It was included in his last newsletter, apparently.

(link...)

The News Sentinel regurgitated this tripe uncritically with the exception of a buried mention that "While the results are not scientific, they do provide a snapshot of what many East Tennesseans are thinking."

(link...)

This survey is not just "not scientific," its self selection bias renders it completely invalid. Its inclusion in a newsletter that also prints "the answers" - Duncan's stated opinions on the same subjects in the survey, creates an enormous bias. The fact that Duncan sends out these newsletters regularly creates an even greater bias. Those of us who have seen them before and disagree with the fictions contained within have tossed it long before ever noticing a survey in the back. If it is any kind of snapshot, it is a snapshot primarily of people who already agree with Congressman Duncan.

It's not surprising that Duncan would publish such a survey. It should be an embarrassment to the News Sentinel to uncritically republish the results, however. They should know better.

The "survey" is a perfect example of how a legislator deludes him/herself and uses biased, twisted non-scientific data to erroneously justify their personal stands as, somehow, the "will" of the people.

I have never bothered to answer Duncan's bogus questionnaires before, mostly because the questions are loaded and phrased to elicit certain responses that he wishes to receivet. For example, "do you support TOTAL legalization of marijuana?" (emphasis mine). Even rational people would be stymied by the word "total." Then, "Do you think the NSA should be allowed to monitor and KEEP the phone calls and internet data of all U.S. citizens?" is phrased to get an obvious "NO," the word "keep" being included to sway undecideds.

I did fill out the survey this time because I could no longer tolerate the idea that this sanctimonious "lifetime" congressman should continue to receive just what he wants to hear, just so he can wave a sheet of paper and say "See? I told you I was representing you and your beliefs." He doesn't represent mine or many of the people I know.

I voted for him the last time he was up for re-election because of his consistent refusal to vote to fund the war in Iraq. That was the last time. Never again.

Frankly, y'all give Duncan too much credit for his vote on Iraq. He didn't vote no because he thought it was a stupid war, or because we were attacking somebody who hadn't attacked us. He voted no because he's a straight up isolationist.

As for the newsletter surveys, I used to answer them, but then decided "why bother?" He's not interested in anything I have to say.

I haven't read the paper yet, but I saw this reported on television last night, and whichever station is was (probably WBIR since they are connected with the KNS now) was indeed remarkably uncritical of the methodology.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure most of Duncan's constituents hold the positions that got the most "votes." But it's impossible to know from that survey.

1. If anyone working for the Sentinel is perusing this, please feel free to pipe up and explain how this "report" made it onto your site. You do understand that making a proper statistical assessment of the (lack of) validity of Duncan's data wouldn't make you "liberal media," right? It would just make you "professional journalists." Right now it just looks like your Washington correspondent spent ten minutes re-working a Duncan press release so that he could make it out the door in time for happy hour.

2. Is anyone going to run a serious campaign against this buffoon in the next election? He should not be allowed to quietly retire and be hailed in the Sentinel as a 'longtime East Tennessee statesman stepping down after a distinguished career.' He needs to be turned out of office, so that the Sentinel is forced to run a headline like "Half Century Political Dynasty Ends in Defeat."

I have called congressman turkey neck several times to object to the corrupt manner in which he conducts himself. So I don't get his crappy newsletter anymore. Apparently like most rwnj, he only wants an echo chamber. If only the a progressive would run against him. Why anybody would vote for this career politician is beyond me. The only thing he has ever done is make himself filthy rich and get every relative he has freeloading the system.

Thiis is completely client related, I admit...but I was pleased and a little surprised that support for online tax fairness was a majority: 55%.

First off, if you want to insult me or my work then sign your name and say who you are. Otherwise you're just gutless.

Actually the reporter got it wrong, it was 55-45 the other way.

My point is this: it a survey that is mostly answered by very conservative people, people who are unlikely to favor any tax. If almost half of them realize that online merchants should be treated the same as brick and mortar stores then we have made some real progress.

And it is not a meaningless number to Congressman Duncan...and he has a vote on the bill.

And my client seems pretty darn pleased.

In truth this is a state's rights issue. It lets states decide if they want to levy the sales tax on all sales.

For a sales tax dependent state like Tennessee it's a big issue. Look at the trends of where/how people shop. In twenty years, we're in real trouble.

And my client seems pretty darn pleased.

Conflict of interest. Republicans aren't about states rights when their politics are favored by a heavy hand from the feds or the SCOTUS.

My client is made up of both Democrats and Republicans. They are brick and mortar retailers.