Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government Republicans Politics

Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities 698

Posted by michael
from the never-the-twain-shall-meet dept.
corngrower writes "A report by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland correlates voters' perceptions of world attitudes and events with their choice in candidates. It's an interesting read, and shows voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush and Kerry Supporters Have Separate Realities

Comments Filter:
  • Nice Story! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tyndmyr (811713) * on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:36PM (#10599857)
    We need an article to tell us this?

    Seriously, after reading it, I was quite happy that someone put out some evidence for what I've observed. If I had a dollar for every time I tried to tell someone that Iraq really didnt have nukes....

    • Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TAGmclaren (820485) on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:43PM (#10599928)
      On the subject of partisan sniping, I particularly like Bush's new ads, the one's with all the wolves circling the camera, implying that the terrorists want Kerry to win [salon.com].

      Never mind the fact that Bush just got endorsed by Iran; the link is in my .sig. In fact, Iran and Russia [cnsnews.com] are the only countries that seem to be supporting Bush. The rest of the world loves America, but wants Bush out [kuro5hin.org].

      I hope it is made so on the 2nd.
      • Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Informative)

        by (trb001) (224998) on Friday October 22, 2004 @02:00PM (#10600319) Homepage
        I think both Japan and Australia [japantoday.com], as well as Poland have declared support for Bush as well. I'm sure we could find more.

        --trb

        • Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jason Ford (635431)
          From the link:

          'With less then three weeks until the U.S. presidential election, President George Bush has received endorsements from two world leaders, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Austraslian [sic] Prime Minister John Howard.'

          So now we're equating heads of state with states themselves?
        • Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Kick the Donkey (681009) <kickthedonkey@@@gmail...com> on Friday October 22, 2004 @02:39PM (#10601087) Homepage Journal
          Wait a minute. Didn't Bush and supporters bash Kerry for saying that other world leaders told him they wanted him to win? Now that Australia, Japan, and Iran are supporting Bush publicly, they want to brag about world support...

          Man, talk about hypocrisy...

        • Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Informative)

          by gedanken (24390) on Friday October 22, 2004 @04:27PM (#10602954)
          The PM of japan has since retracted [japantoday.com] his support of Bush.
        • Re:Nice Story! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Yokaze (70883) on Friday October 22, 2004 @04:43PM (#10603171)
          Actually, in Japan a majority is for Kerry and only 30% support Bush. I somehow doubt that Poland would elect Bush, when 80% of its population was against going to war.

          If your speaking of their respective goveremnts, it is may be different.
        • by commodoresloat (172735) on Friday October 22, 2004 @06:25PM (#10604295)
          In fact, Al Qaeda has endorsed Bush for president [newyorker.com]. For those who can't be bothered to read through the article, here's the relevant quotation. It comes from a threat published in Al-Quds al-Arabi by members of the al Qaeda affiliate organization the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, as reported in the New Yorker:
          "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," the authors write. Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" are useful, the authors contend, for they stir the Islamic world to action.
          (I heard an interviewee on NPR translate the entire relevant paragraph from al-Quds, and it is even more chilling than the above reporter's quotations reveal. I can't find the transcript of the interview, however.)

          It absolutely amazes me that the Kerry campaign is not using this to promote their candidate. Kerry has all but conceded major ground to Bush by not explaining that it is Bush who is the far more palatable candidate for terrorists, because it is the Bush Administration which has done more than any previous U.S. Administration to encourage and facilitate the spread of international terrorism. And the terrorists know it.

          On a lighter note, here's another Bush endorsement [satanforbush.com] that we might want to be concerned with.

      • On the subject of partisan sniping, I particularly like Bush's new ads, the one's with all the wolves circling the camera, implying that the terrorists want Kerry to win.

        Funny thing, as (some) terrorists actually support the reelection of Dubya [amenusa.org]
      • Re:Nice Story! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ivan256 (17499) *
        Good thing the rest of the world can't vote in this election.

        Seriously, the rest of the world understandably is distrustful of the US as the most powerful nation in the world. They want a weaker or less assertive superpower, or at least to have some control. Well tough. Our job is to look out for ourselves first, not to win some popularity contest. The world isn't a warm fuzzy place and countries take advantage of any weakness they can. Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administratio
        • Re:Nice Story! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by richie2000 (159732) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Friday October 22, 2004 @04:12PM (#10602747) Homepage Journal
          They want a weaker or less assertive superpower, or at least to have some control.

