This position puts the activists in attendance out of step not only with the American people, but with the broader membership of the organization.
fringe gun activist
hardline organization
discredited right-wing website
known for its conspiracy theories
Oh right, only the 'Fringe' , hard-line, fanatic members attend meetings.
They are so sure of themselves they need to continue to demonize their opponents and poison the well knowing full well that membership has increased by the hundreds of thousands in the last 5 months. I signed/re-signed up 4 weekend before last. Makes you wonder how if these hundreds aren't representative of the 5m NRA members, how is a poll of a thousand + representative of 300 million?
3 comments:
How? The same way a survey of 251 people from two decades ago (mostly before background checks were mandatory) is still a valid source for the "40%" number. It's valid because they like it; it fits The Narrative.
They'd also like it if the majority of NRA members supported gun-prohibitionist goals, so the NRA leadership MUST be out-of-touch. Any other conclusion, no matter how likely/valid/supported/repeatable, is abhorrent to the Media Matters point-of-view, and is summarily disregarded.
Facts? Evidence? Support? Logic? Trouble them not with such things, for they are beneath the "enlightened" minds of the writers at Media Matters. *snerk*
Sigh... games being played...
Makes you wonder how if these hundreds aren't representative of the 5m NRA members, how is a poll of a thousand + representative of 300 million?
Well, if you do the poll right, it's randomly selected.
And attendance at a meeting is very much self-selected.
So at the level of statistics and sampling, they're right - a self-selected hundreds, even if the sample size is larger, can easily be far less representative than a random poll of a smaller relative number of people.
(I think they're dead wrong on the substantive issue, but the sampling and selection bias issue is irrelevant to that.)
Post a Comment