The conservative "How Obama Got Elected" website has put up survey data from polls conducted by Zogby and Wilson Research that show extensive political ignorance among Obama votes (HT: my colleague Lloyd Cohen). For example, some 57% (in the Zogby poll) to 59% (Wilson poll) of Obama voters didn't known that the Democrats controlled Congress at the time of the election. By contrast, 63% of McCain supporters got this question right in the Wilson survey (Zogby did not conduct a separate survey of McCain supporters on this issue). Similarly, the Zogby results showed that the vast majority of Obama voters were unaware of various negatives about Obama and vice presidential nominee Joe Biden; McCain voters scored better on these questions. Ignorance about Democratic control of Congress is particularly important, because understanding of that fact might have led voters conclude that the Democrats shared at least some responsibility for the financial crisis and other recent policy failures. This information might not have prevented them from putting Obama in the White House; but it could well have led them to forego giving the Democrats greatly expanded congressional majorities.
The "How Obama Got Elected" authors argue that this shows that political ignorance was a major factor in Obama's victory. To an extent, it probably was. However, Democrats can easily point to comparable ignorance by Republican voters. For example, in 2004, a high proportion of Bush voters believed that large-scale WMD caches or programs had been found in Iraq, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
More generally, it is not surprising that voters on both sides are often ignorant about a wide range of issues. As I have often pointed out in my scholarship (e.g. here), it is in fact rational for most voters to be ignorant about politics because of the very low probability that any individual vote will change electoral outcomes. In addition, voters have little incentive to do an unbiased evaluation of the information they do have. As a result, "political fans" often act like sports fans, overvaluing information that supports their preferred "team" and ignoring or downplaying anything that makes the team look bad. Such bias may explain why Obama voters in the Wilson survey were less likely to know information that reflected badly on the Democrats, whereas McCain voters had the opposite bias (e.g. - a smaller percentage of McCain voters than Obama voters knew that McCain had been implicated in the Keating Five scandal). As the "How Obama Got Elected" site notes, "in general, the voters did universally worse on questions where the negative information was about their candidate."
Of course, voters were not ignorant across the board:
Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned. When asked which candidate said they could "see Russia from their house," 87% chose Palin, although the quote actually is attributed to Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey during her portrayal of Palin during the campaign. An answer of "none" or "Palin" was counted as a correct answer on the test, given that the statement was associated with a characterization of Palin.
Conservatives will no doubt argue that these Palin negatives stuck in the voters' minds because of media bias. That may be true to some extent. But it is probably more likely that they became well known because they were "human interest" stories that could grab the attention of ordinary voters who find complex policy issues boring. There is a long history of polling data showing higher knowledge levels about human interest stories than policy stories. For example, two of the most widely known facts about the first President Bush was that he hated broccoli and owned a dog named Millie.
Widespread political ignorance and bias give partisans plenty of data that demonstrates' the ignorance of their opponents' voters. Unfortunately, they tend to ignore the reality that their own side's voters are usually just as bad.
The true lesson of political knowledge polls is not that either Democrats or Republicans are uniquely ignorant, but that we should reduce the power of government. That way, fewer important decisions will be made under the influence of electoral processes where ignorance, bias, and irrationality play such an enormous role.
UPDATE: Some commenters point to this post by Nate Silver as supposedly discrediting the Zogby results. I don't think it does. Silver says nothing that disproves the results themselves; he merely claims that the poll was commissioned by John Ziegler, a conservative political activist with supposedly nefarious motives (conducting a "push poll" to prejudice survey respondents against Obama). The claim that the survey was a "push poll" is dubious because, as Zogby points outs, it was conducted after the election.
But even if Ziegler's motives were exactly as as Silver suggests, that in no way proves that the poll is methodologically flawed. In particular, Silver doesn't even mention what I think is the single most striking finding: that the vast majority of Obama supporters didn't know which party controls Congress. Silver does suggest that some of the other questions are factually inaccurate, but provides no proof of that. I agree that a few are probably poorly worded; but I don't think I need to prove that every question on the survey is methodologically sound to show that the overall results of the poll demonstrate a fairly high (though predictable) level of political ignorance.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Political Ignorance and the 2008 Election:
- Going Easy on "Deranged" Charges that Seem like Mere Exaggerations of a Deeper Truth:
- Political "Derangement" and Political Ignorance:...
- International Variation in Political Ignorance about the Perpetrators of the 9/11 Attacks:
- Do Voters Have a Moral Duty to Be Informed About Politics?
- Richard Shenkman on Stupidity and Political Ignorance:
I agree with the premise, and don't necessarily disagree with the consequent, but I'm not sure I see a necessary logical connection.
To manufacture a really simple example, let's say that Really Evil Corporation (REC) is poisoning the water supply, but voters are unaware, ignorant, and misinformed about this. Meanwhile, there is a government agency staffed by "expert scientists" that perceives the problem and recommends steps to address it. Should this agency have the power to regulate REC's behavior? I don't see how "voters are really, really dumb" is a good argument for or against here.
The answer is that the agency will be controlled by politicians who are answerable to the ignorant voters. So it is unlikely that the agency will will adopt good policies, as opposed to ones that cater to the public's ignorance and irrationality.
I discuss the "rule of experts" solution to voter ignorance in more detail in this post. There, I cover the possibility of "expert" agencies independent from the political process.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/
zogby-engages-in-apparent-push-polling.html
For a bonus, check out the supremely unflattering interview with Zeigler.
Here's a WSJ blog summary of the controversy over this poll.
Many of the criticisms of the poll — and of what John Ziegler did with the data when he got it — are subject to reasonable argument. I'm just surprised to see it touted here without the barest reference to any of that dispute.
FWIW, John Ziegler did emerge as one of the most talented unintentional humorists of the post-election season. I particularly liked his explanation for the disproportionate number of black people in his video pitching his "Obama voter ignorance" meme:
Now that's professionalism.
And I agree our electorate are political dumbkoffs. I've always thought the ballot process should include requiring voters pass a simplified current knowledge test before their vote is actually counted. But that's just me and my bias, I suppose.
If one doesn't think other people's say is worth anything, their right to have a say tends not to be worth much either. When other people are devalued, limits on ones power just seem to vanish into thin air.
After all, it's for their own good, isn't it?
Reading through the comment thread to that post, I tend to side with those who think that your level of abstraction is too high.
