Liberals around the country are smiling today at an Associated Press poll and story circulating on the web claiming that conservatives read less than liberals, none more so than former Colorado Democratic congresswoman Pat Schroeder who despite being president of the American Association of Publishers decided she felt like insulting half of her potential reading audience by dusting off an old liberal refrain:
"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes,' [...] It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page. [...] She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."
It's all too familiar and really kind of sad since this poll is hardly conclusive (more on that in a minute). For all their talk about being "regular people," the left sure loves calling their fellow citizens stupid and moronic. You'd think that after employing this method for so long—think Reagan-as-idiot-savant, rationalizing the radio failure of Mario Cuomo, Air America, etc.—that the left would realize their elitist and snobbish attitude and either drop it or drop the whole "party of the people" nonsense. After all, how can you be for the common man if you regard him as an ignorant dolt?
That aside, the poll that Schroeder touts is hardly meaningful, first since the data for it are not available online (although the questions and preliminary data are). That ought to give pause to anyone trying to interpret this poll who is not an employee of pollster Ipsos or the Associated Press, especially since the AP reports about the survey are similarly reticent in revealing the different reading habits by region, age, political party, race, income, education level, etc.
The poll's sample size is important, too, when you consider that only 1,000 adults were polled. That means that Ipsos is making generalizations about hundreds of millions of people nationwide based on 340 conservatives and 250 liberals (34 percent of respondents self-identified as conservative while 25 percent said they were liberal).
Even if it could be proven, however, that liberals read books more than conservatives and that the AP-Ipsos poll is correct in pointing this out, it's interesting that both media companies chose to focus on this than who does not read books. Why is it that AP reporter Alan Fram omits political background from his description of those who don't read?
Who are the 27 percent of people the AP-Ipsos poll found hadn't read a single book this year? Nearly a third of men and a quarter of women fit that category. They tend to be older, less educated, lower income, minorities, from rural areas and less religious.
Minus the rural part, doesn't that sound like a general description of the average Democrat? It sure does to me. It's more than a little curious why Fram didn't give a political breakdown of the non-readers.
A further point against giving too much credence to this meme is that in times when Republicans hold the White House, left-wing publications inevitably enjoy greater popularity given that politics is more about stopping the "bad guy" than rooting for the home team. That same disparity exists for conservative publications as well. During the Clinton years conservative journals enjoyed huge numbers. Political books are similarly affected by presidential trends. Might these facts have skewed the Ipsos numbers? I'd say it's a virtual certainty.
There's more that could be said to question this poll but the reasons above should more than dispel any assumptions from eager-to-gloat liberals. Even if Ipsos is correct in saying that liberals read more books, it's also likely saying that liberals are more likely not to read at all. Too bad it took an "ignorant" libertarian conservative to point them out.
Update 18:01. Another area where the Ipsos poll is questionable is in the age breakdown. Young people are generally known as more liberal and if that is true, could the fact that they are also more likely to be students forced to read books be skewing the liberal numbers? A very likely possibility.
Update 19:56. Jonah Goldberg makes a number of additional worthy criticisms of Schroeder's pronouncement. Here's a few:
I should also say, that Schroeder's comments contradict my personal impressions and experience, but of course there's a selection bias problem here. I know more conservative policy wonks than liberal ones. I can't think of any prominent conservatives who brag about not reading books, I can think of at least two prominent liberals who are at least somewhat boastful on this score: Michael Kinsley and Markos Moulitsas. Kinsley is famous for shunning books in favor of magazine articles. He even boasted that he didn't read all — or even most — of the books that were nominated for a National Book Award, even though he was a judge on the panel. I think Kinsley is a special case, because whatever disagreements I have with him, he is brilliant and can get away without reading a lot of books (though he was in the wrong on the Book Award thing). As for Moulitsas, when Hunter S. Thompson died he confessed , “One of my dirty little secrets — I read very few books. In fact, the only time I read books is when I'm traveling, at the airport and on a plane. There are only two authors I have ever gone out of my way to read everything they've written — Hunter S. Thompson and Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." Now, that hasn't made him less effective, and good for him for admitting it, but it does run counter to Schroeder's bowl-stewing inanity. (My own dirty little secret: I'm a terrible book nibbler, reading the introductions and then grazing from the tasting menu called the index).
