Popular Opinion on Iraq War - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 02-20-2007, 06:00 PM

One of the major Democratic criticisms of the President these days is his continued committment to what a lot of people believe to be an unwinnable war in Iraq. It has been suggested in other threads that the troop surge, as well as the more general decision not to disengage, are politically risky moves for Republican lawmakers.

Today, I found a public opinion poll that challenges some of these assumptions. While those surveyed had little kind to say about the President in general, their opinions on the Iraq War had a decidedly different tone:

Link

Quote:

Originally Posted by Outside the Beltway

Public Opinion Strategies* has released a survey [PDF file here] of likely voters’ attitudes toward the Iraq War that finds that most voters think the country is going in the wrong direction (67%) and President Bush is doing a poor job (60%), and that Iraq will never be a stable democracy (60%). No real surprises there, right?

Here are some pretty interesting numbers, though, given those and other indications** that the survey isn’t biased toward President Bush:

* 57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”
* 57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
* 50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal
* 56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
* 53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

I’m not quite sure what to make of these numbers, to be honest. Part of it is the expected “rally ’round the flag effect,” I suppose, although that should redound to Bush’s benefit. We know that the opposite is true: the mess in Iraq is largely responsible for driving down his job approval.

Clearly, though, a strong majority of Americans think this war is essential despite thinking it unwinnable and are uncomfortable with too much criticism of a wartime commander-in-chief even though they themselves oppose the war in question.

The general opinion on my uber-liberal college campus is that Bush and his specifically hired Generals are the only ones who oppose a swift withdrawal from Iraq. It is reassuring, I think, that a slim majority of Americans still understand the importance of our continuing mission in Iraq, in spite of the laundry list of errors, blunders, and distortions made by the Bush administration in relation to the war.

So: while it is clearly not the case that public opinion should be used to determine wartime strategic decisions, does the committment of ordinary Americans to finishing our mission in Iraq change your perspective on either the troop surge or the decision to not withdraw?

Willravel · 02-20-2007, 06:13 PM

Are you familiar with Public Opinion Strategies? It's a Republican polling firm.

Edit: Sorry, upon rereading my post it's not enough.

I think that we should all take it upon ourselves as voting citizens to research the facts surrounding the invasion, war, and now civil wars. Even as laypeople, we should do our best to weigh the pros and cons and make an informed decision about our stance on the war. War knows no political party. War knows no race, gender, or creed. It must be decided with absolute certainty that it is a last resort and is completely necessary. After looking over the facts, I believe that we cannot win and that our continues presence there will cause more terrorist attacks like Madrid and London. For our sakes and for the sakes of our allies, we should withdraw.

DaveOrion · 02-20-2007, 06:15 PM

Polls are like assholes, every party has one.

Bill O'Rights · 02-20-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

Polls are like assholes, every party has one.

One? What the hell party do you belong to, that has one asshole? I belong to the Libertarian Party, and believe me...we gots lots of assholes.

Frankly, I've never heard of Public Opinion Strategies. Willravel may be right, or he may be full of excrement. That would rest soley on your leanings.
But, I rarely trust opinion polls.

Willravel · 02-20-2007, 07:42 PM

I googled them and found the official website: http://www.pos.org/

The following is from the main page:

Quote:

The Republican polling firm of Public Opinion Strategies (POS) polled for the only freshman Republican U.S. Senator, one new Governor, and five new members of Congress. Overall, the firm polled for four winning U.S. Senate races, six winning GOP Governors, at least 46 Members of Congress, as well as numerous downticket statewide and legislative winners.

According to themselves, they are Republican.

Elphaba · 02-20-2007, 08:04 PM

The outcome of the poll, no matter who is responsible for it, did produce some interesting contradictions.

Quote:

snip/ most voters think the country is going in the wrong direction (67%) and President Bush is doing a poor job (60%), and that Iraq will never be a stable democracy (60%).

Without question, these are substantive numbers that are critical of Bush and the direction that he has taken in Iraq. But, the following outcomes on more specific questions seems to speak otherwise.

Quote:

* 57% believe “The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.”
* 57% “support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
* 50% want our troops should stay and “do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country” while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal
* 56% believe “Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.”
* 53% believe “The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.”

This contradiction in internal consistancy might be due to any number of factors. Politico, are you able to obtain the research protocols used in this poll? I am particularly interested in how the population was sampled.

