Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Well Ed, the simple, easy to that fact is to point out they voted multiple times like the early national elections of yore. Perhaps they Shanghaied people and compelled them to vote for Obama. I don't know and neither do you. I am just a guy asking questions. And there is no such thing as a dumb question. Is there?

Posted by: History Punk | November 20, 2009 9:49 AM

"Watching the Republican Party slide further and further into the abyss of lunacy is becoming a spectator sport."

They are dragging our country down into its own abyss along with it, but that's not amusing at all.

Isn't it about time for a national conversation about political propaganda, monied interests and reforming our media? You know, like before we become a third-world nation.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 20, 2009 9:50 AM

Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?"

That's an incredibly leading question. I understand many people feel strongly that the assertion is true (I work with a couple), but I wonder about the percentage who may have been tipped to say yes because of this phrasing.

Posted by: dean | November 20, 2009 9:54 AM

I like that 21% are "undecided," meaning, presumably, that they at least think it is possible, or maybe even likely, but they are bravely waiting for a bit more proof before making up their minds.

That gives you 73% that think it is likely, or at least worthy of serious consideration!

We need a control group, or at least a "baseline" measurement:

Hands, please, self-identified rebublicans - how many people think that Bill Clinton was a mole, planted by hungry reptilian space aliens bent on world domination and the farming of Earth's residents to secure a future food source?

Hmmm ... by my count, approximately 73% of the sample group. Yep, lunacy seems to check out as a preliminary theory!

Posted by: threetorches | November 20, 2009 9:58 AM

Perhaps they Shanghaied people and compelled them to vote for Obama. I don't know and neither do you. I am just a guy asking questions. And there is no such thing as a dumb question. Is there?

There they are, the articles of faith among the new Republicans:

1) Treating speculation as evidence
2) Assuming everyone shares their ignorance
3) Claiming dishonest partisan political gamesmanship is merely "asking questions"
4) Reliance on grade-school platitudes as insulation against criticism and identification of their stupidity

And they wonder why they've driven those of us with educations from the party in droves.

Posted by: Science Avenger | November 20, 2009 9:59 AM

Snopes doesn't even have a record of a viral email going around if one uses the search terms, "Obama", and "ACORN" to search their archives.

Factcheck.org has no record of fisking this either.

I'm betting this survey is fatally flawed.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 20, 2009 10:07 AM

They are aware that Barack Obama won 9,522,083 more votes than John McCain, right?
Even if McCain picked up North Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska (2nd congressional district), Florida and Ohio (a 5% swing to McCain), he would only have got 247 Electoral Votes (45.91%), and the way McCain's campaign was running even that would have been near impossible.
Not that facts actually matter to the Republican Right-ideologues as we have seen.- DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 10:22 AM

Holytape, that was an impressive first draft [1]. However, it lacks a certain something that it needs for true barking madness.

[1] Yeah, that's a straight line.

Posted by: D. C. Sessions | November 20, 2009 10:30 AM

Wow, a survey that casts in a bad light the party opposed by most the commenter here and still it's treated with skepticism. It's been too long since I've said it, I love this blog!

Posted by: Abby Normal | November 20, 2009 10:34 AM

The question is very badly-phrased. There are actually three possibilities: That President Obama won the election legitimately, that ACORN stole the election for him, or that the election was stolen by some other means.

Based on my recent experiences with Republicans, I'd guess that most of the 27% who say that he was elected legitimately actually fall into the "stole the election by some other means" group.

Of the Democrats and Independents, I'd guess that most of the "stole the election"/"undecided" answers should be interpreted as, "This is a stupid question, so I think I'll give a stupid answer just out of pure contrariness."

Posted by: chaos_engineer | November 20, 2009 10:39 AM

With rise of the internet conspiracy theories have become all the rage. Personally I find the conspiracy mentality hard to take seriously.
If I have blind hate for someone then I am willing to believe anything negative about them. That seems to be the logic. Thus if I hate Bush then he must have planned 911. Or if I hate Obama he must have faked his birth certificate. It is all very childish.

Posted by: Cheddar | November 20, 2009 11:04 AM

Holytape @15,
Not a bad screed at all but it lacks random capitalization to be a True Representation of America(tm).

Posted by: MikeMa | November 20, 2009 11:08 AM

LtStorm @ 21,

I don't find it at all bizarre anymore. Projection seems to be the standard operating procedure for the religious right these days (and by extension the Republican Party). I think it's a kind of guilt disassociation. If they can foist their inner feelings of guilt onto somebody else then they feel better. After all, they didn't do anything different than anybody else, right?

Posted by: DGKnipfer | November 20, 2009 11:23 AM

Some of the numbers look pretty unrepresentative of the American populace as a whole. 34% conservative, 50% moderate and 16% liberal? Is that really how we identify? The party affiliations also looked a lot higher for both parties than I had seen in the past. I'm still think that even if only 20% of republicans believe this it's a problem, but I'm kind of doubting the numbers at the moment.

