The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Are Right-Wingers More Prone to Believe Conspiracy Theories than Left-Wingers?
An extensive new study finds that the answer is "no." Belief in conspiracy theories is about equally common on different sides of the political spectrum.

There is a common perception that right-wingers are more likely to believe conspiracy theories than people on the left. But a large-scale new study authored by political scientists Adam Enders, Christina Farhart, Joanne Miller, Joseph Uscinski, Kyle Saunders, and Hugo Drochon finds otherwise. Uscinski is a leading expert on public belief in political conspiracy theories. Here is the abstract of their article, published in Political Behavior:
A sizable literature tracing back to Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style (1964) argues that Republicans and conservatives are more likely to believe conspiracy theories than Democrats and liberals. However, the evidence for this proposition is mixed. Since conspiracy theory beliefs are associated with dangerous orientations and behaviors, it is imperative that social scientists better understand the connection between conspiracy theories and political orientations. Employing 20 surveys of Americans from 2012 to 2021 (total n = 37,776), as well as surveys of 20 additional countries spanning six continents (total n = 26,416), we undertake an expansive investigation of the asymmetry thesis. First, we examine the relationship between beliefs in 52 conspiracy theories and both partisanship and ideology in the U.S.; this analysis is buttressed by an examination of beliefs in 11 conspiracy theories across 20 more countries. In our second test, we hold constant the content of the conspiracy theories investigated—manipulating only the partisanship of the theorized villains—to decipher whether those on the left or right are more likely to accuse political out-groups of conspiring. Finally, we inspect correlations between political orientations and the general predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories over the span of a decade. In no instance do we observe systematic evidence of a political asymmetry. Instead, the strength and direction of the relationship between political orientations and conspiricism is dependent on the characteristics of the specific conspiracy beliefs employed by researchers and the socio-political context in which those ideas are considered.
The authors find that conservatives and Republicans are more likely to believe conspiracy theories that fit their predispositions and biases. For example, they are far more likely than liberals and Democrats to believe that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. But, by the same token, left-wingers are more likely to believe conspiracy theories that fit their biases, such as 9/11 "trutherism" (claims that George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance and deliberately allowed them to happen). The authors also find that "[t]here are also many conspiracy theories finding equal support among the left and right, including theories involving "chem-trails", the moon landing, fluoridated water, Freemasons, lizard people, and television mind control, to name a few." When a conspiracy theory doesn't have a strong political valence, left and right are usually about equally prone to believe it.
Sometimes conspiracy theories shift valence over time. For example, belief in anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories was about equally common before Covid, but has acquired a right-wing orientation since then. The career of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - who used to peddle anti-vaccine conspiracy theories primarily to the left, but now caters more to the right - is a an example of the shift.
This is far from the first study of the distribution of beliefs in conspiracy theories. But it is notable for its extensive scope. It adds to the already extensive evidence that political ignorance and misinformation are serious problems across the political spectrum, not just on the right.
While right-wing susceptibility to conspiracy theories may not be generally greater than that of the left, it can nonetheless be a more severe danger at any given point in time. Right now, widespread conservative/Republican endorsement of Donald Trump's "big lie" about the 2020 election is a greater menace than any currently prevalent left-wing conspiracy theory, because it incentivizes potential future GOP efforts to reverse election results they don't like, and could lead to more violence like that which occurred on January 6, 2021.
But we can recognize the urgency of that issue without falling into the trap of thinking that ignorance, misinformation, and conspiracy-mongering are only significant problems on one side of the political spectrum. Sadly, that just isn't true.
Acknowledging the bipartisan, cross-ideological nature problem is not enough to solve it. But it's at least a good start. I assess a variety of potential ways to mitigate political ignorance and misinformation in this recent article and in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Conspiracies, like religion, are the realm of the supernatural. Who believes in one will believe in the other.
On the contrary, conspiracies are everyday things, mundane even, and black letter law that students must learn. But you could try offering your perspective to the political prosecutors charging Trump with a smorgasbord of conspiracies.
Now "theories" about conspiracies are a different thing however. A conspiracy theory is when there's no conviction yet, and it's still just the theory of the prosecution.
How two opposing sides perceive the facts of a legal case sound like just opinion to me. But Jewish space lasers, pedophilia pizza joints, nanotrackers in vaccines and the like strike me as fantasies made from whole cloth. One group believes those things...one doesn't
Patently false on logical grounds
There are not just 2 on a legal case as the fact of jury nullification and plea bargaining shows. There is , Did he do it ? Was it wrong that he did or did not do it? Is the legal punishment justified? Does the law have a right to even be involved in this matter?
