Clinton, Democrats, Cognitive Dissonance and Faith Voting?

Comparison of Clinton Plan to Other Candidates

http://openleft.com/...

Money quote: "It appears that both Clinton and Obama would keep 40,000 troops in Iraq for a while if they become President, plus between 6,000 and 20,000 advisors and an always unspecified numbers of private contractors. She plans to hold significant number of troops"

This appears to go until 2012. However, there is this:

http://www.openleft.com/...

Money quote: "The United States would maintain a significant military presence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region, probably including a continuous Navy and Air Force presence as well as Special Operations Forces and ground forces. Precise numbers and posture of the forces would depend on conditions at the time in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, as well as other demands on U.S. forces globally."

The Democrats knowledge of the candidate's plans with regard to Iraq

http://www.openleft.com/...

Money quote:

Options given:

1. Make no cutbacks in U.S. troops in Iraq

2. Leave a substantial number of troops in Iraq, but have them concentrate on training Iraqis and targeting Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq.

3.Start withdrawing troops within the next three months, with all troops out within nine months from now.

4. Begin an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq

What the American peo think Clinton supports?
Clinton 6% (option 1), 10% (option 2), 48% (option 3) and 28% (option 4). A huge 76 percent believe she will leave within 9 months of being in office.

And then there is this bizarre conversation:

http://www.mydd.com/...

Note one supporter claiming he supports her as the best person with a plan to get us out of Iraq despite the fact she in fact plans to leave residual troops at least until 2012, and possibly longer. The question becomes- are Democratic voters reality based or faith based voters? Why aren’t bloggers talking about this more? Is there a cognitive dissonance about our candidates?

In 2004, a poll of MS voters found that a large majority said late in the primary that Bush supported importing drugs from abroad. This was the case despite all facts to the contrary, including actual statements from the candidate himself. Similar exists here. What do this mean?

•  Very short answers

   1. Our media is a disaster. We have the least-informed citizenry on the planet.

   2. Voters vote on "gut issues". It's the have-a-beer-with-the-guy (or gal) crap. It infects Democrats too.

   3. Adlai Stevenson was right. Smart voters are a tiny minority in America.

  by Buzzer on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:58:42 PM PDT

•  Can't say

  'cause I'm at work.

  by Helpless on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:20 PM PDT

•  wrong.

  This is based on Chris Bowers' speculative assumptions. By some crystal ball method, Chris has determined that Hillary will adopt some plan proposed by a think tank named The Center for a New American Security. He puts forth NO concrete evidence that this is the case.

  Money quote from Open Left (Chris Bowers, 9/5/07):

  The Clinton plan for withdrawal from Iraq, or at least a close approximation of how we should expect her to conduct withdrawal once she becomes President, appears to already be available to the public.

  .link

  He should have looked on Hillary's website if he wanted to know what her plan was.

  She has also proposed a cap on troop levels to January 1, 2007 levels and put forth a comprehensive roadmap for ending the war. If it is followed, Hillary's bill, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007, will end the war before the next president takes the oath of office. But she has also been clear: if George Bush refuses to end the war, when she is president, she will.
  Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counterterrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.
  In addition to capping troop levels, Hillary's Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 would:
  • Require President Bush to begin removing the troops from Iraq within 90 days of passage, or Congress will revoke authorization for the war.
  • Put an end to the blank check to the Iraqi government and give them real benchmarks with real consequences if they fail to meet them.
  • Require the Secretary of Defense to certify that all troops sent to Iraq have the training and equipment they need.

  link

  by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:08:00 PM PDT

  •  Nothing you wrote

    disputes either what I said or Bowers. Which if you were discerning, and not faith based, should tell you something.

    by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:19:21 PM PDT

    •  you conveniently left it out :)

      i'm just helping restore your faith in a balanced presentation of facts. you do have faith, don't you? :)

      by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:21:10 PM PDT

      •  I conveniently left out

        the part where she critically says nothing of substance of the subject? Well, I may have left out an "a" or "the" or "an" too, but that doesn't mean its contributes anything more than what you want to believe that statement means. What makes you faith bases is you added a lot to a very general statement by her about what you want to believe it  means. Not what it actually says. Yet you think thats "adding" something.  You prove the point.

        by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:24:05 PM PDT

        •  nice try, but no.

          you left out the part where what you present as hillary's plan isn't hillary's plan. chris bowers shows more faith than both of us combined in his efforts to justify claiming this plan is hillary's.

          by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:26:01 PM PDT

          •  feel free to continue

            to post at this point i  am ignoring you because you are trying to hijack the discussion. now this isn't her plan. okay right.

            by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:30:07 PM PDT

            •  are you going to edit your diary?

