Nice timing fellas on your poormouthing the Obama campaign haul for June. I'll be sure not to sit with Byron at a baseball game for fear he may jinx a no-hitter in the 8th inning.

the overestimate of black people is a robust finding that can be tracked back decades. the same also occurs with jews (e.g., people guess that 10% of americans are jewish when closer to 2-4% are [depending on who you count as jewish]). probably has to do with the fact that so many television shows are set in urban locales; notwithstanding the white new york city of *seinfeld* and *friends*.

If Obama gets bogged down in Afghanistan, he will lose his progressive base, there will be another antiwar movement, and we will have protesters chanting, "Hey Ho O-b-a-m-a, how many kids did you kill today?" I hope that Obama is smart enough not to become LBJ, but LBJ was plenty smart and he self-destructed over Vietnam. The result of that failure was Nixon, arguably the only president in our history worse than GW Bush.

Quoting razib: the overestimate [...]

Useful contribution, razib, and thanks. Still, I was absolutely blown away by those numbers. I can't remember ever not knowing "about 12%." Which may, in some sense, make me as provincial as everybody else.

Who here thinks Evan Bayh could be accurately described as benign? See what I'm saying?

Quoting claymisher: Byron York, give it up!

I'll give him this: He's a masterfully subtle FUDmeister. I imagine he comes across as quite plausible to first-time and casual viewers. I like Mike, but I'd rather see Byron paired with someone less accommodating, who won't let him get away with all of his insinuations. This was a diavlog between someone trying to be an honest analyst and someone pushing an agenda. Seemed like there were about twenty instances of exchanges like this: Byron: Start with this semi-fact. Extrapolate, extrapolate, extrapolate. Now, shouldn't the Obama campaign / the voters / Democrats be worried about this? Michael: You may have a point there.

BJKeefe, Byron York represents a certain republican view of the world. It's good to know what that view is. Republicans win elections. Liberals may choose to think that they do it by lies and trickery, but it's probably more complicated than that.

Quoting Running Dog: BJKeefe,

Byron York represents a certain republican view of the world. It's good to know what that view is. Republicans win elections. Liberals may choose to think that they do it by lies and trickery, but it's probably more complicated than that.

Generally agreed. However, that still doesn't change my view that Byron is not well-paired with Michael. I'm not saying Byron's view of the world is insincere, but I do think that when he's in a political discussion, it's nearly all about scoring points for his side and raising doubts about the other. His tactics, then, are worth calling into question. By contrast, Michael, while openly in favor of Obama, comes into these things far more willing to talk about the good and bad aspects of both sides. This pairing is emblematic of how political debate has been conducted in this country for the past two decades at least -- the righty stakes out a position from which he won't budge, the lefty concedes some points out of honesty or in hope of moving to common ground, the righty refuses, and the lefty ends up looking like his case is weaker. Just to take

I'll give him this: He's a masterfully subtle FUDmeister. I imagine he comes across as quite plausible to first-time and casual viewers.

I like Mike, but I'd rather see Byron paired with someone less accommodating, who won't let him get away with all of his insinuations. This was a diavlog between someone trying to be an honest analyst and someone pushing an agenda.

What, praytell, did York say that was so egregiously wrong? I suspect that he merely has a different opinion than the liberal orthodoxy. Heh, that hardly makes him wrong.

Quoting bjkeefe:
Being a political hack instead of an analyst is not necessarily dishonorable, but it does deserve to be named for what it is.

And it's certainly not benign. In fact it is time-tested and true, one might even say venerable.

Quoting aquacade@hotmail.com: What, praytell, did York say that was so egregiously wrong?

Not really anything. That's why I called him "masterfully subtle." He isn't stating blatant falsehoods, which would be easier to catch. His skill lies in applying a shading to everything he says, repeating the key words that he wants everyone listening to remember, and refusing to concede points against his own case. He's like an infomercial -- the FCC wouldn't be able to bust him, but he's not really telling the whole truth.

Quoting bjkeefe: .

This pairing is emblematic of how political debate has been conducted in this country for the past two decades at least -- the righty stakes out a position from which he won't budge, the lefty concedes some points out of honesty or in hope of moving to common ground, the righty refuses, and the lefty ends up looking like his case is weaker.

I agree. link link link link

Chef: You are aware, aren't you, that those links did not show Byron York? In fact, based on every other thing I've seen or read, I'm not even sure they showed Jonah Goldberg.

