It is the surprising result. I think it is the fact that I haven't seen anything in the mass media alleging that ACORN stole the election, nor have I heard any private individuals complaining about ACORN stealing the election, nor is it even reasonable to think ACORN could steal the election. I don't even know why the pollster asked this question; could I be this out of touch? If half of the country's Republicans thought ACORN stole the election, it is bound to either be driven by or at least reflected in some mass medium. Where would so many people all get the same idea about ACORN unless they were educating one another about it? If they are educating one another, I'd see it on the TV or internet or newspaper. I've seen complaints of ACORN voter fraud, but no accusations that they stole the election. Maybe it is a grassroots, word-of-mouth thing. But, I'm swimming in conservatives over here. Surely, some moron at church or on facebook or at work or somewhere, would tell me ACORN stole the election. But, that has not happened once. And how could someone think it anyway, given the relative landslide. ACORN would have to fraudulantly cast millions and millions of votes. They'd have to somehow appear incompetent while actually being one of the most intelligent and well-orchestrated organizations in the country. I don't give me fellow man a lot of credit, but surely one wouldn't choose to believe this without someone telling him he really should. As for the reputation of the pollster, it won't be enough. I have some very respectable people telling me that Jesus is the savior, but I'm not taking their word for it. Same will apply here.
There was a study done recently that was posted here that talked about what the conservative base of the Republican party believes about Obama. (More information here.) It said, "The conservative Republican base represents almost one-in-five voters in the electorate, and nearly two out of every three self-identified Republicans," and "these conservative Republican voters believe Obama is deliberately and ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt our country and dramatically expand government control over all aspects of our daily lives." So based on that study alone, I don't think the results of this poll should be that surprising. Part of that fear described above is that ACORN is being used to carry out large parts of the "secret agenda". I'm sure you've seen snippets of it reading about what Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann say. For example, Bachmann doesn't want to answer the Census because ACORN might be involved. Now, to be honest I haven't heard anything but the faintest rumblings about ACORN stealing the election, so it does seem to be a bizarre question to ask. But if you consider the mindset of those who believe Obama's secret agenda is real, then the answer to that question should be easy. They don't believe he is legitimately the President, and whether it's because he wasn't born here, or because ACORN "stole" it (whatever that could mean) or something else, they aren't going to answer yes to the idea that he was legitimately elected. Take a look at the study above (specifically the PDF memo linked at the bottom). It's pretty interesting stuff, and might better explain the mindset that leads to what we might consider to be a surprising result.
Maybe I find it hard to believe because I'm a Republican and don't feel that way at all. I suppose my outlook would change if I lived in Texas. Also the 9 percent of Democrats who buy into the Acorn conspiracy seems like an unbelievably high percentage.
I think this might contribute to the high percentage -- a subjective desire to not give an answer that Obama is legitimate, and not an objective evaluation of what ACORN may have done. If that is the case, I don't think you can legitimately say x% of Republicans sincerely believe ACORN stole the election, because those respondants were responding out of spite. Further, I wonder if the pollster was intentionally trying to either make Republicans look ridiculous or, conversely and more strangely, trying to get Republicans to start repeating this charge against ACORN. They may have both effects in the end, intentional or not. As for the other polls you've mentioned, they won't change my mind. This poll's results still have no robustness in my mind and another poll won't bolster it. If anything, it is another dimension in the robustness of the belief that polling is political, manipulative, and deceptive. How can I trust them when they run counter to everything else I see?
I agree with the first two paragraphs of your post, and the either/or question is certainly strange since it shouldn't be an either/or proposition. But I don't get this paragraph above. You're saying that you don't trust this poll because its results are surprising, and that you haven't heard any other evidence that this kind of opinion exists. But then you say that another poll (or study) won't bolster your trust, even though it is more evidence that this kind of opinion exists. Polls are pretty scientific and can be tested for accuracy. I'd trust a poll from a reputable pollster that can be verified with a second poll asking the same question over my own personal experiences. I mean, you've seen the tea-party reports. you know these people exist. So why is it so hard to believe that they exist in larger numbers overall than it seems to you?
I characterize this result as misleading, not simply surprising. My incredulity is so high on the result that I have to question the character or intelligence of the person who put it together. A poll will add one dimension to my understanding of a phenomenon, in addition to what I hear people say, what authorities write, and so on. Multiple polls may add strength, but not dimensions. So, when a poll is suspect and another comes to its defense, my reaction is not to trust two polls, but to distrust the whole dimension of polling. One poll was not credible. I happen to know that polls can be accurate but they can also be used to intentionally sway opinions or give biased results if the pollster wants. Perhaps this whole dimension is not trustworthy. Maybe someone's trying to be sneaky with polling. Additional polls, in effect, infect themselves with doubt by associating with the original untrustworthy poll. I'm not throwing polling out altogether. I'm not throwing out polls associated with this one. But, I'm more wary. I know there is a segment of society that will irrationally deny any legitimacy to Obama. If the conclusion was "26% of the electorate will grasp at any sorry excuse you present in order to deny the legitimacy of President Obama," I probably wouldn't have a problem. But, "26% sincerely believe ACORN rigged the election"? No, I'm not believing that.
I have heard the claim from my friends/family back in Texas. I live on the west coast now so of course I don't hear it out here, but she is right, people do believe this.
The question in the poll is SO dumb that a large % from both parties may be sarcastic. I would probably answer "I'm a democrat." and then "What? Um, yes, that's correct. I believe ACORN helped him steal the election, god bless those clever people!"
I agree completely with this. It was a very misleading poll, that set out to get the answer they wanted. There are obviously many people that feel Obama is not legitimate for whatever their reasons, even some just because they are Republicans and don't like him. You have all the birth certificate people, the ones who think the media steered in Obama while bringing the others down, and so on. So, whatever your reason is for not liking him, the poll set it up that you either legitimize him or say ACORN stole it. Very deceptive and with and with a preset agenda to get the answer they wanted.
Is it any better that so many don't think he legitimately won the election for whatever reason, though? Either way, it's still just as bizarre.
Not really, but it is common in elections from the other side. There are still people who claim Bush didn't win either of his elections from the democrat side. I can understand the first, because it was so close, but the second is really no different than what we are seeing here. One guy won big, but some will never accept. At least in this case you do have the birth certificate that he refuses to show, no matter how stupid it is, but he could end that debate in minutes. You do have the media who went out of their way to protect him, while showing the bad side of his competition. You have the Oprah effect. He was trailing in all polls to Clinton until Oprah stumped for him one weekend, then he was a runaway freight train that couldn't be stopped. I think the bigger problem there is how much power the country has given Oprah. It has nothing to do with Obama, he was just the beneficiary of it.
The poll isn't well designed to reflect what people really think. With loaded questions like that, lying becomes a problem.