          Not really. We want YOU to have some control. A loose cannon is dangerous to everyone in the world. I don't particularly mind the US playing world police as long as you obey some kind of ruleset and there are some checks and balances that prevent you from just raiding anyone you feel like. A deranged chief of police is a danger to all the law-abiding citizens and neighboring counties too, you know - not just the criminals in his 'hood. You're a superpower, start acting like one instead of a spoiled frat brat. Oh, wait...

          Compare what happened in North Korea, during the Clinton administration to what has happend there during the Bush administration for perfect evidence of that

          Nothing much compared to them flaunting their nuclear weapons program? Big step forward, there. I feel much safer already.

          Clinton's policies of letting the rest of the world walk all over us.

          Well, he bombed Iraq back into submission and bombed Ghadaffi all the way back to humankind. That's no mean feat, right there. I also seem to recall a lot of craters in Bosnia. Clinton picked his fights, figured out his goals and achieved them with minimal loss of life. Bush was caught unaware, paniced and attacked the wrong goddamn country for the wrong goddamn reasons. Twice. And then he's not even enough man to admit it. No fucking wonder you live in a fantasy world - your guy is a moron and what does that make you for supporting him?

          Denial isn't a river in Egypt, it's SOP for the GOP.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:43PM (#10599932)
    According to the survey, based on the views of Bush supporters or at least what they believe Bush believes in, it seems like most of them should really be Kerry supporters.
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:45PM (#10599963) Homepage Journal
    If I were write an article that Bob Jones University published a report that conservatives are more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq, then I could probably get it published at freerepublic.com.

    The notion that liberals and conservatives perceive the world differently seems fairly obvious. The rest just seems like flamebait.

    Seriously, given either political viewpoint, I'm sure I can find plenty of facts and "world attitudes" that would give strong support to that position. If the President announced that the facts on Iraq agree with his points and that polls show that a worldwide majority agree with him, would you accept his word? If not, why should the reverse be true?

    • by amarodeeps (541829) <.dave. .at. .dubitable.com.> on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:54PM (#10600137) Homepage

      Umm...PIPA hardly compares to Bob Jones University. Please check out PIPA's about us page to see who they are funded by: http://www.pipa.org/about.html [pipa.org]. Yes, Ben and Jerry's is on there, but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology. It's not really fair to compare PIPA to a Christian-oriented college. More importantly, by making this claim of bias, you are attempting to discount the conclusion of the report--that many Bush supporters in the U.S. are sadly out of touch not only with what the rest of the world thinks about their leadership but also what the solid conclusions of experts have been on the subject of WMDs and Iraq. Please don't load this with bias that doesn't exist.

      • by Otter (3800) on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:59PM (#10600288) Journal
        Yes, Ben and Jerry's is on there, but I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology.

        Huh? Of course the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations or bastions of liberal ideology! What do you think they are?

        • Funny, the parent post got modded as funny, but it is absolutely true. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations are bastions of liberal ideology. Go read about them. While Ford and Rockefeller were extremely conservative, their foundations are not.
      • by (trb001) (224998)
        Did they go over their polling methods? What questions they asked? You can slant results aplenty by just asking misleading or pointed questions. Lemme see the questions, then I'll believe their data.

        --trb
      • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Friday October 22, 2004 @02:14PM (#10600648) Homepage Journal
        I hardly think of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and etc. as bastions of liberal ideology.

        Good grief! If the Ford Foundation isn't liberal in your opinion, then what is?

        According to the recent grants list [fordfound.org] on their website, they've recently donated to:

        • The ACLU
        • Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Educational Fund
        • The Population Council, Inc
        • Feminist Majority Foundation
        • International Planned Parenthood Federation
        • etc., etc., etc.

        Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.

        • Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.

          Well, I don't *have* to agree, but I'll coneede the point.

          And in counter, a NON-BIASED foundation might donate to them.
        • Um.. Nope None of tose groups are liberal in the slightest. SANE yes. Firmly grounded in reality, yes. Liberal? Not particuarly.

          The ACLU is as conservative an organization as you can find. All they want to do is maintain the freedoms put forth in the consititution. They don't care if you are on the right or on the left - if you a being denied your rights as a citizen they are one your side.

          Reproductive choice? Since when did deciding if you want to have children or not become liberal?

          Planned Parenthood
        • ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ImaLamer (260199)
          Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.

          I love when people say that the ACLU is a liberal only organization. It's the American Civil Liberties Union!

          Regardless of what you think about a few of their cases and clients these are the same people who defended the American Nazi Party! You don't get any more conservative than that.

          We are talking about a group which defends the Constitution of the United States
        • Regardless of your opinions of those groups, you have to agree that no conservative foundation would ever be likely to donate money to them.

