Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities
 

The University of Maryland's Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland worked together in this study which found that those voting for Bush and those voting for Kerry have different perceptions of the world around them. The study concluded that Kerry supporters are generally more in tune with world events and the Iraq war. What are your opinions on this study? Do you see the things they are talking about in the Bush/Kerry supporters you know in everyday life? Do you think its findings are accurate or biased?

----------

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr..._10_21_04.html

Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda

Agree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case

Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda

Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War, Favoring Bush Reelection

Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

<< RESUME READING >>

This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.

Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.

Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

The polls were conducted October 12-18 and September 3-7 and 8-12 with samples of 968, 798 and 959 respondents, respectively. Margins of error were 3.2 to 4% in the first and third surveys and 3.5% on September 3-7. The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

For more information on the PIPA poll see:
<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf"> Report of Findings</a>
<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Qnnaire10_21_04.pdf"> Questionnaire</a>
<a href="http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Press10_21_04.pdf">Press Release</a>

Of course their is a slew of percentages one could slew out about Kerry supporters as well about what actually happened out at the boat(you can see the report written by him saying he chased the injured fleeing soldier, ect.), his record in the senate, how often he does change positions, they probably believe he can plan a war, he wouldn't have gone to Iraq(though he gave support in the senate), that he is going to keep our troops out of danger though he said himself he would support a first strike on North Korea, that just by spouting off during his capaign that he the world will flock to him as the son of God and become our un waivering allies again on the whim of our election, so on and so forth. Alot of the supporters of candidates are zealot like and are blind to the repercussions of their uninformed decisions. Its less about the issues and more about them choosing the winners, when you have people ready to throwdown in the streets over this we certainly have a problem.

Of course Badnarik is the perfect candidate and has no flaws :o

This was a tasteful way to continue OpieCunningham's thread, ty. What you have to remember is that you don't have to vote for Kerry or Bush. I know full well that Bush made aweful mistakes, and that a lot of his supporters are to devoted to see the truth. Likewise, because Bush's mistakes were so obvious, Kerry supporters are willing to overlook the possibility that he has a poor record of consistancy.

My explaination of the Bush follower confusion of the facts is written in the closed "Most Bush Supporters: Intentionally Ignorant or unable to process reality?" thread (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=73419).
In that thread I wrote:

"Outside of these people [people who are too busy with their own lives to care about political responsibility], you have the dissonant people. People who have sacraficed a lot with Bush in office and don't want to be wrong about what they put so much work into. Imagine you voted for Bush (some don't have to imagine, obviously). You've been protecting him since he stole the election. You vote for him, he loses, but steals the election and people ask you why. So you fight them on it. You didn't vote for the loser! So you start in a pattern of defending him. Next he starts going on vacation for years at a time. People call him lazy, you say he's doing his job. You start to have a vested interest in how people see Bush. Then 9/11 happens. We all want to hunt down the killers. You know your president won't let you down. So he goes after Ossama. Everyone is with you all of a sudden. Bush is going to get them! Then we attack Iraq. You are back in the position of defending Bush's actions. So now you can see a pattern of defending your decision back in 2000. Now here comes the election...time to fight with all of your might!

Why does this happen? Dissonance. If someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge*— they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than assimilation. You have vested interest in him being right, even if the facts stand in stark contrast."

I feel great pity for those who are so dedicated that they start to dissacociate with reality. This is a sign on mental illness on a national level. I'd even call it an epidemic. My family will not be living in a nation that is slowly turning into an empire. If Bush (or Kerry) wins, and the nation continues to decay (less freedoms, more 'safty', missinforming people, media control, blatent lies, self interest, etc.) I will simply leave. I have done quite a bit to try and start the changes necessary. No one cares. I won't raise my children in such a place. This 'seperate reality' concept is a symptom of a much larger sickness. Empathy is losing to self interest. It's a damned shame.

IMO.

Hmmm, do these people qualify as the "uninformed" voters that some posters railed against so harshly in other threads? Maybe they should be officially disenfranchised, after all :)
(that was a joke, by the way)

This definitely serves as an example of how trusting a leader implicitly can lead one astray. Imagine what a skewed vision of the world would be produced by actually believing every piece of spin that flies out of a media machine.

On a related note, citizens should always get their information from a variety of sources and not just their favorite biased sources. I'm all for editorials, blogs, talk shows, et al, but they must be balanced against some dissenting and neutral voices lest we begin to believe everything that pundits say.

<img src="http://img.fark.com/images/topics/obvious.gif">
I know and respect some Bush supporters. I have always believed that they were in some way deluded. Nice to have the chops to back that up now.

