Even if you don't believe in polls....

[MrPartickler]

This has got to at least raise a few eyebrows:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

(You'll need Acrobat reader to open this link.)

I'll just say that this is a collection of specific poll results--very well documented, referenced and cited, I might add--put together by a collection of several independent and/or academic social science research organizations. It questioned supporters of both Bush and Kerry for their thoughts & opinions on the following five points (in order to see how they compared):

1) Iraq, WMD, and Al Qaeda
2) What the Bush Administration is saying about Pre-war Iraq
3) The decision to go to war
4) World Opinion on the Iraq War and Bush's re-election
5) Candidates foreign policy positions

It's not too long a read and it's very interesting. The study was nationwide and conducted over some period of time. (There's even more details about how the polls were taken referenced there.) If you read nothing else, I invite you to read the Introduction (pages 2 and 3), then skip to the end and read the Analysis (pages 14-16). That should give you the 'quick-and-dirty' version. But again, it's a relatively quick read altogether.

I don't want to say much here other than to say, that they conclude that Bush and Kerry supporters live in two completely different realities. (I suppose some of you are saying, "Duh." lol) And the disparity between Kerry supporters' and Bush supporters' opinions on some these key issues is so large in almost all of these findings, there must be <i>some</i> level of credibility to them--even if you think most polls are meaningless. In some instances, the discrepancies in opinions are great in matters that have been plainly revealed, discussed, and concluded by <i>both</i> Dems and Reps (e.g., by 9/11 Commission). (For some reason, seeing that "finding" actually spelled out still seemed shocking to me.)

In the final analysis, the authors actually struggle to hypothesize the reasons why <i>"...are Bush supporters holding so clingingly [and] so tightly to beliefs that have been so visibly refuted?"</i> They do have a theory or two, but you can read that for yourself.

I'll add that I wouldn't have even posted this if I thought the study was some single partisan-funded, for-profit organization or collection of suspect, disreputable individuals. I'm actually hoping this won't turn into a discussion about credibility of the results because one of the authors gave the other a handjob and stole a car 10 years ago. lol

So, that being said, have at it folks! I'd like to hear some interesting feedback. :)

[Haltickling]

Thanks for this very interesting article. This explains a lot about the nature of the "debates" going on here on the TMF as well, doesn't it?

One of the possible explanations may be found in the way of information of most TV stations, namely Fox. Don't tell people about the reality, tell them what they want to hear...

[Cosmo_ac]

Wow, this was an excelent read, Mr.P! I have to say i agree with this report considerably. I also saw something about this report on the news tonight, though it did not go into specifics and certainly did it no justice.

I just want to make a couple points on this, and why i feel this report is accurate. First, if you remember a while ago, there was a report done on fox news. Now, i'm not going to open up the can of worms here, but the report stated that those who watched fox news, were more likely to believe that IRaq had WMD and that they had been found. Second, if everybody remembers the Vice presidentle debate, you might remember how Cheyne said that Iraq and Al quede were connect (or that iraq had WMD i can't remember which one exactly), if memory serves. This is a perfect example of how the Presidentle posse has continued with these alegations.

[MrPartickler]

What this study really says to me is that "debates" (especially here) are utterly pointless with many (although not necessarily all) Bush supporters at this time. It's really a "faith-based" public policy/platform at this point. I mean, there's no way to present any more compelling arguments than the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission (for example).

I'm reminded of a quote:
"you can use 'facts' to prove anything that's even <i>remotely</i> true"
(That was said by Homer Simposon of course. lol)

...I actually just found this on a website. It's just some random guys rant, but I thought it was pretty funny (albeit a teensie bit off topic here.)

<b>Dan Rather Vs. George W. Bush</b>

<i>Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor</i>
1) given documents he thought were true
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
3) reported documents to the American people as true
to make his case
4) when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an
investigation
5) number of Americans dead: 0
6) Republican solution: Should be fired as CBS News Anchor

<i>George W. Bush, President of the United States </i>
1) given documents he thought were true
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
3) reported documents to the American people as true
to make his case
4) when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and
stonewalled an investigation
5) number of Americans dead: 1,100
6) Republican solution: Should be given four more
years as President of the United States

[MrMacphisto]

LOL... Good comparison, MrPartickler