Quoting Chef: I agree.

link

link

link

link

Heh. Don't let Brendan see this. Oops, too late.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/128...05:46&out=6:24

Quoting bjkeefe: Chef:

You are aware, aren't you, that those links did not show Byron York?

In fact, based on every other thing I've seen or read, I'm not even sure they showed Jonah Goldberg.

I tried to concede the point. Alas, no common ground.

Quoting Chef: I tried to concede the point.

Alas, no common ground.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

Quoting look: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/128...05:46&out=6:24

Hey! Hope for change! ;^)

Quoting look: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/128...05:46&out=6:24

That dingalink illustrates well the hack that York is. If you shave a minute off the beginning of your clip, starting at 4:46 instead of 5:46, you can watch him sit there for a full minute, paying no attention to what Tomasky is saying, just waiting for him to shut up so he can launch into his next prepared and totally disingenuous point about Obama's rhetoric. Obama has been saying "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and "we are the change we seek" for well over a year. He includes it in practically every speech, and has said it thousands of times. So why does York pretend like he's discovered something new and meaningful by pointing out that those words are included in a fundraising letter? This isn't even low-grade analysis on York's part. It's simply mockery.

Quoting TwinSwords: That dingalink illustrates well the hack that York is. If you shave a minute off the beginning of your clip, starting at 4:46 instead of 5:46, you can watch him sit there for a full minute, paying no attention to what Tomasky is saying, just waiting for him to shut up so he can launch into his next prepared and totally disingenuous point about Obama's rhetoric.

Obama has been saying "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and "we are the change we seek" for well over a year. He includes it in practically every speech, and has said it thousands of times. So why does York pretend like he's discovered something new and meaningful by pointing out that those words are included in a fundraising letter?

This isn't even low-grade analysis on York's part. It's simply mockery.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/128...04:08&out=7:45Okay, here I have extended my original clip on both ends. I see York listening and agreeing, and then, as this is a vlog, and he's gathered items to present, he presents it at logical point. Considering his ideology, I find it hard to fault him for finding it humorous. I mean, the Obama campaign is now offering chances for

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry for misunderstanding.

What the hell just happened?

Quoting look: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/128...04:08&out=7:45Okay, here I have extended my original clip on both ends.

First of all, I didn't mean to suggest in my previous post that there was anything wrong with your original dingalink. I just backed up a bit so I get some of the context of the original remarks.

Quoting look: Considering his ideology, I find it hard to fault him for finding it humorous.

I wouldn't fault him for finding it humorous, either. But he's doing more than that. After reading the fundraising letter, York says "these are the exact phrases ... that he uses in his fundraising appeal." He seems to suggest he's exposed some kind of contradiction, as if there people had denied Obama used those phrases.

Quoting look: I mean, the Obama campaign is now offering chances for prizes if you donate? Please.

What's wrong with that?

Quoting look: Also, IIRC, he said point blank and laughingly that a good deal of the base hates McCain.

It wouldn't be very credible for him to say anything else. In fact, the Republican playbook would have him overstate the degree to which the base hates McCain. The "base hates McCain" meme is one that works to McCain's advantage: Set the bar very low so that when McCain easily

I think these 'Crossfire' style matchups have limited utility: they are simply an opportunity for partisans on both sides to get out their talking points. It's a little . . . dare we say, MSMish? I, for one, usually find the political discussions between two liberals - i.e. Chait and Yglesias or Michelle Goldberg and that other lady the other day- to be more insightful and interesting. Or is this just an example of that "cocooning" instinct that we liberals are (in)famous for?

Quoting interstices: Nice timing fellas on your poormouthing the Obama campaign haul for June. I'll be sure not to sit with Byron at a baseball game for fear he may jinx a no-hitter in the 8th inning.

Actually, York acknowledges that possibility HERE.

Not at all! I often enjoy them too (and I'm not even close to being a liberal). I think Bob and Gershom Gorenberg have some great discussions, and I really liked it when Eric Umansky was interviewing a lot of CFR guys (like Stephen Cook and Julia Sweig for example) on here. Curious, though. Other than the Free Will series, does BHTV not do many Right/Right matchups?

Quoting Chef: Curious, though. Other than the Free Will series, does BHTV not do many Right/Right matchups?