The follwing quote seems to sum up where the "disconnect"
seems to originate:
The links to the people who say they watch Fox News. They report....you decide: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=cheney+watches+fox+%2Bnews&lr=&sa=N&tab=nw">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=cheney+watches+fox+%2Bnews&lr=&sa=N&tab=nw</a>

I:

Believe that there are chemical weapons either in or transferred to a neighboring country. Just because we have not found them does not mean that the no longer exist. If SH had wanted us to believe that he had destroyed them, he would not have behaved like an ass just to make Iran "askert" of him.

Believe that while no solid link between al Qaeda and SH has been found, that that not the reason we are in Iraq anyway. We were attacked, A WHOLE LOTTA PEOPLE were mad. We needed an ass to jump in and guess who got it. There were a few people at that time that were protesting, but not many. Now people forget that they supported the war at the beginning, but now have changed their petty little minds just because it is a little longer and rougher that they wanted. I also believe that money from Iraq was used to support al Qaeda. Maybe not from SH, but Iraqi money.

Believe that we should have NOT gone in a second time. After 911, we should have IMMEDIATELY began to secure our borders, trained for another attack and began an intelligent push.

Believe that we never should have targeted SH on the first day. I have never understood this, we tried to assassinate a foreign leader and had a goat rope media circus about it. This is embarrassing.

Believe that OBL is either dead or in the PI (or some other 3rd world nation) loving all the little girls and planning another attaack. Not in Pakistan.

Believe that Americans are losing their memory and patience. We want an instant fix or we will cry about it.

Believe that Kerry is not the answer to our problems.

I went to Maryland, and took political science and history classes there. Therefore, seeing:

automatically makes me ignore the article as coming from a source that makes John Kerry look like Pat Buchanan on the political spectrum.

well, how many WMDs did Saddam have to possess to be considered to have WMDS? They have found 53 WMDs in Iraq so far, according to the Duelfer report, and a program ready to produce more within weeks to months once given the order to.

Even Bush and Cheney admit that we've found no WMDs so far, so your trumpeting of the 53 "residual rounds" proves nothing. Here's a verbatim posting from the Deulfer report that mentions your "smoking gun:"
(from the key findings pdf, page 13)
Sadam may have desired more chemical weapons, but there was no official program in place to revive the manufacturing of the weapons:
(key findings, page 1)
It's worth noting that the Duelfer report is viewed as a condemnation of Bush's Iraq/WMD claims. It's strange to see it used as a supporting argument.

Sorry for the threadjack folks, but I thought that this was an important point to make.

interesting article.
the results do not surprise me.
they **should** alarm people, however.

I am not alarmed. A comparable case can be made for the fictional realities that are held as beliefs by the other side.
As this is not the time that we who support our candidates are willing to give an inch toward the demystification of our positions (as it would unravel our stratagems), this fascinating discussion reveals nothing but continuing talking points.

First point, every president has made mistakes.

Second point, every president has supporters who refuse to admit those mistakes.

Third point, the first and second points hold true for every presidential candidate.

i read through the linked article and some of the material in support of it--what is interesting is the extent to which the survey dovetails with earlier studies on the resistance to dissonant information that seems characteristic of folk who rely on right discourse to articulate thier sense of being-in-the-world. it is that refusal to accomodate dissonance that is one of the most unsettling aspects of this discourse.

that is why i see the results are something that should be alarming.

i see no equivalent to this discursive space--consertativeland is not the mirror image of the "left"--it is its own, particular unsettling phenomenon. it might function as reassuring to act as though it is somehow isomorphic with another formation, but that seems not to be true empirically.

And what is that "comparable" case, Art? What type of misconceptions do Kerry supporters suffer from that could possibly rival the serious implications of this study. This is about war, probably the most serious and dangerous territory that any politician can tread.

Notice that this thread was not started by a Kerry supporter. This issue transcends base partisanship.

I know that you prefer not to debate, but sometimes sweeping pronunciations demand explanations.

What seems to me to be "true, empirically" is the fact that human beings operate within fantastical structures known as "belief systems" and that political positions are maintained by some of the most dissonance-avoidant mechanisms known to man. IMO, to have an idea that one tribe does this more than another one is at best simply self-serving - especially for those who rightly comprehend the absence of anything resembling "objective reality."

cthulu23, one of the most dangerous and pernicious fact-avoidant beliefs/behaviors I see on the left involves the promulgation of the significance and validity of the United Nations. There are many, many others.

"Conservative" Americans have done an excellent job in creating a seperate media complex to communicate their messages. There is no comparable complex on the "liberal" side. Although there is nothing wrong with creating means of communications, I think that this survey reveals some of the dangers when one-sided forums become viewed as the only legitimate information sources. That was what I spoke of in my first post. Although political hay can be made of this, the more important issue is finding and confronting the causes of this dangerous information gap.