You see as 2 sides because you eliminate the person, the morality , and the process from consideration. Read about our Founding and see that what reasulted, though approved by all, was not consonant with any Founder's personal view. That sounds like opinion to you because you have not the subtlety that true reasoning DEMANDS
Don’t be silly. The term “conspiracy theory” is an idiom. A theory about a prosecution involving a criminal conspiracy is not a conspiracy theory.
That's a correlation I've not seen made.
I also don't think you're using 'supernatural' right. Conspiracy theories are unrealistic about how humans work, but most of them are well within natural laws.
Are they? Conspiracy theories involve impossible sequences of events. I'm not sure what the line is between an impossible natural event and an impossible supernatural event.
If I flip a coin and it lands on its edge, is that natural or supernatural in your book?
Maybe it's my physics background, but to me it's a pretty bright line. Miracles and creation myths over here, fantastical large but leakless secret institutions over there.
It's worth considering that, in an environment hostile to 'conspiracy theories', the secret institutions don't actually have to be leakless.
I compare it to a nuclear reaction: At some rate the fuel spontaneously fissions, generating neutrons. (That spontaneous fission is your "leak".) If each neutron released on average causes less than one additional neutron from fission, the fuel just sits there very mildly radioactive, the reaction tends to extinguish. The closer to 1-1 you get, the more the natural reaction rate gets multiplied, but the ratio has to be quite close to 1-1 for this to be significant.
OTOH, if each neutron released by fission causes even a tiny bit over 1 additional neutron to be released, you get an exponential growth in the rate of fission, and out come gigawatts, potentially even a mushroom cloud.
Leaks are the same way: If each person learning the secret causes less than one additional person learning it, the chain reaction extinguishes, the consequences of the leak are trivial. If each person learning the secret results in two more people learning it, it blows up in your face.
So, if you have an environment generally hostile to 'conspiracy theories', where they're not considered worth investigating and debunking, you just point and laugh, or ignore them entirely? Leaks don't go anywhere. A few people find out? It doesn't matter.
Leaks only matter in an environment where they get reported on.
A real life example of that would be the Rotherham pedophile scandal in the UK. Facially as absurd as Pizzagate, a claim that the local police were covering up a pedophile ring. Only problem is, they actually WERE covering up a pedophile ring!
Well, at no point was this conspiracy genuinely secret, there were always people aware it was going on, and complaining to the authorities. (Who had their reasons for tolerating it.) But the media refused to cover it, so the leaks always extinguished. It wasn't until the Times bothered covering it that the explosion happened.
Why did Pizzagate get traction? Because people were aware that Rotherham was a real thing, and so knew damned well that pedophile rings operating right out in the open with government turning a blind eye to them was actually something that occasionally happens. So you couldn't actually rule out Pizzagate being true without looking into it.
Of course, if you did look into it you found it was total BS. But as long as the media dismissed it as a 'conspiracy theory' and refused to investigate? You couldn't be sure it wasn't true...
Look at how conspiracies fall apart, Brett. Like the one you linked, even.
People with actual receipts, as would be the case from an actual leak, don't have trouble getting traction.
at no point was this conspiracy genuinely secret
Then it's not a conspiracy. And if you mean everyone in power knew but the public didn't, then you're in QAnon land.
Did you notice how freaking long the conspiracy successfully continued, despite "leaks", before falling apart? It began in the late 80's, went on for about 25 years before finally blowing up on them. It only fell apart when the media stopped blowing the complaints off, and reported on it.
"People with actual receipts, as would be the case from an actual leak, don’t have trouble getting traction."
You're still in denial about what was going on in Rotherham. Yes, they actually DID have trouble getting traction. For years, even. Having the receipts doesn't mean squat if you can't make people look at them.
"Evidence of the abuse was first noted in the early 1990s, when care home managers investigated reports that children in their care were being picked up by taxi drivers. From at least 2001, multiple reports passed names of alleged perpetrators, several from one family, to the police and Rotherham Council. The first group conviction took place in 2010,"
People were showing up with "receipts" for years, without anything being done about it.
"Then it’s not a conspiracy. And if you mean everyone in power knew but the public didn’t, then you’re in QAnon land."
The public isn't a single entity, Sarcastr0, any more than everybody in power is. It's perfectly possible for a few people in the public to know about something, but not enough people to matter. That's my whole point here: Leaks only matter if they propagate, rather than extinguish! And where things contrary to the narrative routinely get dismissed as "conspiracy theories" without getting an investigation, leaks tend to extinguish.
Hell, you're still in denial about the Bidens being on the take, and the actual receipts have been published! That's how much "receipts" matter in a hostile media environment.
