I’m posting these excerpts from Tom Tomorrow’s blog without comment.
Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.
….
“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”
The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.
….
The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.
“Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.
The story contains some criticism of the conclusions. Apparently Lohse himself is a conservative.

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 30, 2006 at 5:50 am
Anonymous
Eric! Worth Dikeman is taking a job as a prosecutor in El Dorado County and no comment from you? You comment on everything! You always had some shit to spin about Dikeman. Nothing now? Why not? Because you can’t spin this bad against Dikeman? You are a chump, a fraud, a weenie! Shame on you!
Also no comment on the information on the Burgess shooting! Weenie.
November 30, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Eric V. Kirk
And a good morning to you too anonymous. Isn’t it a nice crisp fall day today?
Comment re Dikeman – I wish him well.
Anything else?
November 30, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Anonymous
Eric, what’s your take on the recent poll that conservatives donate more to charities than liberals?
And I too am surprised you have yet to comment on Dikeman and his new job or the official findings on the Burgess shooting? Are you gving up on local issues? giving up on politics?
November 30, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I’ve got a lot on my table right now, and we have company at home this week. Dikeman getting a job isn’t news. I knew he’d get one. He’s an experienced prosecutor, and the juries of El Dorado County will probably be much more friendly to him. I wish him well. What more is there to say?
And the official findings aren’t particularly news either. I knew they were headed that way with their first press conference. But I will comment on that once I’ve had a chance to read the articles.
November 30, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Fred
9:50 wrote, “Also no comment on the information on the Burgess shooting!”.
Seems to me more than enought has already been said both in the papers and the blogs regarding the Burgess shooting. What more can be said that hasn’t been said already?
Then again, this is Eric’s blog, not mine.
November 30, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Eric V. Kirk
As for the donation poll, I haven’t seen it, but it doesn’t surprise me a whole lot. Conservatives are more likely to have a religious basis for their ethos, and charity is an important part of their spirituality. Liberals tend to be more jaded about the good it does, which is also why they’re less likely to vote.
There are probably other factors as well, but I’d have to know what questions were asked in the poll before I could speculate.
November 30, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Anon.R.mous
Heh.
69 people in one state? Not a very large cross section is it? Most of the nutters around here blame Bush for everything. I think it has more to do with who they think wronged them and how can they get back at them.
November 30, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Nick Bravo
It’s George Bush’s fault that Anon annoys me. No wait! Anon annoys me of his own free will and because he’s a dumbass.
November 30, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Anonymous
How about “Bush’s Nut Supporters?”
Wait, can a bush have nuts?
I’m confused. Shine a light brother Erik.
December 1, 2006 at 2:34 am
Anonymous
Heard the term ‘compassionate conservative’ uttered by a guest Dr. of somesuch on an AM Conyak show the other day. Hadn’t heard it in,oh say, 6 years or more.
Get complete control of the Gov and the glove comes off.
Lose control and it’s donation surveys and deja vu.
Always thought that qualifier was more of an admission than an attribute.Wanna bet we’ll be hearing a lot more of it till ’08?