Edit: the validity of the UN is a matter of opinion, the issues mentioned in the survey deal with facts. There is no equivalency between the two.

I don't doubt that the left has it's own self-delusions, but I can think of none that have the same immediate importance as this. This election has been largely fought on the issue of Iraq...if many of Bush's supporters are massively misinformed about the issue then this election could be decided based on a series of misconceptions.

Many of us seem ultimately satisfied by convincing ourselves that we have a superior grasp of reality. My paragraph above bears repeating:

"What seems to me to be "true, empirically" is the fact that human beings operate within fantastical structures known as "belief systems" and that political positions are maintained by some of the most dissonance-avoidant mechanisms known to man. IMO, to have an idea that one tribe does this more than another one is at best simply self-serving - especially for those who rightly comprehend the absence of anything resembling "objective reality."

IMO, to think otherwise of one's own views is self-delusion. Some of us do not hold to the objective existence of "facts." If I have anything of worth to contribute here, it is the position I stated in the paragraph above.

What this leaves us with is an awareness/acknowledgement that politics is about power. It is not about truth.

I do not believe in the existence of objective reality nor do I think that "facts" have any meaning outside of the human realm, but that does not mean that we cannot possibly differentiate between the tendencies of different groups of humans at different times.

There is a philosophical understanding of the world and there is a functional understanding. I can never quite be sure that the universe exists outside of my own mind but that notion has very little impact on my day to day life. Humans may create their own meanings and goals but that does not automatically render their ideas invalid within the scope of the human realm. In the same vein, there is a relative level of "truth" in the human realm that can be revealed by the actions and details of past occurences.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Agreed. That's how we live our lives - both of us, I see.
I think however that an essential fallacy running through this thread and the entire realm of political dialog/debate of which it is a part promotes the notion that politics is about truth. If we can agree that politics is about power, perhaps we can use what political power we have to broker agreements across our differences that will improve our lives. I am interested in pursuing those agreements.

Politics are ultimately about power but, as a democracy, the perception of truthfulness in our leaders is important in confirming the legitimacy of their rule. "Truth" is not the essence of politics but it can play a defining role in the shaping of the power boundaries, particularly in a functional or semi-functional democracy.

I notice you quote the executive summary, and not the main report. Why is that? You still didn't answer the question. How many WMDs did we have to find in Iraq to conclude that Saddam still had them? Wasn't the 53 confirmed WMDs enough? What's the magical number?

The annoying thing to me about such 'reports' is that they are always going to make the Bush supporters look bad because the questions asked are slanted in such a way that an ignorant Kerry supporter will 'guess' correctly.

The Kerry supporters were overwhelming wrong on the ONE question not involving Iraq in the state of the economy, yet that didn't make the report. You have to look at the raw data on their site.

The whole thing is bullshit in that its just a typical liberal 'Republicans are stupid' mindset, which is ironic, based on both parties overall education level :P

Anyone remember the quote from Cameron Diaz on Oprah about rape?
The campaign to make people scared of a Bush draft?
People that don't think critically can become guilty of not really being touch with reality, and there are people like that on both sides.
See also, my post on this in that other thread too.

Chemical Warfare in the Iran-Iraq War
by The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

I have no great love for either candidate, but WMD in Iraq was a fact.

I quoted the summary because the salient points are already summarized (obviously). Are you insinuating that the executive summary is a misrepresentation of the facts contained in the uncondensed documents?

The WMDs in question were "old," "abandoned" and no longer chemically active. There is a reason that the Bush administration does not seem as excited about the find as some of the right wing internet elements. Again, if their discovery is so damning why isn't the White House communicating the same message that you are?

WAS is the operative word. We didn't invade Iraq because of the munitions that they HAD but because of the supposedly vast stockpiles that they were currently in possession of.

Believe it or not, I have no great love for either candidate as well.

I am persistently irked by the fact that Kerry supporters believe that anything Bush does is wrong, even when they state that they would support the same action if taken by Kerry.

The type of thinking that you describe is indeed revolting, but isn't your application of that label a bit too broad? I am a Kerry supporter. I am not a registered Democrat and I have never voted for a Democrat for President in the two opportunites that I've had but I do support Kerry given the recent political history of this country. I like to think that I'm a little more honest than the portait that you painted. There will always be true believers in every party but I thnk that attributing one-dimensional thinking to all Kerry supporters is inaccurate.

The above thought also applies to Bush supporters. I think that the results shown in this poll are more of a reflection on the media tendencies of americans then any sort of stupidity or bad judgement on the part of Republicans.

So how many WMDs did Saddam have to possess in order to be considered to be in possession of WMDs? 50 obviously isn't enough for you. How many would be? 100? 500? 5000? 50,000? If just 5 of the sulphur-mustard WMDs had been used in a major subway system in the US, how many casualties could we have expected to suffer? How many casualties in the US would have been acceptable to you?