Thanks...

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 08:48 PM

The respondents are overwhelmingly white (81%), older (72% are 45 or older), self-identified more conservative (38%) than liberal (21%) who voted for Bush over Kerry 49%-42% (a wider margin then the election results) and some of the questions are skewed by most reasonable survey standards. (survey - pdf)

That being said, it is one survey among many, and from a partisan source.

I dont see how the conclusions of one survey signifies "a committment of ordinary Americans to finishing our mission in Iraq" (btw, respondents also overwhelming (63%) support direct talks with Iran)any more than other surveys that suggest most Americans dont support the surge but are open to other options to "finish the mission" and still others where a majority say its time to brng the troops home.

I would encourage people who are interested in surveys on Iraq to look at more than one for a broader "snapshot of opinions" for what they are worth.

Polling Report has the frequent surveys by AP, USA Today/Gallup, CBS News, Pew Research Center,

politicophile · 02-20-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

This contradiction in internal consistancy might be due to any number of factors. Politico, are you able to obtain the research protocols used in this poll? I am particularly interested in how the population was sampled.

I don't have a whole lot more information than I provided. The actual questionaire is viewable here. But pretty much all it says is that the sample was of 800 likely voters. As you can see from the polling information on RealClearPolitics, it looks like the sample for POS was representative in terms of their favorable/unfavorable presidential numbers. And again, the sample seems representative of the RealClearPolitics numbers on whether the country is heading in the right/wrong direction.

It's all well and good to be skeptical of poll information, but I see no particular reason to doubt these findings. If these likely voters are closely aligned with the public at large on issues like presidential approval and right/wrong national direction, what reasons would we have for thinking that their opinions on more specific war policy issues would be non-representative?

Elphaba · 02-20-2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

It's all well and good to be skeptical of poll information, but I see no particular reason to doubt these findings. If these likely voters are closely aligned with the public at large on issues like presidential approval and right/wrong national direction, what reasons would we have for thinking that their opinions on more specific war policy issues would be non-representative?

Exactly the question I have expressed. Thank you for the link to the actual questions. Perhaps that will explain how the general does not agree with the specific.

By-the-by...welcome back.

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

what reasons would we have for thinking that their opinions on more specific war policy issues would be non-representative?

By the nature and wording of the questions (one quick example ofa notoriously bad polling technique - the use of either/or questions (with only extreme choices) on a complex issue - like #5 "which is more harmful to America's reputation" - pull our troops out immediately or leave the troops in Iraq as long as it takes -- rather than offering a mulitple choice with other options that may very well represent the real majority opinion (like announcing a date to begin a slow draw down of troops over time while simlutaneously engaging in more aggressive political and diplomatic solutions).

Another example of question bias: When a poll has a question like #7 "The Dems have gone too far, too fast, to press the President to withdraw the troops"......shouldnt there also be a #7a (for balance) "The Repubs have not gone far enough to provide oversight and hold the President accountable to strict measures of progress"?

From my recollections of a political polling class twenty years ago, the designer of this survey would have failed miserable on objectivity

DaveOrion · 02-20-2007, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

One? What the hell party do you belong to, that has one asshole? I belong to the Libertarian Party, and believe me...we gots lots of assholes.

Frankly, I've never heard of Public Opinion Strategies. Willravel may be right, or he may be full of excrement. That would rest soley on your leanings.
But, I rarely trust opinion polls.

I've heard that about Libertarians..........

scout · 02-21-2007, 02:52 AM

Perhaps the Democratic Party has misread why so many people voted for them last election. Maybe people was tired of the assault on our civil liberties, which the Democrats promised to fix but so far we have heard nothing about repealing any piece or part of the Patriot Act. There was several other things before the election they promised to do something about in the first 100 days but suddenly after the election and before they took office they decided it might be a bit much, so once again we the people have had beau coup smoke blown up our asses. People want change but I don't think withdrawing the troops is as important and at the front of the majority mindset as they {the Democratic Party} want us to think. I think they have jumped on this bandwagon because they believe this is where they can hurt the President the most, forget all the other things they promised. It's beginning to get pretty disgusting.

The Libertarian Party looks like it will have my vote next election as it appears the Democrats don't have the gonads to take Washington away from the big money and give it back to the people. Someone has go to stop this madness.

ratbastid · 02-21-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

It's all well and good to be skeptical of poll information, but I see no particular reason to doubt these findings.