Not often. The left/left matchups are rare, too, but more common than right/right. To some extent, it's a matter of perspective. For example, I would consider Jonah Goldberg and Peter Beinart to be right/right (or, right/extremist). I realize that conservatives would balk at this suggestion, but real liberals do not consider Beinart a genuine liberal. Still, do we really need right/right matchups? Most of the MSM is dominated by conservatives. You guys have all of talk radio (virtually), most of network news, most of cable news, and a massive proportion of the print press. Even MSNBC has shows dominated by conservatives (Morning Joe, Race to the White House), and MSNBC is considered the commie pinko network. It would really suck if Bob's brainchild turned into the Internet version of Fox News.

First of all, I didn't mean to suggest in my previous post that there was anything wrong with your original dingalink. I just backed up a bit so I get some of the context of the original remarks.

I took no offense, but re-dingalinked for clarity's sake.

I wouldn't fault him for finding it humorous, either. But he's doing more than that. After reading the fundraising letter, York says "these are the exact phrases ... that he uses in his fundraising appeal." He seems to suggest he's exposed some kind of contradiction, as if there people had denied Obama used those phrases.

I didn't get that from my viewing. It just struck me as a cynical observation.

What's wrong with that?

And you say York has an agenda. Geeze.

It wouldn't be very credible for him to say anything else. In fact, the Republican playbook would have him overstate the degree to which the base hates McCain. The "base hates McCain" meme is one that works to McCain's advantage: Set the bar very low so that when McCain easily jumps over it, we can declare him triumphant. Likewise, expectations for Obama are set as high as possible, so that even beating McCain in

Quoting look: And you say York has an agenda. Geeze.

I am genuinely curious why it bothers you that Obama is offering a chance to win a trip to Colorado in exchange for donations. He also managed to raise a lot of money selling shirts and posters and other trinkets. Sounds like good business sense and good political strategy, to me. I wonder why it disturbs you (if I'm reading your "please" correctly).

Quoting look: I'll be on the look-out from now on, but if you have a link or two handy, I'd appreciate it.

Next time I see him doing it, I'll let you know. (If I remember.) I've yet to watch this entire diavlog yet, so maybe I'll catch him doing it when I finally do. My observation was based on past episodes.

Quoting TwinSwords: Not often. The left/left matchups are rare, too, but more common than right/right.

yes. more common, in the sense that they exist.

...real liberals do not consider Beinart a genuine liberal.

Hmmm. With respect, I think I'll reserve judgement on this one. Maybe if I hear this meme from a lot more people than just you, I'll come to your point of view, (i.e. that the former editor of The New Republic) is actually batting for my team.

It would really suck if Bob's brainchild turned into the Internet version of Fox News.

Well. Might solve the funding issue.

Now here
is a perfect example of where an obviously respectable gentleman from the right, has let themselves become so hidden-agenda oriented, as to be thinking he sees hidden agendas on the left, when the agenda is right out in the open.
He suspects that support for the War in Afghanistan by the left is a ploy to end the Iraq occupation. Did it ever occur to him that maybe, centrists and lefties aren't knee-jerk anti-war, but just don't like engaging in massive conflicts with no provocation, little to be gained, and are strategically doomed from the outset to continue to be nothing but un-winnable bank-breaking ongoing quagmires?* In other words most Americans are not anti-war, we are anti-stupid-war. And the agenda here, is hidden right out in plain sight as the point that is actually made, as stated, end of story.
OK not end of story, let me explain this more clearly, It's and honest and forthright opinion, and yes they do exist post Rovian takeover and will continue to exist in a post Rovian world. *a quote from me to define what I think is un-stupid use of force:
"Desert storm was

Quoting handle: I can't believe I have to include a troop support disclaimer for those of you who think they can quell criticism with the droll overused attack on the critic's patriotism, but I can't think of a better way to support the troops than by promoting the intelligent and well informed use of them.

Oh yea, for those of you who just have to see a hidden agenda here's what I really meant by the above "disclaimer": I can't believe I have to include a troop support disclaimer for those of you who think they can quell criticism with the droll overused attack on the critic's patriotism, but I can't think of a better way to support the troops than by promoting the intelligent and well informed use of them. But everything I say is a lie , so.....

Quoting Chef: Hmmm. With respect, I think I'll reserve judgement on this one.