              Comparison of Clinton Plan to Other Candidates

              actually, you'd have to delete it, because without the taken-on-faith belief that this plan is hillary's (which it isn't), the premise of the diary is invalid. the poll you quote shows that the public accurately believes that her plan is the one on her website, not the one you and chris bowers are attempting to misrepresent as hers.

              by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:33:59 PM PDT

            •  Your diary is misleading

              It implies that Clinton has committed to a plan that she hasn't. You should update the diary to clarify.

              by heartofblue on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:25:50 PM PDT

              •  he won't.

                this is one of those "the voters are stupid but if they were as smart as i am they'd support my candidate" diaries.

                it's an unassailable argument- everything hillary says is a lie, so if she says she's going to end the war, that means she won't. as a matter of fact, it's proof she won't. once you take the premise that she's a liar on faith, you can come to any conclusion you want.

                by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:29:30 PM PDT

              •  links

                to my source per se means i am not misleading you. you can read the posts. you can read her vague statements, and you can eitehr choose to pretend the vague posts do not meet all the other tea leaves she has given such as when she was asked at the debates (byt the way not reflect on her site) what she will do or in other circumstantial evidence, it adds up to what i posted. it seems many of you want 100 percent proof. well considering her strategy is blurring the lines, and not giving a clear answer on anything- good luck with getting that before you elect her to office. at which point figuring out is too late. even you think i am being unfair in my interepretation of what she has said- let me put it to you another way- what she has said has been deliberately set up to be blurry and difficult to read. that hardly seems a defense when in fact bowers and others have repeatedly asked her to clarify if this is or is not her position.

                by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:36:02 PM PDT

                •  You could have said

                  that her statements are murky and noncommittal and then made your case that Bowers interpretation is right. Instead you implied that she has said things that she hasn't.  The diary is misleading, you should have reported the gray. If your tea leaves are compelling, then readers will go with it.

                  by heartofblue on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 12:11:29 AM PDT

                  •  You are misleading

                    This diary is about voters projecting their beliefs on to Clinton, not about what precisely her plan are. Here's your response to me thus far "well becaus eyou can't 100 percent tell us exactly what  her plan (despite evidence that its closest to what she plans to do and you don't say its not 100 percent) it's not okay to talk about voter  perception versus  candidate reality." You may think that its misleading, but your argument makes no sense in the context of which a) I am using the information or b) that you could follow the links of you weren't busy pretending you had no way of knowing. At this point, believe what you want to believ-e that was th ereality before you posted, and I am sure it will be after. Peace.

                    by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:16:59 AM PDT

                    •  I did not claim this at all

                      well becaus eyou can't 100 percent tell us exactly what  her plan...it's not okay to talk about voter  perception versus  candidate reality.

                      Voter perception is a great topic, talk away. I said that your phrasing implies that these statements and positions are coming from Clinton when in fact they are being assigned to her. I said that if you are going to discuss projected opinions, then you need to make it a lot clearer that they are projected.

                      The phrase "it appears" does not do enough to clarify. As written, the reader is left with the distinct impression that these statements are coming directly from Clinton's campaign, which would be extraordinary if it were true.

                      by heartofblue on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:05:10 PM PDT

                      •  Niggardly

                        I started off with that phrase because your post reminds me of what happened in DC a few years back. I'm black for the record. The black community there became angry because they thought that when a politican used the word niggardly - he was actually saying nigger. That's actually not the meaning of the word niggardly. When they were told that, their response was similar to yours. Well, the speaker should have known that I might take any words with a similar sound to mean that word.

                        This is your argument in a nutshell. I am suppose to be responsible for your decision to ingore what I actually wrote in favor of degrees that you weigh words rather than according to what the word actually means? I don't think so. You started off claiming I wasn't clear. I cite where I was clear, and now you claim, but that's not enough. At this point, all I can say is good luck.

                        If you aren't interested in actually reading what Ii say in its precise meaning, that's not my job to get you to be open up. All I can do as a speaker is speak honestly. If the audience it biased against what I am saying, it's not my job to convince you to listen.  One of the first rules of writing is not to think you are going to convince everyone or even the majority, but to be clear. I was clear. You pretend I was not. But in fact when you realized I was - now you are changing your arguments.

