Iraqi Elections: Poll
 

not to take anything away from rekna's iraqi elections thread... but i thought it would be interesting to see the consensus among tfp'ers about how well the mechanics of the election would function this sunday. please choose the option that best fits your expectations. i realize that the level of violence is not exactly measured objectively and that options 3 & 6 aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... just take a guess.

I would say over 40% turnout, but not necessarily widespread violence. A car bomb here, a car bomb there, but not across the entire country and simultaneously.

Unless the insurgents have planned something special, but I don't see it happening because it probably already would have.

I still say that all this will blow up in dubya face. Mabye then he'll come to realize the mess he made and that he can't shove our version of freedom down the worlds throat. I still can't believe he had the balls to say in his speech that he would spread freedom around the world with that forceful, cowboy tone of his. I'm pretty pissed about it and I'm not even a foreigner!

He'll still have no idea as to how to clean up this mess. Iraq will become a haven for terrorists and it will be dubya's fault. Let's see him blame that on Clinton.

I think over 40% turnout is reasonable. Over 60%, maybe not. I think that terrorist who have been threatening to kill anyone who votes will sure try to do so, but our security'll be out in full force. It'll be interesting to see what happens. *Hopefully* someone will get elected that won't get assassinated immediately and who can do something to pull Iraq together. I don't know if such a candidate exists, however.

That is going to sway me to your side anyday. Please be reasonable about this. Cause I will get upset and start saying the same type of things. Not bashing, cause I can get angry and start to do the same thing

But, I say 40 with the volience. I think that the car bombs and maybe an attempt on the elects life. BE it if its wide spread or not, I didn't know how much defined lil and widespread. Is the volience widespread now cause if thats the def. then thats what i say it will be, about the same.

Frankly, I'm not trying to sway you to "my" side because in the end, nothing I say will accomplish that so it's pointless. I'm being totally reasonable. Those who are still living in a dream world thinking this is all going to go as smooth as glass are not. Am I lying about what I said? Look at the facts that are stated. This is in fact, a very large mess, nobody knows how to clean it up and they actually want more of the same. Are those facts false? You mean to tell me that you didn't get that "the world better do what I want or they can fuck off" vibe from that speech?

I still say the Iraqi "president" has a week to live before one of the insurgents get to him and his car blows up. There's just no type of security over there that could prevent something like that from happening,

Id say probably 40% turnout but with violence - I just don't see violence being halted. Not to mention that if Sunnis decide not to vote, we can have one hell of a problem at hand.

I knew this wasnt going to be smooth. No one said that this was going to be easy. Has any war ever gone smooth as glass, no it hasn't. And you know it 's not going to be smooth when the bickering (SP?) started before the war. All that shows is that those who don't like Bush are going to tear down everything he does if it is not perfect, and goes "smooth as glass" So, I do not think that you are being reasonable by bashing "Dubya" (as you put it). He is the Prez, I wish people could show respect.

Why not bring up the faults with the Iragi election to be and what is going on over there, than emotionally bashing the prez.
And you can help people see your side of the argument if it has more than an overly biased tone to it, but has more facts and seems less emotional. I have seen my veiws sway since I have started veiwing these boards, due to the reasonable arguments. You can always make reasonable people rethink a stance.

There is going to be close to a 30% turnout but I think it is pretty evident from the actions of the insurgents that they are going to be at least trying to use violence as a deterant. Hopefully everything goes as well as it could but I doubt it, know matter how many securtiy forces they have guarding the polling stations.

It will probably go better than most expect. Probably a little less turnout than we get in the U.S. around 30-40% or so. Heck we can't even get 50% to vote here sometimes. I assume the military and police have done their homework and will keep the violence down somewhat.

it seems really difficult to say much coherent at this point about the elections.
i do not feel as though i can speculate about turnout levels, etc.
i do wonder about the question of legitimacy--but that too will play itself out on the ground.
there are to be something on the order of a hundred candidates on the ballot--but the campign is truncated by fear of violence, so that part is odd.

what strikes me as really odd is that in addition to the 100 or so candidates, the kurdish region is being offered a national referendum. i suspect this is payback for the support lent the invasion. and here i thought the looting of the iraqi museum was enough. silly me. i wonder what the implications regionally will be if this referendum in favor of national autonomy passes--i imagine the turks will be double-plus unpleased with it. i also wonder what the relation will be between this measure, if it passes, and the "transitional government"

trying to seperate views of this ritual from my general opposition to the war is not easy. this is the best i have managed so far.