Maybe if I hear this meme from a lot more people than just you, I'll come to your point of view, (i.e. that the former editor of The New Republic) is actually batting for my team.

The New Republic is neo-liberal, not liberal. You probably know that The New Republic is extremely hawkish and very friendly to the neocons and their warmaking projects. You probably also know that Andrew Sullivan, Marty Peretz, Mickey Kaus, and a number of other people who I would never call liberal worked for The New Republic. You may have heard Mickey say "we hate liberals" in a recent diavlog. The foaming-at-the-mouth Jamie Kirchick works at The New Republic. I don't know if you're aware of the DLC faction within the Democratic Party, exemplified by people like Joe Lieberman and Peter Beinart. Genuine liberals consider them Republicans Lite. Sort of like your team, the Limbaughs, DeLays, Gingrichs, Dobsons, Falwells, and Malkins consider people like former Sen. Lincoln Chafee a RINO, and a heretic to be run out of the party. Sure, Lieberman was once a Democrat, believes in global warming, and is opposed to racism, but on many other issues, he's the functional equivilent of

Quoting Chef: Hmmm. With respect, I think I'll reserve judgement on this one.

Maybe if I hear this meme from a lot more people than just you, I'll come to your point of view, (i.e. that the former editor of The New Republic) is actually batting for my team.

I don't consider Beinart a liberal, either, nor do I consider him a teammate of mine. It depends where one stands on a question like this, of course. You can find people who will say that John McCain and George Bush aren't conservatives. But, FWIW, there's your second datum.

Quoting bjkeefe: But, FWIW, there's your second datum.

Thanks. That's helpful. And no doubt the internecine fight has gotten truly bitter. Still doesn't explain how neoliberal isn't Left, but maybe I'm just obtuse.

Quoting TwinSwords:
Obviously the 2 dimensional political spectrum is of limited utility.

You're right, but note that you shifted the ball from ideology to party affiliation, not me. Still, I suppose since the Left/Right divide is awfully either/or, it suffers somewhat. It's still a useful tool to judge our original point, namely:
that it's often fun to see 2 liberals talking about a range of issues rather than a polite bloggingheads Left/Right argument. or, in Mickey's case, a Center / Left argument.

Quoting Chef: Thanks. That's helpful. And no doubt the internecine fight has gotten truly bitter.

It was quite bitter when Beinart and his buddies at TNR were enthusiastically backing Bush's threats to invade Iraq in 2002/early 2003, and the enthusiastic praise they lavished on Bush once he finally pulled the trigger and went in. That's the whole reason for the rise of Howard Dean. That's what Howard Dean meant when he said "I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." Bill Clinton was a DLCer, by the way. And the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

Quoting Chef: Still doesn't explain how neoliberal isn't Left, but maybe I'm just obtuse.

What Twin said. I'd add that I don't know Beinart's position on every issue, and compared to Jonah Goldberg, say, he's certainly more liberal than some. But, as you and Twin have both noted, the labels are of limited use. The real point, I think, is that what some would call "left/left" diavlogs are not seen that way by many who self-identify as being on the left. Ditto for the so-called "liberal media." The thing that's frustrating about this is that the hardcore rightwingers have been so successful at making "left" and "liberal" words for the MSM to fear that they overcompensate all the time. One of the ways they do this may be seen in choice of guests for talk shows. Typically, the "liberal" on the panel is liberal only by comparison to the other guests. That's gotten better in the past few years, thanks to the Bush disaster and a lot of pushing by the leftosphere, but it's still a problem. It's not really a problem on BH.tv, but I would say that there is an exaggerated perception, that BH.tv is dominated by "left/left" diavlogs.

Quoting Chef: You're right, but note that you shifted the ball from ideology to party affiliation, not me.

My apologies if that sounded like criticism directed at you. That was definitely not what I was thinking, or my intent. I was simply pointing out that left/right are fairly clunky labels and leave a lot of important nuance by the wayside.

Quoting bjkeefe:
It's not really a problem on BH.tv, but I would say that there is an exaggerated perception, that BH.tv is dominated by "left/left" diavlogs.

Not to (ahem) hawk other people's books here, but I have a book on my shelf here by Eric Alterman on this subject called "What Liberal Media". It's a good and quick read. He's hits certain people too hard(especially Howard Kurtz), but well documented. The oft-acerbic tone was off-putting for me, but you'd probably really dig it. He's been on BHTV several times, as you (no doubt) have noticed. And I wasn't meaning to exaggerate any perceptions... just wondering if I'm the only one who noticed. And Believe me, I'm not campaigning for BHTV to be like all the other stuff. Well, except the well-funded part, but Rupert didn't return my call.

