantly. They basically restate anything Limbaugh says within a day and call it journalism. They make Fox look like the BBC.

FubarBDilligaf: dletter: And on another note, this is just American's "perceived" notions of who they think they align with.... wasn't there polls that said 55-60% of the people were against "Obamacare", but, if you asked about whether the Government should do each thing within "Obamacare" individually, almost everything was supported by 60-70% of the people. I think you'd find similar results with the President in general.

I used to work at a pizza place many, many years ago. The boss had a sense of humor and created a "Royal Deluxe Supreme Pizza" that had everything on it. Ham, bacon, hamburger, sausage, pepperoni, onion, peppers, olives, pineapple, jalapeños, anchovies, EVERYTHING, and it was actually cheaper than the Supreme, and we hardly ever sold one. The problem is that while most of the people liked most of the ingredients, and most people liked any one ingredient ('cept maybe the anchovies), when you threw it all together there was going to be that one thing that, no matter how much they liked the rest of the pizza, was an absolute deal killer. "Obamacare" was the same way. The fact that most people liked most things doesn't mean anything. You're right about finding similar results with the President, no matter how much you may like the rest of what he does, when he does that one idiotic thing you really hate, it pretty much means you don't want him around any more.

Which is why I haven't seen a single candidate worth voting for yet, they ALL have that "one idiotic thing" that prevents me from contributing to their gaining office. Yes, even him, and her, and yes, ESPECIALLY him.

\Goddammit, Jack Ryan for President!

Here's a better metaphor. The pizza has toppings that everyone likes, in fact those toppings all taste good together. The pizza is being offered at a price everyone can afford as well, poor people don't have to pay as much. But no one wants to pay extra taxes for failing to buy pizza.

Also, many people have never actually paid for pizza, but their employer buys it for them with pre-tax money. These people have no idea how much pizza costs. The people who aren't so lucky have needed to buy their pizza with post-tax money. The government talked about removing this inequality from the system, but failed to do so.

FubarBDilligaf: BojanglesPaladin: phygz: You are the winner of the so-obvious-that-it's-hidden super prize.
Yay for you.

I honestly can't tel lif that's a dig or a compliment.

In true counter-Fark fashion, I will take it as a compliment.

Thanks.

/I really do think Hunstman is the only current possibility I could concievably vote FOR, rather than figuring out who I most need to vote AGAINST.

I need to look a bit more into the guy that just announced libertarian. What I'm hearing sounds good, but I wonder about what I'm not hearing, and the fact that he's going to the Libertarians isn't in the plus column.

\You're still a tap-dancing tinworks.

What I don't understand is how anyone, in the current situation, wouldn't just vote for Obama. It's like being married to Jane Seymour and wondering which Face of Meth you should cheat with. Sure, there are parts of Jane Seymour you might not like, but the alternatives all have massive cold sores.

vernonFL: About the Columnist


[media.salon.com image 460x307]

A veteran right wing hack, Andrew Malcolm joined Investor's Business Daily October 2011. He formerly served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. His blog sucks.

They must give Pulitzers out like candy then. It would be hard to find someone who couldn't write better than that article.