There are a lot of philosophical problems in politics. Any process of decision-making may be too responsive to pressure, or not responsive enough. Individuals (not to speak of large geographically disparate populations) have conflicting values that may be impossible to satisfy all at once. When we think abstractly about such issues, I think it's tempting to think that we should just give up and dispense with government altogether; this looks to be a quick way to intellectual consistency and coherence, although I don't think anyone would necessarily be happy if it actually happened.
Returning to the concrete, I'm not at all convinced that an expert government agency entrusted to keep the water supply clean will generally implement bad policies to cater to stupid voters. Of course in a democracy there is always a potential for that to happen, and that's definitely a weakness of democracy. That doesn't mean that the expert government agency isn't the right way to go.
Wow, I'm involved in litigation that is very similar to your scenario. Unfortunately, REC can do pretty much whatever they please, as the water, soils, and zoning boards are all run by experts who know all too well who butters their bread.
REC also employs (or has employed) many of the major law firms in the area, which gives REC a 'friendly bias' among many in the judiciary (who generally come from the big firms).
Fortunately, in my case, somebody at REC was stupid enough to write some notes and letter memorializing certain past 'luncheons' with board members. The boards don't want their malfeasance and corruption to become widely known, so they are now steering the official investigations deliberately in REC's favor in the hopes of making the case go away (i.e., by cherry picking testing locations/depths/criteria).
So you know what ultimately is going to get this water contamination cleaned up? Certainly not the government - who will actually do their best to assist REC in any way possible (since REC is a massive company that makes many political donations) despite the harm to the public. The courts might eventually do it, but it will be a long (many years) and expensive process. The public outrage after it hits the local news will be the only way to defeat REC.
I would have expexted someone with no credibility like Lindgreen to cite this poll. I thougt better of you.
That sounds fine. Until you realize that not doing anything is a choice with consequences.
For example, if the economy needs fiscal stimulus as soon as possible, to not provide it with the stimulus it needs is a choice that has consequences.
Somin's fundamental error is to assume that doing nothing is a free lunch.
Normally, I wouldn't waste time and effort commenting on this. But in this case, I generally consider this site to be a thought-provoking, high level forum of informed people, my general ideological opposition notwithstanding. Ilya's post, sadly, suggests that even here some are not immune from the desire to be forever ensconced in their conservative cocoon.
engages-in-apparent-push-polling.html
This was a push poll - completely meaningless with horrendous "factual" questions. Many of the questions are so loaded they don't have a correct answer at all. It is inappropriate to rely on this poll...
Watching Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" on-the-street interviews on the "Tonight Show" makes me wonder how many takes they need in order to produce a normal show. Or maybe the question should be how many folk they need to screen through before enough are found for Jay to do each taped interview. Some of the results there are scary.
Reminds me of the first episode of some comedy show where the hosts set up a booth taking donations to "end woman's suffrage". Those poor women... suffraging...
I am afraid that it is implied in Somin's position that we can assume that inaction with respect to a particular problem must have less cost than taking action that is imperfect in some way (to whatever extent voter ignorance translates into imperfect policy -- a very difficult question) due to voter ignorance.
And that is why it is a flawed point. Inaction has costs. It is a choice.
The idea that we should always make this particular choice or be systematically biased towards making this particular choice (that choice being inaction) across all areas of policy due to voter ignorance is fundamentally flawed. Inaction is a choice that can have very serious consequences indeed.
There is no doubt that voter ignorance exists. And it probably leads to less than ideal choices with respect to political candidates in some cases. (Although, with only two choices as is typically the case, one wonders how much it really matters that much, or whether ignorance on both sides mostly cancels out. If for every ignorance voter who votes Republican there is an ignorant voter who votes Democratic and not too many more or less, then the ignorant voters cancel each other out.)
But, that should not lead us to choose inaction over action, since inaction has consequences.
General analysis won't do. You need to look at the particular situation and assess the costs and benefits of inaction versus the costs and benefits of other policy choices.
Here is an example. It doesn't make sense to say that the United States government should do nothing about Iranian development of a nuclear weapon, because of voter ignorance. In fact, that would be absurd. Inaction in that case, like in many other cases, is a choice with consequences.
In fact, general points about voter ignorance really do not add much of anything at all to the analysis of what strategy we should adopt in response Iranian nuclear technology development.
So here is my point. You need to get your damn head out of the sky and come back to earth and look at the particular policy.
This poll is ineffective as it doesn't take simple concepts into consideration.
Bialik's analysis at the WSJ Numbers Guy blog is much better in pointing out actual flaws. But even he suggests that the data means something, even if it's not the grand conclusion that the poll's commissioners reached. That something may be along the lines of an actual reporting bias, or something as mild as Prof. Somin's rational ignorance/homer theory. But it's disingenuous to claim that Silver made the poll's results meaningless.
Ilya posts about rational ignorance so often it's hard to imagine any reader of this blog would be surprised.
You don'r really mean "despite considerable evidence to the contrary," do you?
You mean, despite the fact that it's not true.
The true lesson for present-day campaign operatives is to keep campaigns simple.
The true lesson for ancient Greek philosophers is that democracy is a really stupid way to run a polis.
The true lesson for pragmatic bureaucrats is to keep plugging away and ignore politics.
The true lesson for aspiring dictators is that you only have to win one election.
Etc.
David Welker,
Of course "choosing inaction" is still a choice. Rush made that quite clear in their song "Freewill."
However, inaction is generally better than action for the same reason that negligence by omission is better than negligence by commission. Letting something bad happen via known external forces is less morally problematic than making the bad thing happen yourself. This is why systematic bias towards inaction is desirable. It's an issue of morality.
This is especially true when (in your Iran hypo) there are irreconcilable and plausible opposing sides on what affirmative course to take, with each side saying the other will cause more harm than good.
Currently we have a large government that has arisen via some array of forces. Dramatically reducing the size of the government would be a big intervention with a range of consequences, some positive and some negative. So... I guess it's best to let sleeping dogs lie and let things be, because we wouldn't want to have the negative consequences on our conscience.
Because of her history of cocaine use, funding racist preachers, working to indoctrinate schoolchildren in far-left ideology, asking a man under federal investigation to help buy a house, &c?
