Their non-expert "opinion" on whether Trump supporters are misinformed seems to based on be the Washington Post article describing how negative attacks made support for him stronger. There wasn't any evidence that there was any misinformation played a material role in that process in that report, and in fact it proffered other plausible explanations.
The latter part of the article made clear that the group was exposed to facts that contradicted Trump, and it only made them more resolute in their support.
It did not make that clear. I understand your confusion, but a partisan attribution of something they believe is similar to a scientific study has not rigor or demonstrated validity. Hence, I asked specifically about what misinformation you think they had. Keep in mind though, that the article was about a 3 hour negative campaign techniques session, it's hopelessly confounded for the purpose of determining if a particular piece of misinformation is correctable with Trump voters, and absolutely dissimilar from the study itself. What it actually shows is that if you spend 3 hours making weak negative arguments of the type that have been effective against generally unlikable politicians historically, a media personality running for office with a long history of successfully translating negative assertions into gruff likability will come out looking better, and then if you include in misinformation that particular group of people is not terribly likely to suddenly shift their entire view. Like, wow.
It does not show, what you seem to want it to show - that Trump supporters are generally misinformed, when compared to supporters of other candidates. It doesn't even come close.
Luntz moved on to questions about Trump’s claim that “thousands of Muslims” had “cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center.” Almost no one doubted Trump; more than a few people wondered why this was controversial. The youngest member of the group wondered why he never saw Muslims in the streets protesting terrorism. Kelly said that there was fresh audio evidence of Muslims celebrating the San Bernardino shooting, though he could not immediately recall the source...
Nothing seemed to budge the Trump voters.
I read the article, negative campaign statements, many of which were untrue or strained didn't budge them. But it was clear that he didn't get a lot of support on his bar Muslims idea. With people expressing disagreement with him. The thousands cheered one, is a good example for you, I think he made it up myself, or is misattributing something that occurred elsewhere to the US.
Almost all of them agreed that Clinton had committed crimes.
Which shows they are informed, not misinformed.
Almost all agreed that the last Republican president had been wrong to invade Iraq in 2003.
Which shows they are more susceptible to propaganda than logic.
Finally, Luntz asked for a thought experiment — to imagine incontrovertible proof that Clinton would win if Trump split the vote. Only then did the group agree to vote Republican over Trump...
Which shows that notwithstanding the ability of propaganda to influence them, they still are rational. How is that any different than the supporters of any other candidate? Would it come out differently, with Hillary supporters if you could prove only Bernie could beat the Republican candidate? I seriously doubt any amount of negative campaigning gets them to switch in significant numbers from Hillary to Bernie.
It is pretty clear that information that contradicted Trumps pronouncements was presented to the group, and it only made the group more resolute in their support of Trump.
The study is based on factually inaccurate beliefs, the 3 hour test session was not. The fact that it included a few cases of misinformation, in hours of deliberate negative ads that themselves contained misinformation makes it useless for a scientific purpose.
Donald Trump says that President Obama wants to allow 250,000 Syrian refugees to come into the country,” Luntz said. “Who thinks that is mostly true?”
Nearly every hand shot up.
“Do you know that Obama has said he wants only 10,000 refugees?” Luntz asked.
“What’s in his heart?” asked one participant.
“He’d let as many in as possible,” insisted another.
“It happens again and again,” said Jeff Scrima, 38, who moved to the D.C. area after serving as mayor of Waukesha, Wis. “The State Department says one thing, Obama says something else, and they change the policy to match him.”
And what exactly about this is illogical? The President has a direct history of getting a law passed with a set of limitations and promises and then "interpreting" it to ignore the limitations and promises. It's the most defining characteristic of his executive authority.
You seem awfully willing to dismiss legitimate disagreements based on logical interpretations of the otherside's lies, just because they let you deride people who disagree with you.
They believe Trump's lies when presented with the facts, and support him more afterward. This is pretty consistent with the earlier study cited.
You didn't show they believed lies, you didn't show they started with misinformation and were presented with verifiably true contrary information (opinions are not facts), nor did you show anything but a hopeless confounded text of negative campaign commericals for "evidence." Or in other words, you failed to even remotely apply the limited rigor the original study used.