| Before looking at PIPA's polling results from 2004, there are two preliminary points about Ziegler's poll of Obama supporters poll that need to be addressed. First is the question of significance.
As Nate notes, questions on the poll include:
"Which of the four [candidates] said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"
"Which of the four [candidates] started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground?"
"Which of the four [candidates] quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism?"
"Which of the four [candidates] won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot?"
It's not immediately obvious what knowledge or ignorance of any of these alleged facts is supposed to prove. This is quite different from PIPA's polling four years earlier, when questions of knowledge went to very fundamental matters of fact, such as whether Iraq had WMDs before we attacked them.
Second is the question of basic methodology. The Obama poll did not include any McCain supporters for purposes of comparison. This is, to put it mildly, extremely unusual, if not unheard of in the world of scientific polling. What exactly can one possibly hope to prove about a subsample (Obama voters) if one has no point of comparison with either the entire population (all voters) or a contrasting subsample (McCain voters). There are, of course, sometimes good reasons to poll specific populations--to discover what sorts of health information may be lacking, for example. But such polling can not be used to establish a claim about them relative to anyone else. Here's the relevant passage where Nate asks about this:
Nate Silver [NS]: Were only Obama supporters interviewed for the [Zogby] survey, or was everyone interviewed?
John Ziegler [JZ]: The reason why I interviewed Obama supporters only is because I'm doing a documentary on the media coverage of the campaign and how the media coverage of the campaign impacted what Obama supporters knew or thought they knew about the campaign. I had planned from day one because I knew that no one would take seriously any random sampling of interviewees that I was going to commission a scientific poll of these questions. I also knew that it would be a lot cheaper for me to do a nationwide survey of Obama voters than the nation as a whole because basically I'd only have to do half the number of people to get a representative sample. When I went on FOX last night, I made a deal that if anyone on the left -- you're more than willing to take me up on this -- wants to ask the exact same deal of the McCain supporters and you get examples that are equal to or worse than the Obama supporters, then I'll pay for your expense. The point here was not to show that Obama supporters were idiots -- there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the aisle -- but what information they got from the media that they were able to consume.
Clearly, these are not the words of a man who understands the first thing about sciene.
PIPA organized it's main findings into five main points. These were not all concerned with divergent opinions. In some cases, there was agreement between Kerry and Bush supporters, which provided a baseline for other comparisons. These findings were:
1. Iraq, WMD, and al Qaeda
A large majority of Bush supporters believe that before the war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or a major program for building them. A substantial majority of Bush supporters assume that most experts believe Iraq had WMD, and that this was the conclusion of the recently released report by Charles Duelfer. A large majority of Bush supporters believes that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda and that clear evidence of this support has been found. A large majority believes that most experts also have this view, and a substantial majority believe that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Large majorities of Kerry supporters believe the opposite on all these points....
2. What the Bush Administration is Saying About Pre-War Iraq
Large majorities of Bush and Kerry supporters agree that the Bush administration is saying that Iraq had WMD and was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. In regard to WMD, these majorities are growing....
3. The Decision to Go to War
Majorities of Bush supporters and Kerry supporters agree that if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq....
4. World Public Opinion on the Iraq War and George Bush's Reelection
Only three in ten Bush supporters believe that the majority of people in the world oppose the US going to war with Iraq, while an overwhelming majority of Kerry supporters have this view. A majority of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would like to see Bush reelected, while a large majority of Kerry supporters believe the opposite. Bush supporters also lean toward overestimating support in Islamic countries for US-led efforts to fight terrorism, while Kerry supporters do not....
5. Candidates' Foreign Policy Positions
Majorities of Bush supporters misperceive his positions on a range of foreign policy issues. In particular, they assume he supports multilateral approaches and addressing global warming though he has taken strong contrary positions on issues such as the International Criminal court and the Kyoto Agreement. A majority of Kerry supporters have accurate perceptions of Kerry's positions on the same issues....
Under point #1, PIPA went on to elaborate:
In recent months, the American public has been presented reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the heads of the Iraq Survey Group David Kay and Charles Duelfer (chosen by the president), concluding that before the war Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction, nor even a significant program for developing them. Nonetheless, 72% of Bush supporters continued to hold to the view that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Only 26% of Kerry supporters hold such beliefs.
And, perhaps even more tellingly:
Furthermore, 56% of Bush supporters (as compared to 18% of Kerry supporters) believe that most experts say that Iraq did have actual WMD, and another 18% say that the experts' views are evenly divided on the subject. Only 23% think that most experts believe Iraq did not have WMD....