Ilya said: Widespread political ignorance and bias give partisans plenty of data that demonstrates' the ignorance of their opponents' voters. Unfortunately, they tend to ignore the reality their own side's voters are usually just as bad.
And yet many commenters are apparently acting as if the post uniquely disparages Democrats.
As they say on Slashdot, RTFA.
Somin plainly states that voters tend to be ignorant about their own candidate, and glom onto negative information about the candidate they oppose. He neither endorses any view, nor claims there to be anything derived from the any of the polls except for the central premise of his post: i.e. voters are rationally ignorant; maybe it would be better if government was less powerful so we could all go on about our lives without having to become news junkies (I paraphrase, of course).
Seems to me that would be an interesting discussion if people could will their hackles down for brief moment or two.
But it's even worse than that. Here's a summary of the findings:
(my bold)
Or that twenty people have posted about how ignorant Ilya was, when they, themselves, were too ignorant to even read what the guy wrote.
There's no reason to believe that Obama ever used more than a trivial amount of cocaine. Palin admitted smoking pot. Do you see a big difference there?
- Although the closing didn't happen until 6/05, Obama made his final offer on the house in 1/05. At that time, it was not known that Rezko was under investigation.
- Obama didn't ask Rezko "to help buy a house."
- Rezko didn't "help buy a house." The house had been on the market for months, and Obama's bid was the winning bid because it was the highest bid. The seller has confirmed this.
And that's understandable, since Bush said this:
Apples and oranges. Prof. Somin, in the section you quoted, discussed reasons that the poll was not terribly surprising or significant, but did not address any of the patent problems with the methodology of the poll that have been widely discussed. The two are not the same.
You would do yourself a favor to notice that Somin didn't address methodology at all ... because it wasn't the point.
It is interesting that people would rather discuss what they see as "patent problems" with Ziegler's commissioned polls (not that any other Zogby or Wilson polls have any problems, of course), rather than dwell on the issue of rational voter ignorance. I suppose that's because there is willful voter ignorance to deal with as well?
What percentage of Americans read books? Better yet, how many Americans know who the Attorney General is, or what that person does? I can further enumerate things the American people have a vested interest to understand, but do not. It does not rest solely on one side of the spectrum, half of this country is not idiots while the other half has understanding.
And here I go, quoting Jefferson again:
"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
I firmly believe that a lack of proper educational sources in this country is the most fundamental problem with it. It is not a manufactured system that keeps Americans uninformed, but certainly a system that is sustained by certain individuals or organizations. As long as people are divided, and attempt civil discussion with opposing facts, there will be no political consensus, no improvement in our Liberty or Union. You can not place the fault solely on the "democrats" or "republicans", but much more likely on the organizations that govern and contribute largely to them.
Again, all I have to say is get your head out of the sky. You really can't make too many arguments with reference to the supposed "general case."
In many cases, I would agree that instance of actions are more morally problematic than inaction. But that is only because the negative consequences are more forseeable.
Imagine the following hypotheticals.
A)
You see someone bleeding in a horrible way in a relatively deserted part of town. No one else is there to help. You decide not to call 911. As a result, the person you saw bleeding dies, but they would have been saved if you made the phone call.
B)
In contrast, imagine that you are driving to work and as you are driving along, a bike rider in the bike lane hits a rock and suddenly swerves into traffic. You are distracted, and when you notice them you try your best to avoid hitting them, but it is too late.
In these two scenarios, it seems quite clear that the individual in scenario A is much more morally culpable than the person in scneario B. The reason is that the harm in case A is so foreseeable and immediate, whereas the harm in scenario A is much more remote. We have all probably been guilty of being distracted when driving at some point or another.
If you are the leader of the United States, is it more moral to do nothing while Iran develops a nuclear weapon? I would say this is less moral.
If you are unemployed, is it more moral to sit on the couch all day, or make a good faith effort to find work?
In general, I don't think you can say that inaction is more moral than action. Once again, I think you need to look at the specific situation.
In other words, you need to get your head out of the clouds imagining that all questions are merely an application of extremely abstract principles and attend to the particular details of the policy question before you. Sometimes inaction is the best policy. But, one should be quite active in choosing inaction. Where there are N serious policy possibilities, inaction is merely one out of N. It should be evaluated on the merits and not automatically be the default choice.
Well, it is apples and oranges, or at least a false dichotomy, to suggest the bi-partisan nature of rational ignorance precludes this poll being especially flawed. Zogby had to do some fancy tap-dancing to distance himself from the poll's irregularities without outright repudiating his own product.
This is an excellent way of putting in LN.
Isn't it at least somewhat paradoxical that the advocates of inaction must rely on action to obtain their result?
Who is going to change the size of government except the very voters that you mistrust? And won't rational ignorance taint their assessment that inaction is better than a more active status quo?
Another point. An active policy does not have to be perfect in order to be more desirable than inaction. I think this is another point Somin is missing in his analysis.
Yes, this is wonderful for intelligent discourse...make a statement about something completely unrelated to what I was saying. Whether or not any of those claims are true has no relevance as to Sarah Palin's credentials. There have been many, many serious Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates with far worse things than those listed above, however few have been as inexperienced as Palin. But at least your statement has no relevance at all, accomplished nothing and shows the partisan divide that clouds most peoples judgments.
After the 2004 election, I found myself thinking that that some non-negligible number of Repblicans, if asked about Americans finding WMDs, would not care give an answer that implied no, there were no WMDs in Iraq -- because some number of these voters might be fully informed but choose to believe that the WMDs had been moved to Syria or elsewhere. These people are not eager to give credence to the idea that there were no WMDs in Iraq by answering a question in a fashion that may lead to that conclusion.
On the other side, I can say that if someone asked me after voting if I knew that Barack Obama was an associate of William Ayers, I might say, "You know, no, I don't belive he was" or "I'm aware of the claims, I think they're false." To a pollster, that might count as a negative answer, marking me as ignorant. I'm plenty informed about the argument that they are connected to some degree or other, but I reject that they had a significant association, so, while a "no" may abbreviate the discussion, I'd be loathe to give that question a simple "yes".
Silver in no way undermines the validity of the poll results. He merely suggests that the poll's sponsors had dubious motives. Even if their motives were exactly as Silver alleges, that in no way disproves the results. And especially not the most damning one: that most Obama voters didn't know which party controlled Congress (which Silver doesn't even mention).