There will be low turnout, boycotts, violence, widespread fraud, and a speech full of meaningless but glittering generalities by Bush.

I heard an Iraqi couple on NPR today, who said they were voting at different places because that way it's unlikely that both of them would die, and at least one of them would survive to take care of their kids.

If I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't bother to vote. Think of it rationally: the probability that you would be killed is about a million times greater than the probability that your vote would make any difference whatsoever.

Read my post again.

Hardknock I like how you say we are shoving our democracy down someone's throats, when the country is being terrorized by a fraction of it's total population trying to stop the vote.

I do expect a high turnout and rather low violence but I'm really in no position to know.

I hope for the best for the Iraqi people - this is a pivotal historic moment for them.

I too am hoping for the best... I don't expect much immediate change from this election but trust that it is a step in the right direction, despite the path taken to take these steps.

Low turnout with plenty of bloodshed. The Iraqi fighters have already bombed many places in which the pollings were to take place. It's simply too early for an election considering the widespread violence that has yet to be stopped. It is an unfair election when voters must either risk their lives or sit home and hope for the best.

i am honestly hoping for a moderate/higher turnout and low violence, but i'm expecting low turnout/low violence. I think a lot of people will simply not vote for a myriad of reasons, but i also feel that the security forces (US and Iraq's) will do a superb job of keeping violence at a minimum.

at any rate, as jaded as i am about the whole iraq situation, i do sincerely hope for a positive outcome...

Who can blame them? If a foreign force invaded America we'd fight them off the same way they're doing us. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since its pretty much treason nowadays to disagree with Lord Bush, you can condemn me all you want. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. In their eyes, we're the terrorists. Does anyone ever think of it that way? Or are we just locked in our "superior American mindset" and we don't think about what the rest of the world wants or how they feel about us? It's the American way or the highway. Honestly, I don't think we have a clue as to what's really going on over there. We just watch the 3 minute clips on CNN every hour and accept it as honest truth.

ok... but if you're going to take the stance that bush is primarily to blame for the things that go wrong, you must give him full credit for the things that go right. we'll see how much of that actually goes around.

I'm game. Name one thing that has gone right in the last four years that all citizens can benefit from.

I think you have no clue. A few from the few negative things that is portrayed daily, by people like you, who want us to fail in Iraq.

Is it a wonder how less then 1% of the Iraqi population are involved with this insurgency? Isn't it weird that when you further analyze that number it get's smaller and smaller because it turns out many of this glourious minute men freedom fighters aren't even from Iraq? Also have you noticed how the "insurgency" is largely perpetuated by ex baathists and Saddam loyalists, mainly in the Sunni Triangle? Oh wait sorry that must be American propaganda. Isn't it weird how they behead civilian workers? Isn't it weird how they suicide bomb Iraqi markets and schools and political offices?... real brave, and boy do they really care about their country men.

I don't like tossing around American hater this or American hater that, but the few posts of yours I have read, I get the distinct feeling that you do hate America, or at the very best you want to see it fail; which would just be peachy for the Iraqi's, and you come off as an apologist for terrorism and sociopaths like Al-Zarqawi.

Interesting how you label someone as an "American-hater" due to his views on the war. His "American-hating" and "negative" post is more realistic than anyone else’s in this thread. I fail to see how not being a blind flag waiving "patriotic" fool makes him anti-American, if anything, he is a true American who does not allow the non-sense propaganda to pollute his mind. It's not called "America-hater", it's called having the ability to think for oneself.

