Test Your News IQ with the Pew Research Quiz
Test your knowledge of the major political parties by taking the Pew Research Center's short 13-question quiz. Then see how you did in comparison with 1,000 randomly
sampled adults asked the same questions in a national survey conducted
Mar. 29-Apr. 1.
40 Comments:
Whoo! Scored better than 92% of the population! I am the 8%!
Whoope! I'm an 8% also...
Actually what this test is really indicative of is just how abysmally uninformed the electorate is and this is what's brought into the polling booth on election day...
Damned sad!
I am an 8%, too. Why 13 questions?
I'm guessing that just about anyone who's interested enough in politics to follow this blog will get 13 right, or at least 12.
For pete's sake, only 67% of college graduates know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican? I think I'm going to have to agree with Juandos on this one.
I'm guessing that just about anyone who's interested enough in politics to follow this blog will get 13 right, or at least 12.
For pete's sake, only 67% of college graduates know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican? I think I'm going to have to agree with Juandos on this one.
am i the only one that finds this question highly disingenuous?
"2. Which party is generally more supportive of increasing taxes on higher income people to reduce the federal budget deficit?"
i wholeheartedly agree that the dems want to raise taxes on the upper income folks, but to "reduce the deficit"? of that, i see no evidence. they seem interested in upping spending and increasing entitlement programs and wealth redistribution, while playing sneaky budget scoring games to hide that fact, but despite occasional lip service, describing them as "deficit cutters" seems pretty far fetched.
No, I agree Morganovich. The whole thing deals with stereotypes and not with facts.
Morganovich,
"..of that, i see no evidence. they seem interested in upping spending and increasing entitlement programs and wealth redistribution"
Also, "fairness." Democrats appeal to the lowest common denominator: "These SOB's are doing better than you, that's not fair!"
As usual, Obama provides a classic example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE
"The whole thing deals with stereotypes and not with facts"...
Well jm I don't disagree with your description of sterotyping but if one considers it all in black and white terms 'maybe' the Republicans are marginally better at wanting people to keep their own wealth vs the Democrats...
13 out of 13 correct. This was a really easy quiz. Anyone who reads this blog should also get a 13 out of 13.
Juandos,
"'maybe' the Republicans are marginally better at wanting people to keep their own wealth vs the Democrats..."
Oh, I think it's much more concrete than that. Reading "Debacle" by Grover Norquist and John Lott. They point out in 2011, 238 sitting House members and 41 Senators signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge (not to raise taxes.) Only 6 Repubs in the House and 7 in the Senate refused to sign. All but 1 of those who refused to sign still declared they oppose all net tax hikes.
Only 2 Democrats running for the House or Senate signed the pledge.
Well jm I don't disagree with your description of sterotyping but if one considers it all in black and white terms 'maybe' the Republicans are marginally better at wanting people to keep their own wealth vs the Democrats...
Eh, I see it as more of a "meet the new boss same as the old boss" situation. While Dems favor taxes, Republicans favor protectionist trade policies. Each are taxes.
But then again, I am a reformed anarchist, so my views may be cynical.
Jon,
"While Dems favor taxes, Republicans favor protectionist trade policies. Each are taxes."
Ha, I know I'm coming off as the GOP shill, but I disagree. Big Labor opposes any and all free trade agreements, and they are lock,stock, and barrel behind the Democrat party.
More GOP(132) voted for Nafta than Democrats(102.) More Democrats(156) voted against than GOP(43.) Also, the 3 FTA's past last yr were even more lopsided:
"In the House, 219 Republicans and 59 Democrats voted for the KORUS bill, while 21 Republicans and 130 Democrats voted against it. In the Senate, 37 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted “yes” for the deal with Korea, while 14 Democrats and one Republican (Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine) voted “no.”
In the Panama FTA House vote, 234 Republicans and 66 Democrats voted for, and six Republicans and 123 Democrats voted against the measure; in the Senate’s 77-22 vote, the “no” votes all came from Democrats, plus independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).