                        My point? If you come into a discussion with your own baggage- sorry, again not my responsibility.

                        by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 03:36:47 PM PDT

                        •  one of the other first rules of writing

                          is to take feedback without getting defensive.

                          I don't agree that you were clear enough, not nearly. I am not a sloppy reader and I am not nitpicking. Why not just take this feedback at face value?

                          by heartofblue on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:40:24 PM PDT

                          •  its weird

                            i am not feeling defensive, but you seem to want to make it out that. yeah, i get you. call the guy a name- see if it sticks, say he didn't make his point clearly see if that sticks, and move even further from the original topic. nice hijacking. but thats all it is.

                            by bruh1 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 11:41:51 AM PDT

                  •  by the way

                    what does this mean to you above "It appears" ?

                    by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:29:36 AM PDT

                  •  and just fyi

                    here's the dictionary definition of the word I used "To seem likely" It doesn't mean certainty. I don't know whats misleading about the phrases I used. I went back to check to confirm my language choice just in case you had something of an argument against the links not being enough.

                    by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:33:15 AM PDT

  •  SMACK! :) n/t

    by Caldonia on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 05:47:09 PM PDT

    •  well whaddaya want?

      i couldn't use nicey-nicey interventions- they just won't work with these narcissistic defenses. you gotta get a 2 by 4 and apply some real therapy every once in a while.

      by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 06:10:11 PM PDT

•  heh! more "honesty" from Chris Bowers.

  While this is not the official plan from the Clinton campaign, it should be pointed out that the Clinton campaign has not released a detailed withdrawal plan of its own. Further, while these are not exactly the same people who would help formulate a withdrawal plan under a Clinton administration, many of them will be involved in creating such a plan.

  So, except for the fact that this isn't Hillary's plan, and these people in the thinktank aren't the same people as those advising her campaign, it's her plan written by her people :).

  by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:14:26 PM PDT

•  I can only answer anecdotally.

  What i suspect - if you asked a follow up question of that voter, what she thought "getting out of Iraq" meant, she would answer that she wants us disengaged from the war, coming home and soldiers not in combat anymore. If you say to them, as I have, that all of the candidates will leave some troops there, they will immediately asked if they're fighting. I say no, and they're okay with that. They want the war and the dying to stop.

  A more indepth poll would be an interesting thing to read.

  As for "why Hillary" - that I can answer fairly definitively - it's the example of the first Clinton administration, and the knowledge that Hillary already has strong personal ties in the region and experience dealing with all those governments. It's that she, more than any other candidate and because of her husband's administration, can hit the ground running. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, that's a lot of what drives her support. People are confident of Hillary's competence. I'm betting she gets a lot of votes from people who dont' like her because when push comes to shove, they do not believe she'll do a bad job.

  For some massive disconnects, read PIPA's "The differing political realities of Bush and Kerry supporters" from before the last election. Holy moly.

  by lorelynn on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:14:55 PM PDT

  •  Again more spin

    I frankly didn't post this to read your belief. I am referencing what we know and what the data shows. By the way, I can go to pollster.com to look up the polling data to prove even your belief here false. But what would be the point. You would simply ignore it. That's the exact point of my post.

    by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:22:07 PM PDT

    •  the data shows that chris bowers...

      ...pulled this plan out of his ass, and claimed it was hillary's. his "evidence" is that hillary gave a speech at the launch of this think tank.

      by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:23:37 PM PDT

      •  Please stop with trying to use this as a shill

        session. I know Clinton has people on the look out for posts like this. But its getting silly.

        by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:25:14 PM PDT

        •  so we're all out to get you?

          and i'm an agent of the clinton campaign? tell me more about this.

          by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:27:02 PM PDT

        •  campuskunk is making a legitimate point

          if you don't acknowledge it, then you are the one who looks bad.

          by heartofblue on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:28:21 PM PDT

          •  no, i'm being ignored.

            i guess i'll just have to live with the shame of it all :)

            by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:31:40 PM PDT

    •  Please do - I know what the polls say and they

      certainly buttress what I've observed. You asked an unanswerable question definitively because the indepth polls have not been done.

      by lorelynn on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:28:34 PM PDT

    •  What do you mean?