The post I put up last night by Michael Tomasky also runs against the spirit of Schroeder's comments. He observed — from a better vantage than mine — that liberal politicians don't read seriously any more.
And that raises another interesting point. Self-described liberals may read more books, but what kind of books? Reading most of the books I see in the front sections of bookstores hardly qualify liberals or conservatives as policy wonks with a gift for intellectual nuance and a yearning for deep understanding. "Ohhh...he's a scholar, he read You Can Run But You Can't Hide by Duane Chapman" is not a sentence I expect to hear soon — or often.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Conservative authors
August 21, 2007 - 16:25 ET by Felicity RandThen why is it that conservative authors sell way more books than liberal authors?
Readers
August 21, 2007 - 16:42 ET by iveseenitallThis entire debate is a canard.Having just finished over four decades in education, I can tell you that relatively few people read books regularly. And too many "students" in high schools and universities have only basic reading skills. The t.v. generation finds skills such as inference and implication quite difficult to master. In short, they don't understand what they read. The liberals, however, want this kind of ignorance. They could never get away with what they do if there were a "thinking" public out there.Our schools are poor for many reasons; one is that they don't teach reading, writing, and thinking skills. Get out Moby Dick on the DVD; the kids'll love it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Could it be that...?
August 21, 2007 - 19:42 ET by goldenthroatGood observation, Felicity Rand! My educated guess is that there are a lot of liberals out there who are actually 'closet conservatives' and just are not willing to admit it!
Conservative authors consistently outsell the left-coast, bleeding-heart, 'do as I say, not as I do' libs. Whether it's O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, ad infinitim - when their books hit the shelves it's almost a given that they end up in the top five of the best sellers lists right away.
"Yeah, that's the ticket!" - Tommy Flanagan
Liberalarians
August 21, 2007 - 16:29 ET by third eyeShe said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in
less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel
the onion."
Translation "we will talk your ear off for days on end, unlike stupid conservatives. We really enjoy complaining...it makes us happy."
This points out many
August 21, 2007 - 16:49 ET by wiwfThis points out many things:
1) Libtards aren't passionate. They are the most hate filled bigots in the history of the world
2) Pat doesn't read up on Rove. Rove reads a book a week, well more than Pathetic Schrill-dick probably reads. She'd know this if she followed the PMS media, which had huge rants about Rove on Rush's show 2 weeks ago. Rove stated that he and Bush read books, and ENJOY reading books (the book a week contest). I know, you're dumbstruck that Bush can read, as that destroys you're whole agenda, don't it?
3) What do fiction novels have to do with governmental policies? What do Harry Potter and Anne McCaffrey have to do with the war in Iraq and fixing social security? Clearly she doesn't know squat, she's just reading her fantasy novels, not running the country. Then again, that's why she's a liberal and out of congress
4) She makes me embarrased to be a Coloradoan. Thankfully she isn't my voice. God Bless Musgrave!
5) You can't write big books that have more than just "no new taxes" on every page? Conservative books are not like that, AND BECAUSE they're not like what she thinks, they sell. Every book from our side of the aisle kicks every liberal counterpart book in the teeth when it comes to sales. And I'd like her to retract that comment UNTIL she apologizes that her and 99% of the libtard demouncratic agenda policies come from pathetic bumper stickers like "Bush lied, people died" "Not my president" "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" "Bush is a terrorist" and "Trees are the answer," and that they can't admit that they're wrong, have been wrong, and always will be wrong when it comes to running America.
Schoeder, shut up.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested,
exiled, or hanged." -Abraham Lincoln
But have you ever noticed
August 22, 2007 - 08:21 ET by TheConservativeChemistBut have you ever noticed that lefties always use ridiculous words and run on sentences that make NO SENSE? When you actually strip away what they are saying, it has the simplistic logic of an 8-year old (no offense to all of the 8-year olds out there!)