A new subject!
Would you agree this statement applies to Thomas? Explain your answer.
I think there's a significant difference between having money, goods, and services thrown your way by actual, long standing friends, and having it thrown your way by distant businesses where there's no possibility of the motive being just friendship. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for anybody who doesn't like Thomas' jurisprudence to look a his financial dealings and think he's corrupt.
Truly it has been a disappointing revelation about him. He clearly does not understand that it's not enough to know in his heart he hasn't been bought, that he needs to not LOOK like he's been bought, too.
The hell the Democrats put him through during his confirmation hearings left him simply not caring what they think about him, and that's a good thing jurisprudentially, but I think he has generalized that stance too far.
Clarence Thomas' supporters will grind their teeth concerning his obituary:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a staunch conservative whose repeated ethical shortcomings precipitated formal standards of conduct for members of the nation's highest court, died yesterday . . . .
It wasn't as absurd as Pizzagate. How many people were involved?
And complaining to the authorities isn't a leak.
You're recharactarizing stuff to make conspiracies more viable.
Read what you're writing. Absurd, beside the point quibbles!
No, of course people complaining to the authorities about a pedophile ring those very authorities are conspiring to protect isn't the leak, the fact that people knew about it TO complain was the leak!
The point is that you don't need to be able to keep things hermetically sealed, you just need for the leaks to not spread far enough to get you in trouble. And they're not going to spread if the media reflexively says, "Conspiracy theory!" and blows off the tips they're getting.
Pizzagate took place in the basement of a building with no basement. It included semiotic analysis of random shapes as secret symbol used to mock us normies.
Pedophilia rings are pretty out there, but happen. Pizzagate was a whole 'nother level.
The point is that you don’t need to be able to keep things hermetically sealed, you just need for the leaks to not spread far enough to get you in trouble.
That is not a long-term viable strategy.
The real world is as boring as it seem, Brett.
I didn't say that Pizzagate was reasonable once you looked into it. In fact, I said that it was facially absurd, and if not for things like Rotherham you'd reasonably dismiss the idea out of hand. But Rotherham happened, and so you should NOT dismiss such things out of hand, you should investigate them.
The least investigation made Pizzagate fall apart. But that could not be known in advance. It DID have to be investigated, not just dismissed as "a conspiracy theory".
"That is not a long-term viable strategy."
True, but in the long term we're all dead, so strategies don't HAVE to be viable long term, just "long enough" term. People do things all the time that can't go on forever. But they still do them!
But Rotherham happened, and so you should NOT dismiss such things out of hand, you should investigate them.
You're not listening.
No, Rotherham does not mean you should look into Pizzagate 'the symbols are secret messages' stuff.
My point is that any actual conspiracies get uncovered in not very much time. Maybe that's after some of the people involved die, but the timeline is well under the usual lifetime.
I use you as my chief stupidity example. You make 3 mistakes an educated person sees immediately
1) Any view , incl yours, on God and ultimates is religious by definitionn
2) You believe untested things to even hold your opinion. What possible proof can you have of the NON-existence of something 🙂 That there is a Creator is not a religous stance.
3) Hate comes from most of your posts and many would contenc that is your 'reason' : you hate religious people. NB that you have benefitted from many of those people unknowingly (cops, doctors, nurses, service industry folks, even neighbors)
my life,
I think he goes too far, but your criticism is wrong.
1. Nope.
Not believing in God is not a religious belief. Lack of belief is not a religious belief.
2. What possible proof can you have of the NON-existence of something ???? That there is a Creator is not a religous stance.
You just contradicted your initial assertion, that any belief vis a vis a God, to include a lack of belief, is a religious belief. Now you say belief that there is a creator is not a religious belief. Have a conversation with yourself and get back to us when you've reached a consensus opinion among yourselves.
You have to distinguish between "not believing in God", agnosticism, and "believing in not God", atheism.
No you don't.
What you really have to do is define God. This is why I think it's in poor taste to self-identity as an atheist. Why would you possibly define yourself in someone else's terms, other than to be an asshole? "Whatever you believe in, I'm against" is a pretty shitty philosophy.
Self-identifying as agnostic is more polite but still a lame punt.
Not believing in God is not a religious belief. Lack of belief is not a religious belief.
As Brett correctly points out, there's a very significant difference between the disbelief of hard atheism ("There is/are no god(s)") vs the absence of belief of agnosticism ("I have no belief one way or the other about the existence of any god(s)"). The former is a belief regarding the metaphysical that is inherently not subjectable to physical evidence-based inquiry. It is not a "lack of belief". It is a belief in the opposite of what someone who believes in god(s) believes.
