TRUMP 2016

[Cracky]

So your own link shows that Republican voters are much more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

yes

Washington Post runs a piece discussing how Republican voters are likely to believe conspiracy theories.

It's titled: "The outlandish conspiracy theories many of Donald Trump’s supporters believe". I think you might be wrong here.

And yet you cry foul over the article.

Yes, the fact that it's acceptable to take data that may be presented like this:

or like this

but poke it in a way that make it look like this

is alarming to me. This is lying with charts 101.

No, he just has the support of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, conspiracy theorists, and Putin, and wants to systematically dismantle the Constitution.

So because of all these things it's acceptable to deliberately present data in a way to serve an agenda? Do two wrongs make a right? Are you going to be nearly as ridiculous as lewkowski in a thread about a petty thief who was given a summary execution by a vigilante?

[Lewkowski]

You know a few of these items are pretty vague and the question leads to one specific conspiracy theory but many people could be viewing it as something else.

Example: The question about Obama hiding things about his early life could mean...

Birther nonsense
Obama being a secret Muslim
Obama believing in Jeremiah Wright crazy stuff

The Benghazi one is also slightly shady. If you read it very closely yes it sounds crazy. But if the person answering was focused on the last piece (did nothing to protect it) you might get a different answer.

In addition these type of surveys don't always capture what people's true feelings are and instead can be all about partisan 'I'm going to say yes/no depending on what makes my political enemies look worse.'

Several years ago we talked about two separate polls of Middle East Muslims. In one poll over 50% said that the Jews were responsible for 911. In another poll over 50% stated 911 was a great victory for Islam. A lot of folks talked cognitive dissonance however the reality is they probably answered the way they wanted the results to be interpreted as opposed to their honest feelings.

[Aimless]

Cracky, in the link you provided the options are first described as “definitely true,” “probably true,” or “definitely not true.” "Probably" is very different from "possibly" and I think it's more appropriate to group together people who believe a particularly dumb conspiracy theory is "probably" or "definitely" true. In the tables and in the sample question wording, "probably" has been replaced with "possibly", which changes things. However, in most previous descriptions of the findings from this poll, they've reported the "probably true" version.

Taken in context and based on previous findings there is no good way to put a positive spin on the conspiracies about Obama's past, vaccines or global warming. Considering the extremely large differences between republicans and democrats on the Obama question, I don't think Lewk's proposed explanation--about differences in interpretation caused by ambiguity--is anywhere close to being sufficient.



I have to say, I'm a little ambivalent about the findings of this poll. I don't doubt people are surprisingly and disconcertingly prone to subscribe to a variety of conspiracy theories and other incorrect beliefs, nor do I doubt that Trump's and Cruz's supporters may be more susceptible than say Clinton's or Kasich's--on the whole--but I think it's difficult to use these poll results quantitatively.

[Loki]

Talk show radio and even some within the Republican establishment has been pushing most of these conspiracy theories for years (as well as conspiratorial thinking in general). The results aren't surprising. The only modern equivalent is the far left's obsession with Bush and 9/11-related conspiracies.

[Wraith]

Koch Brothers did everything. The government is actually run by a shadowy cabal of [corporations/1 percenters/Bushs/Murdochs/Kochs]. Frankenfoods. Etc.

It's great to see that TWF hasn't lost it's ability to focus on the real issues, like how our political opponents are less than us, according to research from a pay-to-publish journal that only really gives one side the opportunity to embarrass itself.

[Loki]

The real issue is that Trump and Cruz, and the ideas they represent, have the support of the vast majority of the Republican voters.

[LittleFuzzy]

Cracky, in the link you provided the options are first described as “definitely true,” “probably true,” or “definitely not true.” "Probably" is very different from "possibly" and I think it's more appropriate to group together people who believe a particularly dumb conspiracy theory is "probably" or "definitely" true. In the tables and in the sample question wording, "probably" has been replaced with "possibly", which changes things. However, in most previous descriptions of the findings from this poll, they've reported the "probably true" version.

That inconsistency itself is just reason, IMO, to completely disregard the poll.

[Loki]

Do I have to track down all the polls showing a majority of Trump supporters believing Obama is a Kenyan Muslim?

[Flixy]

Do I have to track down all the polls showing a majority of Trump supporters believing Obama is a Kenyan Muslim?

Could you, please?

[Loki]

In chronological order:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...r-country.html

http://www.aaiusa.org/american_attit...d_muslims_2015

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...mfortably.html

None of this is surprising considering that Trump got his start in politics by leading the birther movement.

[Aimless]

So, with things heating up, I'll ask again: what are the chances of Clinton getting indicted or impeached and will you be taking that into consideration when you cast your vote?

[Being]

So, with things heating up, I'll ask again: what are the chances of Clinton getting indicted or impeached and will you be taking that into consideration when you cast your vote?

Doubt she will get in any serious trouble and I won't need to take it into account since my vote is already determined to be against her.

[Lewkowski]

So, with things heating up, I'll ask again: what are the chances of Clinton getting indicted or impeached and will you be taking that into consideration when you cast your vote?

Obama administration won't indict her. If she's already president regardless of guilt the senate will never get 2/3rd majority to impeach Clinton. No one doubts Clinton was guilty of perjury however the politics meant he was acquitted by the senate.

[Aimless]

Etc.

I think these polls would be more helpful and easier to analyse if they'd ask unambiguous questions about more specific conspiracies.

[Aimless]

That inconsistency itself is just reason, IMO, to completely disregard the poll.