Though this poll was taken immediately after chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer delivered his report to Congress on whether Iraq had WMD, a majority of Bush supporters misperceived the conclusions of his report. Fifty-seven percent believed that that he concluded that Iraq did have either WMD (19%) or a major program for developing them (38%).
And, as for al Qaeda:
Despite the 9/11 Commission report saying there is no evidence Iraq was providing significant support to al Qaeda, 75% of Bush supporters believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (30% of Kerry supporters), with 20% believing that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.1 Sixty-three percent of Bush supporters even believe that clear evidence of this support has been found, while 85% of Kerry supporters believe the opposite.
The misperception of experts is similar as well:
Asked what most experts believe to be the case, 60% of Bush supporters assume that most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Only 21% of Kerry supporters believe this to be the case.
Asked in August what the 9/11 Commission had concluded, 56% of Bush supporters said that it had concluded that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Twenty-seven percent of Kerry supporters assumed this to be the case.
I skip over points #2 and 3, where PIPA found substantial agreement between Kerry and Bush supporters--almost eerie agreement under #2.
Under point #4, PIPA explained:
Only three in ten Bush supporters believe that the majority of people in the world oppose the US going to war with Iraq, while an overwhelming majority of Kerry supporters have this view. A majority of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would like to see Bush reelected, while a large majority of Kerry supporters believe the opposite. Bush supporters also lean toward overestimating support in Islamic countries for US-led efforts to fight terrorism, while Kerry supporters do not.
This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information also extends to other realms. One of these arenas is world public opinion. Despite a steady flow of official statements, public demonstrations, and public opinion polls showing that the US war against Iraq is quite unpopular,2 only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Rather, 68% assume that views are evenly divided (42%) or that the majority favors it (26%). Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority is opposed (evenly divided, 20%, majority favors it, 5%).
Finally, under point #5, PIPA reported a similar disconnect from reality among Bush supporters:
Bush supporters have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assumed that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues-the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%); 51% incorrectly assumed he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty-the principal international accord on global warming. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he opposed it increased from 24% to 38% among Bush supporters, but a majority of supporters (53%) continued to believe that he favors it. Only 13% of supporters are aware that he opposes labor and environmental standards in trade agreements - 74% incorrectly believe that he favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.
In all these cases, there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions, and they infer that Bush favors them as well. For example, in PIPA's September 8 - 12 poll, 54% of Bush supporters favored participation in Kyoto, 66% favored participation in the land mines treaty, and 68% favored a treaty prohibiting testing nuclear weapons (CTBT). Apparently in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Bush supporters assume Bush feels as they do.
In two cases Bush supporters had a better understanding of the president's positions. They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (47%), and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%), and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (70%).
But not among Kerry supporters:
Kerry supporters were much more accurate in assessing their candidate's positions on all issues. Majorities knew that Kerry favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (81%); the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (77%); the International Criminal Court (65%); the land mines treaty (79%); and the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (74%). They also knew that he favors continuing research on missile defense without deploying a system now (68%), and wants the UN, not the US, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (80%). A plurality of 43% was correct that Kerry favors keeping defense spending the same, with 35% assuming he wants to cut it and 18% to expand it.
The above information is sufficient to establish that Bush and Kerry supporters differed quite significantly in degrees of knowledge about highly significant matters. To a very large extent, Bush supports held mistaken beliefs that either contributed to their support for Bush or helped justify that support after the fact.
Not only has Ziegler failed to prove anything remotely similar to that about Obama supporters, he could not have proven any such thing, given the multiple flaws in his approach. His deeply flawed approach is not all that unusual, actually. High school students taking introductory classes in chem lab or some other experimental science course routinely make these sorts of mistakes. It's part of the job of introductory science courses--in physical sciences and social sciences alike--to teach students how to design experiments that yield substantial, significant results, from which one can draw valid inferences about the world.
What we have here is simply an example of someone who would, at this stage, at least, not receive a passing grade, except if grading generously on a curve. That's not the problem, so much. Such a student has a lot to learn, and if they do learn, then they richly deserve the passing grade they receive at the end of the term. No, the problem is that this individual does not see himself as a student, does not perceive the need to learn anything, but rather, passes himself off as an expert, and is passed off by others as such.
And this, mind you, by a crowd that endlessly prattles on about "unqualified minorities" and the like! |
