I fixed the link in my original post.
Thanks. I was able to read the blog post.
So first are we supposed to actually take the blog post at its face value? I mean McBear says we shouldn't. He likes to tells us crazy RWNJ's what to think. Good thing I don't like being told what to think so I will disregard McBear's obvious bias and take the article as something of interest.
Next, the one thing McBear likes to always tout is the Raw Data. I can't seem to find that even with the link. Most likely because it is 2 years old.
So what is left is the original question from the Blog.
Do you think Saddam Husseinâ€™s regime in Iraq was directly involved in
out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"
So we want to guess at what part each person thought they were answering? Or what combinations?
Now what was the sample? Where was the sample taken from? etc.
Finally, do you actually believe that 41% of the American people believe this despite the media onslaught to the contrary?
In essence, if you give people enough choices for a question you can get a statistically valid percentage for anything you want to say.
Have you ever hit, thought of hitting, or had a malicious thought about your spouse?
That turns into 85% of married people admit to domestic abuse.
When you ask a question and want an accurate representation there has to be one variable. Not several.
Seems that you find information to back up your belief and then do not allow reason to temper or provide context.