Let me begin this frustrating post this way: I can’t locate the damn things. Allegedly, Rasmussen, the conservative-leaning polling organization, has conducted two separate surveys of the attitudes of 1,000 “members of the elites.” “The Elites” is a buzzword on the Right like “the walking dead”: Laura Ingraham, for one, uses the term constantly. These surveys, as I will show in a minute, apparently show that a small cabal of leftist, fascist lunatics with disproportionate power and influence in the U.S. have frightening beliefs and objectives. They also define “elites”: Americans having at least one postgraduate degree, household annual income of more than $150,000, and a residence in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile. We are told this is approximately 1% of the total U.S. population. The results of the survey has been written about in alarming terms by the likes of the Wall Street Journal and Instapundit; it has prompted headlines like on Powerline’s “Are Our Elites Crazy?” post this morning, but nobody (that I can find) is revealing a link. (Powerline: “There is more at the link.” No link!) Since these apocalyptic surveys are purportedly by Rasmussen, I checked the Rasmussen site. No such survey is mentioned. I searched for “elites” on the site. Nada.
I have no idea, kid.
Now here is what various conservative sites are claiming that this mystery survey says: (From Powerline)
84% of them approve of Joe Biden’s performance as president. …70% of the “elites” trust the government to do the right thing most of the time; that rises to 89% among those who are “the most politically active members of the elite”…79% have a favorable opinion of them, as do 84% of the “Ivy League elite”…Forty-seven percent say that America suffers from too much freedom, compared with only 21% who think we have too much government control. Among the Ivy League elite, 55% say America is too free, with only 15% saying we have too much government… 77% say they favor the “strict rationing of gas, meat and electricity”… 89% to 10%, the Ivy League elites want to see “strict rationing” of these most basic commodities… Large majorities want to ban gas stoves (69%), gasoline powered cars (72%), non-essential air travel (55%), SUVs (58%) and air conditioning (53%). The Ivy League elites: 80% [want to ban] gas stoves, 81% [want to ban] gasoline powered cars, 70% [want to ban] non-essential air travel, 66% [want to ban] SUVs, and 68% want to ban air conditioning.
What the hell? If this survey actually exists, and if the category of “elites” is valid, and if 1000 of these lunatics are enough to tell us anything useful, and if the methodology is defensible, then the Powerline headline is justified, and, as John Hinderaker writes, “If they take over, we are finished. More study needs to be done to figure out who, exactly, they are, so we can root them out and negate their influence.”
That’s four “ifs” too many.
I’m not going to run screaming into the hills until I can actually study the survey myself. It’s nowhere on Memeorandum, the most reliable news aggregating site. It’s not mentioned at the Times website. When I first read about the mystery surveys, my immediate reaction was that there would be sharp rebuttals to the claim I am seeing all over the news media now (and have been hearing from the Axis for years) that Donald Trump’s supporters are all racists, xenophobes, anti-science Neanderthals, misogynists and morons who long for the return of the Fifties. In fact, a majority of Trump’s supporters simply don’t like being dictated to by “elites” who think they are smarter than them and who believe they should be subject to different standards than the hoi polloi. Most Americans who do so feel forced to support Trump because whatever else he may be, he isn’t one of the “leftist, fascist lunatics with disproportionate power and influence” those percentages reveal.
If the studies exist and are accurate, supporting Trump, as untrustworthy, unstable and flawed as he doubtlessly is, is a reasonable, indeed mandatory response. But that’s just another “if.”
UPDATE! Crack commenter 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.
Ethics Alarms 
This it?
Click to access Them-vs-Us_CTUP-Rasmussen-Study-FINAL.pdf
Looks like it! Thanks. I’m adding it to the article.
Glad I can help. At first, I was confused on why you couldn’t find it. I just typed ‘Rasmussen’ and ‘elite’ into google and it was the first response. However, after reading some of the comments, I can see how it played out this way.
Now I’m wondering if the conservative journalist who covered this story knew that it wasn’t technically Rasmussen and were intentionally being misleading. Jeez, I wish I could trust media.
I couldn’t find the link in any of the articles discussing it, and went right to Rasmussen, assuming it would be highlighted. Obviously your Google strategy was superior: I once knew about Rasmussen’s sale, but forgot. It’s misleading to have his name associated with a research organization that he no longer is associated with. That’s not permitted with law firms, unless the individual is dead or no longer practicing law.
That is the study that was referred to by Kim Strassel in her WSJ column. If you take a look at RMG Research’s web site — https://www.rmgresearch.com/ — that appears to be the organization that conducted these polls. They say that they were founded by Scott Rasmussen, so I gather it is this company and not “Rasmussen” polling that did the survey.
I didn’t sign up or subscribe there, and it seems that you might have to to actually look at the raw survey. But from my interactions with people, I feel that there is likely a lot of truth to this survey. My sister, for example, was talking with someone regarding complaints about Biden and said “I think he’s done a pretty good job”. My mind boggles, but that definitely is the view of a segment of our population.
Sure, but feeling that there’s a “lot of truth” in any study just slides into confirmation bias, no?
Yeah, that’s why I’m saying it’s my opinion not a study based on data. Let me put it another way — if this study is absolutely accurate, the results wouldn’t surprise me. Would they you?
One other thing — the link to Rasmussen in this post actually goes to Powerline.
They would sure surprise me. I know many who fit in that “elites” definition, and I know virtually no one who agrees with the positions that the surveys claim most “elites” support. Banning discretionary air travel? Air conditioning? Who trusts the news media? Literally nobody I know.
Fixed the link, though since it goes to the wrong Rasmussen…
Jack, part of the problem would appear to be that you were looking at Rasmussen polling. Scott Rasmussen sold the company a few years back and now heads a firm called RMG Research. Not that their site is any more forthcoming – but it does appear clear that RMG specifically avoids the high profile Rasmussen company still enjoys.
Links would be nice. If a pundit is going to promote a study, we need to know from whence and whom the study is emanating—especially if it produces extreme data like this one.
Polls? Why would anybody trust a poll?
I think this whole study can rightly be ignored (or called out as a fever dream, which I believe but can’t prove).
1. The overwhelming majority of the “elite” demographic would tell pollsters to get lost. Hell, I meet only one of those criteria, I’m retired, and I’ve got a lot better things to do with my time than answering stupid questions.
2. No one, and I do mean literally no one in these parts, no matter how concerned about global warming, is going to support a ban on air conditioning.
3. I don’t believe those numbers, but it does make sense that people with substantial incomes are more willing to pay a set dollar amount for a “good cause” than those who don’t have that kind of financial resources are. It makes sense that people with access to mass transportation are more willing to restrict gas-powered cars. (And so on.)
Oooh, good point about these “elites” not tolerating questions like these….or the process selecting out the whack-jobs eager to tell the world about their plans for conquest!
One more thing: I don’t know a single “elite” who has been on mass transportation in years.
You’re using a reasonable definition of “elite.” In actuality, a household income of $150k isn’t all that “elite” in an urban environment, where prices (and incomes) are higher. Lots of those people take the bus or the subway.
Polls are meaningless, but I don’t need a poll to tell me what the elites think. They like to do things like fly in private jets to Davos so they can get up on stage and tell everyone their plans for making everyone eat bugs and live in 15 minute cities. They don’t exactly keep their plans secret.
But you don’t really think even “elites” believe all that crap, do you?
I think they are psychotic megalomaniacs. I have no idea what they believe. Trying to follow the thought process of crazy people is rather difficult. I don’t think assuming they don’t mean it is a good idea. When powerful people start telling the world they intend to enslave everyone, it is probably safer to assume they mean it.