quote:The survey found that 72 percent of Bush supporters believe either that Iraq had actual WMD (47 percent) or a major program for producing them (25 percent), despite the widespread media coverage in early October of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA’s) “Duelfer Report,” the final word on the subject by the one billion dollar, 15-month investigation by the Iraq Survey Group.
quote:Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters said they believed that Iraq was providing “substantial” support to Al Qaeda, with 20 percent asserting that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believed that the clear evidence of such support has actually been found, and 60 percent believe that “most experts” have reached the same conclusion.
quote:Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq if U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not have a WMD program and was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to war under those circumstances.
quote:“To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions,” said Kull, “likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq.”
Kull added that this “cognitive dissonance” could also help explain other remarkable findings in the survey, particularly with respect to Bush supporters’ misperceptions about the president’s own positions.
In particular, majorities or Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that he supports multilateral approaches to various international issues, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (69 percent), the land mine treaty (72 percent), and the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (51 percent).
In August, two thirds of Bush supporters also said they believed that Bush supported the International Criminal Court (ICC), although in the latest poll, that figure dropped to a 53 percent majority, even though Bush explicitly denounced the ICC in the most widely watched nationally televised debate of the campaign in late September.
In all of these cases, majorities of Bush supporters said they favored the positions that they imputed, incorrectly, to Bush.
I find the implications of this terrifying. Please tell me it isn't true.
[ October 22, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Not a Bush supporter, and won't be voting for him, but would really appreciate a link to the material*
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you mind posting the source of that for me please? Thanks.
Reminds me of Jaywalking or Hannity's "Man on the Street" interviews.
Most of the people voting on both sides are doing so based on "perceptions" or "rhetoric" vs. actual knowledge of the issues.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I meant to put the link in the original post. You guys posted while I was editing to correct my mistake.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not that naive. I think a survey of Kerry Supporters who believe really off the wall things would be interesting. I think this goes along the lines of "Conservatives are illiterate" dialogue.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's scary when you talk to people (hatrackers notable exceptions) about why they are choosing to vote a certain way.
I've heard everything from "My grandparents were democrats, my parents were democrats, and I vote democrat and they've never steered me wrong" to "Kerry's wife seems like such a b*tch, I'm voting for Bush because I don't want that woman to be first lady."
Its' really sad how few people try to really become informed on the issues.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't really blame them.... Bush keeps misleading people into believing all these things are true. If you trust Bush, as Bush supporters supposedly do, you're going to believe him when he suggests these Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked or when he claims to be multilateral. Bush's entire campaign, unlike Kerry's, is built on this misinformation.
Adding to the problem is this popular notion among conservatives that the mainstream media can't be trusted - which are the sources that are supposed to correct misinformation.
posted
I found the point of the "survey" interesting.
So why didn't they ask similar "slanted" questions of Kerry supporters?
Like, How many Kerry supporters believed Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Or How many believe John Kerry did not commit war crimes in Vietnam.
Or how many believe John Kerry met with North Vietnamese leaders in France while the war was going on?
Or how many believe Kerry served more than 4 months in Vietnam.
Or how many believe that Kerry met with communists leaders in Nicaragua and failed miserably.
etc. etc.
I guess my point is, if you are intentionally slanting a poll in order to get the results that "you want". You probably will.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I agree. I was getting my hair cut the other day and I asked my stylist what she thought of debates, etc. She said that she hadn't watched any them and didn't know what to think about either candidate. So I pushed a little more and asked if she knew who she was going to vote for.. She replied, "Well..I really don't like Bush's daughters...they seem so snobby...but Kerry's wife seems kind of wierd. So, I'm not sure." I was speechless for a moment...and then asked what she thought of the war in Iraq. "Oh...I don't know anything about that."
I didn't know how to reply so I just dropped the subject.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The survey was a University of Maryland study, and it found that on Iraq, Kerry supporters were basically the opposite of the aforementioned Bush supporters (not all that surprising), and that they were more correct in identifying the Kerry stances on the treaties mentioned above.
