Interesting Study on Political Party Zombies

[6andcounting]

In honor of reading through the Facebook posts about the Chicago riot from the perspective of Trump supporters, establishment GOP candidate supporters, and Democrat voters, I have to post this. The commentary is from the page Unbiased America, but the link is to the study itself.

"Ever notice how Democrats seem to deny that President Reagan did anything good, and Republicans conveniently forget any of the positives that came out of the Clinton administration?

Well, there's another study indicating that Republicans and Democrats aren't as stupid as they pretend to be. Scientists assembled two groups of people. In the first group, questions about basic political knowledge were asked. For example, did inflation get better or worse under Reagan? Did the deficit rise or fall under Clinton? The results showed a big, partisan difference in the answers people gave. Republicans, for example, were more likely to (wrongly) state that the deficit got worse during Clinton's presidency. And democrats were more likely to (wrongly) state that inflation got worse under Reagan.

Now here's the fascinating part: in the second group of people, the same questions were asked. But this group of people were told they would receive a small reward for each correct answer they gave. The result? A 55% improvement in the test scores!

In other words, Democrats and Republicans knowingly lie about political issues to make their side look better. This may not be surprising, but it's the amount of bias that is shocking. To think that people willingly suppress 55% of the truth because of their political allegiance! The good news, though, is that it only took a small incentive (chance to win an Amazon gift certificate) for the partisan bias to disappear."

(One of the page admins pointed out that saying the deficit didn't fall under Clinton could potentially not be reflective of lying to oneself as much as it could be an honest misunderstanding between debt and deficit - as debt did rise)

http://huber.research.yale.edu/materials/39_paper.pdf

[6andcounting]

I thought this was interesting, but thus far it has gotten less responses than literally every immigrant thread Lucie started.

[jmccracky]

(03-12-2016, 10:33 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I thought this was interesting, but thus far it has gotten less responses than literally every immigrant thread Lucie started.

I thought it was pretty cool, and along the lines of what I have been saying for quite some time. I do agree that people have their heads so far up their asses, that facts do not matter any more. And that goes for both sides. I like to think Clinton and Reagan did good things and bad things. This country has become "What is my side saying?" and following what they think the status quo is. Pathetic really. 

I think the media should share a big part of the blame for what they put out there. The liberals think their news is right, and the conservatives are just as bad in that respect. I don't really read news stories much anymore. I do watch Real Time with Bill Maher, but because he gets good guests from both parties. It is a lot easier to listen to a person's ideas than to read them.

[Benton]

It makes some sense.

There isn't a lot of difference from the two parties over the last 40ish years. A couple big items, but not much else. So it boils to perception and environment. People believe liberals are weak sissies who spend more and conservatives are heartless bastards who put their own rights above others. And they need those negatives to be true so the positives seem better.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-12-2016, 10:33 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I thought this was interesting, but thus far it has gotten less responses than literally every immigrant thread Lucie started.

Lol. It's a good thread. I have enjoyed it.

[6andcounting]

(03-12-2016, 10:49 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: I thought it was pretty cool, and along the lines of what I have been saying for quite some time. I do agree that people have their heads so far up their asses, that facts do not matter any more. And that goes for both sides. I like to think Clinton and Reagan did good things and bad things. This country has become "What is my side saying?" and following what they think the status quo is. Pathetic really. 

I think the media should share a big part of the blame for what they put out there. The liberals think their news is right, and the conservatives are just as bad in that respect. I don't really read news stories much anymore. I do watch Real Time with Bill Maher, but because he gets good guests from both parties. It is a lot easier to listen to a person's ideas than to read them.

Political parties were supposed to make voters more knowledgeable. You know a guy belonging to this party supports x, y, z. Except it turned into blind loyalty and cheerleading as if the paris are sport teams. The parties hardly hardly different, let alone opposites. The media pits them as opposites and the parties love it because people thing there are only two sides that represent the entirety of every issue.

I never really watch Maher. I agree with him a lot and I l8ke how he has guests of all sides, but just don't like him for some reason. John Oliver is real biased, but he covers topics the mainstream media never touch. He used to anyways, I think the amount of great episodes he puts out is slowing up because it's harder to find new material.

