Even if they don't like to say it out loud, lots of Dems think that George Bush's supporters are a horde of ignoramuses. Now comes evidence that they're right!
(at least according to this biased survey)
Analyzing data from a series of nationwide polls, the report finds that a majority of Bush supporters believe things about the world that are objectively untrue, while the majority of Kerry supporters dwell in the reality-based community.
While Im hearted to see the secular left embracing objective truth, that isn't exactly what the report shows. If the report can be said to be indicative of anything it's that the different realities that separate the two groups are differences in language: Kerry supporters prefer adjectives while Bush voters favor nouns. How else can we explain that the differences in realities all hinge on the placement of modifiers?
One easy way to spot a biased survey is to examine its use of qualifying words. The ones used in the PIPA report are so embarrassingly obvious that it could be used as a textbook case of how to ask questions to get the results you want. Take, for instance, the opening paragraph of their summary:
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.
Now lets look at the same passage without the adjectives:
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a WMD program [Not true. The report said that there was a WMD program.], 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) [True, over 50 were found] or a program for developing them (25%) [also true]. Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD [true] and 57% also assumethat Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a WMD program [true]. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing support to al Qaeda [true], and 63% believe that evidence of this support has been found [true]. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assumethat this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission [True and True]. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
Notice how the reality changes when the passage is stripped of its subjective modifiers? It becomes even more obvious when we examine the questions that were asked:
Is it your perception that that experts mostly agree that just before the war Iraq:
Had WMD Bush supporters 56%; Kerry supporters 18%
This question is simply too confusing to be useful. Is it asking whether before the war the experts believed Iraq had WMDs or is it asking whether that is what the experts are saying now. It becomes especially confusing when combined with the next question.
As you may know, Charles Duelfer, the chief weapons inspector selected by the Bush administration to investigate whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, has just presented his final report to Congress. Is it your impression he concluded that, just before the war, Iraq had:
WMD Bush 19%; Kerry 7%
Major program Bush 38%; Kerry 16%
Notice the difference between this question and the previous one? Fewer than 20% of the respondents think that the Duelfer report claims that Iraq did not have WMDs before the war (these numbers are, of course, surprisingly low considering that the Duelfer report said that WMDs were found just a few months ago). Why is there a 37% difference between the two answers since they are basically asking the same thing? And why does the summary passage not use this number since they say Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer?
The second part of the question, asking about the major program, is a matter of interpretation. If the question were simply whether Saddam had a WMD program the answer would obviously have to be answered in the affirmative. But by adding the qualifier major it becomes purely subjective. Where is the line drawn between a "minor" WMD program and a "major" one? Is being able to produce large amounts of mustard gas within three months a major program? I was under the impression that Saddam was not suppossed to have a WMD program at all.
Is it your impression that Iraq was
Directly involved in 9/11 Bush 20%; Kerry 8%
Gave al-Qaeda substantial support Bush 55%; Kerry 22%
We shouldnt be surprised that the summary doesnt mention that 80% of Bush supporters dont think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. Instead the summary chooses to focus on the percentage that believes that Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda. In the report of findings PIPA claims that Despite the report of the 9/11 Commission saying that there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda[emphasis added]. Notice how once again they have to add a modifier. The reason becomes obvious when we look at the actual Commissions report:
In 2001, with Bin Ladins help [Islamist extremists in the Kurdistan area of Iraq] re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy. (Pg. 79)
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative [to offer cooperation to Bin Laden]. In March 1998, after Bin Ladins public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegations traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladins Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides hatred of the United States. But to date we have no evidence that these or the earlier contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States. (pg. 89)
Apparantly Kerry supporters dont believe that helping al Qaeda operatives attack the Kurds or offering a safe haven for Bin Laden is significant.
Is it your impression that the Bush administration is currently saying that just before the war, Iraq
Had WMD Bush 63%; Kerry 73%
Had a major WMD program Bush 19%; Kerry 24%
Is it your impression that, just before the war, that the Bush administration had said that Iraq:
Directly involved in 9/11 Bush 19%; Kerry 25%
Gave substantial support -- Bush 56%; Kerry 49%
Again we find two questions that are so confusing that the results become uninformative.
Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think
Majority favors Bush 26%; Kerry 5%
Are evenly divided Bush 42%; Kerry 20%
Majority opposes -- Bush 31%; Kerry 74%
The summary claims that Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries,
The problem with this passage is that the conclusion of the PPIA doesnt match the data. For example, they claim that a Gallup International poll says that a majority of people in the world opposed the US having gone to war in Iraq. But the actual poll only shows that approximately half opposed the war under any circumstances. That is neither a majority nor a fair extrapolation of the data. Besides, there are 191 countries in the UN. How is a poll of 38 countries representative of the world?
Thinking about how people around the world feel about the US presidential election, do you think:
Majority prefers Bush 57% Bush supporters; 9% Kerry supporters
Majority prefers Kerry 9% Bush supporters; 69% Kerry supporters
This is the hands down the stupidest question in the survey. Who cares which candidate the world prefers? Why should we pay attention to other countries when they elect people like Yasser Arafat and Jacques Chirac?
The one area that the survey appears to have accurately reported is the Bush supporters misperception that the President supports the atrocious global treaties that the rest of the world thinks we should be signing on to. The Kerry supporters, on the other hand, were able to correctly identify their candidates position on almost every issue. To be fair, though, they had an advantage over the Bush supporters. All they had to do in order to guess where Kerry stands is to ask What would France do?