1) the poll question were probably badly worded (well, duh)
2) a lot of americans are dumb, and a lot more are not well informed, neither of which precludes them from asserting support for a candidate
The whole thing is set up to make it sound like Bush supporters are more dumb and uninformed than Kerry supporters. The problem is that Kerry supporters aren't asked similar questions about issues that they are likely to support simply because of their political bent. Certainly, if you asked Kerry supporters the same questions that were asked of those Bush supporters, you would find they didn't come up with the same dumb answers, but that isn't necessarily because they're smarter. It could well be because they don't like Bush.
As for your fears, Rabbit, I assure you that there are many intelligent, well-informed citizens who are planning to vote for Bush. Most of us know quite a lot about the reasons for the war, both before and after full WMD information came out. Most of us also know quite a lot about Iraq's ties to terrorism and terrorist acts, and yes, we know he wasn't one of the parties behind 9/11.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why didn't they ask similar "slanted" questions of Kerry supporters?
Read the study! They did. The poll was equally split between Bush supporters and Kerry supporters.
Excert from full report
quote:Despite the report of the 9/11 Commission saying there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (30% of Kerry supporters), with 20% believing that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believe that clear evidence of this support has been found, while 85% of Kerry supporters believe the opposite.
If you go to here you can read the researchers summary of the report. If you scroll to the bottom of the page and click on report of findings you can get the complete report in pdf format. You can also see the questionaire and press release.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) the poll question were probably badly worded (well, duh)
Duh? The questions are linked to at the bottom of that page, and they don't seem badly worded. Which questions do you think were wrong?
Rather than being "set up" to deliberately make Bush supporters look uninformed, isn't it possible that Bush supporters ACTUALLY ARE more uninformed?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kranky, I disagree that it's only Kerry or Democrats that vote "uninformed". I think both sides do so. Some people take who they're voting for very seriously. Alot of people have more important things to do and so they allow the minimal knowledge they have to dictate their perception.
It happens on both sides.
It'd be pretty easy to formulate a survey that makes Kerry supports look "uninformed" or "stupid" in many ways as well, but for some reason, that survey wasn't done.
posted
Traveler, isn't it possible that she was hiding her feelings because she was at work? When your livelihood depends on repeat business from satisfied customers, discussing any subject that might lead to contention is dangerous. Staying neutral is best, but in her defense, it's hard to claim you are neutral about things like the Iraq war and the election. I can see why she might want to claim ignorance instead. Not saying this is definitely the case, she might really be that vapid when it comes to politics, but it is a possibility.
Posts: 236 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
The war in Iraq is a central issue in this campaign not because either candidate has chosen it but because it is something the voters care about.
Kerry's vietnam service record isn't.
If the survey had asked questions about Bush's national guard record but not about Kerry's record, that would indicate bias. Asking questions about Iraq is not?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The questions are badly slanted and poorly worded.
I liked the use of the word "major" for program instead of just saying a "program" because they were fishing for certain answers.
More Kerry supporters say we should build a "missle defense system immediately". Does Kerry share that view?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It'd be pretty easy to formulate a survey that makes Kerry supports look "uninformed" or "stupid" in many ways as well, but for some reason, that survey wasn't done.
So CS, now that you've read the full questionaire. What questions would you have asked that would have made Kerry supporters look dumb?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My sweet lovable Mother-In-Law is scared to death of John Kerry.
These are the facts she swears will occur if he's elected.
1) By December there will be a Draft in the US.
2) He will mandate federal censorship of all news.
3) His Communist agenda will come to light.
Where she gets these ideas, I do not know. I could understand them as fears, but she holds these ideas as FACTS, not to be debated.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The war in Iraq is a central issue in this campaign not because either candidate has chosen it but because it is something the voters care about.
Kerry's vietnam service record isn't.
