Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Ultra Sophisticated Foreigners Want Obama, and Not McCain

First, a typical news story from ABC News:
US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may be struggling to nudge ahead of his Republican rival in polls at home, but people across the world want him in the White House, a BBC poll said.

All 22 countries covered in the poll would prefer to see Senator Obama elected US president ahead of Republican John McCain.

In 17 of the 22 nations, people expect relations between the US and the rest of the world to improve if Senator Obama wins.

More than 22,000 people were questioned by pollster GlobeScan in countries ranging from Australia to India and across Africa, Europe and South America.

The margin in favour of Senator Obama ranged from 9 per cent in India to 82 per cent in Kenya, while an average of 49 per cent across the 22 countries preferred Senator Obama compared with 12 per cent preferring Senator McCain. Some four in 10 did not take a view.

“Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents,” GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller said.

“Given how negative America’s international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush administration’s relations with the world.”

A similar BBC/Globescan poll conducted ahead of the 2004 U.S presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than the incumbent George Bush, who was elected.

A total of 23,531 people in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE, Britain and the United States were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone in July and August 2008 for the poll.
Many liberals have had freshman logic courses, so they ought to remember that the argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Especially when liberals are on the unpopular side of so many issues in the U.S.

But how does somebody who believes in the Superior Sophistication of Everybody Not an American deal with this?

From Reuters:
No consensus on who was behind Sept 11-global poll

Sep 10, 2008 08:28 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday.

The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.

U.S. officials squarely blame al Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden has boasted of organizing the suicide attacks by his followers using hijacked commercial airliners.

On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.

The poll was conducted by, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in the United States.

In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians.

Respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda, the poll found.

Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians.

In Mexico, 30 percent cited the U.S. government and 33 percent named al Qaeda.
Of course, on issues like the Bush Administration and the Iraq War, the U.S. is faced with a (literally) unholy alliance of secular leftists who dominate Europe, and anti-Israel (and therefore anti-American) Muslims in a broad band from North Africa to the Far East.

And a large proportion of these people are simply yahoos. Certainly, at least as large a proportion as in the United States. And where American politics is concerned, or any policy involving Israel is concerned, the rest of the world has a much larger proportion of yahoos.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Many liberals have had freshman logic courses, so they ought to remember that the argumentum ad populum is a fallacy."

Anyone who has had a freshman logic course ought to know that (1) there is a difference between a report and an argument, and (2) only arguments can be fallacious.

9:13 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

. . . there is a difference between a report and an argument, and (2) only arguments can be fallacious.

And the typical liberal argument is that, since majorities of foreigners favor Obama, he must be the best candidate.

8:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it is a "typical liberal argument," then you should be able to cite some high profile liberals who have made that argument. And no, finding a few people on liberal blogs who have said it is not grounds for calling it "typical."

You see, what IS fallacious is saying that something is "typical" and then citing a few anecdotes in support of it. As freshmen logic students know, that's called hasty generalization or appeal to anecdote.

So I'll check back for your evidence that this is a "typical" liberal view.

1:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home