Posted by: ChrisZ | November 20, 2009 11:41 AM

I'm a little skeptical of these poll results, not the least because of the obviously suggestive slant of the question and the binary phrasing of it. That said, whether an actual majority of Republicans believe this or not, that significant numbers of them think this along those lines is telling.

Of course, a majority of the GOP these days only means about 12 percent of the electorate, so maybe those numbers aren't as off as I thought...

Posted by: Solly Hofman | November 20, 2009 11:50 AM

It is a spectator sport, where the best place for spectators to observe from is a different biosphere.

Posted by: abb3w | November 20, 2009 12:22 PM

MikeMA - stealing "guilt by disassociation" are you? Well, so am I, too bad DGKnipfer actually (nearly) typed it. :( -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 12:36 PM

DingoJack @34
Phrases do swirl around like that when they ring true. In my opinion, the best thing about this blog (and some others) is the quality of the material dispensed. I find I am much better prepared to meet irrational nonsense after reading here.

Posted by: MikeMa | November 20, 2009 12:48 PM

Granted, there is more evidence to back up my argument...or at least more evidence that I recognize as legitimate. I would also bet that more that 52% of democrats feel the same way I do about 2000 and Bush v. Gore. So, I just don't see anything absurd about the headline.

The two situations are significantly different. The point is that the evidence was actually there. It would be a better analogy to compare it to the election of George H. W. Bush. Do you really think that 52% of Democrats would have suspected widespread fraud in that election?

Your comparison is basically like saying that I believe dinosaurs used to exist because of the fossil evidence, so that means it's ok for people to believe dragons used to exist even though there's no evidence of it.

Posted by: catgirl | November 20, 2009 1:09 PM

"You think Bush stole the 2000 election!?! Well, I think Obama stole the 2008 election! So there!"

Posted by: llewelly | November 20, 2009 1:54 PM

That ACORN steals elections is accepted wisdom amongst right-wing Republicans. Doug Hoffman, the insurgent Tea Party candidate in NY-23, has accused ACORN of being responsible for stealing the election from him, despite the fact there isn't the slightest evidence that ACORN had any involvement in the election at all -- it doesn't even have an office in the district.

He doesn't bother to present a single shred of evidence to back up his allegation but he doesn't need to. Merely mentioning the name ACORN is enough to convince the Tea Party faithful that yet another election has been stolen from them.

Posted by: tacitus | November 20, 2009 2:14 PM

Sorry History Punk. It's so hard to tell these days, and you played the part SO well.

Posted by: Science Avenger | November 20, 2009 2:35 PM

Whoops, I forgot to add that the Oswego County Election Commissioner (a Dem in a blue county) said something like:

"There may be acorns on the trees up in the Adirondacks (alluding to the fact that Hoffman does not live in the district he wants to "represent") but there aren't any working here."

Posted by: democommie | November 20, 2009 3:13 PM

yeah this fits the same level of crazy, that the Diebold stole the 2004 election for Bush. Of course , with the Bush V Gore election in serious question

Posted by: Vic Vanity | November 20, 2009 3:42 PM

democommie: They probably mean FDR since if their in their 70s-80s they're not likely to buy the historical revisionism the Right has been pushing recently.

Posted by: Noadi | November 20, 2009 4:02 PM

Jeez, maybe this poll and Ed are right.

The organization that did the poll was pretty solid and accurate in its swing state analysis of the '08 election. The question does seem more than a bit leading to me, but when you consider the huge swing, how do you explain it with flawed data, etc.? That should show up in its MoE, but it's only+/-3% with a sample of 1000+. In this same poll the results showed a sub 50% approval rating for Obama (49%) that isn't outside the expected realm, a 47% to 45% Obama to McCain margin for self reported voting in '08 with 8% other/don't remember, etc.

You do have a rather high level of self-identified Republicans (33%), but otherwise the analysis of party affiliation and liberal/conservative ideology is pretty much in line with these specific results. Liberals and moderates appear to give Obama a better grade, higher approval rating, agree with his health care reform plan, etc. Conservatives and Republicans oppose or are negative towards Obama by rather huge margins in each of these categories, the numbers look very similar to the specifically cited 52% number mentioned in this thread by Ed:

86% of Democrats believe that Obama won the election legit, 78% of independents, but only 23% of Republicans? That is a huge difference, but then when you look at his grades, or support for/opposition to his health care plan, you see similarly skewed results. For example, health care plan:

94% of liberals either support the plan, or have no opinion of it
62% of moderates either support the plan or have no opinion of it
8% of conservatives either support the plan or have no opinion of it

84% of Conservatives believe Obama's grade is a D or an F. Over 80% of liberals and 60% of moderates think that grade should be an A or a B.