If the survey had asked questions about Bush's national guard record but not about Kerry's record, that would indicate bias. Asking questions about Iraq is not?
Actually asking "slanted" questions about the war in Iraq is.
Read the questionaire. The questions are slanted.
And Kerry's military service was the foundation of his campaign. It most definately IS very important.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The actual question and results are detailed below.
quote:Q13. Is it your belief that, just before the war, Iraq. [ARO] 10/04 8/04 Had actual weapons of mass destruction ..........................27% 35 Bush supporters......................................................47 63 Kerry supporters.......................................................8 13
Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them ..................................22 19 Bush supporters......................................................25 18 Kerry supporters.....................................................18 18
Had some limited activities that could be used to help develop weapons of mass destruction, but not an active program ...................................................................37 34 Bush supporters......................................................25 16 Kerry supporters.....................................................51 50
Did not have any activities related to weapons of mass destruction.................................................................12 10
Bush supporters........................................................2 2
posted
Oh, and one thing to point out 80% of the people polled were white/caucasian. I find that interesting as well.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Had no weapons of mass destruction but had a major program for developing them
Take "Major" out of the equation and the results differ and would "look" different. Kerry supporters would look worse because he did have a program, it just wasn't "major".
That one word says a "whole" lot about the bias of the survey.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, considering what the population of the US breaks down to, I would be very suspicious did they not have a large percentage of the population being white/caucasian if they assert they sampled randomly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
When I refer to the poll questions being badly worded (well, duh), I am mostly referring to my feeling about poll questions in general. The biggest problem with them is that they can only capture generalizations, and not nuances of opinion. They force people to place themselves in a category that they really don't belong in, just because they think it's the closest thing to what they actually DO believe. The questions also necessarily mean different things to different people. Thus, two people who actually believe something very different might read or hear the same question and assume that they each agree with it. And these inherent problems can easily be aggravated by the people who prepare the questions.
Some examples of probably problems I see in this particular set of questions:
When the question ask about WMD's, what count as "WMD's"? More importantly, what do people think "WMD's" means? Do old, long dormant and almost certainly ineffective weapons count, or only those that could actually be readily and effectively used? Do small, scattered amounts of weapons count, or only a significant arsenal?
For that matter, what constitutes a "major program" for developing WMD's? Does it have to have a large budget? Does it have to have a large number of people working on it? Do attempts to purchase WMD's rather than invent and build them yourself count?
As for the Al Qaeda connection, who do people think Al Qaeda actually is? What kind of affiliation must a person have with the group to be considered a part of it? Do connections with mere members count, or only connections with the top leadership? What does "working closely" with Al Qaeda mean? Does it mean staging joint operations? Does it mean sending each other material support? Does it mean coordinating plans? Does it just mean giving each other a congratulatory phone call whenever one commits a truly spectacular atrocity? What does "substantial support" mean?
For the record, I think that the response of Bush supporters probably run the gamut from "Heck, yeah, Saddam had WMD's. We've found them, too. The liberal media conspiracy is just trying to hide that fact," to "Of course Saddam had WMD's. We know he had them before, and that he has used them before. How can we believe he would suddenly up and do away with them? He's just a sneaky son-of-a-gun. We'll find them eventually" to "He probably had some WMD's around, but a lot of them were probably too old to do much good. His capability to produce more had been cut, but he surely was trying to get his hands on them however he could, and holding on to the ones he had even if they wouldn't work anymore" to "Well, it looks like he didn't have any WMD's after all, but how were we to know that ahead of time? Everybody thought had them. And it's just possible that they're still out there somewhere. Who knows?" to "Oops." There are also many possibilities I haven't thought of.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
only 69% of the population is white/caucasian. The report doesn't reflect those same numbers. That's a 10% difference.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and one thing to point out 80% of the people polled were white/caucasian. I find that interesting as well.
Why do you find this interesting. According to data at the US census website, 80% of US citzens over the age of 18 are white caucasian.