Quoting TwinSwords: Bill Clinton was a DLCer, by the way. And the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

I'm going to define irony for you: The first Christopher Hitchens book I ever read was "No One Left to Lie To" He made much the same point.

(Is anyone else having problems trying to log in after hitting the quote button? This is the second time today.)

I am genuinely curious why it bothers you that Obama is offering a chance to win a trip to Colorado in exchange for donations.

Not that it matters what I think, but it's tacky. Does he disclose the chances of winning? It reminds me of a bill board I saw recently promising blood donors entry into a vacation contest. Whatever. But why make such a fuss over the perceived hackery of York, whatever that means, when the trip to Denver is A-OK with you? He's a conservative, and he wants to win...I think. Both he and Conn point-blank dissed McCain today.

Quoting look: (Is anyone else having problems trying to log in after hitting the quote button? This is the second time today.)

But why make such a fuss over the perceived hackery of York, whatever that means, when the trip to Denver is A-OK with you? He's a conservative, and he wants to win...I think. Both he and Conn point-blank dissed McCain today.

No, on the log in issue. The fuss is required as an offset to combat their strategy. Defined as pounding on the flip-flop meme so as to inflict any and all damage possible. It creates perception and framing issues. Heather made the valuable point that the struggle is not to be won in a single election frame. It's long term. Meet the hackery head on. Don't grin and bear it.

Quoting look: ...
Both he and Conn point-blank dissed McCain today.

And I am not sure... but I think I heard Conn refer to Stephanopoulos as Snuffleufagous. Oh and Gore for VP!

Is anyone else having problems trying to log in after hitting the quote button?

The gang of 12 is always logged in. Seriously, I had a problem with the edit button a couple of times today, but when I switched browsers from Firefox to Safari it went away.

Quoting look: (Is anyone else having problems trying to log in after hitting the quote button? This is the second time today.)
.

FWIW, I've had problems too. mainly with the QUOTE button not the REPLY feature. You can still copy text, hit reply, and paste it in your message surrounded by [quote] tags

Quoting graz: No, on the log in issue.

The fuss is required as an offset to combat their strategy. Defined as pounding on the flip-flop meme so as to inflict any and all damage possible. It creates perception and framing issues. Heather made the valuable point that the struggle is not to be won in a single election frame. It's long term. Meet the hackery head on. Don't grin and bear it.

I understand you want to fight it, but some get so upset and take it so personally. I find it illogical to rail against people like Jonah or York; they're just doing politics, and I find them interesting. But if getting royally pissed-off is part of the fun of politics for them, that's ok, too.

Quoting Whatfur: And I am not sure... but I think I heard Conn refer to Stephanopoulos as Snuffleufagous.

You are correct, sir.

Quoting look: ... I find it illogical to rail against people like Jonah or York; they're just doing politics, and I find them interesting...

It is silly in a way. I find them interesting too, even if they inspire an allergic reaction of sorts. This is why bhtv is so interesting. I would never feel as engaged by simply reading their politicking on the page. Again, long live bhtv... even with Mickey.

Quoting Wonderment: The gang of 12 is always logged in.

Yeah, maybe you should all go undercover like graz...we'd never really know for sure...like commandos...waiting... 12? I think I'll just call you the dirty half-dozen till you get up to speed.

[quote=Chef;84141]FWIW, I've had problems too. mainly with the QUOTE button not the REPLY feature. You can still copy text, hit reply, and paste it in your message surrounded by

tags

Oddly, it's only been TwinSwords' posts I can't quote, but that was only twice, so I did cut and paste for him. Thanks.

Quoting graz: It is silly in a way. I find them interesting too, even if they inspire an allergic reaction of sorts. This is why bhtv is so interesting. I would never feel as engaged by simply reading their politicking on the page. Again, long live bhtv... even with Mickey.

Mickeeeey! I didn't make a dingalink, but when he said he liked the high gas prices because their were less cars in traffic...HEH.

Quoting look: 12? I think I'll just call you the dirty half-dozen till you get up to speed.