As dumb a statement as I've ever heard. There are a couple thousand denominations in the world, so how could it be either-or.
You seem not to be a reader
There are about 4 presuppositionis in your statemetn, all wrong
Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions and the Unity of Truth
by Mortimer J. Adler
Even a child can see what you can't, namely : " For example: while it is possible that no religion may contain the truth, it is a contradiction to hold that all religions contain the truth. This is because of the conflicting and contradictory views that different religions hold regarding God, the cosmos, and human nature, as well as about how human beings should conduct their lives."
You have to consider the possibility that those contradictory religions contain some truth, but also a lot of stuff that's not true. They're perfectly capable of disagreeing about the untrue stuff without being wrong about everything.
This seems like one of the least surprising results I could have possibly imagined.
There have been previous 'studies' conducted by leftists concluding that rightwingers believe more in conspiracies mostly by excluding the conspiracies leftists believe in. Ie believing that an organized cabal in a dark smoke filled room purposely holds down minorities and women throughout history. Or that there are 67 genders but an evil cabal has suppressed this truth since the dawn of man and somehow made it so that there is no evidence of this are not considered conspiratorial thinking.
“believing that an organized cabal in a dark smoke filled room purposely holds down minorities and women throughout history.“
That’s a stupid thing to believe. Mainly because throughout American history many white men in power were pretty open and honest about their work to keep women and minorities confined to certain roles in society and did so from public institutions! It’s not a cabal or a conspiracy it was just regular American politics that occurred in public.
You 'corrected' something stupid with something much more stupid. Do you really think those type were nice to fellow males because they were male too?? What a moron.
What?
‘If conservatives believe conspiracy theories, then why am I building all these strawmen?’
Then why do you say 'seems' ?
Was big pharma foisting a vaccine on us that did not prevent catching or transmitting Covid a conspiracy theory?
Still is.
The COVID vax prevents infection and transmission 100%.
No vaccination of any sort for any disease does that.
TLDR-
People are stupid. Yes, the people that agree with you, as well as the people that disagree with you.
“ Belief in conspiracy theories is about equally common on different sides of the political spectrum.”
Yeah, right. That’s what they want you to think.
+1 Made me chuckle.
+2!
Any thoughts on multiple prosecutions on severely sketchy grounds of candidates for the Presidency?
Yes. Also a conspiracy theory.
Robert Rosenkranz, founder of Intelligence Squared US once said that IQ2US was nearly forced out of existence by the uproar over a debate which concluded that the benefits of organic foods are mythical. The GMO myth is another favorite of the left.
Neither of those is particularly political, but both are most popular with the left.
Since the GMO myth is based in a general mistrust in science, and the accusation that COVID anti-vaxxers didn't trust science was a common left-leaning barb aimed at conservatives, I wonder if the post-covid population of left-leaning anti-GMO conspiracists has shrunk through an accidental application of self-awareness?
I would agree that the set of conspiracy theories on the left are largely around health-related issues with GMO's being one of the biggest.
One thing about the anti-GMO hysteria that’s interesting is that even if every single left-wing conspiracy theory about GMOs and their supposed ill-effects was 100% correct it would still be better than the alternative: mass famine and widespread violence over access to food.
Still, you paint a this or that view of things.
Take Golden Rice. As soon as you admit it might keep one child from blindness you've lost any argument against it. Okay, Monsanto was this or that, but what does that have to do with helping even one child. NOTHING
There are two separate but related vectors for the anti-GMO (and anti-vaxx, for that matter) hysteria. One is kind of a hippie "natural is good, chemicals and unnatural stuff are bad." The other is the "corporations are evil, big Pharma and big Ag are evil, and if they're for these things I'm against them." These two can peacefully co-exist, of course.
Anti-vaxxers on the right, of course, added a third vector: "godless communist BLM government is evil; if it's telling me to take them then I won't, just to prove I can't be pushed around."
It's actually a positive thing that people resist senseless demands, David. You want to live in a nation of mindless sheep?
Senselessness is determined *after* you decide for knee-jerk tribal reasons to say no.
It's not facts based.
It's amusing that Somin gives examples of "right wing conspiracy theories" that turned out to be right, but Russiagate isn't mentioned anywhere.
I'll let you figure out the reason for that.
The reason is so fucking obvious.
The Russia conspiracy theory turned out to be false of course. It was a hoax.
A hoax so big that it fooled Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton.
I wouldn't assume they were fooled, as such. Maybe they just disliked Trump, and were glad to use any weapon against him they could find.
Once again, your telepathic finding of bad faith and easy lying about serious stuff makes one wonder about your character.