      By the way, I can go to pollster.com to look up the polling data to prove even your belief here false.

      by kck on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:41:57 PM PDT

      •  pollster.com

        has polling regarding what people think indepth on the iraqi issue. its fairly easy to look up whether one's conclusion about people's views of iraq are correct or not. trust me, if you think peo are thinking one way or the other, it's easy to check.  the clintonites never do. they are using false equivalents. for example- because people support clinton that means they understand what she's saying. because clinton hasn't said exactly what she means, that means peo haven't asked. bowers for example directly asked all of this of the campaign that peo here are denying and etc. this has been the approach thus far. its very bushian/rovian in its approach. the more you try to pend them down for the implications of what htey say- ie, clinton has said she will  keep residuals, the more they claim she doesn't precisely mean x. hence why i dont waste my time arguing with people bout their beliefs. the whole point of this diary is precisely that they are filling in the blanks by projection rather than what she has said. look at what her speeches says. then go look up some of the concepts she uses

        by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:18:53 PM PDT

•  It seems pretty simple

  less-informed people make less-informed choices. Thats why in polls democrats think she is the best on Iraq despite her lack of clarity on how to end the war and how many troops she will leave.

  As more and more voters start paying more attention and as she shows more indecision in the Senate that will most likely change.

  by okamichan13 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:56:46 PM PDT

  •  ghost dancing.

    by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:57:52 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      the Clinton candidacy in a nutshell.

      by okamichan13 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:14:42 PM PDT

      •  you missed the reference :)

        by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:15:19 PM PDT

        •  Correction

          reinterpreted the reference :)

          by okamichan13 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:18:53 PM PDT

          •  incorrectly, unfortunately.

            the plains indians were down to edwards-in-south-carolina numbers by the time ghost dancing started. hillary's support is more pre-columbian.

            by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:23:12 PM PDT

  •  But isn't the time span of the primary

    season against them figuring it out in time? I mean look at Lieberman and Bush. Both won elections. The exact same voters who voted for them now regret it. What CLinton trade on is general sentiment, faith and as you say low information. She also trades on plausible deniability. "I never exactly said X." Now yes she said almost X,but by doing this she blurs the lines so that there can always be the claim- 'thats not exactly what i said."

    by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:01:28 PM PDT

    •  here is what she said.

      But she has also been clear: if George Bush refuses to end the war, when she is president, she will.

      and you claim she wants to continue the war indefinitely. i think there's enough difference between her statement and your hypothesis to allow people to determine which is accurate.

      by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:08:31 PM PDT

      •  if George Bush refuses to end the war, she will

        She can't 'end the war' if she leaves troops there. If troops are there, they will be shot at and have to defend themselves. So the war won't end. The only way to 'end the war' is to bring all the troops home, and Hillary says she's not going to do that. Hence, the 'war won't end' regardless of what she claims if she won't bring home the troops. It sounds kinda like Reagan's "voodoo economics" when he said he was going to "lower taxes AND balance the budget at the same time". Now Hillary is going to "End the war AND leave our troops there at the same time". Sounds like "pie in the sky" to me. Reagan's "pie in the sky" didn't work either, but the voters loved being told they could "have it all".

        by William Domingo on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:02:19 PM PDT

        •  more like it orwellian language

          she says end the war but she means something other than what most americans understand that to mean. notice what several of her supporters here do. they pretend that what she says is the same as end the war by changing the meaning of the concept. this is why id ont argue with them. if end the war simply means well we are going to stay in the middle of civil war but not fight its ludricrous concept, yet its their game to argue this.

          by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:20:51 PM PDT

    •  Yep she blurs the differences

      I hope they figure it out as well. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of buyer's regret - assumining she can even get elected with her low favorability numbers - Rasmussen has her today at 49 fav/ 50 unfav.

