A few weeks ago I discussed an AP/GfK poll showing what appears to be a divergence between those who both think they or their family will be victims of a terrorist attack and don't seem to trust Obama to handle that pending attack, and those who seem less worried about that possibility in the first place yet trust Obama to handle an attack should one occur.I said at the time I would request from AP/Gfk the crosstabs, and now I have them. (Fivethirtyeight.com thanks Geoff Feinberg, vice president at GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, for providing them after taking the time to also get consent to release them from the AP.)
The crosstabs are necessary to determine if the polarity in the responses is the byproduct of the fact that those who worry about another attack are also Obama skeptics because, well, they're conservatives who worry more about such things and preternaturally distrust Obama, as well as vice versa--i.e., that liberals trust Obama and, as conservatives frequently claim, also underestimate the possibility of another attack. In the comments section of that earlier post, we had a long discussion about the degree to which the subjective assessment respondents make of their or their family's likelihood of being a "victim" of another attack reflects objective likelihoods, but of course the crosstabs provide neither a solution for this disconnect nor can they account for the potentially wide variation in how respondents define the word "victim"--physically injured or killed?, financially affected?--in their heads when responding to such a question.
Anyway, the results are very similar in the crosstabs for the two questions--one, TER1, asking if the respondent thought s/he would be a victim, and a second, TER2, asking if s/he thought "you or your family" would be--against a third terrorism-related question, TER3, that asked, "And when it comes to terrorism, how confident are you that Barack Obama will be able to handle this?" Because the crosstabs for both TER1 and TER2 are very similar against TER3, and beacuse some readers seemed to think the "or your family" version (TER2) was preferable given its more expansive and realistic definition of the likelihood of being affected, in the figure above I report only the crosstabs of TER2 against TER3. For the sake of simplicity and visual clarity, I also collapsed the four possible responses to TER2's question ("How concerned are you about the chance that you or your family might be a victim of a terrorist attack?") into two groups, pooling together those who answered "not at all" with "not too much" and those responding "somewhat" and "a great deal"
As you can see from the figure above, and as expected, those more worried about an attack are also more doubtful about Obama's ability to handle such an attack, and vice versa. But the relationship is not as pronounced as I initially suspected. Clearly, there are significant pockets of people not worried that we'll be attacked again yet still worried about how Obama will respond. More than two in five people (43.5%) who have no confidence in Obama at all aren't much worried about an attack anyway, and three in five showing "not too much" confidence in Obama worry little about a pending attack affecting them/family. On the flip side, about 3 in 10 people who are confident in Obama's abilities--33.2 percent of the "somewhat confident" and 27.4 percent of the "very confident"--also believe they or their family will be hit again.
Nevertheless and despite these exceptions, as the steady slope of the figure indicates those more worried about getting attacked are tend to be more worried about Obama's ability to handle that attack.
6.30.2009
UPDATE: Do Americans Worried About Terrorist Attack Trust Obama?
by Tom Schaller @ 1:38 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

18 comments
Can you correlate this with the Fox/NPR divide?
The answer of course is that fewer and fewer people trust Obama.
He promised us that unemployment would not top 8% if he got his stim-u-less bill. Well, now its 9.4% and rising (wait till tomorrow -- the gvt is rushing the number out).
We continue to hemorrhage manufacturing jobs and consumer confidence continues to sink.
More and more the people are seeing this guy as either incompetent or malevolent.
With millions jobless and tens of millions more underemployed and discouraged, this must be the time to impose carbon taxes and screw with our health care (the 17% of the economy that is working!).
Perhaps we can all get jobs weather stripping each other's homes to make them compliant with new environmental and climate laws that are coming down the pike.
Windmill technology is booming -- we can buy lots of them from South Korea. The Asians know not to put a tax on their exports.
Are you listening, President Obama?
petekent01 (on twitter)
Obama does not even know how to react to a coup in Honduras, and yet we are expected to feel confident in his ability to handle a terrorist attack?
Ha!
petekent01 (on twitter)
@Tom: There's still a big problem with the interpretation. I would conjecture that you could put the name of ANY person in place of Obama -- or you could just put in the words "our Government" or any government agency such as "the Department of Homeland Security" in place of President Obama -- and you'd get the same result.
In other words, you may be overinterpreting the data. If the dataset has a general question on "trust in government" (say the standard ANES version: "How much of the time do you trust....") you can gain some insight into this.