It is quite clear that the voters are much more likely to know what is, in their mind, wrong with the candidate they oppose. They are less likely to "know" the negatives about the candidate they support for the simple reason that they don't necessarily see them as negatives. For most people, many of the issues that they consider less important simply fade from memory. So, they don't "know".
The problem is, as usual, that Somin does not live in the real world. He lives in the academic world in which he has been ensconced for almost two decades. And, prior to that, he was likely a socially awkward, academically inclined teen. In other words, the world he sees is seen through academic interpretation.
It is important to put down the professorial glasses once in a while and look at things as they are. When one considers the meaning of statistical data more rationally, it is clear that the data do not exist in a vacuum and that data don't "tell" us anything. They lend themselves to a variety of interpretations and what they "tell" us depends at least as much on the interpretation as on the numbers being interpreted. This is not an argument over facts, as Somin is trying to portray it in his critique. It's an argument over interpretation.
Something would start out at a blog or the HuffPost and then get pushed by various sites like the HuffPost, WaPo, NYT, etc. It would get dugg, make Digg's homepage, and then get marked as inaccurate.
Then, when that was done a new smear would take its place.
See some of them here. It was a loosely-organized attempt to deceive, and it worked.
If it weren't, it would not be a very good push poll.
Regardless, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you're interested in the Volokh Conspiracy your candidate's fate was decided by a bunch of people dumber that you are, dumber than your candidate, and dumber than you'd like to believe the average supporter of your candidate to be. That's no excuse for going all ad hominem, geez... lighten up Francis-es.
At the same time, I think the poll's findings are still indicative of some basic flaws in human reasoning. People have an easier time remembering information that confirms their preexisting beliefs than remembering information that tends to discredit those beliefs. You'd find basically the same results with McCain supporters, who would remember negative "facts" about Obama but not remember Obama supporters' claims of "facts" about McCain.
How can they be marked wrong? The house majority mostly refraining from translating numbers into control (Dems are weird that way). The senate 'majority' was subject to filibuster and, putting that wrinkle aside, included Joe Lieberman. Control is as control does.
But hey, we have a good looking young president with a nice voice who photographs very well.
I absolutely believe the Obama voters were this ignorant. I would also be willing to bet McCain supporters would be about as ignorant.
I do think missing the question about who controls congress is a telling one and I think it plays as much into media coverage and an ignorance of just how our government works. After all I still come across adults with college educations who seem to think presidents make the laws and can easily get rid of laws.
The reality I think is that the majority of voters-republican or democrat-are ignorant of our government and how it works, and in general choose who they are voting for based as much on political affiliation and who they "like" more than what their positions actually are. For a bit of comedy and definitely an unscientific poll Howard Stern had somebody asking people on the street about their support for Obama, but they attributed McCain's positions to Obama. They readily agreed with those positions, because they liked Obama. Shoot my mom often voted based on how the candidates eyes looked-or how he looked in a suit and similar reasons.
Moptop nailed it.
So, we have the word of William Ayers after the election that this is correct, as well as the word of several Obama associates at the the time as documented in the NYT. Where is the factual case that this is not correct?
Journal of Philosophy 98.8 (2001), Jason Stanley and Timothy Williamson, which comes down contra Ryle. I'm not persuaded by their arguments, but the paper is an excellent presentation.)
The distinction is important, I think, for political philosophy because it implies that we have ways of getting about in the world that are not reducible to our knowing the truth of propositions (as the fulcrum of our actions). How far this bears on Ilya's thesis, I don't know. But I do think it needs investigation. Pascal: "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." And who can say that the heart's unknowable reasons are less valid than the mind's knowable ones?
Zoghby asked if the respondent knows which party controls congress. The answer is factual. Regardless of all the political ins and outs, Democrats controlled both houses.
Now compare that to the PIPA poll where respondents were asked several questions about Iraq:
---Were WMD's found?
---Did Saddam provide substantial support to al Queda?
First, recognize this was in 2004...only 18 months after the invasion. I suspect respondents believed the WMD were there, but the evidence had not been uncovered. Same with the al Queda connection. It has nothing to do with ignorance. Respondents answers were based on their opinions (I believe), not their knowledge.
It would be comparable to Zoghby asking: "Does Obama support gun control?". Respondents would answer in various ways, few of which would be "factual".
Between the two polls, I think the only really revealing question is the one about control of Congress. It is indeed appalling that so few knew the answer. The other questions are too colored by politics, culture and media emphasis. They aren't useful in establishing ignorance or knowledge.
And what exactly are you proposing that we do if all the people who vote are fools, anyway? Impose an IQ test for voting? Maybe a poll tax, so that only the successful people vote. Or perhaps anarchy is the only intelligent governmental system? We can see a weak government at work, where free marked forces dominate. That's an apt descriptions of Somalia's governmental system. Would you be suggesting a pirate nation, me hearties?
Perhaps people are ignorant about these things because they, correctly, deemed them as irrelevant. Perhaps they watched the behavior of each man in public and decided that what they did, rather than what one guy's commercials said about them, mattered. Honestly, did McCain's campaign give you any confidence that he'd make a good President?
QED.
But before I leave this discussion for work, If 'trad and anon' are going to suggest that Obama's claim that he launched his career from the Marriot is true, answer this. Where did he get the money for that "coming out party" How did he pay for the venue and the catering? In a small, living room setting where he could meet with the connected and the wealthy who could arrange the funds and supply the contacts needed for such a party. Exactly the situation described by Ayers himself and the NYT.
Obama has already lied on this subject "Just some guy in the neighborhood", so I think that his statements deserve scrutiny, and they don't bear up.
Wow, Ilya. Did you read his posts?
Questions where the answer is based on believing a very conservative, warped view of the world? Questions comparing things that occurred many decades ago and were vetted many months to years ago, to the life story of someone who burst on the scene 5 minutes ago?
And this isn't undermining the validity of the poll? I'm with Orin here, sorry.
Moptop on the 538 post:
According to Moptop, Prof. Kerr is "being manipulated," on account of how he doesn't "know the difference between rhetoric and logic."
Luckily for us, Moptop delivers this message to us using logic, not rhetoric.
But but but...the poll tax is nothing more than a reasonable vote control ordinance that is necessary to the conductance of a free election.
It's for the children (tm).
