Personally, I hope that large “ambivalent” faction includes people waking up to how corrupt the system is and how little it does for them. These people just want to get on with their lives and not tell others what to do.

I’m probably misusing it too, when I call my blog AmbivaBlog. It wasn’t so much that I was ambivalent. It was that in the 2004 elections I couldn’t stand either party …

… but “TheyBothMakeMeWantToHurlblog” was taken already.

I am sometimes ambivalent in the sense that I can see both sides of an issue and so find it hard to choose between them. Rather than ambivalence, though, this is usually a desire for a third way that recasts the issue in a less polarized way that doesn’t set two necessary truths against each other (e.g. personal responsibility and safety net).

I think the reason they don’t make “Moderate” a category because the real category is — in Bob Aman’s words — “hard to classify.” That is, the combinations of positions in the center are both more varied and more shaded than a simple yes or no question can often capture.

Pew should run some polls on issues, and report the metrics with no regard to affiliation so the numers make sense to the population as opposed to the machine. There is a significant shift in the mood of the country back to religion (say morality?) and I am not sure what the question regarding books and dangerous ideas is evn about. are we going to require another Scopes trial?

At any rate, I think Pew needs go back to the drawing board … and also needs to take a gander at the design specs for the questions.

Only issue, of course, is that the overall statistics are horrendously skewed towards libertarians simply because, you know, it’s on a libertarian site, so it figures that you’d get a lot of libertarian results. Obviously, not a controlled setup.

Not surprised, but I was 6 for 6 liberal. This is probably just semantics, but I do agree that not fitting into one of those four categories does not mean that someone is “ambivalent”, more that they are “independent” and just don’t fit into one of the four categories, plain and simple.

This seems to me to be a situation where the idea sounds great in the abstract, but when an actual plan has to be put forth along with its costs and risks, then people are so enthusiastic.

Also surprising is the slim margin of support for protecting the public interest through regulation. With all the corporate scandals, I would think that more people would feel a need for that.

I guess this is a good example of why I am a liberal and the general public is centrist.

Why are moderates not considered a major classification? No representative party? No exciting and wacky platform? Too reasonable?

and I don’t consider myself to be characterized by fundamentally opposed views. Not ambivalent.

You scored 1.5 conservative and 4.5 liberal

If you count your answer to “Favor legalizing gay/lesbian marriage: ” as 1/2 and 1/2.

my private-sector-supplied health insurance is bad enough, no need to make it worse.

easy call if you have insurance, a little more difficult if you are one of those with out.

It’s also noteworthy that liberals, by this measure, are the single largest ideological group (18%), despite the fact that when Americans are asked to describe themselves ideologically, conservatives outnumber liberals by about 2 to 1.

No, an enormous well for the LEFT centrist candidate to tap into.

Economic Issues Sphere

Favor government guaranteeing health insurance for all: No, my private-sector-supplied health insurance is bad enough, no need to make it worse.
Government regulation needed to protect public interest: Yes, but only when demonstrably necessary.
Favor private retirement accounts for Social Security: No, largely because that part of the private sector is largely populated by wolves.

Social Issues Sphere

Favor legalizing gay/lesbian marriage: No, well sort-of. I think gay/lesbian partners should be given the exact same legal rights, but I’m not keen on calling it “marriage”. I think it’s a completely different situation that ought to be given a completely different term.
Oppose banning books with “dangerous ideasâ€Â? from school libraries: Yes, because that’s a slippery slope if ever there was one.
Worry government too involved in promoting morality: Yes, oh good grief, yes.

Now, I’m pretty certain those answers don’t line up nicely with any of the major parties. Does that make me ambivalent? Heck no. It just makes me difficult to classify. Not the same thing. I’m not uncertain, I’m not conflicted, and I don’t consider myself to be characterized by fundamentally opposed views. Not ambivalent.