Of course you don't; you agree with them. The rest of your post is just justification.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is "the importance of our continuing mission in Iraq"? Do you honestly think that fighting a losing war is making the US general public safer? I've never seen the logic of that, and I still don't. How does creating the next generation of extremist terrorists make us safer? "Fight them there so we don't fight them here" only works against an enemy with central command and control, not an independent-cell-based operation like Al Qaida. It's a great talking point, but that's about it.

Charlatan · 02-21-2007, 06:36 AM

I don't think I really care what the majority of people think. If I think something is wrong, I think it's wrong. I might give it some more thought if I see that there are more people who disagree with me (i.e. I will double check that I have thought about something clearly) but the popularity of a position or a thing, doesn't really make any difference to me.

I think parties, should poll but they should do it for their own needs. Publishing the polls is just a way of spinning things and it adds more confusion rather than clarity to the mix.

fresnelly · 02-21-2007, 07:23 AM

I would hardly call 50%-57% a "strong majority of Americans", especially given the poll's bias.

Bill O'Rights · 02-21-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fresnelly

I would hardly call 50%-57% a "strong majority of Americans", especially given the poll's bias.

Good point. If you take the bias into consideration, those numbers are actually kind of dismal.

roachboy · 02-21-2007, 07:58 AM

problems noted above aside, let's think about these questions and numbers..

Quote:

* 57% believe ?The Iraq War is a key part of the global war on terrorism.?
* 57% ?support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
* 50% want our troops should stay and ?do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country? while only 17% favor immediate withdrawal
* 56% believe ?Even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.?
* 53% believe ?The Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw the troops from Iraq.?

in the excerpted results, the first question is the key one because it establishes the logic from which all the other responses follow. linking the iraq adventure to the "war on terror" defines the stakes. the strange thing about it is that it does not appear in this position in the poll results themselves--if you look at the .pdf and check out question 4, when folk are asked directly about the "meaning" of the iraq aventure, 32% responded that the americans should set a strict timetable for withdrawal no matter the situation in iraq, and only 27% agreed with a longer version of what is excerpted as the major premise of the list of results.

in the .pdf, it seems that the order and wording of questions 6-15 is much more determinant of the outcomes---i think the poll measures the effects of its own design as much or more as anything else-----this because the results for question 10 (which is the question bit for press release purposes and positioned first in the list of results) are so different from those to question 4.
the press release figure also aggregates "strongly agree" and "somewhat agree" responses to a question that is not designed to allow for questions about the question itself (number 4 is more open in this respect)...so even on its own terms, the way the poll results are presented is odd, and the sequence misleading (to my mind anyway) so the meaning of these results seems ambiguous at best.

the logic of questions 5 through 15 is built entirely around administration claims concerning iraq and are geared to getting respondents to derive political consequences from administration premises. but again, the questions are designed as they are--which is simply a choice for poll design, neither entirely right or wrong in itself--but it certainly has effects---this section of the poll seems to me particularly badly designed, and the results are a function of that bad design.

which surprised me because i started looking at the poll results after i started thinking about what is bit for the op--i wasn't surprised by these results in particular because i took the first question as preceding the others in the poll and thought that you could work out from that why the results were as they were--as reflecting anxiety about the consequences of making (still more) bad choices on/around/about iraq--and i assumed that at least some anxiety about what is presently going on would be abroad in the land and that a poll could catch fluctuations in relation to various questions that reflected that anxiety if it was designed well. so i would have found nothing surprising in the results as they appear in the press release, but was curious...

but that's not how the poll worked, and it is not what the results say.
so the presentation of the data is problematic.

another strange bit of infotainment comes in the demographic section of the poll results: the self-characterization question---look for yourself--but i find it strange the way in which the pollsters chose to group the 39% of respondents who described themselves as "moderates" as separate from the 39% conservative, and with the 21% of respondents who characterized themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal"---it seems to me that the profile of respondents should look differently.
say split the moderate number on half, attribute half to the conservatives half to the liberals.
if you group conservatives and moderates by self-definition, you get 78% conservative/moderate and 21% liberal.
each choice makes the results look differently, doesn't it?

a very odd poll, then.

aceventura3 · 02-21-2007, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

Polls are like assholes, every party has one.

Where is the link to the Democratic Party poll contradicting the poll in the OP?

