This site has conducted an unscientific survey on various issues since July of 1998. The results, while interesting in most cases, are to be taken with a grain of salt — the results can easily be skewed by an individual or group of individuals; the sample is, by nature, not representative (because it consists only of Web users who visit my site and bother to view the survey page and submit an opinion).
This page includes results from 2010. For results from other years, please go to the Main Results Page.
Question 147, December 2010 On December 6, President Barack Obama announced a compromise with congressional Republicans that extend the Bush-era tax cuts to all Americans for two years in exchange for, among other things, an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 months. Good deal or bad deal?
|The President did the right thing by compromising||95||37.85|
|The new Republican majority gave the President no choice but to compromise||83||33.07|
|The President should have resisted the tax cut extension - Republicans would not have let the unemployed suffer||63||25.10|
|I have no opinion||10||3.98|
Question 146, November 2010 What do you feel is the prevailing reason for the Republican wins in the November election?
|General dissatisfaction with President Obama||166||31.86|
|General dissatisfaction with the Democratic Congress||125||23.99|
|Rise of the Tea Party||71||13.63|
|Health care concerns||14||2.69|
Question 145, October 2010 What are your plans for the November election? (Note: results of this poll are through November 2.)
|I will vote on election day||1067||67.70|
|I will vote, but early||352||22.34|
|I'm unsure yet if I will vote||29||1.84|
|I am not registered to vote||14||0.89|
|I'm not old enough to vote yet||79||5.01|
|I will not be voting in November||35||2.22|
Question 144, August/September 2010 By the of August, President Barack Obama planned to have pulled all combat troops out of Iraq, leaving 50,000 troops behind for security and training. Is this the right thing to do?
Question 143 (July 2010) Each July, this survey will be offered, allowing us to track, over time, the political persuasion of our visitors. Questions are asked about party affiliation as well as economic and social ranking on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 being very conservative and 9 being very liberal).
|Response||Count||Percentage||Avg Econ||Avg Soc|
Notable "Other" parties: Tea Party, Conservative, New Whig
|1 = Very Conservative||727||32.08||65.09|
|5 = Moderate||246||10.86|
|9 = Very Liberal||97||4.28|
|1 = Very Conservative||650||28.68||52.12|
|5 = Moderate||244||10.77|
|9 = Very Liberal||314||13.86|
Question 142, June 2010 Whom do you blame most for the on-going Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster?
|BP - lessor of the oil rig||313||29.01|
|Halliburton - contractor, responsible for final cementing of the oil well||78||7.23|
|Transocean - majority owner of the oil rig||34||3.15|
|Andarko Petroleum - minority owner of the oil rig||0||0.00|
|Cameron International - supplier of the failed blow-out preventer||43||3.99|
|Private Sector Total||468||43.37|
|The Government generally||147||13.62|
|The Obama Administration generally||234||21.69|
|The Minerals Management Service - government regulator of off-shore oil rigs||142||13.16|
|Public Sector Total||523||48.47|
|No one is to blame||88||8.16|
Question 141, May 2010 Following the Deepwater Horizon disaster off the shore of Louisiana, what are your feelings about opening up American offshore drilling sites?
|I supported it - and support it more now||327||33.33|
|I supported it - and still do at the same level||310||31.60|
|I supported it - and still do, but less enthusiastically||62||6.32|
|I supported it - but no longer do||43||4.38|
|I did not support it - and am just as opposed as before||74||7.54|
|I did not support it - and now I am vehemently against it||141||14.37|
|I have no opinion||24||2.45|
Question 140, April 2010 Simple question: The Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the Health Care Act) — constitutional or not?
Question 139, March 2010 Since its early days, the Senate has allowed unlimited debate. This means that as long as a Senator had something to say on a bill, the bill could not come to a vote. This was eventually used as a tactic to kill a bill — a Senator or group of Senators would take to the floor and "debate" without stopping. Sometimes this debate entailed reading entries from a phone book or recipe book. In 1917, the cloture rule was introduced, allowing debate to be terminated by two-thirds of those casting a vote. The two-thirds rule was changed to two-thirds of all seated Senators in 1949, and in 1975, the number was reduced to three-fifths. Many have argued that the filibuster and cloture rules allow the minority to override the will of the majority. Others argue that these rules protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Who is right?
|The filibuster is anti-democratic and should be eliminated entirely.||94||13.60|
|Filibuster rules should be changed to ensure all Senators have a chance to speak, but to eventually allow bills to come to a vote.||223||32.27|
|The filibuster is a critical part of the Senate, and eliminating it would destroy the Senate.||374||54.12|
Question 138, February 2010 After the election of 2008, and the seating in the Senate of Minnesota Senator Al Franken, Democrats enjoyed large majorities in both the House and Senate and a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate. Despite this, many Americans were dismayed when Congress could not seem to get any constructive law passed. With the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate, the Democrats have lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Do you think this will help Congress get some work done, or not?
|The election of Scott Brown is going to force Democrats to work with Republicans, and the result will be better law.||137||45.82|
|The election of Scott Brown restores the filibuster to the Republicans, and will make gridlock in Washington even worse.||89||29.77|
|The election of Scott Brown just means Democrats will make more unseemly deals with Republicans, instead of unseemly deals with other Democrats.||73||24.41|
Question 137, January 2010 On Christmas Day in 2009, a terrorist attempted to blow up an airliner as it landed in Detroit. Liquid explosives has been smuggled onto the plane in a syringe that had not been detected as the man passed through security in Amsterdam. Calls have gone out for increased use of millimeter wave scan technology to do full-body scans of passengers, which allow screeners to "see" what's underneath the passenger's clothing. Privacy advocates, however, decry the increased use of routine scans as unnecessary invasions of personal privacy. What do you think?
|All passengers should be subjected to the full-body scan. We cannot be too safe.||301||34.48|
|The full-body scan should be used when screeners have questions about an individual passenger.||192||21.99|
|Full-body scanners are an invasion of privacy and could be dangerous — they should not be used on anyone.||179||20.50|
|Full-body scanners are just security theater — they look impressive but will not keep anyone safe, and are a waste of time and money.||201||23.02|