These were inactive, abandoned weapons, not some secret stash of weapons destined for the subways of NY.

You want a number? How about 53? Give me 53 actual, real weapons that at least fit the criteria of the people that you say that you support on this issue, not a dusty collection of poor excuses.

There is also no proof that Iraq had any plans on attacking the US with WMDs or supplying WMDs to terrorists. Once again, even the White House isn't claiming this anymore.

This is very much the separate realities we are talking about. Those scraps that were found were old, decomissioned and nowhere near the intended *true* targets. If you wanna justify everything this country has gone through and the debt we are in now with *that* don't be surprised if a ton of people disagree with you.. vehemently.

As if to exemplify the topic of this thread......

Here's the thing. This is taken from page 32-33 of this pdf: http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol3.pdf

The italics are mine. They describe the rounds in question, they state that they would still be highly toxic, and as page 29 of the report states:

Then, of course, you have this statement from page 35:

So, this commission found 53 WMDs, some of which they couldn't tell if they were declared or destroyed, and they've looked at 10% of the KNOWN stockpiles found so far.

Then you've got reports from captured Iraqis, such as this one on page 47:

How hard would it be to hide less than 10 pounds of something in an entire country? Do you know how many people 3.5 kg of ricin could kill? The answer is more than 5.

Then skip on to page 78, where the report states:

There are some bunkers that are open, and they contained empty CW shells, et cetera (not part of the 53, these are separate, and there are bunkers filled with them, so how many there are we will not know until we get around to breaching them.)

then there's this, from page 81:

These are the actually demilled weapons from the early 1990's. There were hundreds of them left after the site had been repeatedly looted for salvage. These are NOT included in the 53 WMD figures, since they had actually been rendered inert.

Then there's this from page 97:

That statement alone should raise a giant "WTF" in the minds of readers. A 40% sarin solution can kill you dead as hell in no time flat. Because they're binary, they have a much longer shelf-life than other types of pre-mixed chemical weapons. And it all comes back to "we don't know, and we've only looked at about 10% of KNOWN munitions destroyed, and we have no idea what else is still out there."

Anyhoo, I'm gonna stop there. Reading all that crap has given me a headache.

Knowledge Networks, which constructed the instrument and did the sampling for this survey is recognized for their sound methodologies. However this survey is entirely skewed.

Let’s say, as a hypothetical example, that the world population has an opinion of, say, 51% in favor of a subject. (A ridiculous statement on its face, but bare with me)

And lets say that group A perceives this world opinion to be 45% and group B perceives this world opinion to be 95%. While both groups are wrong in their perception of world opinion, group B is much farther from the facts.
Now let’s create an instrument that purports to measure this difference.

What if we ask a significant sampling of each group the following question:

“Is world opinion today greater than 50% or less than 50%?” The results should be that a significant number or respondents from group A would say “less than 50%” and likewise group B would say “greater than 50%.”

We then call a press conference and announce our findings.
GROUP A IS SIGNFICANTLY OUT OF TOUCH WITH WORLD OPINION ON THIS ISSUE!

If you can't argue the conclusion, argue the math. I believe that is what is called a <a href-="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html">Strawman</a>.

Slow down there a just a moment.

I'm not arguing the gross conclusion of the study--that Bush supporters are less informed about the specific items included in the questionnaire than are supporters of Kerry, I'm addressing the question of bias.

Yes, I too have a hard time understanding the fervent support for Bush, but then again, I had a hard time understanding the fervent support for Clinton as well.

But the study does have a built in bias. My point is that it was not constructed to determine which group had a more accurate perception of world view (as determined by a survey of 10 national newspapers), it was worded so as to measure which group thought the world view was greater than or less than a 50% approval rate.

It's like on "The Price Is Right," when they say "whoever get the closest without going over (the price)" This is not the same as saying whoever get the closest.

My point is simply this. There is room for people in both camps to be wrong about the degree of approval or disapproval of world opinion. But the questionnaire only measures being wrong in one direction.

No it can't.

There are few (if any) empirical facts dealing with such central issues of this election that you can point to and claim Kerry supporters do not believe. There are a number of entirely arguable "facts" (such as all of those listed in the first reply in this thread) which Kerry supporters most likely do not believe, but they are certainly not the focal point of this election, nor are they undebateable issues.

- 75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

- 72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.

- 61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.

- 60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

- 58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.

- 56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.

- 55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

- 51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.

- 20% believe Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.


Kerry supporters may not believe that he is a traitor to this country, they may not believe he did nothing to deserve the medals he received in Vietnam, or that Kerry would be a bad supporter of the country's military, etc - but none of those things are unequivocal facts either.