Willravel · 02-21-2007, 08:34 AM

I wonder if the Republican party is able to take results like this with a grain of salt. One point of recent politics I keep coming back to is the swallowing your own bullshit idea. You taint the poll results, then you use the poll results to prove your point so much you think they're true. One faction messes with poll results, then another reads them and takes them as gospel. Is that why the president is so tospey turvey about the whole thing? Could it just be that the excrement that his party leaves around is the only thing for him to feed on, so he just ends up repeating excrement?

That's what happens when you lie. When you screw with poll results, you screw with reality, and that could very well be why 3000 American soldiers had to die.

Bill O'Rights · 02-21-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Could it just be that the excrement that his party leaves around is the only thing for him to feed on

That, although not in those terms, is what I've been saying for years. I believe that Bush has himself heavily insulated by yes men, that tell him what he wants to hear. To the degree that even his motorcade routes are lined only with flag waving supporters. The dissenters are kept at a respectable distance. Is it any wonder that he thinks things are so great? The only indication that he's had otherwise is the '06 election results. Hard to keep that information from him.

DaveOrion · 02-21-2007, 01:29 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words........

ratbastid · 02-21-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Where is the link to the Democratic Party poll contradicting the poll in the OP?

There's no need for one. Until this piece of tripe becomes an official talking point, there's nothing to rebut. Walk down the street and talk to people, you'll get evidence contradicting this poll.

host · 02-21-2007, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

.......The general opinion on my uber-liberal college campus is that Bush and his specifically hired Generals are the only ones who oppose a swift withdrawal from Iraq. It is reassuring, I think, that a slim majority of Americans still understand the importance of our continuing mission in Iraq, in spite of the laundry list of errors, blunders, and distortions made by the Bush administration in relation to the war.

So: while it is clearly not the case that public opinion should be used to determine wartime strategic decisions, does the committment of ordinary Americans to finishing our mission in Iraq change your perspective on either the troop surge or the decision to not withdraw?

Here is a republican pollster who agrees with the points that roachboy made earlier about the poll featured in the OP:

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/hor...ollster_sa.php

.....Some liberal bloggers have already started to debunk the poll -- don't miss Steve Benen's skillful skewering of the survey right here.

But guess what: I've just asked another Republican pollster who says he originally supported the war -- let me repeat that, a Republican pollster who says he supported the war. -- to analyze the poll. His take? He basically says the poll's a crock. The pollster, David Johnson, the CEO of the GOP firm <a href="http://www.strategicvision.biz/index.html">Strategic Vision</a>, tells me that some of the key questions were leading and designed to elicit the answers they got. "This poll is not the quality we've come to expect from national polling firms," Johnson tells me.........

politicophile, I'll make this short & sweet....you might not have been around here for my Feb. 2 post on Duncan Hunter, linked here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...er#post2189949

...or for my in depth "coverage" of the secretive CNP. a melding of politically motivated and aggressive, wealthy conservatives and religious fundamentalists, newly relevant because of these two items:

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/p...25-hunter.html
Hunter on campaign swing through Florida

SIGNONSANDIEGO NEWS SERVICES

3:25 a.m. February 3, 2007

SAN DIEGO – Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, is scheduled to meet with Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., the general chairman of the Republican National Committee, Saturday in Orlando as he continues a four-day swing through Florida in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Hunter is also scheduled to attend a cookout in the Panhandle town of Lamont, near Tallahassee.

“We've invited him because we think he would be a remarkable presidential candidate and we want to introduce him to those people who can make a difference and get behind him,” former Florida state Rep. Randy Johnson, one of the cookout's hosts, told City News Service.

To Johnson, Hunter is not “someone everyone's talking about, but he's one of those guys that when people get to know and understand his role and how remarkable an asset he's been to the president of the United States with respect to giving him good advice, sometimes advice he might not like to hear,” they'll support.

“History has proven Duncan Hunter right on a myriad of issues,” said Johnson, a former Navy pilot who described himself as a “big fan” of Hunter.

Hunter began his trip to Florida Thursday by giving a speech in Jacksonville Thursday and attending receptions with area business leaders and veterans. <h3>Hunter spoke to a meeting of the Board of Governors of the Council for National Policy in Amelia Island yesterday</h3>, again on the topic of <b>“Peace Through Strength,”</b> echoing a phrase and concept made popular by former President Ronald Reagan.