The Colombia FTA was approved in the House by 231 Republicans and 31 Democrats, while nine Republicans and 158 Democrats voted against it; the Senate approved the agreement by a 66-33 vote, with 30 of the “no” votes coming from Democrats, one from Sanders, and two from Republicans (Snowe and her colleague from Maine, Sen. Susan Collins.)"
"Oh, I think it's much more concrete than that. Reading "Debacle" by Grover Norquist and John Lott"...
Well actually paul I was trying to be a bit politic with my opinion but like you I'm reading Debacle (a damned good read but depressing too) but having said that I still remember the damage done by the not so clever R.I.N.O. Richard Nixon who's support of policies thirty years ago are still hurting us today...
Can we say 'E - P - A'?
Now that's a tax with both massive over reach and wealth destroying power that is apparently endless...
Chris Christie
Governor of New Jersey
April 10, 2012
George W. Bush introduced Christie by praising his "enormous personality:"
"I've never seen a less optimistic time in my lifetime...I think it’s really simple. It’s because government’s now telling them 'stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you.'
We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society. That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally.
When the American people no longer believe that this is a place where only their willingness to work hard and to act with honor and integrity and ingenuity determines their success in life, then we’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check."
From the Pew Research Center dated Nov. of '11 is the following and it aint pretty:
What the Public Knows - In Words and Pictures
Juandos,
Ha, yeah Nixon was a piece of....
But as I've said here often, there are lots of bad Republicans. There are no good Democrats.
This ticked me off:
Which party is generally more supportive of expanding the rights of gays and lesbians?
Given the correct answer, the word should have been "inventing" rather than "expanding."
I got them all right, but I feel dirty. I disagree with many of the characterizations here. For example, I think Republicans want to expand the rights (or more accurately) restore everyone's rights, including those of gays and lesbians - since they are people too. Democrats want to grant them special privileged, such as to change the definition of words (like marriage).
Other questions also bothered me, but i can't remember all of them - do democrats really want to raise taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit? Last time I checked they wanted to do it to fund more programs or for "fairness" even if it doesn't bring in more money. I found this quiz to be pretty generous to Democrats.
It's gotta be a trick. Way way way too easy. Something is up. I say that it is some sort of a trick. Maybe they want to make one part of the demographic look good or bad..... Not even a test. I'm sure everybody scored far higher than they indicate.
13 out of 13 correct. This was a really easy quiz. Anyone who reads this blog should also get a 13 out of 13.
I got 13 right too but I do not believe that the questions are very good or very accurate. They are set up as if there was some material difference between the two parties when there isn't. The GOP is supposedly for reducing government but never seems to be willing to make cuts. The Democrats are supposed to be for civil liberties but are no better on that issue than the GOP. As far as I am concerned the quiz shows that the Pew people are either ignorant or just playing politics with gullible readers.
"They are set up as if there was some material difference between the two parties when there isn't."
Except, of course, when there are massive differences like taxes, gun rights, abortion, and drilling for oil. Even on spending the GOP is nowhere near as nuts as the current Democrat party.
Except, of course, when there are massive differences like taxes, gun rights, abortion, and drilling for oil. Even on spending the GOP is nowhere near as nuts as the current Democrat party.
I guess you fail that question. Look at the Ryan Plan and see how he INCREASED spending just like Obama. Look at the GOP position on defence spending and tell me that they are fiscally sound. Nixon created the EPA and gave you price and wage controls. Bush gave you Medicare Part D. Johnson gave you Vietnam and Wilson gave you WWI. Notice the pattern that matters? There is no material difference between the two parties because they are both in favour of expanding the size and scope of the federal government.
"Johnson gave you Vietnam..."...
No Johnson didn't give us Vietnam, Kennedy did via the SEATO accords...
Johnson merely carried on as was expected of him...
What Johnson gave us was the 'Great Pander to Parasites Society' crapola...
Vangel,
Every time I point out specific differences, you dishonestly change the subject to other sins the GOP has committed. I never said Republicans were perfect, I said they generally have very different positions than Democrats on several issues.
"Look at the Ryan Plan and see how he INCREASED spending just like Obama."
