As I drove home, I heard the results of a poll of Republican voters in Ohio. They were asked whether Obama or Romney was responsible for getting rid of Osama bin Laden. 15% chose Romney, and 47% said they were unsure. The more I consider what they were thinking, the more bizarre it seems. How the devil could five-eights of the Ohio Republican voters polled be so completely confused?
As I drove home, I heard the results of a poll of Republican voters in Ohio. They were asked whether Obama or Romney was responsible for getting rid of Osama bin Laden. 15% chose Romney, and 47% said they were unsure. The more I consider what they were thinking, the more bizarre it seems. How the devil could five-eights of the Ohio Republican voters polled be so completely confused?
Occam
Spin. The GOP have been spinning the hell out of it. You must have missed Romney taking the credit, or giving Shrub the credit for getting him(depending, of course, on who he is talking to).
As I drove home, I heard the results of a poll of Republican voters in Ohio. They were asked whether Obama or Romney was responsible for getting rid of Osama bin Laden. 15% chose Romney, and 47% said they were unsure. The more I consider what they were thinking, the more bizarre it seems. How the devil could five-eights of the Ohio Republican voters polled be so completely confused?
Occam
I see 2 possibilities.
1) They were lying. What one believes and what one says they believe, aren’t always the same.
2) They actually don’t know or don’t believe that Obama rather than Romney was responsible for killing Bin Laden. It is, seemingly a natural trait among humans, to be able to believe what one chooses to believe, despite evidence that contradicts their chosen belief. I think that this trait is more pronounced in some persons than others. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are unintelligent in other areas.
Personally, I find the trait mentioned in the 2nd point to be more disgusting than simply lying about it. But who am I to argue with the product of, apparently, somewhat successful natural and cultural selection.
Another possibility: outright racism and brainwashing. Mostly because of the success of Fox News brainwashing and republican implied racism there are right wingers who literally can’t bring themselves to say anything positive about obama or attribute any success to him, his wife, his kids, you name it.
Another possibility: outright racism and brainwashing. Mostly because of the success of Fox News brainwashing and republican implied racism there are right wingers who literally can’t bring themselves to say anything positive about obama or attribute any success to him, his wife, his kids, you name it.
It sure is hard to find anyone here who actually wants to look closely at the data on voting.
As for Fox News and brainwashing about President Obama:
1) I don’t watch Fox News except for recorded clips I see while researching about news stories. It’s pretty rare (1x per month?).
2) Obama seems personable enough; his policy on terrorism is similar enough to Bush’s that I have no significant complaints about it. Michelle Obama has far exceeded my expectations for her role as First Lady; I thought her performance during the 2008 campaign signaled that she’s stick her foot in her mouth early and often. Hasn’t happened. With the possible exception of her crusade against foods people like, she’s been a model First Lady. The kids are lovely; it seems like a solid and loving family.
Anybody willing to talk about the Brennan Center study with a Republican potential racist possibly brainwashed by occasional exposure to recorded clips of Fox News?
Anybody?
Somebody wrote (and then thought better):
Another fail safe tactic of Republicans, when faced with supporting
an unjustifiable stance, is to simply smear or discredit any opposing
evidence, every time any is presented. All they need to do is drum up enough
doubt so that enough people think that it is a debatable issue,
“Another fail safe tactic of Republicans, when faced with supporting
an unjustifiable stance, is to simply smear or discredit any opposing
evidence, every time any is presented. All they need to do is drum up enough
doubt so that enough people think that it is a debatable issue.”
e.g., Evolution? Who knows? Global warming? Who knows? Voter suppression? Who knows?
——————————————————————
I don’t know why Brian is taking a quote of mine from another thread or why he added “(and then thought better)”.
Brian, BTW, You have brought up the Brennan Center umpteen times. Who is stopping you from saying what you want to say about it?
“Another fail safe tactic of Republicans, when faced with supporting
an unjustifiable stance, is to simply smear or discredit any opposing
evidence, every time any is presented. All they need to do is drum up enough
doubt so that enough people think that it is a debatable issue.”
e.g., Evolution? Who knows? Global warming? Who knows? Voter suppression? Who knows?
——————————————————————
I don’t know why Brian is taking a quote of mine from another thread or why he added “(and then thought better)”.
My bad; I expected to find both replies in one thread yet found only one. Let’s consider the record corrected with your reply.
Brian, BTW, You have brought up the Brennan Center umpteen times. Who is stopping you from saying what you want to say about it?
Nobody, but there’s precious little expressed interest considering (as I already wrote) that it constitutes the linchpin for many of the arguments against the new voter laws.
When we look at the Brennan Center’s reasoning we’re going to find it doing the same thing for which I receive criticism. Are you interested? Or will you hold fast to your view regardless of its basis in evidence?
Obsession alert.
Indeed. It’s hard work keeping these threads on point sometimes.
T-A, you have to scroll down to about 60% through the report, It shows there the percents for each party.
The results for the Republicans were:
Barack Obama: 38%
Mitt Romney: 15%
Not Sure: 47%
The N. Carolina results were similar except that 56% of the Republicans were unsure, and 29% thought Obama got credit.
Occam
Ah, I missed that little detail: the Republican voters split.
Sure is an odd result, in either case. I have no idea how someone would justify the Mitt Romney answer. He was not in any political office at the time, and even if the person answering the poll believed that Obama didn’t deserve any credit, selecting Romney still doesn’t make sense, since he definitely couldn’t have influenced anything anyway. In that case, there should have perhaps been a ‘neither’ option. Either people were genuinely delusional about what Romney was capable of influencing despite not being in political office, or they simply selected his name out of spite.