      Keep at it I guess. Glad to see people like Bowers are starting to peel back the veil a bit and dig for the reality beyond her blurring. Hopefully the MSM, instead of buying into her campaign's inevetibility theme, will start doing that as well. And maybe her lack of leadership on Iraq in the coming weeks and months will open some eyes as well.

      by okamichan13 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:13:43 PM PDT

      •  oy. now we're predicting the future.

        lack of leadership on Iraq in the coming weeks and months

        sounds faith-based to me.

        i'm all in favor of each of the candidates being evaluated on their participation in the post-speech democratic response by congress. edwards can say anything he likes, of course, being unemployed, but hillary's and obama's actions will be informative to watch. hillary has two bills proposed already- the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007 mentioned above, and the deauthorization of use of military force by 10/11/07. things will indeed get interesting.

        by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:20:46 PM PDT

  •  You don't think informed people might disagree

    less-informed people make less-informed choices

    Is this snark?

    by kck on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:43:46 PM PDT

    •  no. they are dead serious.

      personally, i'm a democracy proponent, being a democrat and all, but there is a wide variety of political philosophies here on kos.

      by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:47:55 PM PDT

•  There are US military bases in most ME countries

  There is an apparent buy-in to some US presence in the Kurdish region or else the Turks will get more involved. Abandoning the Kurds is not an option for any of the candidates to my knowledge. I'm not the only get'em-out-now type that believes the US is on point to guarantee safe passage humanitarian troops for a while.

  Hillary has stated opposition to permanent bases and been sufficient on Iraq and the ME in general for this dove, recognizing she's no dove.

  You imagine a false dichotomy yet seem to expect serious debate...

  We know there are different personality types that interpret information very differently along a valid continuum - some emphasize intuition, some on concrete facts, others on a mix of emotion and abstract information. Of course for the people who are restricted to factual data processing they can become confused with how intuitive people process...

  I suggest you don't have to worry about the Democrats leaping into a new faith stratosphere...You can search here on dkos for polls of personality types...our trends here are notably opposite than the population in general with inverted proportions of each type so it is understandable that posters here could be confused...

  by kck on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:40:24 PM PDT

•  Are You Calling Primary Voters

  Stupid?

  Who you calling Stupid?

  by Edgar08 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 04:43:39 PM PDT

  •  50 percen tof the american

    peo voted for bush. most primary voters thought kerry was electable. you do the math.

    by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:21:47 PM PDT

    •  That's A

      "Yes."

      by Edgar08 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:01:28 AM PDT

      •   behavior pattern, not intelligence

        Which means they don't always vote their interest, etc. Remember "What's  The Matter with kansas?" from a view years back? Or the new book on voter behavior? Its not about them not being smart or intellegent. Its about behaviorial patterns. voters assuming they know what a candidate is because they project on to him or her. The smartest person on the planet can do that, and the dumbest can figure out what their interets are versus what a candidate is saying. Its about behavior. When i ask for example are we faith based- your answer seems to be that only the dumb can base their decision on faith. ALl of my examples provide you above a context upon which to understand. DO you honestly think all those people in 2004 were dumb? Or just behaviorly wrong?

        by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:24:23 AM PDT

      •  by the way when i said you do the math

        i assumed you would look at the nature of my examples- each of them deals with behavior. in the case of people voting for bush in 2004, it was about the "i trust him so i am going to vote for him" factor.  yes, even some really smart people voted for bush because they thought he would do the right thing although they had already seen that he would not. haven't you ever done thse things ? the same is true of the electability issue with kerry in 2004- i was on that bandwagon too. does that mean I and others like me were dumb ?

        by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:28:29 AM PDT

      •  One other by the way

        let me ask you a follow up question- do you think that Democrats are immune the voting behaviors I am describing in this diary? And the links illustrate the point- ie, they project onto candidates what they want the candidates to be- ie, if they are anti War- then clinton is the best anti war candidate, etc. do you think only the dumb voter does that?

        by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:44:09 AM PDT

•  I was looking for the part that discussed

  inconsistent cognitions.  I guess you forgot to write about it.

  by DCDemocrat on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:13:19 PM PDT

  •  i think it was more of a demonstration...

    ... than a discussion :)

    by campskunk on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 07:48:44 PM PDT

  •  flat earth argument

    essentially you argue because you dont believe therefore i didn't prove. i mean you use 50 dollar words to do it. but thats what you did. for the record, just like one can not convicne someone who wants to deny the earth is round my argument doesn't rely on convincing you.

    by bruh1 on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 09:24:09 PM PDT

    •  so why did you post it?

      people usually don't post diaries to convince themselves, so this may be a first :)

      by campskunk on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 01:22:00 AM PDT

      •  since several

        people outside of the clinton supporters get my point. i would conclude factually that i am not posting for just myself. but then facts are something you clearly have a problem discussing.

        by bruh1 on Sat Sep 15, 2007 at 08:25:48 AM PDT