Your argument is pure nonsense. He may increase overall spending, but it's not "just like Obama." For example, Ryan's plan repeals Obamacare and turns Medicaid into blocks grants. Ryan’s plan would cut the top tax corporate and personal tax rates to 25 percent, down from 35 percent.
Oh, but I guess that's not enough difference to people who read Lew Rockwell on the crapper.
"Johnson gave you Vietnam and Wilson gave you WWI."
So what is that supposed to mean? Both were Democrats.
Again, I pointed out specific differences and your reply is non-sequitur "yeah, well Nixon created the EPA."
13 out of 13... I agree with a few of the others here... this is a sad commentary on the citizenry.
I wonder if this quiz was on reality shows, Hollywood stars and celebrities, if the general public would have scored much higher.
Paul, Vangel, please!
Let's not fight among ourselves. I think we can all agree that this country were renamed Byzantium, Washington DC were renamed Constantinople, and the Emperor Jon Murphy be returned to the Imperial Throne.
michael-
"
Which party is generally more supportive of expanding the rights of gays and lesbians?
Given the correct answer, the word should have been "inventing" rather than "expanding.""
while i generally agree with your characterization on rights and really dislike any kind of special treatment or "hate crime" notions, i think that question was aimed at the debate about gay marriage, and issue that i think the dems are more supportive of (and with which i agree).
while i think the GOP are better protectors of rights overall, i think they are on the wrong side of that one. people should be free to marry whomever they choose. it is none of the state's business.
Your argument is pure nonsense. He may increase overall spending, but it's not "just like Obama." For example, Ryan's plan repeals Obamacare and turns Medicaid into blocks grants. Ryan’s plan would cut the top tax corporate and personal tax rates to 25 percent, down from 35 percent.
Actually, it is WORSE than Obama. The first year that Ryan shows a surplus is 2040. And we all know that the only year that counts is the next budget year.
As I pointed out above, when it comes to growing government the Democrats and Republicans are the same.
Which party is generally more supportive of expanding the rights of gays and lesbians?
Let me point out that historically both parties have a terrible record of protecting the rights of members of minority groups. Both the GOP and Democrats used local police forces and judges to harass gay people who minded their own business and just wanted to be left in peace. Who protected the privacy of gays from prosecution? Well, let Thaddeus Russell tell the story.
Though famous for their ultra-masculinity, gangsters were nonetheless instrumental in fostering and protecting the gay subculture during the hostile years of World War II and the 1950s. Vito Genovese and Carlo Gambino, leaders of the largest and most powerful crime families in New York, began investing in gay bars in the early 1930s.
By the 1950s, most of the gay bars in New York were owned by the mob. Because of the mafia's connections with the police department and willingness to bribe officers, patrons of mob-owned bars were often protected from the police raids that dominated gay life in the 1950s. The Stonewall Inn on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village had been a straight restaurant and a straight nightclub for many years when it was purchased in 1966 by three associates of the Genovese family and converted into a gay bar.
Many of the Mafiosi who managed the Stonewall and other gay clubs were themselves gay. The Stonewall's manager was a man named Ed "The Skull" Murphy, a lifelong hood and ex-convict who chose to work as a bouncer at many of New York's first gay clubs because he found it an easy way to meet and have sex with men. Murphy was also known for his fondness for black and Latino men, which contributed to the Stonewall's reputation as the most racially diverse bar--gay or straight--in New York City.
The famous raid on the Stonewall in 1969 that gave rise to the Gay Liberation movement was actually part of a federal sting operation directed at the mob. The New York Police Department was not notified of the operation until the last minute, when it was forced by federal officers -- who, unlike the city cops, were not on the mob payroll--to conduct the raid. Over the next decade, Murphy and the Genovese family funded the Gay Pride marches that became annual, international demonstrations of sexual freedom, and Murphy rode the route every year in an open-top car wearing a crown and a sash that declared him "The Mayor of Christopher Street."
"Actually, it is WORSE than Obama. The first year that Ryan shows a surplus is 2040. And we all know that the only year that counts is the next budget year."
Obama's own projections never comes close to balancing the budget.
