recent poll in .pdf format on how bush supporters deal with reality

if I were you, I'd just skip to page 12 for the analysis

It is kinda funny how they have data regarding how many kerry supporters can correctly identify his stance on a given issue when it changes from week to week. We all know that backing Kerry is voting against Bush.

I caught that too, ty. So much for George's, "Even if you disagree with me, at least you know where I stand." Those who agree with him seem a little foggy on the details.

I only read page 12. That survey is a total crock. First off, even random guessing will give you close to 50%. On most of those issues, Bush supporters do not even score close to 40%. Meanwhile Kerry is scoring in the 70's and 80's on many of them.

We all know that in a random poll across the country, a majority of people can't even name their own mayor or governor. The odds of most of these people having even a clue outside from random guessing is slim.

Common sense will tell you that both side should average across the board on most issues within +/- 10-15 of 50%.

On the issues concerning int criminal courts and Kyoto agreement issue...you would have to be brain dead and illiterate to not know Bush's stance on those issues...yet he scores in the 30's on those. Even without Bush telling us, Kerry has beaten those 2 issues (Bush's stance) to death. Or how about building a missile defense system? That should be closer to 90%, yet he scores in the 40's.

C'mon, common sense tells you these stats are total crap. Even if the results were flipped and they favored Bush, I still would find them hard to believe. I just don't think the American people are that well informed about politics in general to produce results so skewed toward one guy.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sobek,

But, Kerry has a PLAN. It's just that he doesn't know what it is. My prediction is Kerry gets beat as bad as Dukais. What a collective group of LOSERS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sobek:
I only read page 12. That survey is a total crock. First off, even random guessing will give you close to 50%. On most of those issues, Bush supporters do not even score close to 40%. Meanwhile Kerry is scoring in the 70's and 80's on many of them.

---

Sobek, do you really think thse are random responses?

From the survey:

quote:

---

If, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda do you think the US:

Should not have gone to war
Bush supporters: 58%
Kerry supporters: 92%

Should still have gone to war for other reasons

Bush supporters: 37%
Kerry supporters: 6%

---

This not not random. These differences are statistically not due to chance, and this totally passes face-value validity--the straight face test in layman's terms. Sobek, I'm sorry, but you are losing credibility.

Also from the poll

quote:

---

Why are Bush supporters holding so clinging so tightly to beliefs that have been so visibly refuted?

Bush supporters cling to these beliefs because they are necessary for their support for the decision to go to war with Iraq.

---

In other words, their desire for Bush to win trumps any effort to acknowledge they were wrong.

quote:

---

To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions is difficult to bear, especially in light of the continuing costs in terms of lives and money. Apparently, to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Bush supporters suppress awareness of unsettling information.

---

Cognitive dissonance is an incredibly powerful psychological motivator, and we all succumb to it from time to time.

I'll put it to you more simply.

How do we explain why so many people, typically Bush supporters, believe that there were WMD or capabilities to produce WMD in Iraq--even in the absence of evidence?

One reason is that the Bush Admin. continues to suggest a link. On this point, Cheney is the ulitmate flip flopper (cf. stump speeches and claims on VP debate).

Another reason is cognitive dissonance, which occurs when someone holds contradictory beliefs and/or actions.

Belief #1: We should not go to war with Iraq if they don't have WMD or the capability to produce WMD. (Most people agree on this)

Action #1: We went to war with Iraq.

We can't change past actions for obvious reasons. We can, however, change past beliefs, and we can also ignore evidence that contradicts our beliefs.

In order to maintain sanity, or at least avoid the anxiety, unease, and general ire that results from holding contradictory beliefs, the conclusion must be that Iraq had WMD.

People can't change the fact we went to war. But they can avoid believing or seeing evidence that shows they can be wrong the reasons for going to war.

And one last thing, Common sense might tell you these polls are crap, but educated sense should tell you otherwise. With nearly 1000 pepole participating, these numbers are quite significantly different and not due to chance.

If there is one systematic flaw to these polls, it has to do with sample selection, namely, there is no guarantee that the participants are representative of the actual voters.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tyshubrick,

That's a long and irrelevant explanation. Page 12 gives stats to issues ranging from missile defense to the environment. These are issues that Americans have to actually pick up a paper and read about....something which very few people actually do if you are considering the American public as a whole. I just find it highly unlikely that random poled people would be that much more accurate than random guessing.


I will agree that issues like war will give those kind of stats. BUT...there is no mention of war on page 12. War is an issue that people are bombarded with on every news station...they can't help but know something about it. But how many random people do you honestly think even have a clue about international courts or the kyoto agreement?

did you page 12 of the document, or page 12 of acrobat reader?

Sobek, it's easy for Kerry supporters to know what Kerry's position is, because no matter what your answer is, he's had that position at one time or another.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by michaelsean:
Sobek, it's easy for Kerry supporters to know what Kerry's position is, because no matter what your answer is, he's had that position at one time or another.

Mike

---

This particular thread has nothing to do with Kerry or his supporters. This thread is about how Bush supporters are in denial about how poorly Bush has led our nation in regards to Iraq.

quote:

---

This particular thread has nothing to do with Kerry or his supporters.

---

The title of the study is "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters".

quote:

---

This thread is about how Bush supporters are in denial about how poorly Bush has led our nation in regards to Iraq.