[jmccracky]

(03-12-2016, 11:08 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Political parties were supposed to make voters more knowledge. You know a guy belonging to this party supports x, y, z. Except it turned 8nto blind loyalty and cheerleading as if the paris are sport teams. The parties hardly hardly different, let alone opposites. The media pits them as opposites and the parties love it because people thing there are only two sides that represent the entirety of every issue.

Agreed. I did vote for Obama, but trust me, there are a lot of things I don't agree with him on. Like, the Iran deal for instance. But I also will not say he was the worst president of all time, like a lot of people have been saying since the day he was first elected. GM being saved is credited to Obama. Little do they know, Bush actually got that ball rolling. I dunno, maybe I am weird, but I think it is ok to give both credit and you can still be the same person you have always been. 

[GMDino]

(03-12-2016, 10:33 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I thought this was interesting, but thus far it has gotten less responses than literally every immigrant thread Lucie started.

Sorry.  Left to watch a friend's son play junior hockey and then stopped for a couple Long Island Iced Teas that for must have been been WAY too strong!  LOL!

I agree thought that each side says the other just ignores the facts.  I liked Reagan as a politician...but disliked many of his policies.

[jmccracky]

(03-12-2016, 11:19 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: Agreed. I did vote for Obama, but trust me, there are a lot of things I don't agree with him on. Like, the Iran deal for instance. But I also will not say he was the worst president of all time, like a lot of people have been saying since the day he was first elected. GM being saved is credited to Obama. Little do they know, Bush actually got that ball rolling. I dunno, maybe I am weird, but I think it is ok to give both credit and you can still be the same person you have always been. 

Credit or blame, I should have said, lol!

[jmccracky]

(03-12-2016, 11:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sorry.  Left to watch a friend's son play junior hockey and then stopped for a couple Long Island Iced Teas that for must have been been WAY too strong!  LOL!

I agree thought that each side says the other just ignores the facts.  I liked Reagan as a politician...but disliked many of his policies.

Me too, regarding Reagan.  

[6andcounting]

(03-12-2016, 11:06 PM)Benton Wrote: It makes some sense.

There isn't a lot of difference from the two parties over the last 40ish years. A couple big items, but not much else. So it boils to perception and environment. People believe liberals are weak sissies who spend more and conservatives are heartless bastards who put their own rights above others. And they need those negatives to be true so the positives seem better.

I think attacking the other side is more prevelent than supporting one's own side in most discussions. It's easier to call Trump a racist than to defend Hilary's emails, but it gets either side nowhere. Liberals and conservatives hate eachother based on those stereotypes you mentioned being true, except everybody has friends and family with different views that are okay people. It must just be the conservatives liberals don't know that are racists, and liberals conservatives don't know that are conspiring to destroy American culture. It's nice to know the key to overcome cognitive dissonance is an Amazon giftcard.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

All this study shows me is that 55% of people will tow the company line while the other 45% will blindly follow and believe everything the read or hear when it comes to whatever biased source they read or hear.

How many people believed what's his name said Romney didn't pay taxes? Lol, I can't remember the Senators name to save my life.

All he had to do is say it and according to this study, apparently 55% will regurgitate what he said even though they know it to be false and the other 45% will believe it blindly.

[6andcounting]

(03-12-2016, 11:19 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: Agreed. I did vote for Obama, but trust me, there are a lot of things I don't agree with him on. Like, the Iran deal for instance. But I also will not say he was the worst president of all time, like a lot of people have been saying since the day he was first elected. GM being saved is credited to Obama. Little do they know, Bush actually got that ball rolling. I dunno, maybe I am weird, but I think it is ok to give both credit and you can still be the same person you have always been. 

The bailouts and GM isn't the only plan Obama stole from Republicans, bur don't tell Romney voters that.

[6andcounting]

(03-12-2016, 11:24 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: All this study shows me is that 55% of people will tow the company line while the other 45% will blindly follow and believe everything the read or hear when it comes to whatever biased source they read or hear.

How many people believed what's his name said Romney didn't pay taxes? Lol, I can't remember the Senators name to save my life.

All he had to do is say it and according to this study, apparently 55% will regurgitate what he said even though they know it to be false and the other 45% will believe it blindly.