Ryan would spend next less yr than Obama.
How the hell is that worse? You're starting to sound like Benji.
So, what I'm hearing is no one likes my emperor idea
Obama's own projections never comes close to balancing the budget.
True. But Ryan's budget will never balance either. Both are blowing smoke and both use projections that are not very realistic. What matters is not 2040 but next year. And if you look at both proposals both are failures because they grow the government significantly and increase spending.
Ryan would spend next less yr than Obama.
Big deal. When you are looking at a multi-trillion dollar GAAP deficit a few piddly billion is a rounding error.
How the hell is that worse? You're starting to sound like Benji.
When so-called fiscal conservatives increase spending and deficits it is a big deal. The Dems are retards who do not believe in fiscal prudence so I have no expectations of them. But when you have so called fiscal conservatives fail so miserably it is a hell of a lot worse.
Vangel,
I don't know how to reconcile your nonsense. You just stick to your scripted lies no matter how many times I point out the actual facts.
Case in point:
"What matters is not 2040 but next year. And if you look at both proposals both are failures because they grow the government significantly and increase spending."
and then in the very next line!..
"Big deal. When you are looking at a multi-trillion dollar GAAP deficit a few piddly billion is a rounding error."
So you continue to say Ryan increases spending, although you concede in the VERY NEXT COMMENT he cuts it by "a few piddly billion."
Those are the kind of unbelievably obvious lies, and they can't be anything other than lies, that signify how pointless it is to debate you. You're far too deep into that weird Lew Rockwell cult to ever discuss anything honestly.
"When so-called fiscal conservatives increase spending and deficits it is a big deal. The Dems are retards who do not believe in fiscal prudence so I have no expectations of them. But when you have so called fiscal conservatives fail so miserably it is a hell of a lot worse."
Aah, now I get it! Ryan's plan is worse than Obama's because even though it's demonstrably better, it's still not good enough!
Fascinating logic you employ there, Vangel. Von Mises would be proud.
So you continue to say Ryan increases spending, although you concede in the VERY NEXT COMMENT he cuts it by "a few piddly billion."
No. He increases spending by a few billion less than Obama, who increases spending a bit faster. Why is it that you have no clue about what the Ryan budget is proposing yet keep talking as if there was a material difference between his proposal and that of Obama?
When it comes to the amount of spending there is no big difference. Both sides will grow the size of government and both sides want the Fed to devalue the currency. Both are driving the bus towards the cliff. The only difference is the lane that they take towards it. And that is irrelevant.
Those are the kind of unbelievably obvious lies, and they can't be anything other than lies, that signify how pointless it is to debate you. You're far too deep into that weird Lew Rockwell cult to ever discuss anything honestly.
Your ignorance of the facts is not my problem. Ryan's budget proposal calls for an increase from the current $3.5 trillion or so to around $5 trillion in 10 years. That is not a real spending cut.
I suggest that Republicans need to stop listening to Fox and start paying attention to the facts. They are just as ignorant about this issue as the Democrats.
Hey paul I don't know if the following from Investors Business Daily will shed some light on the situation regarding Ryan but you might want to take a squint at it all the same: 'Radical' Ryan Budget Spends 46% More than Clinton's
'Radical' Ryan Budget Spends 46% More than Clinton's
For some reason the GOP does not really want to discuss this little problem. That is why few people who are real fiscal conservatives have much use for Ryan's posturing and half assed effort. What are needed are real cuts in spending and a rollback of the state.
"For some reason the GOP does not really want to discuss this little problem"...
Well vangeIV there's a reason why the 'GOP' moniker is the minds of many the samething as R.I.N.O....
Real conservatives whether they're fiscal and or constitutional don't take the GOP to seriously anymore...
Hence the T.E.A. party...
"What are needed are real cuts in spending and a rollback of the state"...
Sen. Rand Paul had a few ideas and ended up being treated as some sort of leper...
Sen. Rand Paul had a few ideas and ended up being treated as some sort of leper...
That is because the GOP cares far more about politics than it does about liberty and fiscal responsibility.
Post a Comment
<< Home