My understanding is that a lot of knee-jerk, low information voters on the Republican side disliked McCain intensely and didn't want him to get the nomination in the first place. In contrast, a lot of knee-jerk, low information voters on the Democratic side got on the Obama bandwagon enthusiastically. (Many may come to regret this.) So it would be no wonder if actual McCain VOTERS (as opposed to people who might lean Republican in general) came off looking more informed than Obama voters. Some of the wackies on the right sat this one out.
As for WMD, I'd be interested in a poll question that tried to find out what percentage of the population can even define the term. A lot of people I know (mostly liberals) think it means nuclear weapons exclusively. Another big group (mostly conservatives) think it can include conventional rockets and anything else that might cause mass casualties. Both are wrong, but it's easy to see how people might adopt very restrictive or very broad definitions of an unfamiliar term in order to support their preexisting positions.
And as for why a lot of people favor the status quo (whatever that is) in most policy questions... there is more information about it than about any of the theoretical alternatives. Always. You know the plusses and the minuses. People advocating an alternative approach seldom have as much information, and seldom present whatever negative information they do have. This alone is a reason to move cautiously. It doesn't mean you can never move at all, because sometimes the status quo is bad enough to justify the uncertainties involved in change. And occasionally -- VERY occasionally -- the underlying reality shifts enough that all approaches are leaps in the dark. But the information gap does suggest that the burden of persuasion is on the people who favor the new approach. They have to propose specific changes and justify them, not just stir the pot.
You're defending the claim "that Obama started his political career at the home" of Ayers. This implies that the event at the Ayers' home was the first such event, and that it was planned by Obama. And you're implying that both "Ayers himself and the NYT" say "exactly" what you're saying. Really?
This is what Ayers said:
According to Ayers, the event was not scheduled by Obama. It was scheduled by Palmer. And there's no claim that it was the first such event. It was one of many events.
And here's what NYT said, in the article you cited:
According to this named witness, the Ayers event was one of several, and it was not the first event. Nevertheless, many people like you (and the pollster) make the claim that "Obama's political career launched in Ayers' home." (Even though there is more basis to claim that 'Obama's political career launched in Rabbi Wolf's home.')
So is the claim you're defending an honest claim based on "logic," or is it an instance of certain people using "rhetoric [and] novelistic techniques … to frame issues?"
And what about your claim that Ayers and NYT "exactly" said things they didn't actually say? Does that even rise to the level of "rhetoric?" It does not, since it is simply fiction.
As for "Prof Kerr" not knowing the difference between rhetoric and logic, well, lots of people who do know the difference use rhetoric when they know logic fails but believe in some larger point. Not everybody is a useful idiot, some are political manipulators. Kos has said that he believes in "Winnerism", what do you think that means? Did you think your reply was logical? I sort of missed that part. It looked like you believe that I had made some specific assertion about "Prof Kerr"
Nobody. And who can say that they are more valid? Nobody. In other words the proposition is not falsifiable. What you are suggesting is the end of Enlightenment. For a more accessable version of your argument, see "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence."
If you wan't to read another great treatment on the subject from the right, rather than the left, lik Zen, let me recommend the book "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" Not the movie, the book.
What I'm suggesting is that warp and woof of our lives is far more complicated and subtle than can be described by some simple-minded recourse to rationalism. See, e.g., Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, passim.
But let's be clear. I'm not objecting to the idea that some Republican voters and some Dem voters aren't political experts. I'm sure that's true, and I'm sure it's true in roughly equal proportions. I'm also sure that was just as true in every other presidential election we've ever had.
Finally, to Rich Berger: I know lots of Obama voters. In fact, I myself am one, as is my wife and most of my family and friends. We knew what we were voting for.
The centralization of political power bears several necessary consequences, none of them particularly good for the representativeness of politics (or, rather, none of them particularly good for the "median voter theory"). First, centralization undermines local politics, where politicans are more easily known and knowable by constituents, because it strips local politicians of the authority to do sufficiently important things and, worse, it allows local politicians to dodge tricky problems by shifting the blame/seeking assistance from the political center. A side effect of this may be to increase the level of corruption in local politics because voters grow more ignorant (rationally) of local politicians, reducing the competition that rent-seekers face. In short, as politics centralizes, local politics dies on the vine.
Second, centralization reduces competition for political messages. There are comparably fewer outlets covering central politics (and thus more subject to capture), and, moreover, the competitive theme of politics generally ensures that fewer political messages are even sent - that is, it is more difficult for politicians to capture the stage at the central level, leaving incumbents strong and those whose messages are tailored to the outlets even stronger. That is, central politics is generally covered from one geographical location, and the costs of national coverage ensure that only a small cadre of media (who often swim in the same small ponds) controls the message.
Moreover, as politics are generally reported as a 2-party struggle, the script at the central level is set by 2 competing voices (which the outlets cover and publicize), and the real battle generally is for determining who controls the parties' messages in this duopoly (and, of course, how those messages are then digested by the media). Thus, media outlets typically see and establish a "Democrat" and "Republican" set of ideas, and the real struggle within the parties is to capture the "party" message with one's own. That effectively allows the media to cherry pick among the competing voices within the two parties to establish the "official" message. Obviously, this empowers the unelected media as a powerful gatekeeper for political messages, for it allows them to determine which messages are advertised, and, thus, it is the media that largely establish the "official message" of each party.
This media-centric analysis is not unique to central politics, of course, for the media always act as gatekeepers to some extent. What is unique about central politics is that the stakes are higher than at the local level, but the competition among media outlets is not equally higher, a fact that reduces real competition and enhances the gatekeeper role. Moreover, as local politics shrivels, the central politics/media gatekeepers exercise far more influence over national politics than their local (minor leagues) brethren.
In short, to increase political education and civics awareness, perhaps we need to focus on localism - call it subsidiarity or whatever - and empower localities to govern themselves far more autonomously than today. With greater real power at the local or state level, voters' interest in, and awareness of, local and state politicians will increase, and the fact that local and state politicians are more accessible than federal or central politicians should serve an important educational role.
I'll bite. What were you voting for? What did you expect of him?
Exacty. And McCain voters are going to be people who get lots of "information" from pro-McCain sources. Not only that. Zogby polled only Obama voters, and the questions were mostly of the form:
"Did you know this negative thing about [McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden]?"