<b>Hunter has based his campaign on support for a strong military and the war in Iraq, including President Bush's call to add more than 21,000 troops;</b> opposition to illegal immigration and cracking down on nations, such as China, that are hurting American manufacturing with unfair trade policies......

Quote:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=2&gl=us

THE FRAGILITY OF ISLAMOFASCISM
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 01 February 2007

[This is the text of a speech I am giving to the Council for National Policy at Amelia Island, Florida, Friday, February 2.]

It has been my good fortune to experience a great deal of the world and get to know people from close to 200 countries. There is a common humanity shared by most folks around the globe. The fact that there has never been a war between two genuine democracies clearly shows that most people prefer peace to war, and simply want a decent life for their families and children.

Yet as we all know, history is full of examples of people going berserk, falling victim to some frenzied hysteria. It can be a frenzy of paranoia, such as the lunacy we are currently experiencing over "global warming." It can be a frenzy of greed, like the dotcom bubble or the Tulip Craze.

The worst are frenzies of criminal insanity, like the Gulag Communism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Hitler's Germany, or the barbaric imperialism of Tojo's Japan.

An entire people like the Germans or Japanese can go criminally, murderously nuts. Such mass criminality has to be ended by whatever means necessary. But once the frenzy is over, the people crazed by it can become normal human beings again.

<h3>Just such a mass criminal insanity has today taken over the minds of a substantial fraction of the world's Moslems.</h3> Today, we're going to talk about how to put an end to it.
Last Updated ( Friday, 02 February 2007 )
Register to read more...

....I continue to be confident that being on the opposite side of folks who support the surge and Bushwar in Iraq, and in the GWOT is the right political path for me. I expect to see Duncan Hunter indicted on corruption charges related to Pentagon procurement, before I see him as a credible GOP presidential candidate. Remember all of the negative publicity that Howard Dean attracted....because he made "funny noises"? What do you suppose Mel Martinez looks like, and the republican national party, for that matter....with it's chairman....a US senator, associating with Hunter, fresh from his Rendezvous with "the Council" on Amelia Island......

....maybe this contributes to more understanding of why we are so different in our core beliefs:

Quote:

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...222-000001.xml
The Ideological Animal
We think our political stance is the product of reason, but we're easily manipulated and surprisingly malleable. Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death. Call it the 9/11 effect.

........In 2005, she wrote a column called "The Making of a 9/11 Republican." Over the year that followed, she received thousands of e-mails from people who'd had similar experiences. There were so many of them that she decided to form a group. And so the 911 Neocons were born.

We tend to believe our political views have evolved by a process of rational thought, as we consider arguments, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. But the truth is more complicated. Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we're not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear. How the United States should confront the threat of terrorism remains a subject of endless political debate. But Americans' response to threats of attack is now more clear-cut than ever. The fear of death alone is surprisingly effective in shaping our political decisions—more powerful, often, than thought itself..........

http://psychologytoday.com/articles/...-000001&page=2

........People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." <h3>Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.
</h3>
Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."

Jost's meta-analysis sparked furious controversy. The House Republican Study Committee complained that the study's authors had received federal funds. George Will satirized it in his Washington Post column, and The National Review called it the "Conservatives Are Crazy" study. Jost and his colleagues point to the study's rigorous methodology. The study used political orientation as a dependent variable, meaning that where subjects fall on the political scale is computed from their own answers about whether they're liberal or conservative. <b>Psychologists then compare factors such as fear of death and openness to new experiences, and seek statistically significant correlations. The findings are quintessentially empirical and difficult to dismiss as false.</b>

Yet critics retort that the research draws negative conclusions about conservatives while the researchers themselves are liberal. And it's true that over the decades, a disproportionate amount of the research has focused on figuring out what's behind conservative behavior. Right shift is likewise more studied than left shift, largely because most of that research has been since 9/11, and aimed at trying to explain the conservative conversions of people like Cinnamon Stillwell..........

You can have your "surge", and your "war president".....but I'm not convinced that any of the Bush/Cheney "message of fear", is for any purpose higher than shifting more power away from the people and other government branches, to the executive.

