Public Policy Polling's latest national survey included an interesting question about the nation's leading lobbying organization on guns: "Much has been made in recent weeks about the NRA's political strength, but PPP's newest national poll finds more voters consider their endorsement to be a negative than a positive. 39% say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who had the NRA's support to just 26% who say they'd be more likely to."
I put together a nice little pie chart to help drive the point home.
Among self-identified independent voters, the results were roughly the same: PPP found that "41% consider an NRA endorsement to be a turn off to 27% who say it's a plus."
Annie-Rose Strasser added, "This information serves to bust the myth that the NRA is an all-powerful lobbying group that dictates political outcomes. While the organization may enjoy wide support among those politicians whose campaigns it bankrolls, soon there may be few of such politicians left; in 2012, only .81 percent of the group’s spending went to politicians who won. And if the NRA is having a negative influence on swing voters as well, then it really has no sway on political elections overall."
In related news, former Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), the head of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership, said women voters, in particular, will continue to keep their distance from the GOP so long as the party "is seen as in the pocket of the NRA and not willing to engage in the conversation."
Leave a Comment:
Really, Steve? A pie chart? Tufte is rolling over in his grave. Well, maybe in his classroom.
Just wait, the powerpoint is next.
I prefer bar graphs to wonk pie charts..............
This is good news, but there's no need to distort it to make it seem even better. The front edge of the pie dish, which shouldn't be shown at all and certanly not colored nearly the same as the Less Likely portion on top, makes the latter seem much greater than 39%. Please don't do that, Steve.
No problem with pie charts here, though they should always be 2D. The depth adds no information and only serves to visually distort the segments based on perspective.
On the substance, this just further reinforces what we already know: the NRA is today a purely partisan organization. Guns are not a wedge issue, but a base issue, and subject to the same extremism and backlash as the party's stances on abortion and taxes. They have acquired near-universal dominance on their issue within the Republican party, but at the cost of losing relevance on that issue with Democrats and independents.
That's the real danger of homogenization and purification within any organization. The more they weed out dissent and ensure that everyone shares the same views on an issue, the more they reinforce each other, and then they inevitably move as a group to a far more extreme point than any of them would have liked as individuals. And whatever you may think about the country as being center-left or center-right, our collective diversity means that as a whole we do not like extremism.
Thanks, tamiasmin and Nathan, for explaining what's wrong with 3-D pie charts. But even the 2-D kind doesn't say much when there are just 3 numbers. Dang. You, too, Steve? Am I going to have to buy Tufte books for the bloggers here myself? Rachel, please put some in your budget!
If this is indeed true, it's brand new, untested. Looking at 2012 to determine if the NRA was a force is not entirely germaine because of Sandy Hook. The NRA did not spend alot to elect safe gerrymandered Republicans, they spent to help in swingier districts. Now Sandy Hook has changed the landscape in virtually all districts, in some much more than others.
I have been an NRA Life member since 1992. I have never let them influence me on how I vote.
I'm old and stupid. What's the purpose of supporting an organization that you don't support? Martin Niemoller, @1939, Germany
Twenty years ago the NRA was a completely different organization. I have not finacially supported them since the day I bought that membership. It is a one time fee and I still am getting the magazine that comes with the membership.
It looks as though the "Republican Main Street Partnership" is sending the word "Republican" in their name to purgatory or some such place, as a re-branding effort...that should work huh?
That was reported several weeks ago. Moderate Republicans don't really have a home in the Republican party so they dropped the word Republican from the name of their group.
It is interesting to note that Steve seems to have missed the memo.
They're flailing, Sun. In free-fall. Can't get their bearings. I know I shouldn't watch, but this morbid curiosity of mine has me riveted.
I, for one, doesn't let the NRA influence my vote. It's the GOP and their repressive policies that influence my vote.
Maybe the NRA and the boy scouts can merge, then we can have one hell of a range war....
I've long said that the main cause of firearm homicides is poverty and income inequality. I guess I'm not the only person saying this now.
Thom Hartmann: Did Ronald Reagan kill 20 children in Newtown?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkVqXWyfHos
Alva: The problem with listening to what you have to say about firearms is all the ignorant and slanted things you have said the last several weeks. Your credibility on the issue is non-existant. Thats the price you pay for spouting off. You made your bed...
Lebowsky, you may disagree with me, but that has nothing to do with credibility. If I state something as a fact, and I'm wrong, then that harms my credibility. Unless I missed something, the facts I raised were sourced, and easily verifiable. And having a disagreement over opinions has nothing at all to do with credibility at all, since opinions are based on beliefs, not facts.
Maybe this is because I'm a bit OCD, but my beliefs are based upon the facts as I understand them. Here is a reality about the world, and this is what I draw from it. You're free to bypass the fact part of the equation entirely if you like and go directly to your own beliefs, but I don't think that's a good idea. Republicans do that. That's why we laugh at how uninformed they are.
Russel Kirk wrote in The Conservative Mind, that one of the guiding principles of conservatism is to decide things rationally rather than emotionally. Today, I would say the Democratic party embraces this far more than the Republicans, and on virtually every single issue. The sole exception is on guns.
Emotion is the enemy of Reason. Never forget that.
Alva: Please don't lecture me about "facts" when it relates to a YouTube video. The fact that you have and continue to spout unreasonable strawman after unreasonable strawman in relation to guns is an actual fact. Look it up, it's in your post history. You might consider going somewhere else to post this nonsense, because we are on to you here.
If it's an unreasonable strawman, then feel free to demonstrate how it's an unreasonable strawman. Convince me that I'm wrong, and I will adopt your point of view.
The fact that the NRA was ineffective in the last election is not going to help candidates who have an irrational fear of the group. I suppose if the candidate is in a rural district that is also a swing district, the NRA might sway some votes. But the important factor is that women see guns as a big issue. It is a very powerful argument that children should not have to attend schools surrounded by armed guards to protect children from a nut job with an assault rifle. Women see the issue as one gun tragedy is one too many.
Yay ! Yay! for the NRA!!! Love your heart, Wayne ! Give em hell!!!
Not even the cocktail hour and sloshed already, eh?
Pie charts bars who cares? As for the magnolia above, apparently she can't read pie charts either.
It's possible that the green slice means it doesn't matter if the NRA supports that candidate or not, I won't vote for him or her so it doesn't matter.
The NRA has already won the first round as they have redirected focus from the potential to limit gun sales to security checks on purchasers which they have always been willing to concede. And this will be presented to the public as a win for the government and great concession by the NRA and the sale of assault weapons will continue with unblemished enthusiasm
I think the NRA is well on their way to another victory as they have already been successful in redirecting focus from limitation of gun sales to security checks of purchasers which they have always been willing to concede. I can also visualize the press release suggesting a win for the government when in reality the sale of assault weapons will continue as before and the gun manufacturers will continue to smile with complete indifference for any negative impact on our world