Of course the Obama voters were more likely to know, or believe, negative things about McCain/Palin than about Obama/Biden. That influenced their votes.
Similarly, McCain voters are going to believe fewer negative things about McCain, for the reasons above and because the fewer negative things you believe about McCain the more likely you are to vote for him.
The poll results are nonsense.
In addition, the fact that many voters were not aware that Democrats controlled the Congress is cited by Prof. Somin as the most important. Does that number include those who simply did not know, as well as those who gave the incorrect answer? Because many of Obama's supporters were first-time voters who may not heretofore have followed politics to the point of knowing which party controlled Congress. Many were disaffected by the entire subject and only came to vote because they had been motivated by this candidate. That speaks to a deeper issue than simply ignorance. The most recent data about turnout support this interpretation, given that overall turnout was somewhat higher, but the big story was the sudden turnout of new voters for Obama, coupled with a decline of Republican voters.
"What I'm suggesting is that warp and woof of our lives is far more complicated and subtle than can be described by some simple-minded recourse to rationalism."
Ah, yes, the warp and the woof.
The latter of course is problematic, but the former is quite amenable to reason, simple-minded and otherwise. All-or-nothing thinking is neither rational nor subtle nor particularly on point.
McCain voters (and Republicans in general) were forced to hear plenty of pro-Obama messages if they turned on the TV or read the papers.
The poll results weren't nonsense, even if you say so. I'll bet the average McCain voter knew that the Dems controlled Congress.
Obama's secret asset was his vagueness.
I was voting for a center-left Dem. who would follow the rather detailed list of policy proposals on his web site. To pick just one example of many, I do labor and employment law, and I'm pretty sure I know what I'm going to get at the DoL, the NLRB and other agencies that act in the labor and employment realm. Heck, e-mail privately and I'll give you -- for free -- a list of some Bush NLRB decisions I expect to be overturned.
Beyond that, in quite a few areas, I would suggest that Obama's position was a lot clearer than McCain's.
I could go on at great length about Obama's positions in other areas, but the whole idea that Obama was some huge cypher with no discerable positions is even more laughable than Ziegler's "poll."
I wish I knew what you were talking about. Show us the quote.
Except that Obama didn't say the words you're claiming he said. Did anyone ever tell you that quote marks are used to indicate an actual quote?
I get it. When you're caught making things up, it's just "a bit of hyperbole." But when your opponents allegedly say something that isn't perfectly accurate (and we have yet to see proof of this allegation), it's a "lie." Thanks for clearing that up. I've enjoyed the lesson in "logic."
And the way you cited NYT wasn't "hyperbole." It was deception. You cited NYT in support of the claim that "Obama started his political career at the home" of Ayers, even though the article quotes a named witness who indicates this claim is false.
Lots of people seem to think this is a great mystery, even though the information is presented in detail. Try reading his 33-page Blueprint for Change (pdf), or the other extensive material he's posted at his site.
Show us the campaign documents from McCain (or anyone else) that embody less "vagueness" than the Obama material I just cited.
When did this turn into a thread about ACORN undermining the fabric of our democracy?
and this is exactly why the poll didn't poll republican voters. it makes it much easier for political hacks to say their side is better, based on little more than wishful thinking. this shouldn't surprise anyone from a poorly designed poll created by another political hack with the intent to achieve a partisan outcome.
i'll also bet the averave mccain voter thought that we had found WMD in iraq, that iraq actually had them ready to use on a moments notice in the first place and that iraq was involved in 9/11. (for proof see above in this post) now which set of false beliefs has caused more harm in this world? it sure ain't lack of knowledge over who controls congress.
Good point. And let's roll the tape, since I have it handy. McCain said this:
The DOJ is still in the hands of a GOP administration, so I figured for sure we'd see some indictments by now. What the heck are they waiting for? Hopefully they are not going to sit on their hands and let ACORN get away with "destroying the fabric of democracy."
I'll have to say that the 33-page Blueprint for Change is a pretty fascinating document. What amazes me is how the rubes are taken in by such drivel. How about these for heroic and specific actions-
BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC PLAN
The housing crisis is deepening and energy and food prices are soaring. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have advocated for an Emergency Economic Plan to jumpstart the economy, with two key parts. This Emergency Economic Plan is a down-payment on Obama and Biden’s long-run plans to restore tax fairness and invest in infrastructure and clean energy to foster long-run growth.
Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American
families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills.
$50 Billion To Turn our Economy Around and Prevent More than 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs
State Growth Fund: $25 billion in a State Growth Fund to prevent state and local cuts in health, education and housing assistance or counterproductive increases in property taxes, tolls or fees. The fund will also ensure sufficient funding for home heating and weatherization assistance as we move into the fall and winter months.
Jobs and Growth Fund: $25 billion in a Jobs and Growth Fund to replenish the Highway Trust Fund; prevent cutbacks in road and bridge maintenance and fund new, fast-tracked projects to repair schools – all to save more than 1 million jobs in danger of being cut.
If only O and Joe had been P/VP six months earlier - things would have been very different.
You must be kidding me. But I do thank you for sharing the thoughts and inspirations of the big O and Joe with me.
You do understand that the fact that you disagree with Obama's specific policy proposals doesn't mean specific policy proposals weren't made, right?
Because, as recent events have so forcefully reminded us all, the decisionmaking of the private sector is never swayed by ignorance, bias, or irrationality.
Oh, and those agencies independent of the political process, like the Federal Reserve? They did a heckuva job too.
The main difference between government and the private sector is that the government can only benefit private interests at the expense of public ones when it is turned away from its designed purpose; for the private sector benefiting some at the expense of others IS its designed purpose. Neither customers nor employees get to vote on corporate decisions (and in many cases small shareholders are de facto disenfranchised too under the rule of one dollar, one vote).
The questions asked of people (beyond who are you, where are you from, what do you do) were a mix of basic facts on US politics and government, some widely-known movie trivia (what film was a quotation from, who won recent Academy Awards, etc.) identifying famous TV characters, and things taught in grammar school about some famous scientists, explorers, and inventors.
Nick
Is this the same jukeboxgrad that had to fabricate an inconsistent numerical methodology in order to make the claim that his source's numbers are correct? I think we understand your grasp of "lie(s)" and "logic." Given your attention to detail, I'm curious where is your indignation at the imprecision of the $150,000 Palin wardrobe question?