---

Poorly is a matter of opinion. Did he run it as well as say Kerry says he would have? No, but unlike Kerry, Bush has had to make decisions on things before they occur. Kerry would be the greatest President ever if only he could make decisions after an event has occurred.

Mike

michaelsean you just hit the nail on the head with that comment, he is just monday morning quarterbacking, no one knows what he would really do ? All I know is he loves the UN & World opinion. What would he have done after 911 ?? Who knows ? that is the problem. He has been an anti-war liberal his whole career in the Senate & know he expects us to think different. Nice try, but the American people who are informed like me won't buy it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by michaelsean:

quote:

---

This particular thread has nothing to do with Kerry or his supporters.

---

The title of the study is "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters".

---

Exactly, and the conclusion of the study is that Bush supporters are out of touch.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tyshubrick:
did you page 12 of the document, or page 12 of acrobat reader?

---

It was the table of percentages. Page 12 of the document.

It's funny because in that table, it lists Bush and Kerry's stances on the issues. For Kerry, he gets an asterisk to explain that he "supports in principle but wants to negotiate terms for US involvement." That's hilarious. Even a unbiased study will give Kerry an out on issues. He can't even take a firm stand on issues in a little dingleberry study.

tyshubrick or " the sh*t brick " as I like to call ya, Sobek has lost no credibility. I think you are just tired of his answers & are tring to discredit him you BS opinions. The survey is just about as believable than "farenheit 911" Or you. Take your pick. You are the who you put up the ignorant link by a liberal organization ran by COPA. How is your credibility doing??

COPA's findings have been reported in most major news outlets, to name a few :

The New York Times, International Herald-Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Reuters , CNN, NBC, BBC, NPR and others.

Sounds like a Liberal "think tank" to me. How about a real source ??

quote:

---

Originally posted by danstufft:
tyshubrick or " the sh*t brick " as I like to call ya, Sobek has lost no credibility.

---

Well, I guess maturity hasn't yet blessed you yet. Don't worry, it will happen eventually...maybe.

quote:

---

I think you are just tired of his answers & are tring to discredit him you BS opinions.

---

What gives you this idea? In fact, the more I read the answers of Bush supporters, I am energized by my true curiosity about how people can experience different realities, in general, and how Bush supporters, specifically, continue to perseverate that Saddam was a threat with WMD.

quote:

---

The survey is just about as believable than "farenheit 911".

---

Hardly, Farenheit 9/11 was entertaining and IMHO shouldn't change votes as much as energize a base. But the poll speaks for itself. Think about it. They were asked if they were supporters of Bush or Kerry or Undecided. Do you really think those in the poll knew the study has a liberal bias (and I'm not saying they do, but for the sake of argument, I'll grant you a liberal bias) and so lied or fudged their answers. :BS Any other paranoid conclusions are welcome for sheer entertainment, if you like.

Of those who said they supported Bush, nearly 60% said it would be wrong to invade Iraq if they had no WMD or capabilities to produce them.

Here is another quote from the study:

quote:

---

56% of Bush supporters (as compared to 18% of Kerry supporters) believe that most experts say that Iraq did have actual WMD, and another 18% say that the experts’ views are evenly divided on the subject. Only 23% think that most experts believe Iraq did not have WMD.

Though this poll was taken immediately after chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer delivered his report to Congress on whether Iraq had WMD, a majority of Bush supporters misperceived the conclusions of his report. Fifty-seven percent believed that that he concluded that Iraq did have either WMD (19%) or a major program for developing them (38%).

---

The problem is that Bush supporters continue to believe (see perseverate above) that Iraq had WMD. It didn't. So, I'm sorry and this has nothing to do with opinion, this is about as close to fact as you can get, which is, Bush suporters are out of touch with reality.

quote:

---

Or you.

---

Right back atchya.

Yea I guess in your world Saddam was just a happy-go-luckly dictator that posed no threat. You just don't want to face reality, I guess you just can't handle it or something. Your hatred for Bush is blinding you to the truth. Are you trying to say that Saddam used WMD's against the Kurds & then forgot how to make them again. He could have sold that knowledge & that is threat enough. Wake UP! A War is going on against people that behead innocents while video taping it. Do you not think they would make a weapon if Saddam sold it to them.

Ty,

During the 9/11 hearings all the dems were all over Dr. Rice and Pres Bush for not taking action based on old information(PDB) that basically said UBL wanted to kill us. Nothing specific or actionable and nothing we didn't already know.

Just about every intelligence agency in the world, even the UN said Saddam had WMD. The Pres attacked and we found out he didn't have them and the Dems are all over him for acting.

Does that not seem a bit contradictory?

I understand there was some other info that should have been acted upon by the FBI (Phoenix flgiht school memo) and other intelligence failures. I personally think the Pres learned the lesson of 9/11 and took action before we were confronted with a perceived threat.

I realize this may be hard to do, but try and put yourself in the pres spot with all that intelligence (now a lot proven wrong) coming across your desk without the benefit of hindsight.

You wouldn't have taken him out? I would have everyday of the week!

Remember no Monday Morning QB-ing!!!

You should really all take the time to look through the data.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Qnnaire10_21_04.pdf

Once you take an objective look at the numbers and what they're trying to get at, then the survey is much less derisive.

Sorry, I know that many of you wanted this to show that Bush supporters are all dumb and Kerry supporters are all smart, but this survey doesn't work that way.