Except I know that's not you. So you have invented a universe filled with humans who are worse than you are, so you can keep it morally easy.
We're talking about federal politicians, Sarcastr0, not average people. Their being worse than me is hardly a stretch.
But that’s not the issue. It’s could they or anyone else find any facts to dispute the finding of the intelligence professionals on the committee. They didn’t. Because they couldn’t. If they could they definitely would have issued a minority report at the very least.
It’s like how conservatives couldn’t contest the facts of the 2014 torture report. The professional staff put together a detailed account of CIA torture. Republicans didn’t call it a hoax or fake news. They didn’t want it released because it was all true. Their only responses were: “this will endanger us and make people mad” and “torture is good actually.”
Same too here. The committee Republicans couldn’t call Russian activities a hoax because of what was found. So they just ignored it.
The GOP was the majority on the committee! If they could have refuted the story, the committee's report would've been entirely different.
Exactly! But the unanimity is also very telling. If any Republican on that committee, which included some very conservative Senators, had anything to dispute any fact in the report they would have definitely issued a minority report to at least muddy the waters. It’s very telling they couldn’t even manage that.
Federal politicians are just people. They are not sociopaths, no matter how many ignorant books there are about sociopathy and success.
They are not a special breed that will just go along with the other side's lie to attack their own side's standard bearer (and ticket to the majority).
That makes no sense. No, you've just decided that Republican politicians are full of anti-conservative zealots, just like Democrats and Hollywood and schools and silicon valley and big business and people who do surveys and the media.
Everyone is a lying zealot but those who agree with you.
"Everyone is a lying zealot but those who agree with you."
Well, duh!
THE CONSPIRACY GOES THAT DEEP!
No. It’s because the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staff documented extensive contacts between Trump campaign staff and advisors and known Russian intelligence operatives. More than Mueller even. Conservatives on the committee who are very pro-Trump simply couldn’t dispute the facts that were uncovered. Even though they ran the investigation. They didn’t even bother to write a minority report calling any findings into question and had to sign on to the Committee Report.
Not a hoax, just a false allegation to drive their coup for a bit.
“An extensive new study finds that the answer is “no.” Belief in conspiracy theories is about equally common on different sides of the political spectrum.”
The answer is actually “yes”, if you read the substance of Prof. Somin’s post. You can take the odd conspiracy theory that has no “political valence” and find roughly equal numbers of right- and left-wingers buy it. But these are unimportant facts.
One can also point to 9/11 “truther” theory and say that more left-wingers than right- believe it. But the numbers on each side are small. Again, a trivial fact.
A majority of conservatives think the 2020 election was “stolen”. A majority of conservatives think that Russia was not involved with turning the 2016 election to Trump and that the Trump campaign did not seek Russia’s help in doing so. A majority of conservatives think the CDC’s response to Covid was some kind of totalitarian plot.
These are very important facts, and belief in the first two theories has destabilized our democracy, while belief in the third has caused thousands of deaths and millions of unnecessary illnesses.
72: of Democrats still think Russian "interference" changed the outcome of the 2016 election.
Just thought I'd mention that.
You do understand what "interference" means in that scenario, right?
You mean helpfully releasing Hillary Rodman's e-mails so we could all see what a Race-ist Bee-otch she is??
Exactly.
That’s an incredibly delusional thing for 72% of Democrats to believe.
But also, false. The survey he's referencing doesn't make any mention of leaked emails. So you are making things up. Prior surveys show that this delusional belief by a large majority of Democrats includes things like Russians hacked the vote tallies and so on, which makes sense since Hillary Clinton and others promote those beliefs.
Well, you blew yourself. We all know that lie.
"You do understand what “interference” means in that scenario, right?"
It means that Russia tampered with vote tallies.
This is literally correct, but I'm quite sure Randal did not understand it.
March 09, 2018?
Weak.
How so? Do you have an actual argument?
It means using present tense but cherry picking from 5 years ago is basically being deceitful.
Cherry picking? Do you more recent numbers? Do you have any evidence that the number has changed since 2018? Where's the deceit?
damikesc said "still" so I assume that means "less than five years ago" dum dum
Any evidence that the meaning of "interference" has changed since then, you ridiculous idiot?
First of all, let's get back to this
questionsequence of words of yours:damikesc had a more recent number (allegedly) which is what we were talking about... what numbers are you talking about?
Anyway, the meaning of "interference" never meant "Russia tampered with vote tallies" as even your 2018 article shows.
Interestingly, according to your article, in 2018 even a majority of the Republicans who knew about Russian interference thought it had swung the election to Trump.
