A number of those questions are definitely worded in a way to push people toward a particular answer:
Recently, the Raleigh City Council voted to change the length of Council terms from 2 years to 4 years, instead of allowing the public to vote on the issue. Do you support or oppose this change?
The above could have very easily just said: Recently, Raleigh City Council voted to change the length of Council terms from 2 years to 4 years. Do you support or oppose this change?
They can frame a poll like this anyway that they want - they have an agenda just like people with differing view points. I just disagree with a local news org like CBS17 running with the results and providing no context or opposing viewpoints.
Yeah that whole survey is basically like doing a poll here about downtown development or transit, and pretending it’s representative of the city population. Most of us are pretty well informed and generally like minded. While a poll reinforcing our opinions in nice, it’s not actually meaningful.
To obtain a marketing degree I’ve used very little of, one of the more interesting classes was marketing statistics. We studied survey design and bias. It was also at the time Thinking Fast and Slow came out, which I randomly picked up in an airport. My professor brought it up in class and it was a very full circle moment where many things clicked.
Humans are incredibly bad at making objective decisions, and impossibly biased to shape/frame communication to achieve the desired result.
Prominent Wake Democrats and the Wake County chapter of the North Carolina Democratic Party’s Jewish caucus are urging the larger county party not to make endorsements in this year’s nonpartisan Raleigh City Council races.
I support this message! It was crazy to get the handout at my polling station from the democratic party of NC that made it looks like only one of the candidate for each city council seat was a Democrat. It made me think about how I had seen Corey Branch leading the MLK Day march downtown but then the Wake Dem party didn’t even mention him in their voting recommendations. So on a non partisan ballot it was like he wasn’t part of the party. Not a good look.
Really hope they go in this direction. It felt entirely un-coincidental that the Democratic Party endorsed every person Livable Raleigh endorsed. They should absolutely stay out of local non-partisan races between Democrats.
I agree with it as well. Their endorsement probably holds a lot of sway for people who don’t do research themselves, and I think the article says the committee is made up of 12 people? Those 12 may not be in tune with the majority of Dems anyway so yeah, they can just stay out of it AFAIC.
“The ceasefire resolution that was motioned forward was drafted with Jewish community members and organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, who continue to support me, my voice, and my re-election for city council,” Black wrote in an email to the INDY . “This belief that I must labor, perform, and keep someone’s worldview comfortable at all times even when it harms me is steeped in white supremacy … It is my hope that the party sees through these baseless attempts to malign and attack yet another Black elected official who has spoken for a ceasefire like we saw with Jamaal Brown and Cori Bush.”
Hey Mary… how about your policy proposals for, like, the City of Raleigh? Maybe that’d inform voters on whether or not they should re-elect you for, you know, CITY council? I’m not pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, nor am I anti-either of them. Why? Because my opinion on the matter means zilch. Especially when it comes to who I’m voting for city elections. PLEASE move the f*** on, Mary. Your elected position was to work for the City of Raleigh, alone. Focus.
This kind of sounds kind of like the Jewish caucus doesn’t want the Wake Dem party to endorse anyone because they are going to endorse someone, and they don’t want any competing endorsements.
I disagree. Both MAB and Terrence Ruth are staunch supporters of the Democratic Party. In a non-partisan race, why are they choosing to alienate staunch supporters of their party? You could make the argument that it’s necessary if they feel that there is a chance that the vote will be split enough to let a Republican candidate win, but there was absolutely no chance of that happening in the last election.
The Democratic Party should be focusing on State and National elections (as the article said) and let the cream of the crop rise to the top in local elections. Not overreaching and making endorsements where they don’t make sense. Especially when they lose on endorsements like they did with Terrence Ruth.
To be clear, the context of this quote is that the Jewish Caucus has accused her of antisemitism and is using that as a reason that the party should not endorse her (or anyone, because it’s too divisive), and she is defending her record on that account. I don’t think that’s the same as lingering on a past issue when someone else is the one resurfacing it.
Either way, I support the idea of the party not endorsing in local elections considering who they endorsed last time around showed how out of touch they are.
It still became enough of a distraction from her actual duties (and abilities) in the CITY council that she’s still needing to defend herself and continue to discuss the topic. My point stands.