(BTW, you never did mention what "underlying premise" was supported by TAP's webpage.)
As far as the methodology of this survey goes, I see nothing wrong with it. Since the question they wanted to answer was specifically about Obama voters suggestions such as a "control group of McCain voters" don't make much sense. You only need to know what McCain voters do if you want to compare the two. Since that wasn't the question asked, there's no need for it. However, the survey has been repeated including McCain voters, so that information is available if one looks for it.
Additionally the questions don't need to be perfect in order to measure voter ignorance. The fact that Palin's wardrobe wasn't exactly $150,000 doesn't invalidate the fact that an informed voter would know that a $150,000 wardrobe is associated with Palin. Whether Obama's very first utterance of an intent to be involved in politics was at Bill Ayers' home or not, an informed voter knows that, of the four (Biden, McCain, Obama, Palin) Obama is the one known to have held an early career meet-n-greet there. Besides, isn't it known that Obama was a child when he first announced his desire to be president? So shouldn't the pedantic, stickler for details JBG insist that that was the launch of Obama's political career?
Nonetheless, Mr. Somin points out how discouraging it is that such a high percentage of Obama voters didn't know who "controls Congress." Yet, that wording is itself ambiguous; the number of successful filibusters is higher than at any point in recent history, and actual legislation after the first 100 days was scant, at best, suggesting that actual "control" was split, despite a Democratic majority.
It may not fully skew the percentage closer to what we'd like it to be, but a question regarding "which party holds a *majority* in Congress" might have gotten a better answer. And even if it didn't, one should concede the obvious ambiguity of the question itself, which was, I suspect, Nate's point to begin with.
Of course, rubes like us would think we know what we're voting for.
"for the private sector benefiting some at the expense of others IS its designed purpose."
This liberal disagrees. Or maybe you were thinking of unions.
I think that the reality is that most voters are rationally ignorant. Why rationally? Because it takes a lot of time and effort to keep informed at the level that we all seem to take for granted here, time better spent in many cases on making a living, raising a family, etc. Heck, I am rationally ignorant on judicial nominees, if nothing else, and even some ballot initiatives. Voting against the League of Women Voters may be a rational approach, but it isn't an informed choice. (I don't really - I just started saying that when my mother was their legislative chair and head lobbyist for Colorado).
So, if the vast majority of the voters cannot rationally be expected to be well informed about all the candidates they are going to be voting for, or really even the major candidates, then how should they decide their votes?
Traditionally, they have trusted the mainstream media, whether it be their local papers, the national papers or magazines, or TV to inform them. But what happens if much of the MSM biases their reporting in favor of the candidate that they, as a group, are mostly voting for? Where they don't bother reporting that much on negative stories about their candidate, but relish doing so for the other candidate? If nothing else, one result that is likely is
Traditionally, they have trusted the mainstream media, whether it be their local papers, the national papers or magazines, or TV to inform them. But what happens if much of the MSM biases their reporting in favor of the candidate that they, as a group, are mostly voting for? Where they don't bother reporting that much on negative stories about their candidate, but relish doing so for the other candidate? If nothing else, one result that is likely is the average voter on either side is less likely to know about dirt on the candidate favored by the press, and more likely to know about dirt on the other candidate.
And that is what I think we have here. I think that these polls or studies are more an indictment about the level of bias in the reporting than anything to do directly with voter ignorance or which candidate had the smarter or better informed voters voting for him.
The problem I see for the press is that some of these issues are now coming out now, and some are questioning why they didn't come out during the election. Will that accelerate the decline of traditional media? Who knows?
I guess this is your way of admitting that you didn't know about Obama's plans until I brought them to your attention. Even though the information is readily available. Which tends to suggest that it's not Obama's supporters who are ignorant about his plans. It's people like you.
And I guess this is also your way of admitting that you're not in a position to back up the claim you made before, that Obama exhibits more "vagueness" than other candidates. And that you lack the integrity to admit that your claim is simply wrong.
I didn't "fabricate" anything. Is this the same guest12345 who summarized his argument by saying "have a nice day, putz?" I think that tells us something about the quality of your argument.
Who cares about the exact amount? The exact amount doesn't matter. Consider these statements:
A) Palin's wardrobe cost $100,000
B) Palin's wardrobe cost $150,000
C) Palin's wardrobe cost $200,000
The difference between A and C is large, in the sense that an increase of 100% is a lot, and adding $100,000 is a lot. But the difference between A and C is negligible, in terms of political impact. A, B and C all mean this: 'Palin's wardrobe cost a lot of money, a lot more than any wardrobe I'll ever have.'
On the other hand, consider these two statements:
A) When he first ran for office, Obama participated in many campaign events. One of those events was at the Ayers home.
B) Obama launched his political career in the Ayers' home
It's not pedantic to notice that A and B are not the same. Those two statements are quite different, in political impact. B implies a closeness between Ayers and Obama that is not implied by A. Ayers must be important to Obama, if Obama picked that place as the location for his first campaign event.
Except that the location was picked by Palmer, not Obama. And it was not the first event.
If there was no material difference in political impact between A and B, then Obama's opponents would have simply said A. It has the advantage of being true, while B is untrue. But they repeatedly said B, because it has significantly greater impact. For example Power Line said this:
Calling it the "first" event has materially more impact than admitting that it was one of many events, and not the first.
Except that Obama and his supporters (like me) are not trying to make a specific claim about when he "launched" his political career. It's kind of a silly statement, because there are too many ways to define "launched" in this context. It's Obama's opponents who decided to make a statement in those terms. And unfortunately the statement they made (and still make) is false.
You are are implying that the location was chosen by Obama. Wrong. It was chosen by Palmer.
What are the "issues" you're talking about? Do you mean McCain revealing his lukewarm feelings about Palin, by declining to endorse her for 2012? This is kind of a surprise, given that he supposedly picked the best person for the job.
I don't know what other "issues" you're thinking of, that are "coming out now," and which should have "come out during the election."
If the question were phrased in terms of "Early in his first campaign for public office . . ." and people answered 'no,' that would demonstrate ignorance. But it wasn't.
You cannot be serious. Are you actually trying to argue that there are people who follow politics closely enough to know details about the relative number of Senate filibusters in the last year, but who nevertheless don't know which party controls Congress or don't know that "controls Congress" is a common term used to describe the majority party?! It would be an understatement to say that argument is a stretch.