All your talking points are belong to me.
"All your talking points are belong to me."
+1000
Aye - well done Randal.
“Anyway, the meaning of “interference” never meant “Russia tampered with vote tallies” as even your 2018 article shows.”
False again. The exact survey language is “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected president.” 67 percent of Democrats said definitely or probably true. The fact that they also believe that Russia “spread fake news,” posted Bernie memes in broken English on facebook, hacked emails, and whatever, of course does not contradict this.
Incidentally, there’s no evidence that Russia hacked the emails that I’m aware of, other than Robert Mueller cautiously stating in his report that they “apparently” did so, based on circumstantial evidence that no competent hacker would have left behind, and then filing meaningless charges against Russian nationals that he knew would go nowhere. Anyway leaking or reporting on true information about a politician is a heroic thing to do in the eyes of the liberal media when it helps leftists. This is like saying the 18 foreign countries that helped investigate Trump-Russia interfered against Trump, and that investigation was nothing but a slow drip of carefully calculated leaks.
Huh. Somehow I don't see the word "interference" in there at all. Seems like you might be a bit of a retard there, M L.
Other questions in other ancient surveys have little to do with whatever damikesc is talking about.
The question wasn't about whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. The question was just whether it made a difference. Maybe it made an important difference in preventing the US from electing an unpatriotic douchewoman, who knows. That wasn't what the survey was about.
The poll to which damikesc referred used a question that referenced Hillary Clinton's statements about interference which did not involve hacking voting machines and changing vote totals. So, no, it did not mean "Russia tampered with vote tallies" in this scenario.
You're just lying.
Only 72? You'd think it'd be higher since the Mueller report itself documented the interference in detail.
Also documented that it was at such a trivial level that it amounted to pitting into a hurricane.
Yes, if you decide there is huge evils that hidden everywhere, you can rationalize ignoring the actual bad shit your side is doing.
It makes you kind of a clown to everyone else, but it helps you feel self consistent I guess.
Huge evils? I mean that their documented "interference", consisting primarily of stupid memes on FB, was minuscule compared to the amount of campaign activity going on.
The Mueller Report Is Embarrassing for Trump. But It Doesn't Call Into Question His 2016 Win
"Facebook executive Colin Stretch told Congress in October 2017 that about 126 million users on the platform were exposed to Russian propaganda masquerading as real news. At the same time, Stretch added, the propaganda was hardly ubiquitous; suspected Russian content amounted to about one out of every 23,000 posts.
Russia’s Internet Research Agency spent just $46,000 on Facebook ads before the 2016 elections, compared to the $81 million the Trump and Clinton campaigns spent on the platform combined."
$81 million is the hurricane, $46K is the spit in the wind.
You understand that Russia was almost certainly behind the theft of DNC emails and, so, the release of damaging DNC emails (but not damaging RNC emails which they likely also had) which almost certainly changed thousands of votes, especially given a fair number of people thought the hack of the DNC had something to do with Hillary's email server which, of course, it did not.
So either you are negligently forgetting the bigger part of Russia's attempts to help Trump or you're just being dishonest. We'll know which by whether you come back and acknowledge the theft of DNC emails by Russia and the strategic release of those stolen emails to damage Hillary to the maximum extent possible.
Did it make a determinative difference? We can't know. But it is undeniable that it was significant.
Remember, ads are different than posts. (Actually they go together... more on that later.)
A $46k ad budget is small, but 126M impressions from posts is huge! That's over half of all active US users.
Saying it's only one of every 23,000 posts is a meaningless number, like saying the bible is one of only millions of books. What matters is how "viral" the post or bible is. There are tons of "Me at the park" posts (and books) that like three people see... not 126M.
Which brings us back to ads. I suspect on FB at the time (like YouTube today} you could buy ads for your posts. Just a few dollars in ads targeted at the right people can be enough to jumpstart a post that you're trying to get to go viral.
I'll grant you that the Russians actually did manage to organize some pretty big anti-Trump protests after the election, not that Democrats like talking about that. But their election manipulation efforts were still utterly dwarfed by the campaigns.
I don't know about "Democrats", but I have no problem acknowledging that the Vladimir Putin wanted, and wants, to cause dysfunction in the political system of the US (and Western nations, Ukraine included, generally), including by promoting demonstrations against whoever was/is currently in power. Which is why it is weird there has been so much effort on the right to appease Putin in various ways.
And who do you think Putin wants to win in 2024: Biden who has been steadfast in support of Ukraine or Trump who, to put it mildly, has not been?
Hint: Putin has been praising Trump lately. He knows who will abandon Ukraine and who won't.