          You're wrong about that. You're confusing conservatives with neocons which is what you are.

          A real conservative believes in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, believes that the truth will set you free, and that intelligence thrives in the midst of discussion and dissent. I could very easily see a conservative institution giving grants to those organization

    • You say that the rest is all flamebait, as if knowing more about the issue is not useful, or as if it's not correct somehow.

      The issue isn't what article you can get published. Obviously you can get both published. The point is that if you publish two articles that say the opposite thing, one of them has to be more correct than the other.

      In this case, it's absolutely more correct that Kerry supporters have got more going on in the brain-use department than Bush supporters. You can complain all you want, hy
      • >In this case, it's absolutely more correct that Kerry supporters have got more going on in the brain-use department than Bush supporters.

        No it's not. The fact that you can publish two opposing views and have half the people agree with you does not imply that half of the people are informed while the other is not. Both sides might agree with you based on ideology, not on facts.

        If I flip a coin, and hide the result, it's a fact that the coin is either heads or tails. If you polled a population and as
  • by ankura (769374) on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:46PM (#10599969)
    Sounds reasonable to me. As this nytimes piece [nytimes.com] goes in considerable detail in,
    most of Bush's politics/decisions are about faith and not fact. Anybody who votes for him has
    to share his worldview.
  • by quantax (12175) on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:50PM (#10600025) Homepage
    This reminded me of another report done by the same group regarding misperceptions people had based upon their source of news, most notibly Fox News:

    "The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

    Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml [truthout.org]

    The original source document (PDF):
    http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02 _03_Press.pdf [pipa.org]

    While these reports should not be correlated without further study, its rather indicative of how the public is misinformed by certain parts of the media; though I will admit that it does swing both ways for both liberals and conservatives, but Fox takes it to another level when it comes to TV news.
  • And strangely... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by keiferb (267153) on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:50PM (#10600028) Homepage
    ...in each of these alternate realities, there's a politician who's considered to be correct. =)
  • by Tom7 (102298) on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:52PM (#10600081) Homepage Journal
    More in tune with facts, too. But the Kerry supporters didn't do very well, either, which is scary.
  • by CXI (46706)
    Which reality was the article written in? We can't trust the results because it could be the wrong one!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 22, 2004 @01:58PM (#10600254)
    Corddry: How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased?

    Stewart: I'm sorry, Rob, did you say the facts are biased?

    Corddry: That's right Jon. From the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.

  • The survey (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thunderstruck (210399) on Friday October 22, 2004 @02:05PM (#10600411)
    I find it amusing that the survey was conducted at all, as if the opinions of the "vast majority" of the people in the world are either relevant or legitimately discernable.

    If we're going to assert, as does this survey by implication, that the opinions of other people matter, then anyone with a nose ring, an alternative lifestyle, or membership in a 3rd party had better straighten out - because the "vast majority" of people probably don't approve.

    Better that the survey should ask whether the respondents believe that the war was legal, or supported by factual information, than whether someone in some other place likes it.

  • Okay people, quiz time. How many of you can guess the world view of corngrower, the submitter of this article? To give you a hint, here's his a paraphrase of his submission.

    "A study on the perceptual fantasy worlds that voters live in demonstrates that Kerry voters' fantasy worlds are more real than the Bush voters' fantasy worlds!"
  • Give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bwt (68845)
    voters supporting Kerry as being more in tune with the events and world attitudes surrounding the war in Iraq.

    Measuring being "in tune with the events" implies that there is an objective way to decide WHICH EVENTS are "the" events. There is not and suggesting otherwise is a bunch of crap. Give me a break. This was a study that measured people's correlation with the study makers views.

    As a study in propaganda, I love the use of the term "world attitudes". I wasn't aware that planets had minds that were ca
    • Re:Give me a break (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aidtopia (667351)

      Measuring being "in tune with the events" implies that there is an objective way to decide WHICH EVENTS are "the" events.

      I suggest you browse some of the questions. Many of them are quite objective. Did the 9/11 Commission find a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Does Bush support participation in the Kyoto agreement or the world court? These don't depend on the study makers' views.