"Yesterday's Communists are Today's Democrats....
Yesterday's Democrats are Today's Republicans..." - An analogy made by *ME*
Pat Schroeder saying
August 21, 2007 - 16:35 ET by bigtimerPat Schroeder saying anything is useless...she is dumber than a box of rocks.
Period.
Gawd I am so glad she is out of our hair in Congress.
She's the genius that
August 22, 2007 - 14:01 ET by pbanks7She's the genius that couldn't figure out that Rush was kidding when he said he'd buy his mom dog food if she couldn't afford it herself. Shroeder mentioned it in a speech the next day, saying how pathetic he was.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Funny
August 22, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Sergeant ROCKHa Ha Ha... I remember that one. What a dingbat.. er.. I mean let's try to understand her position and reason with her.
"The poll involved
August 21, 2007 - 16:38 ET by ErgoDyne"The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,003 adults and was conducted August 6 to 8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."
"People from the South read a bit more than those from other regions..."
Interesting. I figure if liberals can claim they're smarter because they read more, I guess they can't make fun of the South anymore.
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." - Mark Twain
So, what prevents someone
August 21, 2007 - 16:51 ET by ErgoDyneSo, what prevents someone from lying on this poll to make themselves look better?
Your average liberal arts student is required to read more books than a science student.
Eh, little things, but it makes me curious about this population they interviewed.
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." - Mark Twain
I'll bet the science
August 22, 2007 - 14:07 ET by pbanks7I'll bet the science books are thicker and harder to read, too. They may even include formulae.
(That reminds me, the Kalamazoo Public Schools once had a radio ad that mentioned "curriculums" twice. It took them two days before they pulled the ad. I laughed my azz off).
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Pat Schroeder... I think
August 21, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Airforce_5_OPat Schroeder... I think the last time I saw this woman she was crying because she had to pull out of the Dem Race way back when.
Now I have to believe what she has to say about libs and books?
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Half the Dems read comic books and the other half look at the pictures. There Patty, now we are even
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
On Schroeder
August 22, 2007 - 01:17 ET by UnsaneThat was 1987, and the racket back then (having lived in Denver at the time) was that she was going to make a run for President. It was bandied about for some time until she called a press conference at which she announced that she would NOT run. And yes, she did in fact cry.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
conservatives and books
August 21, 2007 - 17:03 ET by Bill HobbsA few possibilities:
Now, if you'll excuse me I have to get back to work. (Though I would recommend to any liberal reading that they spend some time reading Stephen Mansfield's excellent non-fiction work "Ten Tortured Words: How the Founding Fathers Tried to Protect Religion in America...and What's Happened Since." Read it, libs, you might learn something.)
When Iwas younger I used to
August 21, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Dan The Man 2When Iwas younger I used to read 2 books a week. I still read but most of it is on the net and the only book I find time to read is the Bible. I am currently reading the Bible in a year. I need to study some specific ideas and passages but have been lazy lately. I think book reading has gone down because of the information on the web.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
After all, how can you be
August 21, 2007 - 17:26 ET by motherbeltAfter all, how can you be for the common man if you regard him as an ignorant dolt?
Easy...you promise to take care of him from cradle to grave, since he's too dumb to take care of himself!
Well-read Conservatives
August 21, 2007 - 17:38 ET by landsharkDid anyone hear Karl Rove on Rush' show last week? He talked about a contest between himself and the president; how many books they could read in a year. A few years back they both managed over 100 books each.
Granted, some were detective novels but there was a lot of non-fiction too.
I don't have a work schedule anywhere near as packed as either of them and I'm lucky to top out at 12-15 per year.
Actually, landshark
August 21, 2007 - 17:41 ET by RJ...MOST of it was non-fiction. Rove said they had a limit on the number of detective novels they could read.