I dunno, look, but I think one of missing slots in that list belongs to you. However, I think the worst possible result would be for there to be exactly twelve.

I dunno, look, but I think one of missing slots in that list belongs to you.

I'm honored by the thought, Jeff, but I think I'll need at least two asterisks by my name. *wink*

However, I think the worst possible result would be for there to be exactly twelve.

Absolutely.

Quoting Wonderment: Seriously, I had a problem with the edit button a couple of times today, but when I switched browsers from Firefox to Safari it went away.

I've noticed a similar problem in the past two days -- editing a post and then saving the changes requires a forced reload of the page for me to see the changes. Also, if I edit, then save, then edit again, the edit window the second time around does not show the previous changes, again, until I manually reload the page. Firefox did issue a patch recently. I installed it midday Thursday, and didn't really get back to this site until late that night or early Friday, so I wonder if there's something connected. Thanks for saying that Safari did not show the same problem -- this seems to rule out the hypothesis that the forum software has been "upgraded." At risk of belaboring the obvious, I wouldn't at all suggest that anybody avoid the Firefox patch. This one closes a couple of security holes, and leaving them open in return for minor convenience on this one site is not a good tradeoff. More links here, if you want the gory details.

Chef: Thanks for the Alterman recommendation. I sort of want to read that one, but it's not a high priority -- I expect to agree with everything he says, so there wouldn't be a lot to learn apart from specific and depressing details. I do like Alterman's personality a lot, though. I think he's great on diavlogs, and in his writing.

Quoting bjkeefe: I do like Alterman's personality a lot, though. I think he's great on diavlogs, and in his writing.

I thought liking Alterman was a weird character defect I shared with nobody. He's combative, ascerbic, smart, pretty well informed (and is generally right about most things ) and it's entertaining to watch him in a one-on-one debate.

Asterisks? We don't need no stinking asterisks!

Also, if I edit, then save, then edit again, the edit window the second time around does not show the previous changes, again, until I manually reload the page.

Yep, that was exactly what happened, leading to the frustration of not knowing if the edit was posted. I'll get the patch.

Quoting Wonderment: Yep, that was exactly what happened, leading to the frustration of not knowing if the edit was posted.

I'll get the patch.

Wait. You saw the problem before applying the Firefox patch? Not saying you shouldn't get the patch (you definitely should) but it is my conjecture that the patch is what's causing the problem with the stale pages.

Quoting Wonderment: Yep..

Argh. Well, I guess the next step is to check with the BH.tv overlords to see if they updated the vBulletin software. And please, anyone else -- weigh in on this, especially if you're seeing a problem similar to what Wonderment and I described. And please specify your browser and its version number. Thanks.

Quoting bjkeefe: Argh. Well, I guess the next step is to check with the BH.tv overlords to see if they updated the vBulletin software.

And please, anyone else -- weigh in on this, especially if you're seeing a problem similar to what Wonderment and I described. And please specify your browser and its version number. Thanks.

I didn't get the changes even after several edits and reloads, then I decided to just wait before reloading, and I didn't prove it to myself yet, but it appears to just be a delay, as my previous edit would show up before my latest one. Firefox - latest- (not there right now)
Safari 3.1.2 Pretty sure this one did it too, so I suspect server delay

Quoting handle: I didn't get the changes even after several edits and reloads, then I decided to just wait before reloading, and I didn't prove it to myself yet, but it appears to just be a delay, as my previous edit would show up before my latest one.

Firefox - latest- (not there right now)
Safari 3.1.2 Pretty sure this one did it too, so I suspect server delay

It just happened in safari, I added my browser versions and then tried to edit out a word after posting the addition and the versions didn't appear until after a few tries.

Thanks for weighing in, handle.

Hi All, I'm reading this late as usual but I haven't heard anyone make the following two points about the poll question on 12% African-Americans in the US: 1) People always like to pick the "moderate" response, and in this case the correct answer was close to the extreme low end of the five response choices offered. 2) People always have trouble with small percentages in polling questions -- presumably because while, e.g., 25%, 50% and 75% are percentages that people encounter in every day life, really low percentages really aren't. Now, that said, you could make a case that 12% isn't all that small, so I do think it's a somewhat surprising finding, but if I were to personally venture out into further interpreting it my guess would be that white respondents would also err on the side of overestimating the percentage of African Americans in the general public lest they appear racist for, well, "underestimating" them. Del