      There is also an implicit value judgement that the "world attitude", whatever this means, is the correct one, o

  • Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)

    by photon317 (208409) on Friday October 22, 2004 @03:24PM (#10601917)

    The peice is heavily biased, and if you can't see that, you're not living in this reality. It goes to lengths to be fair and scientific in gathering the facts about the beliefs of the Bush and Kerry backers, but then just "assumes" with no evidence shown that the worldview of the Kerry side is correct, and the worldview of the Bush side is incorrect. If it were that simple, it wouldn't be such a big deal. There are a lot of very intelligent people both here and abroad, who have a firm understanding of and a lot of experience with geopolitical issues, who believe that Bush is holding a more "correct" worldview than Kerry is.
    • Re:Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lothar97 (768215) *
      You have got to be kidding. Seriously. Let me repeat this so you're sure to understand the point: THERE ARE NO FACTS SHOWING THAT IRAQ HAD WMD OR WAS INVOLVED WITH AL QAEDA.

      This poll has nothing to do with "worldview," (aka "opinions")- this has to do with knowledge of "facts" (aka "evidence.)

      Assertion: Bush et al said Iraq had serious stores of WMD, lots of nasty gas, biological agents, etc.
      Fact: The non-partisan (e.g. equal representation of Dems and Repubs) 9/11 committee found that there was no WMD

  • by BurritoJ (75275) on Friday October 22, 2004 @03:39PM (#10602227)
    Surveys have shown that people who agree with me are 22.6% more intelligent than those who do not! They are also found to be more attractive and live longer.

    Film at 11!
  • by theghost (156240) on Friday October 22, 2004 @04:09PM (#10602708)
    What i find really amazing is how many people who identify themselves as Bush supporters don't know what his positions are.

    The results from the survey, broken out by question. [pipa.org]

    Just in case you don't feel like rtfa, a couple examples:

    53% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the International Criminal Court. We do not participate in the ICC and Bush does not think we should.
    51% of Bush supporters think Bush wants us to participate in the Kyoto agreement. We do not participate in the Kyoto agreement and Bush does not think we should.

    20% of Bush supporters think that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 and 19% of Bush supporters think that Bush is telling them that.

    But hey, the Republicans aren't the only uninformed people out there: 31% of Kerry supporters (36% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the Kyoto agreement and 34% of them think that Bush supports it.
    39% of Kerry supporters (45% for Bushies) think we actually do participate in the ICC and 45% of them think that Bush supports it.

    What we can learn from this: one-third to one-half of the people out there don't know what the fuck they're talking about regardless of party affiliation, but Bush supporters are wrong slightly more often.
  • by ebresie (123014) on Friday October 22, 2004 @06:49PM (#10604578) Homepage Journal
    Okay...I'm curious...for the Slashdot - Politics section, is there any way to have a user preference indicating there political bias?

    I am interested in some idea as to how much a persons bias effects there posts. I think peoples beliefs in a specific item can add some karma or weight to a specific article. If they respond one way to a article about a candidate, then they may be saying it just because they are a Democrat or a Republican supporter. If an opposing opinon says something against the opposed, there may be less credibility because they are saying it just because they support the opposition.

    Maybe you could have some issue criteria (how do you feel about death penalty, how do you feel about abortion, how do you feel about certain types of drug use, etc) which can help establish your polticial bias settings. I could see this almost like a Ok Cupid [okcupid.com] or related matching site type of meta data.

  • by shanen (462549) on Saturday October 23, 2004 @04:34AM (#10607538) Homepage Journal
    I think the main point of that article was not made very clear. What we have here are two diametrically opposed world views. The scientific world view is bound by the facts and everything is subject to question. The competing view is the fanatic world view where the conclusions are decided in advance, and any disagreeable facts have to be rejected. That's where Dubya is coming from, and it's no wonder that so many of his supporters are in the same weird place. Not all religious people are that way, but it's much more common for them.

    From outside of the US, I think the scientific view is clearly dominant in most countries, and they are basically befuddled by what is going on on in America, and alarmed by the force behind the befuddlement. There are a few crazy and fanatical countries out there, but the US is clearly the strongest and most dangerous one.

    I think that explains how a lot of our friends see the Iraq situation. They agree that it is a mess and that it needs to be cleaned up, and they would even be willing to help. However, on the other hand, it is keeping the suddenly belligerent US busy, and it is also clearly BushCo's own deliberate mistake. From that perspective, it's just as well to let the US keep playing with the tar baby for now, and their biggest fear is probably that BushCo might unilaterally withdraw and thereby force the rest of the world to clean it up. Fortunately (from their perspective), the oil aspect makes that unfeasible and unlikely.

    The ugly facts are that Saddam was only a nuisance and not worth an entire war. Dubya believed otherwise, and to heck with those facts. What other crazy things does Dubya believe?

    I believe I don't want to find out, and I hope Dubya is out of there very soon. Fortunately, fanatical birds of a feather tend to flock together in their little red states, so it increasingly looks like the swing states are going to swing the other way.

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Working...