"After all, how can you
August 21, 2007 - 17:42 ET by Chris Norman"After all, how can you be for the common man if you regard him as an ignorant dolt?"
Matthew,
It reminds me of hippies (who these old liberals probably used to be) trying to identify with "the working class", by wearing denim shirts and jeans - they thought that made them "of the people" - in and of itself an elitist (not to mention shallow) attitude.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
There is one subject that
August 21, 2007 - 17:43 ET by Clear thinkerThere is one subject that liberals may have a leg up on conservatives when it comes to reading.... they seem to love anything about conspiracies.
Reading alot does not mean anything unless you comprehend what you read, and considering liberals are so bad at figuring out reality, I'm guessing their comprehension levels are very, very low.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Lol. Who doesn't love a
August 21, 2007 - 19:20 ET by balboaLol. Who doesn't love a good conspiracy book?
Book reading has no political designation. I read. You read. Some friends I have read everything, some read nothing. I have friends drawn to bleak biographies, others who love nothing but mass distribution paperbacks.They're all different politically.
CT, Compared to
August 21, 2007 - 19:27 ET by Trix RabbitCT,
Compared to conservatives, of course the liberals have a leg up on reading. Especially if the source is vulgar, morally bankrupt, slanderous, and Marxist...like Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Mikey Moore for example.
What these alleged writers have in common is a lack of actual research on primary documents and footnotes with references to someone other than themselves.
Their intention is directed towards control of their reader’s thinking, to exploit their ignorance to their advantage, and then exhort them to think for themselves while denying them the possibility of doing precisely that, lest they stray into...well, conservatism.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
Never read any of those
August 21, 2007 - 19:29 ET by balboaNever read any of those authors.
Venting Poetic!
August 21, 2007 - 18:55 ET by CrashLiberals love books so they can color them in using their lead tainted crayons, while tripping the light fantastic on acrid snipes. This is as proposterous a notion as any.
Perhaps conservatives don't pay patronage to loopy liberal bookstores (we shop on-line, saves gas and time). I did such a thing when I entered a Capital Hill bookstore, in DC, last year. The owner of the shop was out of her F-ing mind. Upon exiting the far left experience, I adapted a quote from one of Dashiell Hammett's books, "Madam, I don't mind idiotic notions, as long as you keep them to yourself."
I send like sentiments to the honorary bindlestiff from Colorado, Pat Schroeder (D).
Double talk
August 21, 2007 - 19:20 ET by nkviking75"She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who "can't say anything in less than paragraphs." Alternate translation: It takes more than twice as many words to accomplish liberal doubletalk.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I just checked the New York
August 21, 2007 - 19:31 ET by Jack BauerI just checked the New York Times Fiction Bestsellers list
Sorry but apart from #1 and #16... all these books sound like they would be favored by conservatives as opposed to liberals.
I mean is anyone sertiously buying that liberals read crime fiction, evil Islamic terrorists, bounty hunters, assassins, Mossad agents, fantasy, science fiction.
This is all way too low brow for liberals.
Strongly recommend "Tin Roof Blowdown"
August 21, 2007 - 19:37 ET by RJIt's another superlative effort by James Lee Burke. Takes place in New Orleans immediately after Katrina and spins a great "detective" yarn around NO and surrounding area. He gives a great concept of what it must have been like there. There's a couple of liberal references, but he mostly keeps it broad-brush. Excellent read!
RJ -- Blonde should be here
August 21, 2007 - 20:28 ET by Jack BauerRJ -- Blonde should be here to talk about Carl Hiassen and Michael Connelly!
Thanks for the Burke h/t. I'll check him out.
Blonde and I have often
August 21, 2007 - 20:31 ET by balboaBlonde and I have often discussed Hiaasen, who is a riot. He and Harlan Coben are two of my faves.
bal -- ARTICULATE. Have
August 22, 2007 - 04:24 ET by Jack Bauerbal -- ARTICULATE.
Have to admit after a five year hiatus since 9/11, I was diappointed with Harlan's latest/last Bolitar book, Promise Me.