You and your interloocutors show a massive lacuna in your education.Not only is elimination of all prejudice illusory, it is not a good thing in any way.
Does anyone here actually read
In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas 2007
by Theodore Dalrymple
" English psychiatrist and writer Theodore Dalrymple shows that freeing the mind from prejudice is not only impossible, but entails intellectual, moral and emotional dishonesty. The attempt to eradicate prejudice has several dire consequences for the individual and society as a whole."
And TD was a major supporter of Abortion in Britain and now deplores the gross immoralityh and triviality no longer deniable in most abortions.
Not sure how this connects to the topic at hand but that's ok...
Yeah, no doi. This is what the DEI / CRT / BLM / wokesters have been saying for a long time now.
I suppose this is a sort of interesting but not really surprising result. It would be weird actually if right-wingers were more gullible about conspiracy theories. What would explain it?
The more interesting question to ask is why there've been so many more right-wing conspiracy theories over the last couple decades than left-wing ones. I think it has to do with the state of politics... the right's shift from policies to grievances has caused it to lean more on conspiracy theories as a way of stoking grievances. (Where the left depends more on zero-sum fallacies to stoke its grievances.)
The fact that right wingers have rejected any authority whatsoever. The far-left will rant about the "corporate media," but liberals in general trust and rely upon established news sources. Which means they accept debunking of conspiracy theories that come from those sources. Conservatives have long rejected the MSM, but in the Trump era, they even reject right-wing media unless it tells them what they want to hear.
"Which means they accept debunking of conspiracy theories that come from those sources."
They certainly accepted the MSM debunking of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory.
Why do you guys always hide behind vague terms like "lab leak theory" and then change the definitions to fit whatever position you want to promote at the time?
If you want to talk about who believes what correctly about the "lab leak theory" you have to delve into the subtleties of the various "lab leak" theories. But then you don't have the nice clean political story to tell. Some people, for instance, were wrong that it was entirely implausible that Covid-19 unintentionally escaped from the Wuhan lab. Others continue to believe, almost certainly falsely, that it was intentionally leaked and/or Dr. Fauci had something to do with it.
First tell me what "lab leak" theory you want to discuss, then we can talk about who believes bat-shit crazy things about it. (Pun intended, but not effectively landed).
The mainstream media reported on the scientific consensus at the time. And that still tends to be the majority view although there is a much more even split now. It was overhyped that an accidental leak was implausible. It was also overhyped that there definitely was a lab leak and, in some circles, that there was an intentional leak or that it was Dr. Fauci's fault or other similarly unsupported theories.
"Others continue to believe, almost certainly falsely, that it was intentionally leaked and/or Dr. Fauci had something to do with it."
Aside, you mean, for paying for the whole fiasco in violation of a law prohibiting gain of function research?
Brett refutes you, TiP.
The evidence is against your claim. It is against the idea that NIH, with or without Fauci's approval, funded any gain of function experiments in Wuhan or anywhere else in violation of the Obama-directed pause on gain-of-function research. The evidence is even more firmly against concluding that the research that has been mischaracterized as gain-of-function research had any relationship to Covid-19.
So no fiasco; no gain-of-function paid for by NIH; and, most definitely, no violation of law.
The Right has a vast support system selling its lies; the Left doesn’t. Thus you have Lefties grumbling about elections they lose, but without an extensive whore media to push their conspiracies they effectively whither and die.
The anti-vaxx movement is another example. It was composed of freaks pretty evenly spread between Left and Right before covid, but only the Right waged a 24/7 propaganda campaign to reap political gain from the anti-vaxx lies.
You are detached from reality.
WE know and you don't that while Biden was blaming Covid's spread on the unvaccinated and denying care to children and making people lose jobs...80% of those dying were FULLY VACCINATED>
Readers, if you attend to the posting history of this PROUD BIGOT , you wll see why he should be ignored in the future. Now do your homework.
You say such things every other day...Are you afraid it won't be believed without your constant magaphone 🙂
Yes you do, and it continues to amaze and perplex the rest of us that this is so. No one has more thoroughly earned your distrust than the "established news sources". Those guys are bought and sold by the ton lot.
QED.
“We’re going to need some new conspiracy theories. All the old ones have come true.”
But seriously, folks, pulling off an actual conspiracy would take a competent organization. Where would we find such people in the government? :0
The Trump-Russia conspiracy theory was quite impressive in how delusional it was while also being adopted by such a broad base of people.
The parallel would be if like 95% of Republicans had believed Obama was a secret Muslim Hamas agent.
What would he have done differently if he was?