83% of Republicans, D or F, 92% of Republicans oppose health care reform.

The more I look at the data, and how massively skewed it is by ideology and party identification, I either have to consider the entire poll to be utter garbage, or have to see it as legitimate (albeit rather disconcerting).

I don't see anything in their methodology that suggests it is seriously flawed. Their gender demo is a bit off, more male than female, but that also likely matches their higher number of self identified GOP membership. Their regional sample is questionable, 15% west? 60% from the midwest and south? But again, that appears to be representative of their strangely higher GOP membership. Age group seems a bit old, but yet again, representative of that higher Republican self identification.

Perhaps I'm missing it, it's been a while since I did significant, comprehensive evaluation of polls, but I don't see a fatal flaw in this one that would comfortably explain away that massive difference in opinion on this question. Crappy question, perhaps it could be argued a leading or push question, but a 50-60% difference in responses?

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_1119.pdf

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 20, 2009 5:38 PM

The major problem with the poll is that the question is very leading. The fact that it isn't less than 30% thinking that Acorn stole it is just awful (it should be 0%, but people are crazy).

There are only a few presidential elections in my mind that it would be somewhat reasonable to say one person stole the election. The ones that come to mind are 1804 (Jefferson tied with Burr), 1824 (Jackson won the electoral vote but since he did not have a majority it went to the house and Quincy Adams won), 1876 (Hayes lost the popular vote, 20 electoral votes were in dispute), 1888 (Harrison lost the popular vote)1960 (It was rather close in the deciding states) 2000 (The whole Florida Fiasco and Bush losing the popular vote). I am not saying that any of these were stolen, I certainly don't think they were, but at least making the claim that they were is somewhat understandable.

But I mean, Obama won by almost 10 million votes, faking that would require an absolutely MASSIVE conspiracy. Don't Republicans think Democrats are completely incompetent? How could they possibly pulled that off?

Finally I still don't understand what ACORN could possibly have done to earn such hate from the right.

Posted by: Zaxro | November 20, 2009 6:46 PM

52%?! What a bunch of knotheads. I think at most only about 30% of Dems thought that chimp faced hitlerite joker Bush wasn't really elected.

Posted by: doug l | November 20, 2009 7:08 PM

Dogmeatib - thanks for the data an analysis. I'm skeptical of this poll for all political affiliations, not just why its so high for the GOP. That makes me question whether the people polled were truly representative of the population and the question.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 20, 2009 7:42 PM

Science Avenger, yours is however the proper incisive tone and collective analysis to use in the wars at the present time, my opinion, good job. You went beyond what I had perceived, and I am always glad to be instructed.

Posted by: david | November 20, 2009 8:01 PM

I think this is even crazier:

Dave Weigel points out that one out of every three New Jersey conservatives think that Obama could be the anti-Christ. To be precise, 18% of self-identified conservatives affirmatively say that Obama is the anti-Christ, with 17% not sure. Among the self-identified Republican label, it's 14% who say Obama has the number 666 hidden underneath his hair, plus 15% who aren't sure.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 21, 2009 8:30 AM

Thanks David. As a former Republican (the Objectivist variety), I can go a little overboard with passion on this issue. I feel like a former cult member, and want to bitch-slap my former GOP brethren (at least the ones with superior IQs) out of their intellectual stupor. To that end it seems crucially important to understand the rhetorical tricks that keep them intellectually trapped. The substitution of speculation for facts is a particularly nasty habit they use constantly, and it is the most powerful "tool" they use to dismiss contrary evidence against their dogma.

Posted by: Science Avenger | November 21, 2009 9:05 AM

Well if they're polling registered Republican then they're polling a smaller group every day. The craziness is being concentrated by evaporation of thinking persons from the GOP.

Posted by: Rob Jase | November 21, 2009 10:08 AM

"Introducing B.C.E./C.E. in conjunction with B.C./A.D. in the classroom is to deny the historical basis of the dating system and ultimately leads to confusion," Mandis told the board. Mandis said this teacher's decision was "irresponsible" and possibly "a dangerous and slippery slope."

Just because it confuses YOU, lady, doesn't mean a 12 year old can't understand it.

Posted by: gwangung | November 21, 2009 1:47 PM

Odie had it at 1. 14% of the winning party believes he stole the election... which wasn't even a close one? Can't be a quality poll.

Posted by: Rich | November 21, 2009 11:37 PM

BCE CE was invented by some scientist who unfortunately was not smart enough to tie it back to something else then BC AD.

Posted by: Educated in Public Schools | November 23, 2009 10:03 PM

Your point is moot, anyway. All the cool people use the North Korean calendar.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 24, 2009 1:03 AM