Watch, by the way, for the "incompetence" meme to start cropping up in conservative media. Up until now folks were willing to give Obama the benefit of native intelligence, but more and more he is seeming like an out of his depth ideologue who is pursuing needlessly ruinous policies and who is totally at sea in international affairs.
Oh, but he did delver a helluva speech in Cairo!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Oh, No! Now he's below zero!
http://tinyurl.com/5tnd2b The sinking popularity of the Prez.
We no longer need to hope for his failure -- we are witnessing it.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Obama suppresses scientific evidence for political ends.
http://tinyurl.com/mn95m5
Isn’t this what they accused Bush of doing?
petekent01 (on twitter)
This Pete Kent kid needs to get a hobby or something.
Aren't the people who are super paranoid about terrorist attacks the kind of people who wouldn't have voted for Obama in the first place? The kind who are paranoid that he's a secret muslin terrorist from a madrassa himself? So doesn't this make sense? I'd like to see where the respondents come from - red or blue states.
MINNESOTA SUPREMES RULE FOR FRANKEN 5-0
http://www.mncourts.gov/opinions/sc/current/OPA090697-6030.pdf
The ONLY explanation for their delay was that they were seeking unanimity. And they got it.
Thanks Opus 132. Here is a direct link.
Now if Coleman continues his silly fight, I say he should be subjected to a public stoning. That should put the religious right of two minds—sad to see a Republican perish, but nice to see old, Biblical ways of punishment making a comeback.
I'd think this graphic would benefit from one small adjustment: make the width of each column correspond to the proportion of responses at each confidence level.
PeteKent, did you even read the whole article about Obama "supressing scientific evidence", or just the headline? The article goes on to say that the author of that opinion on climate change was an economist, not a scientist and he included no original scientific evidence to support his assessment. As an immunologist, I would hope the EPA would reject my unsolicited advice on the matter as well. Read the whole article next time...it only takes a minute.
My goodness, I was scared every darned day when Bush and Darth Cheney were in office.
Bush didn't read all the cia daily briefs and took more vacation then almost any sitting president.
Bush is the reason we were attacked in the first place, not paying attention to the daily briefs.
Cheney just wants to play cowboy and shoot up everybody and everything. All he wants to do is have war and keep his company 'Blackwater' making a ridiculous amount of money.
Tom, PLEASE... having "you or your family directy affected" by a terrorist attack is STILL NOT THE SAME as believing that another attack in the U.S. is possible or even likely. This is an OBVIOUS distinction. I remain surprised and disappointed at your lack of rigor here. Fivethirtyeight bloggers should know better.
It seems to me that these two questions in the survey would probably be connected anyway, regardless of political affiliation.
When asked "how worried are you about a future attack," a rephrasing of that for many people could well be "do you trust the government to prevent a terrorist attack." When read that way, the fact that most people who trust the government to prevent a terrorist attack also trust it to handle a terrorist attack is not surprising.
Further, it is not surprising that people who trust Obama also believe that a terrorist attack is less likely: they believe that his efforts at regaining the trust and friendship of the Muslim world will help decrease the chances of our being attacked.
What a stupid poll. It's horribly drawn too. I can't tell what axis is what...which is worry and which is trust. They should've done a line graph.
The question being how concerned that you or your family will be attacked is strange, given that only two universes of people think they'll be the target of an attack-- people who live in target-rich environments...DC, NYC, LA, SF, Chi...and people who are delusional Glen Beck watchers overcome with fear and loathing.
Most conservatives who don't trust the non-torturing, Guantanamo-closing (in theory) Obama to protect the homeland should nonetheless be rational enough to know that their little rural hometown will probably not be too high up on the terrorist target list. So irrational fear + mistrust...sounds like a mental disorder...in other words, FOXNEWS.
Conversely, those liberals living in big cities are both more likely to bear the brunt of the next terror attack and more likely to trust Obama. In other words, NPR.
Also, Pete Kent is an idiot. This is a logic/fact based website. Try to employ those.
A clarification of what "Somewhat/A great deal" and "Not at all/not too much" would help make your graph much more accessible. The way your graph is labeled leaves whether the x-axis is "confidence in the likelihood of a terrorist attack occuring" or "confidence in obama" very vague and open to guesswork. I often have to dig around text on this site to figure out context. For all of the mathematical rigor put into your work, it's a shame to see those thoughts muddied by unclear figures!
Post a Comment