ML : “The Trump-Russia conspiracy theory … (gibberish)”
Which raises this question: What is the “Trump-Russian Consiracy Theory anyway? I doubt the average whinging right-winger knows with any degree of coherence. It’s just something to say, free of meaning. So lets review the facts yet again.
Concerns over the relationship between the Russian state and Trump/Trump associates were based on three things :
(1) The Russian government assisting Trump’s campaign.
This is 100% true and extensively documented. The GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee & Mueller both provide comprehensive reports on Russian efforts to make Trump president.
(2) Unusual & strange connections between Trump/Trump associates and the Russian state.
This is 100% true and extensively documented. You find many troubling examples in the reports by the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee & Robert Mueller. For instance, Trump’s campaign manager was deep in debt to figures tied to Russian intelligence & gave secret briefings to a Russian spy. Trump’s attorney snuck into Moscow multiple times during the campaign to secretly negotiate a massive business deal with Kremlin officials (even while Trump lied about his business dealings on the campaign trail). Trump’s son was told by an intermediary that the Russian government wanted to secretly help his daddy’s campaign. He responded with glee (in writing). Many more examples like this are found in the Senate reports & Mueller’s investigation.
(3) That active coordination occurred between the (real) Russian assistance to Trump through those (real) troubling connections.
This was never established by the Senate or Mueller.
So is that all your “Russian Collusion Hoax” amounts to? Hell, you can’t even claim it impossible Trump would secretly collude with a foreign government to smear his domestic enemies. He tried to extort exactly that from the Ukrainians. Snowflake whining over Trump facing an investigation is pretty rich, given its substance was the unethical sleaze of people like Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Don Jr & Trump himself.
"Trump is a Russian asset" is one of the conspiracy theories the studies says the left is more likely to believe.
But as captcrisis noted not anywhere near like the conservative numbers for stuff like 2020.
The other note I'd make is how willing those who don't believe in a given conspiracy theory on the right are willing to lie in bed with some real nutters if it'll own the libs.
Huh? Captcricis claims a majority of conservatives thought the 2020 election was stolen. As noted above 2/3 of Dems thought Russia tampered with vote tallies in 2016.
You are switching your liberal conspiracies and the timelines all over the place.
Galloping arguments are a common thing from you but especially blatant here.
What are you talking about?
First you made an unsupported, vague claim that belief that Trump was a Russian asset was "not anywhere near like the conservative numbers for stuff like 2020".
Then, when I try to make an apples to apples comparison about beliefs about the 2016 election vs beliefs about the 2020 election, you come up with this?
Unfortunately, this sort of BS is par for the course for you, Sarcastro. Pathetic.
Michael Tracey (who denies that the 2020 election was stolen) made this point.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
Can we get back to this question?
Enquiring minds want to know!
Only 95%? Pretty sure it was higher. Also, you forgot "…from Kenya."
Glad to see that normal people are still, just normal people.
All conspiracy theories are products of a CIA disinformation campaign.
#MetaConspiracyTheory
In the words of twelveinchpianist, that's what they want you to think.
CIA is run by Meta?! I knew it!
Is a conspiracy theory proved true still a conspiracy theory?
The worst about the whole "Trump Colluded with the Russians®™ to Steal the 2016 Election" propaganda campaign was not that it led to two-thirds of Democratic voters believing that Russians actually altered the vote totals.
It is that it used the resources of the federal law enforcement and intelligence establishment to give their fable the illusion of credibility. The damage to the credibility of these institutions have and will have far-reaching effects beyond how many people believe that the 2024 election will be illegitimate.
But how did you GET TO BE right or left, that is the question more basic. Probably by the very means that study says is equally distributed BUT leans heavily to left in that they already reject tradition, religion, culture and are fed by media that we know ignore those things. Very flawed study, right 🙂
Most responents here think one should have an opinion on everything 🙂 Think back to highschool, these are the duplicitious megalomaniacs that everybody in school hated and were afraid of.
Fact is, 90% of conspiracy theories (whether you are for OR against) are signs of a person not caring for what is at hand in their own family, neighborhood, or social circle but greatly concerned that Hillary killed Vince Foster !!
People's lives are boring. It's causing a ton of problems. Q-Anon, Proud Boys, declining birth rates, Disney movies... I'm not sure what to do about it.
This situation was entirely predicted 25 years ago by Fight Club.
In fairness, I wanna get ripped like Ed Norton and Brad Pitt did.
Wait, that wasn't the moral of the movie?
“… their windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before. No one does anything about that. They are washing up ashore […] You wouldn’t see that once a year – now they are coming up on a weekly basis. The windmills are driving them crazy. They are driving the whales, I think, a little batty.”