The postgraduate education predictability skews this to democrats, but wow, the gaps in policy preferences are stark. The gaps look like more evidence for the correlation between intelligence and overconfidence in judgements that Gurwinder covered.
Elites having vastly different opinions from the masses and being willing to impose their agenda doesn't strike me as a recent phenomenon,history has always been like that.Elites being supportive of freedom of speech especially is a striking exception of time and place.This polling suggests young people seem to have less confidence in democracy and liberalism.
John Paul located the studies, which can be found here. They were apparently commissioned by “The Committee To Unleash Prosperity” and are thus not typical Rasmussen polls or surveys. This raises more questions. Studies commissioned by ideologically-committed organizations have an uncanny tendency to satisfy the needs of the commissioning entity.
The link you gave only includes a summary of the findings, not the question wording and responses to all questions, which is what I would like to read.
You are correct that the poll was commissioned by the “Committee To Unleash Prosperity,” but it was conducted by Rasmussen. Rasmussen is a reputable polling firm. Based on the methodology that was published, and the question wording that I could read, it seems to be fairly well done. I don't think that it should be discounted because of who paid for it.
I would, however, like to see follow-up surveys from other polling firms.
I copied the update at the end of the web page and was not questioning it. It seems reasonably accurate to me based on my experience dealing with quite a few of them daily.
If a methodologically-sound survey was commissioned by a less conservative group, what do you think the responses of the elites would be? Do you think the results would be very different than these responses?
Yes, I believe it has gone a little too much to the left-focused elites, but without knowing the sample selection criteria, it is hard to be sure. However, things like cheating to win or win at all costs are universal elite criteria and have nothing to do with left or right, as you saw that only 7% of the regular population agrees with it, which includes both left, right, and independent. Being wealthy or upper middle class gives you the confidence to handle situations better than most people, which sometimes leads to cheating or other bad behavior as you know you will be able to pay or find a way to get around it.
It looks like the 1% - the elites are essentially fascists and their education is seriously flawed as well as their understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I don’t think a family income of $150,000 and a post graduate degree is elite. A policeman and a school teacher couple with the teacher having a Masters degree would be elite in my city. Elite should mean something. This seems more to me to be a ‘solidly middle class’ group. Likely in every Democrat controlled city many couples, both trade Union members, would fit this category.
We do not have surveys like this from earlier years, but yes I think you are correct about the gap between elites and masses.
I think that it is fair to say that American elites have never held similar views in previous eras, nor have they ever been so far to the Left compared to the masses.
When it says ivy league graduates, that's not the elite right? Meaning the elite, despite being more polarized than regular citizens are less polarized than ivy league graduates.
No, their criteria for Elite do not include attending the Ivy League.
A sub-portion of the elites by their definition attended Ivy League and other elite schools, but most graduates of those schools do not fit their criteria of elite. Presumably, there are quite a few Ivy League graduates who do not meet their criteria.
The postgraduate education predictability skews this to democrats, but wow, the gaps in policy preferences are stark. The gaps look like more evidence for the correlation between intelligence and overconfidence in judgements that Gurwinder covered.
Elites having vastly different opinions from the masses and being willing to impose their agenda doesn't strike me as a recent phenomenon,history has always been like that.Elites being supportive of freedom of speech especially is a striking exception of time and place.This polling suggests young people seem to have less confidence in democracy and liberalism.
It is a study conducted in September 2023 and not a regular survey as per:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/01/21/the-elusive-and-scary-rasmussen-elites-surveys/
John Paul located the studies, which can be found here. They were apparently commissioned by “The Committee To Unleash Prosperity” and are thus not typical Rasmussen polls or surveys. This raises more questions. Studies commissioned by ideologically-committed organizations have an uncanny tendency to satisfy the needs of the commissioning entity.
Thanks for the comment.
The link you gave only includes a summary of the findings, not the question wording and responses to all questions, which is what I would like to read.
You are correct that the poll was commissioned by the “Committee To Unleash Prosperity,” but it was conducted by Rasmussen. Rasmussen is a reputable polling firm. Based on the methodology that was published, and the question wording that I could read, it seems to be fairly well done. I don't think that it should be discounted because of who paid for it.
I would, however, like to see follow-up surveys from other polling firms.
I copied the update at the end of the web page and was not questioning it. It seems reasonably accurate to me based on my experience dealing with quite a few of them daily.
If a methodologically-sound survey was commissioned by a less conservative group, what do you think the responses of the elites would be? Do you think the results would be very different than these responses?
Yes, I believe it has gone a little too much to the left-focused elites, but without knowing the sample selection criteria, it is hard to be sure. However, things like cheating to win or win at all costs are universal elite criteria and have nothing to do with left or right, as you saw that only 7% of the regular population agrees with it, which includes both left, right, and independent. Being wealthy or upper middle class gives you the confidence to handle situations better than most people, which sometimes leads to cheating or other bad behavior as you know you will be able to pay or find a way to get around it.
What do you think?
My guess is that the results would be fairly similar to this survey.
It looks like the 1% - the elites are essentially fascists and their education is seriously flawed as well as their understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I don’t think a family income of $150,000 and a post graduate degree is elite. A policeman and a school teacher couple with the teacher having a Masters degree would be elite in my city. Elite should mean something. This seems more to me to be a ‘solidly middle class’ group. Likely in every Democrat controlled city many couples, both trade Union members, would fit this category.
Perhaps, but it only adds up to 1% of the population. Sounds a lot more than “solidly middle class” to me.
I mean is this new? Did the elites ever have similar beliefs as the masses?
We do not have surveys like this from earlier years, but yes I think you are correct about the gap between elites and masses.
I think that it is fair to say that American elites have never held similar views in previous eras, nor have they ever been so far to the Left compared to the masses.
When it says ivy league graduates, that's not the elite right? Meaning the elite, despite being more polarized than regular citizens are less polarized than ivy league graduates.
No, their criteria for Elite do not include attending the Ivy League.
A sub-portion of the elites by their definition attended Ivy League and other elite schools, but most graduates of those schools do not fit their criteria of elite. Presumably, there are quite a few Ivy League graduates who do not meet their criteria.
Hopefully, that makes sense.
Ok. Got it.
Good catch. I just corrected it.