....this is what they're talking about.
Research 2000 polled self identified Republicans and asked them a series of questions. A number of the responses are disturbing on many levels (such as 39% believing the President should be impeached, and 31% believing that contraception should be outlawed), but the one that caught my attention is the following:
36% of those surveyed believe that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
I'm sorry, if we can't agree on a simple fact like this, I'm not sure if we can agree on anything at all. The fact that the President was born in Hawaii is about as close to being nailed down as a fact can be, barring the fact that we weren't actually in the room as it happened.
Really? Seriously? 36%?
I saw this list too, and find many of them, such as the birther item, to be disturbing.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Dems are quite similar on some, especially two that you named (remembering the large percentage of them that wanted Bush impeached, and the large percentage that bought into the "Bush stole the election" and related Election 2000 myths which is as silly and mythical as the "birther" allegations are).
I know that is not any excuse for the "birthers". But it shows that buying into myths is a bipartisan matter.
Proof positive that there's no such thing as too MUCH common sense. Sheeple of every political origin will be... sheeple.
ReplyDeleteNon-readers have it especially hard- I mean, jeez. They have to rely on what other people tell them; actually researching something would be...better left to stronger minds *ahem*.
Wouldn't it be something if we could stop pointing the finger at each other and began to actually work together on important issues? We waste so much time on the trivial.
ReplyDeleteContraception is a religious and medical problem. Not a government issue. I and anyone else have no right to inflict our beliefs on this subject on others.
Hey... he's already president. Where he showed up on earth is not really all that important anymore.
DM-I don't think the beliefs about George Bush are the same thing at all.
ReplyDeleteThere were numerous serious grounds to justify Bush's impeachment, not to mention incarceration for crimes against humanity.
And Election 2000 had a margin, in Florida, of less than a thousand votes, with numerous credible allegations of voter fraud and irregularities.
Now, I have a better chance of shooting 65 at Augusta National than either one of these beliefs had of being acted upon. Indeed, neither was.
But the evidence is there in Bush's case, and it isn't in Obama's.
"There were numerous serious grounds to justify Bush's impeachment, not to mention incarceration for crimes against humanity."
ReplyDeleteAll completely as serious and credible as the grounds for impeaching Obama. That is, not at all. Partisanship taken way too far.
"And Election 2000 had a margin, in Florida, of less than a thousand votes, with numerous credible allegations of voter fraud and irregularities."
The votes were counted. Several times, and Gore lost. The election was decided Nov 2000, and sore losers (the equivalent of today's Birthers) delayed the inevitable.
The baseless blind partisan hatred for Bush then is the same as the hatred for Obama now, with the only real difference is that racial epithets are hurled against Obama that weren't hurled against Bush. The "evidence" wasn't there for Bush, and it isn't there for Obama. The "ideas" for both get laughed out of the realm of serious public discourse.
"But the evidence is there in Bush's case, and it isn't in Obama's."
And I can find such statements at Obama-hater forums and blogs, just with the names reversed.
Ananda said: "Hey... he's already president. Where he showed up on earth is not really all that important anymore."
ReplyDeleteGood point, actually. Even if heaven forbid the Birthers were right, Obama still won the election fair and square (just like his predecessor, of course), and this matter would come across as a mere technicality.
When people say Republicans are stupid...I am sad and offended. Sad because it lowers the civility of political discourse in our country. Offended because I'm a republican and I don't like being called stupid.
ReplyDeleteA few important things you neglected to tell your readers about this poll:
It was commissioned by Markos Moulitsas, the Daily Kos writer who is working on a book entitled, "American Taliban," in which he argues that "modern day conservatives share the same agenda as radical jihadists in the Islamic world." He says that he fond himself "making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up." He commissioned this poll to back up his own beliefs about conservatives and Republicans. The above quotes (including the horrendous grammar) are his own.
I've sent an email to Daily Kos asking for a breakdown of the poll results by education level. I'm surprised they didn't supply that. It's pretty standard demographic catagory in polls. If they reply (I'm guessing they will not), I'll certainly post here. I suspect it may shed some light on these results.