Dirty Harry. Of course Romney just did the same thing to Trump. It's pathetic.

[Belsnickel]

(03-12-2016, 11:08 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Political parties were supposed to make voters more knowledgeable. You know a guy belonging to this party supports x, y, z. Except it turned into blind loyalty and cheerleading as if the paris are sport teams. The parties hardly hardly different, let alone opposites. The media pits them as opposites and the parties love it because people thing there are only two sides that represent the entirety of every issue.

I never really watch Maher. I agree with him a lot and I l8ke how he has guests of all sides, but just don't like him for some reason. John Oliver is real biased, but he covers topics the mainstream media never touch. He used to anyways, I think the amount of great episodes he puts out is slowing up because it's harder to find new material.

The parties started out as single issue (or possibly themed) allegiances. They were temporary alliances in order to approach particular controversial topics in the legislature, IIRC. Much like how things like the lack of a standing army, separation of powers, and the authority of the states went by the wayside, we saw the political parties grow into more permanent organizations. Really, we have Jefferson to blame for this.

I do have to say that what I hate the most about them is how dumb it has made the American public to the issues and what goes on in our government. They don't pay any attention beyond the D or R next to the name. They don't really know where their elected officials stand on anything and they don't understand the processes of the government. Local, state, or federal. They likely couldn't name the elected members of their local government yet could tell you what the big fight is on 'the Hill' right now between the conjoined twins.

[samhain]

Very interesting and sad topic.

I get out of work very late, around 4am most mornings. I end up listening to a lot of talk radio geared toward truckers. One I find myself tuning into a lot is called Red Eye Radio with Eric Harley and Gary McNamara.

These two are from Texas and are uber-conservative on every single issue pretty much without fail. They spend a ton of time railing on Obama and Hillary, in fact probably most of it over the last few years, until now.

These dudes really can't stand Trump or his supporters. They have admitted that they will indeed vote for him over Hillary or Bernie, but that's about it.

Their main reason is as this article alludes to, these people following him have no use for actual ideas or policy stances. They just like that he's pissed and speaks his mind. Most of the callers that come in supporting him have zero idea what he's going to do in office beyond building the wall. They often point out that Trump takes stances all over the places on major issues (healthcare, constitutional government, blue collar wages, tariffs, immigration) and that most of these stances are demonstrably bad ones. Nobody gives a shit at all. They just believe in his personality and financial success and that's enough.

The same holds true for Dems at the moment. It's damn near impossible to find someone that thinks Hillary is a candidate to get excited about. They just follow her because she plays for the blue team.

[StLucieBengal]

I think if most actually went issue by issue they wouldn't be aligned with their party now.  

My parents thought they were democrats until I say them down and went issue by issue.    They are now conservatives.

Political party is an identity for most and that's sad.

[GMDino]

(03-13-2016, 12:42 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think if most actually went issue by issue they wouldn't be aligned with their party now.  

My parents thought they were democrats until I say them down and went issue by issue.    They are now conservatives.  

Political party is an identity for most and that's sad.

And anther reason why I laugh when I get called nothing but another dirty librul.  Yes I lean liberal...but it is issue by issue for me.  But we like labels.  Makes disagreeing a lot easier.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-13-2016, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: And anther reason why I laugh when I get called nothing but another dirty librul.  Yes I lean liberal...but it is issue by issue for me.  But we like labels.  Makes disagreeing a lot easier.

Agreed. I try and not label people a liberal because I think few know what a true liberal is today.

[6andcounting]

(03-13-2016, 12:42 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think if most actually went issue by issue they wouldn't be aligned with their party now.  

My parents thought they were democrats until I say them down and went issue by issue.    They are now conservatives.

Political party is an identity for most and that's sad.

The Unbiased America page has posted things that support your statement. Hardly anyone identifies as a libertarian, but when asked issue by issue, nearly as many people chose the libertarian ideas as liberal or conservative ones. Surprising since the Libertarian Party had failed miserably for 40 years to get just 5% of the popular vote. Another thing they posted showed that the younger generation is more likely than ever to support socialism, but issue by issue they end up leaning toward capitalism.