30% of Republicans: Bomb Aladdin's City

[RooksAndBooks]

While coming across online news, I saw an article by the Independent saying that they support the bombing of Agrabah. If you do not know what that is, it's the location where the movie Aladdin took place. This, of course, is a fictional city so I was laughing hysterically.

Now, I know not every Republican is like this. I just thought I could report on something that I personally thought was both humorous and shocking. What do you guys think?

 

[russ_watters]

I think playing tricks when polling is dishonest and leads to worse polling accuracy because the people being tricked won't like being tricked.

In any case, the number for Democrats was 19%. Given that this was a trick, people probably assumed it was a city in Syria or some other enemy city they had never heard of.

So what does this tell us? Not much.

 

[DavidSnider]

Did they have a "I don't know where Agrabah is" option? Who answered with that would be the only interesting statistic.

 

[Vanadium 50]

people probably assumed it was a city in Syria

Like the similar sounding Al-Raqqah perhaps, an ISIS stronghold.

 

[micromass]

I would like to know the exact question they asked. I think this is pretty crucial information.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So what does this tell us?

Democrats are 11% more likely to have watched Aladdin?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The poll was done by Public Policy Polling, which does it by robocalling. The exact question was "Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?" Obviously this was not written, so could easily be confused with similar sounding places like Al-Raqqah. It also required an answer of "yes", "no" or "unsure", which doesn't include the correct answer of "it's fictional".

PPP makes a big deal that this number was highest among Trump supporters, but are completely silent on the fact that this is within the margin of error of the responses from O'Malley supporters. (Interestingly, O'Malley had the smallest fraction of "not sures" on this question than anyone else.)

The number that differs the most is not support for bombing, but opposition to bombing. (13% vs 36%). I suppose a pollster with the opposite political bent would say that Democrats are such peaceniks that they won't even bomb a fictional city. It's all in the spin.

 

[micromass]

The poll was done by Public Policy Polling, which does it by robocalling. The exact question was "Would you support or oppose bombing Agrabah?" Obviously this was not written, so could easily be confused with similar sounding places like Al-Raqqah. It also required an answer of "yes", "no" or "unsure", which doesn't include the correct answer of "it's fictional".

PPP makes a big deal that this number was highest among Trump supporters, but are completely silent on the fact that this is within the margin of error of the responses from O'Malley supporters. (Interestingly, O'Malley had the smallest fraction of "not sures" on this question than anyone else.)

The number that differs the most is not support for bombing, but opposition to bombing. (13% vs 36%). I suppose a pollster with the opposite political bent would say that Democrats are such peaceniks that they won't even bomb a fictional city. It's all in the spin.

Wait, so the question was "Would you support or oppose bombing of <some random city>". And people actually gave a definite yes/no answer to such a question. That in itself is way more interesting than the entire republican/democratic debate. Here you have people willing to voice an opinion on something they have no idea about. Seriously, the name sound arabic. But for all they know it might have been a city in Turkey.
I find this entire poll extremely weird. Somehow I get a feeling they're not telling the entire story...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here you have people willing to voice an opinion on something they have no idea about

It was also the 38th question. Usually by that time people are thinking "When is this going to be over?"

 

[micromass]

It was also the 38th question. Usually by that time people are thinking "When is this going to be over?"

Oh. Yeah, it makes perfect sense now. The real mystery now is how they actually found people willing to answer 38 questions... But yeah, this is a completely dishonest piece in The Independent then. I hate sensationalism like this...

 

[jim hardy]

I hate sensationalism like this...

sounds cynical
but there's so may smear organizations stirring poop I'm de-sensitized and angry.

Aggravate the masses till they're numb with rage then act surprised when so many of them jump on Trump's resentment based bandwagon ?
Eric Hoffer wrote of the role of discontent in starting mass movements (True Believer)
Trump phenomenon is result of either a drastic miscalculation or sheer genius .

I too detest the poop stirring .

 

[Averagesupernova]

I think the sensible thing to do would be to say no until you actually realize where it is. Trick polling or not and regardless of which part you belong to, it shows a certain stupidity.

 

[micromass]

I think the sensible thing to do would be to say no until you actually realize where it is. Trick polling or not and regardless of which part you belong to, it shows a certain stupidity.

Yeah sure, this applies only if there is an actual consequence to your answer, like the city actually being bombed. In that situation you would actually care about your answer being sensible and correct. When there is a series of 40 questions, then by the time of the 38th question I no longer care about being sensible and correct. I can easily see myself answer "yes" to the bombing of the city too, even though in reality I really would be opposed to it.

 

[Averagesupernova]

^^^^Then I think you should be shot! I know that my statement is very very unlikely to cause you to actually be shot. And of course I don't really feel that you should be shot. But if enough people don't care and say sure let's bomb them then don't you think it has an impact assuming it were a real place? If I don't feel like answering the questions I just hang up. I will stand by the jest of my original statement. Answering questions knowingly without really understanding the question shows a certain stupidity.

 

[micromass]

But if enough people don't care and say sure let's bomb them then don't you think it has an impact assuming it were a real place?

I really really doubt anybody would bomb a place because some people in a telephone poll said so.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I really really doubt anybody would bomb a place because some people in a telephone poll said so.

You are correct up to a certain point. Public opinion still says a lot. And the polls are not necessarily limited to bombing. At first the Iraq war was very popular. Do you suppose things would have been a bit different had the public not been behind it? After all, G.W. wanted to get elected again.

 

[micromass]

You are correct up to a certain point. Public opinion still says a lot. And the polls are not necessarily limited to bombing. At first the Iraq war was very popular. Do you suppose things would have been a bit different had the public not been behind it? After all, G.W. wanted to get elected again.

Sure, but there is a difference between an accurate representation of public opinion, and crappy misleading polls such as this one. Regardless what many people think, many people do try to base their actions and opinions on accurate representations of the public. Accurate polling is a science, and some people have become really really good at it; The article in the OP is NOT an example of a good survey.

 

[Thewindyfan]

Honestly it just scares me that the percentage is so high. The hostility is increasing more and more with the general Republican supporter demographic as time goes on, and the fact that Trump is a legitimate candidate basically validates this as something to fear as time goes on.

 

[micromass]

Honestly it just scares me that the percentage is so high. The hostility is increasing more and more with the general Republican supporter demographic as time goes on, and the fact that Trump is a legitimate candidate basically validates this as something to fear as time goes on.

Read the rest of the thread. The percentage is so high because of bad polling techniques and biased reporting.

 

[Thewindyfan]

Read the rest of the thread. The percentage is so high because of bad polling techniques and biased reporting.

Oh, then never mind haha. Pretty funny overall but at first glance it's pretty unnerving.

 

[jim hardy]

That poll is just an example of "How to lie with statistics".

A tawdry smear by fringe left generalizing republicans as ignorant. Fringe right does same thing to democrats.

Enjoy it as you would TV wrestling.

 

[BobG]

Democrats are 11% more likely to have watched Aladdin?

The opposite conclusion, Republicans are 11% more likely to have watched Aladdin, is probably more likely. Have you watched that movie? I'd rank it as the second worst Disney movie ever (only Pocahontas was worse).