Speaking of demographics, the geographic breakdown of this poll is striking. 42% of responders were from the South (only 22% from the mid-West); 56% of responders were men. It would seem that the poll skewed strongly to southern men. Those numbers may be representative of actual Republican party affiliation (I couldn't find an online demographic breakdown of Republican Party membership). Or, they may be representative of trying to skew the poll towards certain results. Again, I wish this was addressed in the poll methodology, which was skimpy to say the least.
Finally, the poll questions are skewed to get certain results. Many of the questions in the poll were asked in black and white terms ("Should President Obama be impeached, or not?" "Do you believe President Obama was born in the United States, or not?"). This "or not?" construction leads people to think they are answering a yes or no question, so they feel obligated to pick one. If the questions included the term "or you don't know" you would have seen far more in that catagory.
Speaking of the impeachment question, do you think most Americans could accurately describe what impeachment is? For many people, impeachment just means "fired from the job of President." If the poll question had a brief description of what impeachment really is, and THEN the questions, "Should President Obama be impeached?" I think you would have seen very different results.
Bottom line, unless and until a solid poll methology is published, I woould take these numbers with a whole shakerful of salt.
DM-
ReplyDelete"The votes were counted. Several times, and Gore lost. The election was decided Nov 2000, and sore losers (the equivalent of today's Birthers) delayed the inevitable."
No, actually, all the votes were counted exactly once. The entire dispute was about whether a full recount should be conducted, and of which counties, which was never settled to anyone's satisfaction.
There were problems with voter registrations, problems with ballots, problems all over the map. At the end of the day, Bush was named the victor. Who actually was the choice of more citizens? No one will ever know.
The account of the recounts that the Miami Herald published in book form after the election, based on the best available analysis, argued that, under most voting standards, Bush got more votes-by smaller or larger margins, but he still did. You have to bend almost every standard in Gore's favor to get a Gore victory. Not knowing anything more than they, I have to submit that the election results are as they say.
Bush v. Gore settled the issue. Forever. You can believe it was wrongly decided and a miscarriage of justice (I do), but continuing to whine about it afterwards was pointless in the extreme, as you say.
But all I'm trying to say is it was not unreasonable to note that the vote was suspicious. It's not paranoid, or delusional, or crazy. It's delusional to think that anything was going to be done about it after Bush v. Gore was decided. But it wasn't delusional to think that there was something wrong with the voting process. It is delusional to believe that ACORN was able to steal 10 million votes.
"And I can find such statements at Obama-hater forums and blogs, just with the names reversed."
There, again-I don't think it's the same. George Bush was told, before he made his Cincinnati speech, by the intelligence agencies, that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat. He then made the speech and said he was an imminent threat.
I call that a high crime and misdemeanor.
Jeanne-
Did you miss the "Don't Know" column?
The question that disturbs me is the question of his birthplace. It isn't a question-he was born in Hawaii. The fact that so many people who call themselves Republicans persist in this deeply mistaken belief is troubling. It heralds an inability to agree on basic facts. It seems impossible to imagine agreeing on anything else if we can't agree that day follows night and force equals mass times acceleration.
You raise good objections to the poll-every poll has questions about whether or not they get a good enough sample, or whether or not the questions are worded properly.
But that doesn't change the fact that, nine times out of ten, they work-they accurately predict what is going to happen.
You can argue about methodology if you wish. That doesn't change the fact that a large percentage of people who identify themselves as Republicans have some wrongheaded beliefs.
Any group has this problem. For example, some white supremacist groups consider themselves Christian. I certainly don't consider them thus, and I'm sure you don't either.
I've never seen a poll, though, where, for example, 36% of self identified Democrats believe we never landed on the Moon, or that Clint Eastwood is a space alien.
As Markos points out, this is a serious problem for Republicans. If people running for office have to appeal to voters who have a poor grasp of reality, they will find themselves unable to agree with anything the other party proposes.
Michael - thanks for the reply.