All this says to me is that the racial distribution of those surveys is similar to the racial distribution of US citizens of voting age.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Especially when you take into account likely voters. I'm starting to think that rabid lions could not keep middle-aged white people from voting. I feel badly because all of the non-white voters can't keep up. It's all we can do to make a showing. Though, there are reasons for this.
quote:How many Kerry supporters believe Kerry voted for the war in Iraq?
I don't, because he didn't. War was never declared in Iraq (that seems not to happen any more). He voted to make it possible for Bush to start the war in Iraq.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Take "Major" out of the equation and the results differ and would "look" different. Kerry supporters would look worse because he did have a program, it just wasn't "major".
There are 4 possible answers to the question ranging from having actual WMDs to having no program at all. The trend is clear no matter how the questions was worded. A most popular answer among Bush voters was not this option. In August 63% of Bush votein Sept. and 47% in October said Iraq had actual WMDs. Bush voters are nearly evenly distributed between major programs and limited activities whereas Kerry voter were 3 times as likely to pick "limited activites". BTW limited activities was the result of both the CIA report.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. That is my point. But your only option is yes or no and is defined by me (the pollster), not by you. So what you think you are saying and what I am defining you as saying, may be two different things.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Percent Number of total Race and Hispanic or Latino (in thousands) population RACE Total Population............................ 281,421 100.0% One race......................................... 274,595 97.6% White........................................... 211,460 75.1% Black or African American........... 34,658 12.3% American Indian and Alaska Native........................... 2,475 0.9% Asian........................................ 10,242 3.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander............ 399 0.1% Some other race...................... 15,359 5.5% Two or more races...................... 6,826 2.4% HISPANIC OR LATINO Total population.................... 281,421 100.0% Hispanic or Latino..................... 35,305 12.5% Not Hispanic or Latino.............. 246,116 87.5%
posted
Rabbit there are other questions to be asked for clarification that intentionally weren't. How many believe that they had WMD's and were removed to a foreignn country? would be one.
How many believe we actually found items used to make WMD's in Iraq? would be another.
The questions are meant to "slant". It's clear.
So, my question to the original title would be,
"Kerry supporters, Tell me you aren't really naive enough to believe this "survey" was accurate"?
That's the real question.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still say we must all be naive if these are the two major candidates we've got to choose from.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I would agree. I've heard just as big "naivety" from both sides.
When you ask slanted questions (which demonstrate an intentional "bias" in one direction) you are probably going to be able to get whatever results you want.
If you ask questions that are "Doctrinal" points for one side (in this survey, Kerry) then those diciples of that one side will be more knowledgable about them. If you were to ask questions that Bush campaign focus on, guess who would be more knowledgable about those? I would guess Bush supporters would.
It's like asking Christians and Jews their knowledge of the New Testament and then blaming the Jews for not knowing alot about it.
That's dishonest unless you are likewise going to ask the Christians about their knowledge of the Talmud and Midrash. There most definately would be differences.
That's all I'm saying. This survey's point is biased. There isn't one Question that deals with Kerry and his voting record on Iraq, etc.
quote:You need to match statistic to statistic. The survey says "White (non hispanic)" at 82% for the demographics.
The Census for the exact same "White (non hispanic) says 69%.
The 69% is for total population. 80% is voting age citzens. If you
If you go to this site , you can find the census data for voting age citzens in 2000.
From Table 1-1, the total citzen population over age 18 in 2000 was 193,376,975. The total white only citzens over 18 was 155,254,313 or 80% of eligible voters. The total white only not Hispanic or Latino was 147,768,945 or 76% of eligible voters. These numbers are not significantly different than the numbers given in the survey based on the reported error margin for the survey.
I have been unable to find data on the racial distribution of registered voters and actual voters from the 2000 election. Since minorities are less likely to register to vote and less likely to vote than whites, it is likely that this would put the racial distribution of those surveyed directly in line with that of registered voters.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