If you look at it that way, I think you're correct. But that's not the only way to look at it. Consider this recent news report:
Someone who doesn't "follow politics closely" could read that report and very easily come to the conclusion that the Senate is under the control of the GOP. And over the past couple of years there have been lots of reports like that.
In a certain real sense, no party is in "control" of the Senate unless that party has 60 seats. Especially at a time when the minority party is willing to use filibusters (or the threat of filibusters) extensively.
It's because of the Senate's supermajority requirements that a majority does not mean control, and therefore the question was badly worded at best.
@David Warner: I wasn't trying to deny the reality of positive externalities or even the invisible hand in some circumstances. Nevertheless, the private sector is *structurally* biased toward serving narrow interests (owners) in a way that the public sector isn't. Consider the differing fiduciary obligations of a corporate officer and a public servant - while either one might fail to live up to those obligations, only the former can disserve the public interest *by* doing his job (serving the shareholders).
And when you want a job to be done right even when there's no profit in doing it right, don't send the private sector.
But it's a mistake to think that serving the owners is the only thing a corporation does. If it doesn't serve a wide variety of other interests, in particular those of its customers, it won't last very long.
People pick up what floats by. The more often it floats by, the more likely they are to pick it up. It's a passive thing. If they're interested, they will actively learn about it, but you can't actively investigate something which has not yet occurred to you.
Thus, more people had heard of Palin's wardrobe than of Obama's Chicago Annenberg Challenge gig, despite the fact that the latter involved roughly a thousand times more money.
Because more reporters had reported on it, more news shows had commented on it.
It's sort of like "name that party".
The point is the media's bias, not the ignorance of the voters. I suppose it is a matter of voter ignorance, but that the ignorance goes a particular way--implicating media bias-- was the point of the poll.
"Out there"?? You want to do article counts? The wardrobe vs. CAC money, just for starters. Then adjust for the fact that the CAC was a thousand times more money.
Yeah, "out there". My sweet aunt fanny.
Morning Joe and the hacks. "Instinct" You sure hang your hat on some weak reeds.
Must be you don't have any others.
O&Joe's Blueprint for Change is pretty pedestrian boilerplate - and what would be your guess for the percentage of O voters who could identify one specific proposal in it?
Plenty of McCain voters knew specifically why they disliked him - McCain Feingold, immigration "reform", initial opposition to the tax cuts - but still voted for him.
The survey results are consistent with my experience with Obama voters, in person, on the radio and on CSPAN.
I liked your last post - "Someone who doesn't "follow politics closely" could read that report and very easily come to the conclusion that the Senate is under the control of the GOP. " Someone out to lunch, perhaps. I think they have been called "low information voters".
Will Rahm be looking at the underside of the bus? Does Intrade have a market on that yet?
When I read your posts I picture a hyperexcitable type, practically frothing at the mouth as you combat error, as you see it.
Palin's wardrobe got talked about because it was simply wrong to spend that much campaign money on clothes. Especially given Palin's 'hockey mom' image. CAC wasn't talked about much because no one did anything wrong. Duh.
Your earlier claim was not about "O voters." Your earlier claim was about Obama. You accused him of "vagueness." That claim is false. Nice job trying to change the subject.
Yes, there are definitely some "low-information voters" out there:
Anyway, I think the main flaw with the poll is that the questions regarding McCain-Palin focused primarily on events that happened during the campaign, while the questions about Obama-Biden were about events that happened way in the past. So obviously more people will be familiar with the jes-plain-folks-humble-hockey-mom's-$150,000-wardrobe than things like Biden's "plagiarism," Obama's political events at Ayers' house, and Obama getting his competitors kicked off the ballot).
I think the only two Obama-related questions that dealt with matters happening in the past 15 years had to do with his statement that his policies "would likely bankrupt the coal industry" (which is not exactly what he said, and it only was reported in the last couple of days before the election), and Biden's statement that Obama would likely be tested by an international crisis (which was a complete non-event).
You are the gift that keeps on giving.
I had forgotten about that Pew Poll - you will notice that the quality of the listeners to Rush and O'Reilly viewers were about equal to the Daily Show (taking high and moderate quality into account) - and they both have much larger audiences.
What possible connection could there be between the big O and the dumb-O voters (extra points)?
No law against wardrobe expenditures--did anybody question O's campaign on same? Nope.
How do you know nobody did anything "wrong" wrt the CAC? Considering your definition is "whatever offends me--which is to say if a republican did it", rather than actually breaking a law. Should have been something in there worth your finely-honed moral attention, except that you had no interest. Or, perhaps, a strong interest that nobody ever find out.
Thousand times as much money, juke. Means nothing, huh?
And, this being Chicago and money, the likelihood that nothing wrong happened is pretty low. But you didn't think it was worth investigating, while there were several hundred reporters "dumpster diving" in Wassilla.
Pull the other one.
and yet i heard plenty about edwards' hair cut and al gore's many houses and i heard precious little about pretty much anything mccain related. so, as usual, your posts are full of crap.
As someone who has worked in an idustry involved with VX, GB, and mustard I learned that VX and GB are essentially highly concentrated insecticides (both being cholenesterate(sp?) inhibitors). It was the reason, while working overseas, we were not allowed to have Raid or other insecticides despite the giant cockroaches, mosquitos, and ants. Insecticides would give a "false" positive, in that they showed you had been exposed, but the only exposure they were interested in was VX and GB (mustard is painfully obvious without fancy bloodwork).
Considering the governments "blue-eyed, ruddy faced" cover up during the Korean Conflict, I don't find it much of a leap that the government sometimes decides to downplay (or cover up important information for strategic purposes). Honestly, unless you found millions of gallons, labelled VX, in a secret bunker with a signed love note from Hussein himself I believe it likely that it would have been twisted into a propaganda negative for the Bush administration and the country.
Kalroy
The bleach and ammonia under your kitchen sink can produce deadly chlorine gas. Why are you keeping WMD in your house?
Ooga-booga.
By the way, deadly pesticides (deadly against humans, that is) were part of what Reagan and Rummy helped Saddam obtain. Along with other useful goodies like cluster bombs, anthrax, and bubonic. And of course Reagan and Rummy did this right around the same time that Saddam was gassing civilians. We were helping a war criminal, but that was OK, because he was our war criminal.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.