He's run out of steam on the great Myron, sorry to say.
Hiaasen is good, but
August 21, 2007 - 20:48 ET by RJI have to admit to tiring of his style. I have a problem with authors who stay the same and don't "grow" either their style or their characters. Can't get past more than a couple of "series" books.
For me, Burke is the only exception. Reading him is a treat, but the books-on-tape might be even better, because of the accents and the sense of place they give.
While we're in the "reading corner", I'd like to put in a plug for a relatively unknown author. Daniel Woodrell is an American who is pretty popular in Europe but not so much in the U.S. He's published nine books so far, and is like nothing you've ever read...well maybe a modern Faulkner.
I don't know if I can read
August 21, 2007 - 19:38 ET by balboaI don't know if I can read a book by "Brad Thor." That can't be his real name.
Spook Country sounds promising.
Jack... I don't know if
August 21, 2007 - 19:45 ET by bigtimerJack...
I don't know if you will believe it or not....I was replying to your post and my damned power went out here in the middle of no where....
All I was going to try to succinctly say is ....
I do not know how you do it all man.....
You are special.
"13 THE BOURNE BETRAYAL,
August 21, 2007 - 20:34 ET by RESTLESS 1"13 THE BOURNE BETRAYAL, by Eric Van Lustbader. (Warner, $25.99.)
Robert Ludlum’s character Jason Bourne tangles with a group of
diabolical Islamic terrorists. 9 10"
Does this mean another Bourne movie in the future? I hope so as I do enjoy this series.
so well read
August 21, 2007 - 20:25 ET by kdizzydazeSo let me get this straight. The libs read much more than conservatives. Wouldn't that then mean that they would be "well read"? And with being "well read", wouldn't that also mean a typically larger vocabulary, therefore aiding in them having a greater understanding of the english language and thus, a much higher capacity to communicate with people? So why is it when I ask my liberal friends to merely explain or articulate their position(s) (by using facts) they tell me to go to hell or they just don't respond at all?
That simply makes no sense.
Deadon kdizzy. A brief
August 21, 2007 - 20:33 ET by BlazerDeadon kdizzy. A brief interlude over to DKOS, or Pandagon, and most folks will find these liberals are "well read", if the writings on a bathroom stall count as a manuscript that is.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
"(34 percent of respondents
August 21, 2007 - 20:29 ET by RESTLESS 1"(34 percent of respondents self-identified as conservative while 25 percent said they were liberal)."
Based on these numbers, I can definitively say without hesitation that Consvertaves outnumber liberals by 9 percentage points +/- 0 for error.
See, this thread isn't all bad news. :>)
Restless... Dang are ya
August 21, 2007 - 20:33 ET by bigtimerRestless...
Dang are ya sure you got those figures right?
Evening BT, I'll use
August 21, 2007 - 20:40 ET by RESTLESS 1Evening BT,
I'll use liberal logic when it works in our favor. :>)
Restless... I count on
August 21, 2007 - 20:43 ET by bigtimerRestless...
I count on that...
That's why I have always loved ya!
Always will too.
Nothing you can do about it.
Keyword here is self-identify
August 21, 2007 - 20:43 ET by Matthew SheffieldThis is one of many polls proving that Democrats are far more likely to label themselves moderate than Republicans.
That self-deluded tendency works in the media as well where many elite reporters truly and honestly do not think that they're liberal Democrats.
It is true that liberals
August 21, 2007 - 20:57 ET by RESTLESS 1It is true that liberals don't see themselves that way. I have met some liberals who are truly moderate ( IE, they believe in personal responsibility, gun ownership, less taxes, etc...), and for the most part, they realize they are not liberal in the way Hollywood or the media is liberal. I think that these clowns surround themselves with like minded people and they never see the other (logical) side of the argument.
Also, as noted in another thread a few days ago, their never ending search for "cool" directs their beliefs in directions counter to the mainstream.
Bottom line, liberals are shallow. IMHO.
I personally think that Liberals (L) don't read at all.