ReplyDeleteThere is a fringe element in the Republican/conservative movement that believes a whole bunch of things that are not representative of your average Republican. Birtherism is a good example. I would tend to believe it's a tiny minority. You call it, "a large percentage of people that identify themselves as Republicans." Unless we have a poll that is valid, we're both just guessing.
As to methodology, I'm not sure where you are getting "nine out of ten polls" are good and valid. Not true. Polls can be skewed many different ways that reveal bias.
I did notice the "don't know" column, but poll participants didn't. It was a phone survey, and they were only asked, "Do you believe X, or not? Do you believe Y, or not?" If the person volunteered that they didn't know, the poll-taker marked that column. It wasn't offered as a choice.
I'm actually impressed at how high the number of "Don't knows" where, given that it wasn't an option offered. I maintain, that column would have been much higher, if the wording hadn't been so slanted towards a yes/no response.
One more thing...
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the only people keeping the whole "birther" thing going is the left. It was a myth that had a brief moment...it's now been rightly relegated to the fringe. But it's in Keith Obermann's and the Daily Kos's best interest to continue to paint all conservatives with the same "crazy" brush.
I'm not a fan of O'Reilly/Beck/Limbaugh, so I don't know for sure, but I'd be shocked if they were still beating this dead horse.
Jeanne said: "It seems to me that the only people keeping the whole "birther" thing going is the left. It was a myth that had a brief moment..."
ReplyDeleteThe right is keeping it alive and kicking, actually. I know this because I am in the mailing list of a conservative friend who sends me lots of jokes, cartoons, warnings, web sites, etc. Just yesterday I got one claiming that Obama was not born in the US. I've gotten many from her. I also know a whole bunch of others who still buy into the birther thing.
Here, in fact, is the one I got yesterday:
Parallels of Abraham Lincoln and B. H. Obama:
1. Lincoln placed his hand on the Bible for his inauguration.
Obama used the same Bible.
2. Lincoln came from Illinois . Obama comes from Illinois
3. Lincoln served in the Illinois Legislature. Obama served in the Illinois Legislature.
4. Lincoln had very little experience before becoming President. Obama had very little
experience before becoming President.
5. Lincoln rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his inauguration.
Obama rode the train from Philadelphia to Washington for his> inauguration.
6. Lincoln was a skinny lawyer. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
7. Lincoln was a Republican. Obama is a skinny lawyer.
8. Lincoln was highly respected. Obama is a skinny lawyer
9. Lincoln was born in the United States . Obama is a skinny lawyer.
10. Lincoln was honest, so honest he was called Honest Abe. Obama is a skinny lawyer
This one is common and is all over the Web.
"He then made the speech and said he was an imminent threat. I call that a high crime and misdemeanor."
ReplyDeleteThat's a matter of opinion, really. It can easily be argued that Saddam was an imminent threat. In the period leading up to that statement. Saddam was still refusing to allow complete inspections of his facilities, he was still targeting and firing on Americans quite frequently, and he was funding, hosting, and otherwise encouraging a variety of terrorist groups. All of which were blatant cease-fire violations. All of these constituted a threat, especially in the post 9/11 world. On 9/11 we learned it was not wise to let a terrorist leader keep engaging in aggression.
Also, Michael, I don't see how any count could have been as accurate as the first one. I saw the news footage of them counting ballots in later recounts. The floors were covered in chads. How else could this be unless they were removed from the ballots? A form of ballot-tampering occured at that point, and was being documented on film.
ReplyDeleteThat was a huge example of "irregularity". Another is recounts themselves. Florida law requires that a recount be requested during a certain limited number of days after the election. Makes sense, as to avoid sore losers dragging things out for the hell of it. However, they missed this deadline. Everything after the first count involved messing with ballots, or counting ballots that had been messed with.
When it's all said and done, Bush defeated Gore the exact same way that Clinton defeated Dole, or the other Bush defeated Dukakis, Carter defeated Ford, etc etc etc: by winning the actual vote in enough states to get the electoral college vote.