I'm not "scared". I see no "war on terror" in Iraq.....only the concern that Bush has made Iran "the winner". When I was 5....in kindergarten and in 1st grade....we were taken to the basement of our school for "duck n' cover" drills. Those late 50's through early 60's, cold war tensions, were about the real possibility of nuclear missle exchange. `<b>With the exception of the week of the Oct. '62 Cuban missle crisis, when I was in the 5th grade, I don't remember feeling scared....and I sure don't feel that way now....except of Bush and Cheney......</b>

aceventura3 · 02-22-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

There's no need for one. Until this piece of tripe becomes an official talking point, there's nothing to rebut. Walk down the street and talk to people, you'll get evidence contradicting this poll.

I talked to about 10 people in a meeting I attended yesterday. The reuslts were split evenly, very similar to the poll.

Now think about Congress - how do you think they are split on the poll questions? If you say what I think you are going to say - then why in the hell aren't they acting on what they think?

ratbastid · 02-22-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I talked to about 10 people in a meeting I attended yesterday. The reuslts were split evenly, very similar to the poll.

Okay, well, you caught me talking a little tongue in cheek. Obviously that's anecdotal evidence, and the same biases that have been demonstrated in the poll may have been at play there. My experience in talking with people around me certainly ISN'T that there's any lack of unity on being against the war. So it's my anecdote against yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Now think about Congress - how do you think they are split on the poll questions? If you say what I think you are going to say - then why in the hell aren't they acting on what they think?

Are you really confused by that? Or are you trying to make a point of some sort? Because if you're really confused, I can break it down for you in terms of political reality. But if you're trying to make a point, you'll just say "aha" if I do that.

roachboy · 02-22-2007, 02:52 PM

ace: when you asked the folk at your meeting yesterday for their opinions about the iraq war, did you also ask them to characterize themselves politically? did you keep track of the responses? without that, what makes you think that this is a representative group? and representative of what? did you publish the results of your poll somewhere?
did you make a press release in which you basically distorted the results that you did obtain?

just wondering.

or maybe what is really important about a poll is that its results "feel right" to you--not its design, not its methodology, not whether the press version of the results are the same in any meaningful way as the poll results...

some thursday nights find me in a publick house with friends enjoying a fine malt beverage or 6. maybe tonight, if i go, i'll conduct my own "poll" and post the "results" here. it'll be just like your canvassing your meeting.

the trick is that it is not the case that the results you obtained from whomever your sample was are not interesting--they just dont operate with ANY of the same methods or implications of even a badly designed poll. and because that is the case, you really cannot use that information to legitimate the poll--particularly when the problems with it have already been pointed out in detail. if you want to defend the poll, defend its methodology, defend how it groups respondents, defend the way it is distorted in the press release.

Astrocloud · 02-23-2007, 06:19 PM

Reminds me of the Silent Majority. I would chuckle if it wasn't so overtly evil.

ratbastid · 02-24-2007, 05:11 AM

I heard on NPR yesterday about a poll done in seven Southeastern states (they only mentioned Florida) that showed something like 64% opposition to the Iraq war. That's more in keeping with my informal "sense" of things.

Rekna · 02-24-2007, 10:20 AM

Please read the polls at the following link: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

There are many different polls being tracked there from different pollsters. There are some very interesting results in all the polls along with trends. I would post them here but there are too many polls and it would clutter up the forum.

02-20-2007, 06:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Are you familiar with Public Opinion Strategies? It's a Republican polling firm. Edit: Sorry, upon rereading my post it's not enough. I think that we should all take it upon ourselves as voting citizens to research the facts surrounding the invasion, war, and now civil wars. Even as laypeople, we should do our best to weigh the pros and cons and make an informed decision about our stance on the war. War knows no political party. War knows no race, gender, or creed. It must be decided with absolute certainty that it is a last resort and is completely necessary. After looking over the facts, I believe that we cannot win and that our continues presence there will cause more terrorist attacks like Madrid and London. For our sakes and for the sakes of our allies, we should withdraw. Last edited by Willravel; 02-20-2007 at 06:31 PM..