August 21, 2007 - 22:52 ET by acaiguanaOh, you have to detract from the comic book character type of reading and I believe that the reading is not the issue at all either.
This is a canard with a capital 'C'.
This article is simply a reflection of the thinking that the 'Children' with the library reading programs of course, are smarter and more educated and lucid than the so-called unwashed.
Poppycock.
I was a reader. A real reader. In redneck America where the intellectual whether the person desired it was teased about being a bookworm; a causality of elitism; an 'intellectual' who could not form concrete with their hands.
So, where were these intellectual defenders and coat on pegs behind the screen door rags that fit Dostoevskii's picture on the book cover - hence intellectual.
This survey and its ilk are only responsible for the 'stroking' of the protelariat!"
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Online Reading
August 21, 2007 - 23:20 ET by AtheistRepublicanIf I had to answer how many books I've read this year, I wouldn't be able to say....
I've been reading alot of novels and short stories online lately, and I don't know at what point does it count as a book? Surely it should count, because, I mean effectively it is the same thing as a book... If I had to guess I would probably say between 10 and 20. Then apparently textbooks count? Technical manuals count? Well I guess thats more like 16-26, but wait do you mean this year as in 07 or as in the last 12 months, I mean I did alot of reading in the winter of 06, thats maybe 5 more books? Oh but then you have to add in the text books from those four months in 06, so thats another 4 textbooks, and maybe one technical manual... so thats.... 26-36, probably upper middle of that? I don't know! Wait whats this? Identify my politics? Well I'm no moderate! Liberal? Whaa, um no. Conservative? Do you have maybe another option? Well I identify as a Libertarian. No.. I didn't say liberal. Really, I would rather be considered a Conserva- *questioners next question begins*
Oh and so you understand my point, how are we supposed to know how many books we've read in the past year, and isn't the methodology of this a tad bit flawed? I don't keep a running toll or anything, who would, and I can't possibly remember every book I've read....
Pat Schroeder
August 21, 2007 - 23:26 ET by daveinbocais one of those airheads that give even liberals a bad name. This creature used to put smiley-faces next to her name when in Congress. She gained notoriety when she wept as she gave up an ill-considered attempt at the Presidency. What happened to empty-headed liberals happened to her---a faineant job for an incompetent idiot who never did do a decent day's work in her life. Wonder what they pay this ancient fossil for insulting readers of conservative books? But then, this association probably has zero influence anywhere and is now in the minus-column as to leadership with this bozette in charge.
This prattling smiley-face LOOOOZER says liberals read a lot more than conservatives---citing exactly one poll to back up her errant nonsense. Mary Matalin gently lets this PMS gasbag off the hook:
Schroeder, like many other preening ninnies who style themselves "liberals," get high sniffing their own flatulence.
And Schroeder, best known for her fatuous tears, now also is known for bashing part of her own constituency as the head of a non-profit.
And getting high sniffing her own farts.
I was going to post
August 22, 2007 - 01:45 ET by Prez RudyI was going to post something about all this, but i just decided I didn't want to read the column...sorry..i couldn't resist! LOL
Highly Scientific Study
August 22, 2007 - 05:22 ET by CrossWiseRangerWell, I guess the debate is over -- this proves liberals are more intelligent, literate, and knowledgeable.
Conservatives probably spend more time reading the Bible than liberals do period. Did the pollsters even count the Bible as a valid book for reading?
Maybe they could do another poll on plate size and extrapolate the effects on global warming. Or, maybe plate color and the propensity of those who use Aryan-eye-blue to hate illegal aliens. This looks like a new scientific field that needs government funding for research.
-- The problem is not that we are ignorant; rather, it is that so much of what we know is not true. --
"The poll involved
August 22, 2007 - 07:15 ET by midnight cowboy"The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,003 adults and was conducted August 6 to 8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points"
This is a worthless poll.The first and second week of August are the biggest summer vacation weeks. Conducting any poll when perhaps 20% or so of the respondents are not home makes the results suspect.