DM-I concur that, as far as we are able to determine, George Bush won Florida in 2000. All the available evidence points to that. That doesn't make it loony to ask questions about the voters that were purged, or the ballots that were unclear, and all the rest of it. It didnt matter then-and it certainly didnt matter after Bush v. Gore. But it isn't loony to have doubts about the result.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have with the Cincinnati speech is not whether or not you think Saddam was a threat. Given your reasoning, you may have had a point. And again, it certainly doesn't matter now-he's beyond caring. But the point of the Cincinnati speech is that the intelligence community told him that, in their opinion, Saddam was not an imminent threat. The report has been declassified-you can read it yourself. After being given this report, Bush said the opposite. He didn't say "The intelligence agencies say A, but I think B." He said "The intelligence agencies think B.", when they had said A. That's a lie-no two ways about it.
Jeanne-
ReplyDelete9 out of 10 is hyperbole on my part. If you read fivethirtyeight.com, you can see that, by analyzing a number of different polls, you can get very close to actual election results. My point is that polls, even if badly done, are not worthless-questioning the bona fides of the person who paid for the poll or picking nits with the wording of the question doesn't completely invalidate the results. Maybe the number is 34%. Maybe it missed badly and it's 25%. The point is, with an n of 2000, the result isn't 3%, which is what it should be. Professionals poll because it works.
And my counter question is-where's the poll showing that 28% of Democrats believe 9/11 was an inside job? 48% believe Bibles should be confiscated? 37% believe 11 year olds should have abortions on demand?
Michael: The way you describe it, that does look like a lie. But if we called every time a President lied while not under oath a high crime or misdemeanor, most Presidencies would end within days, or even hours, of inauguration.
ReplyDeleteDM-On that we can agree, sir.
ReplyDeleteA lie that leads us into a war is a little different than a lie about the fat girl I had an affair with, though.
http://bit.ly/c2zkgf
ReplyDeleteThis explains a little bit more about the methodology of the poll.
http://bit.ly/9LVZyC
ReplyDeleteAnd this is a speaker at the Tea Party Convention, the head of WorldNetDaily, getting a standing ovation after spouting birther baloney.
"A lie that leads us into a war is a little different than a lie about the fat girl I had an affair with, though."
ReplyDeleteWe were already at war: Saddam's terrorist regime had already targetted and fired upon our peacekeepers hundreds of times, and he had violated the cease fire in many significant ways. The question at that time was whether or not to really fight back. 9/11 taught us that it was folly to let terrorist aggression against us continue.
Take away Bush's turning around what these advisors said, and there were still plenty of good reasons to retaliate against the terrorists. And there's no telling for sure that we wouldn't have still done it if Bush had not said this.
It was more than advisors-it was the summary of the intelligence agencies.
ReplyDeleteBut your point holds-it's impossible to argue a counterfactual. Maybe the momentum for war would have continued without the Cincinnati speech.
That's just the most vivid example of what I hold to be a pattern of impeachable conduct.
Once again, it doesn't matter. He wasn't impeached, and even when Democrats took over, one of the first things they said was that that was off the table, so it was silly to argue about it then, and it's especially silly to do so now.
But it's not in utter variance to the truth, the way the birther claims are, which was, I think, my original point. If I had one.
I have a couple of reactions.
ReplyDeleteFirst, my response to the extreme right-wing views expressed in this poll might be related to my geography. Here in the Northeast, a mere 9% of self-identified Republicans identified themselves as "birthers." While 9% still feels high to me, it strikes me as far more realizistc than 30+%. It's possible that my personal circle of family/friends is represenative of where I live, but not the nation as a whole.
I attended two tea parties in 2009; I'm currently uncomfortable with the movement. This clip pretty much sums up why. Fiscal conservatives are challenged with coming up with a compelling message on fiscal responsibility. It is morally necessary (and I would suggest politically prudent) to denounce racism, birtherism, and any other stupid ism out there.
I read every word of the polling methodology you provided. It doesn't in any way, shape, or form answer my particular concerns. I maintain this poll was terribly biased.
I'm off to think about something else now...