02-20-2007, 06:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	Polls are like assholes, every party has one. __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

02-20-2007, 08:48 PM	#7 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The respondents are overwhelmingly white (81%), older (72% are 45 or older), self-identified more conservative (38%) than liberal (21%) who voted for Bush over Kerry 49%-42% (a wider margin then the election results) and some of the questions are skewed by most reasonable survey standards. (survey - pdf) That being said, it is one survey among many, and from a partisan source. I dont see how the conclusions of one survey signifies "a committment of ordinary Americans to finishing our mission in Iraq" (btw, respondents also overwhelming (63%) support direct talks with Iran)any more than other surveys that suggest most Americans dont support the surge but are open to other options to "finish the mission" and still others where a majority say its time to brng the troops home. I would encourage people who are interested in surveys on Iraq to look at more than one for a broader "snapshot of opinions" for what they are worth. Polling Report has the frequent surveys by AP, USA Today/Gallup, CBS News, Pew Research Center, __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-20-2007 at 09:34 PM..

02-21-2007, 06:36 AM	#14 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't think I really care what the majority of people think. If I think something is wrong, I think it's wrong. I might give it some more thought if I see that there are more people who disagree with me (i.e. I will double check that I have thought about something clearly) but the popularity of a position or a thing, doesn't really make any difference to me. I think parties, should poll but they should do it for their own needs. Publishing the polls is just a way of spinning things and it adds more confusion rather than clarity to the mix. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-21-2007, 07:23 AM	#15 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	I would hardly call 50%-57% a "strong majority of Americans", especially given the poll's bias. __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

02-21-2007, 02:52 AM	#12 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Perhaps the Democratic Party has misread why so many people voted for them last election. Maybe people was tired of the assault on our civil liberties, which the Democrats promised to fix but so far we have heard nothing about repealing any piece or part of the Patriot Act. There was several other things before the election they promised to do something about in the first 100 days but suddenly after the election and before they took office they decided it might be a bit much, so once again we the people have had beau coup smoke blown up our asses. People want change but I don't think withdrawing the troops is as important and at the front of the majority mindset as they {the Democratic Party} want us to think. I think they have jumped on this bandwagon because they believe this is where they can hurt the President the most, forget all the other things they promised. It's beginning to get pretty disgusting. The Libertarian Party looks like it will have my vote next election as it appears the Democrats don't have the gonads to take Washington away from the big money and give it back to the people. Someone has go to stop this madness.

02-21-2007, 08:34 AM	#19 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I wonder if the Republican party is able to take results like this with a grain of salt. One point of recent politics I keep coming back to is the swallowing your own bullshit idea. You taint the poll results, then you use the poll results to prove your point so much you think they're true. One faction messes with poll results, then another reads them and takes them as gospel. Is that why the president is so tospey turvey about the whole thing? Could it just be that the excrement that his party leaves around is the only thing for him to feed on, so he just ends up repeating excrement? That's what happens when you lie. When you screw with poll results, you screw with reality, and that could very well be why 3000 American soldiers had to die.

02-21-2007, 01:29 PM	#21 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	A picture is worth a thousand words........ __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

02-22-2007, 02:52 PM	#26 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace: when you asked the folk at your meeting yesterday for their opinions about the iraq war, did you also ask them to characterize themselves politically? did you keep track of the responses? without that, what makes you think that this is a representative group? and representative of what? did you publish the results of your poll somewhere? did you make a press release in which you basically distorted the results that you did obtain? just wondering. or maybe what is really important about a poll is that its results "feel right" to you--not its design, not its methodology, not whether the press version of the results are the same in any meaningful way as the poll results... some thursday nights find me in a publick house with friends enjoying a fine malt beverage or 6. maybe tonight, if i go, i'll conduct my own "poll" and post the "results" here. it'll be just like your canvassing your meeting. the trick is that it is not the case that the results you obtained from whomever your sample was are not interesting--they just dont operate with ANY of the same methods or implications of even a badly designed poll. and because that is the case, you really cannot use that information to legitimate the poll--particularly when the problems with it have already been pointed out in detail. if you want to defend the poll, defend its methodology, defend how it groups respondents, defend the way it is distorted in the press release. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-23-2007, 06:19 PM	#27 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Reminds me of the Silent Majority. I would chuckle if it wasn't so overtly evil.

02-24-2007, 05:11 AM	#28 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	I heard on NPR yesterday about a poll done in seven Southeastern states (they only mentioned Florida) that showed something like 64% opposition to the Iraq war. That's more in keeping with my informal "sense" of things.

02-24-2007, 10:20 AM	#29 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Please read the polls at the following link: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm There are many different polls being tracked there from different pollsters. There are some very interesting results in all the polls along with trends. I would post them here but there are too many polls and it would clutter up the forum.