This week brought us yet another classic example of the difference between the rightwing propaganda model and the center-left reality-based deliberative approach to the world, its problems, puzzles and issues. On Tuesday, Nate Silver at 538 wrote a diary about an apparent push poll designed to push the (product as well as propaganda) line that Obama won the election through the ignorance of his supporters. Nate followed up with a second diary, containing an interview with the propagandist involved, John Ziegler, who quickly lapsed into ad hominem attacks and vulgar invective. After a pause, Nate posted a third diary, reflecting on the exchange and exploring the notion that the propagandist's background in talk radio reflected something fundamental about how movement conservatism had lost touch with the art of persuasion.
It's a fascinating--not to mention hilarious--series of posts, which is highly recommended for those who missed it. But I thought it could benefit from a bit of contextual comparison. This poll was created and conducted to push a particular thesis, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Rather, the problem comes from a lack of honesty and intellectual seriousness. And, of course, there's always the projection factor. Because, of course, it's looooong been the case that conservative voters and/or candidates who have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
All these points are amply illustrated by simple comparison with an October 2004 report from the Project on International Policy Alternatives (PIPA), "The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters" (pdf). In PIPAs findings (discussed on the flip) it was the Bush supporters who were significantly detached from reality. Quite unlike the propagandist in this case, the misperceptions flowed directly from the core of major, consequential and/or long-standing policy debates, and relevant questions were culled from polls that had a much broader initial purpose. A main poll sharpened the focus on the issue of divergent perceptions, but this poll built quite logically on the polling preceding it. While PIPA has always been concerned with the relationship between attitudes and perceptions, it has been much more interested in understanding and exploring how false perceptions impact and/or reflect opinions and attitudes, rather than leading off with blame. Indeed, PIPA is quite aware that it's usually impossible to tell whether the misperceptions lead to questionable positions, or whether the positions lead to the misperceptions.
On the very day I describe how questions can be a source of methodological error in my regular series post, I find out about the new Zogby poll commissioned by John Ziegler. Nate Silver at 538 has been all over this one, and good on Nate. But I want to do my own bit of analysis here, just to illustrate my point about questions and methodological error.
STATE BLOGS