I'll be mailing them to ask for clarification it'd also be interesting to see whether the answers are the same among those polled by phone and those who answered written questions.

I do think that, even if we completely disregard this poll, the findings are more-or-less in line with findings from other, better polls investigating attitudes towards the same or similar theories.

A greater problem for the credibility of the claims based on this poll is the selection of conspiracies they chose to investigate. Those questions can be expected to make conservatives and esp. Trump's supporters look far more loony than most liberals. At the same time, it may not be easy to find many liberal conspiracy theories that are equally easy to deal with because they're fuzzier and are often thoroughly influenced by ideology and science-illiteracy. I spend much of my time outside this forum dealing with the kinds of conspiracy theories that appeal to liberals--vaccines, big pharma, chemtrails, GMO etc--and I have no doubt conspiratorial thinking thrives among liberals as well. But I very rarely come accross the kind of thinking that's directly equivalent to "Obama is secretly a Kenyan-born Muslim who's trying to impose Sharia law".

[Loki]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...dest-lead.html

Just in case anyone thinks that Trump supporters became more moderate or less nuts.

[GGT]

"The polls" are suggesting the Trump vs Clinton race is tightening, closer than anyone predicted or expected. When given two 'undesirable' options, do people pick "the least worse" candidate, or just not vote?

And here's where I'll criticize the media --- for not informing/educating the voting public about anyone BUT Trump or Clinton, because they only cover the (R) and (D) parties, conventions, candidates! If Gary Johnson wins the Libertarian nomination.....he'd better be on the Presidential Debate stage, every damn time, AND get one-on-one interviews and "townhalls" with all the cable news networks, too.



Also, does anyone else have "poll fatigue"? I've been annoyed by the daily poll comparisons for a while now....and oh my god we have 6 more months to go.

[RandBlade]

Why should he? He's not going to be President.

[Flixy]

Why should he? He's not going to be President.

Though in some ways that's a vicious circle Maybe not so much with third party candidates, but you could surely make that point about the primary candidates.

[GGT]

Why should he? He's not going to be President.

Why should he be on the Presidential Debate stage? Because he's running for the position, and voters should know they have another choice besides Clinton or Trump.

You don't know who's going to be President, no one does. That's a crappy standard to use.

[Flixy]

Crappy maybe but pragmatic. I think there are a dozen or so candidates right? Also from obscure parties. You have to have a cutoff at some point.

[RandBlade]

Why should he be on the Presidential Debate stage? Because he's running for the position, and voters should know they have another choice besides Clinton or Trump.

You don't know who's going to be President, no one does. That's a crappy standard to use.

Isn't the standard based on part at least opinion polling? Hence three candidates in 92?

This year no third party has justified appearing on the stage.

[Loki]

Why should he be on the Presidential Debate stage? Because he's running for the position, and voters should know they have another choice besides Clinton or Trump.

You don't know who's going to be President, no one does. That's a crappy standard to use.

Yeah, let's put everyone on the debate stage, like the 19 candidates whose names were on at least one state's ballot in 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ndidates,_2012

[Ominous Gamer]

Crappy maybe but pragmatic. I think there are a dozen or so candidates right? Also from obscure parties. You have to have a cutoff at some point.

We are discovering that right now with religious materials in government buildings and events. Church of Satan loves showing up to remind everyone of the separation of church and state. Last year we had a festivus pole made out of beer cans in the state capital. I could easily see some of the fringe candidates only showing up to fuck up the event. Hell, everyone thought that was why Trump was debating, look where that got us.

[Loki]

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/ni...nd-he-likes-it

Another rich, old white dude endorses Trump because America was better for rich, old white dudes when no one else had any rights (back when America was originally great!).

[GGT]

Isn't the standard based on part at least opinion polling? Hence three candidates in 92?

This year no third party has justified appearing on the stage.

The "standard" is set by the host network, and they can invite whomever they want -- but the parties have a lot of influence over that. That's why the (R) primary debates were divided into two sets, and used "opinion polling" for who got on the main stage vs second string (which turned out to be controversial).

The only other "standard" would be FEC requirements for getting on the ballot in all 50 states. Since that process takes months of advance work, it's not like any candidate can just decide to run at this late stage, and expect to be on the debate stage. As far as I know, the Libertarian nominee will be on all state ballots, and that ought to be good enough to be part of the Presidential debates.

[Loki]

7 candidates met that criterion in 2012. Clearly we need to hear more from the Justice Party.

[GGT]

I don't know how many candidates meet that criterion in 2016....but it should be considered a good thing to give voters more choices. The (R) and (D) parties would disagree, of course, because they benefit from the two-party dominant status-quo.

[Loki]

Voters have many choices. But they have limited time. And if you insist of forcing them to listen to also-rans, they'll be even less informed about the main candidates than usual.

[GGT]

Voters have many choices. But they have limited time. And if you insist of forcing them to listen to also-rans, they'll be even less informed about the main candidates than usual.

I see it another way: when it comes to voting for President, voters DO NOT have many choices. It's either vote for the (R) or (D) nominee, because that's all that's being offered. (No wonder so many eligible voters haven't actually voted?!)

Limited time is a crappy metric, and nobody is "forced" to watch the debates. In this social media era, whatever happens on network time is tweeted, re-tweeted, or posted on youtube or Facebook, etc. And since news media is driven by "clicks", they follow trends (and don't necessarily aim to inform). But that's just another reason why a third party candidate on the Presidential debate stage matters --- exposure.