He is correct, do any of you "patriots" ever consider the other side? Do any of you understand the reasoning behind their fighting? Could it be they're fighting because their country was wrongfully invaded? Could it be they're fighting because they had loved ones killed by the Americans? Of course not, they are nothing but sociopath terrorists, right? I said it before and I'll say it again, our perception of terrorism is either completely fucked, or simply biased and racist.

And Mojo, about the “terrorists” beheading “civilian workers”, each and every one of them assisted the enemy (not that I’m justifying it, but it’s not like they just grab random people in the street to behead them as a hobby).

I remember watching videos of women in Afghanistan who litterally did the death rights for EVERY MEMBER of their family the night before the vote because they were sure most of them were going to die. Dont underestimate these people.

Really? like the muslim lady who worked for something like 10 years in Iraq to help get foreign aid to the people? The lady who worked tirelessly for the poor and starving of that country?

Pull Foot A out of Mouth B.

I hope that there is widespread turnout and low violence, but that isn't what I'm anticipating. I heard on the radio today that a lot of Iraqis don't have easy access to a polling place, that it's an all day drive to get to one, and that the Sunnis don't want to vote at all.

what? you said if things don't work in the iraqi election out it'd be Bush's fault and i responded that if it's Bush's fault if they go wrong then they should probably be to his credit if they go well. since the election hasn't even been held yet... you should probably wait till sometime next year for a decent answer to that question.

also, it's folly to think of things that go right only in terms of EVERYONE benefiting.

Should have been more specific. I meant US citizens.

Again, if this noble insurgency compromised any significant part of the population, more then 1%, I would consider it. But guess what Iraqi's are better off now, and I could care less then sunni baathist loyalists and foreign infiltrators don't like an American presence. They employ cowardice tactics and they are only making things worse for themselves and their fellow country men.

Nothing is worse than betrayal of your country by assisting and cooperating with foreign invaders that illegally invaded your country. This is what the 1% understands, whereas the rest are mere puppets of the Americans.

I don't support either side’s fighters, but I can at least understand the "insurgents" retaliation. You may call them cowards, but the Americans use cowardice tactics as well.

How about the betrayal of supporting a regiem that for 30 years have tortured, maimed, raped, killed, massacred, and done every bad thing in the book to your own country. That seems a lot worse of a betrayal than aiding a country that sought to get rid of him, and leave as soon as the fighting cooled down.

Using that logic, why haven't we invaded, N. Korea, Cuba, Iran, or China? They all have dictators that do all the bad things that Saddam did. Since we want to spread freedom all around the world, they should have been invaded by now. Everytime I ask a war supporter this question I never get an answer back. Why is that?

Everytime I hear this I'm reminded of little neighbor kids I used to babysit. There was a kid down the street who bullied all the other kids. One day I caught him beating up the little girl whom I babysit for the day before. I backhanded the bully and he ran off. His mother came to my house and threatened to call the cops on me. When I told her how her son was beating up a defenseless girl she said "well you never stopped him when he was fighting other kids".

So this is our situation. We didnt stop Saddam when he was killing the Kurds or Shi'i. We didnt stop N. Korea as he lets his people cannibalize each other just to survive. We have the power to stop bullies doing bad things. For various reasons we generally dont (namely we're called colonists, imperialists, etc). In two instances in the past 4 years we did it and lifted two large countries from the clutches of bullies. Now ontop of everyone calling us various names we are called by those same people to continue it against half the world in order to prove ourselves worthy of a goal we already proved to fight for, the progression of democracy and the abolishment of evil.

I view doing a little bit of good as infanitely better than sitting idlely by and letting evil men subjegate the good.

Like I said in my last post, everytime I ask this question I never get a decent answer that directly answers the question, always something else that skirts the real issue.

I'm still waiting.

I'd suspect that they're next on the list. It looks like Israel and America are itching to bomb some nuclear factories in Iran. Cuba's not worth our time anymore because Castro's probably going to kick off eventually and then we'll get involved. And I wouldn't put North Korea out of our mind. China's too big of a bite to take quite yet. But they're slowly but surely reforming their nation, at least the economic system in some areas.

that's like telling the runner on first base that he really has no intention of actually scoring a run because... if that's what he really wanted he would've already done so.

and also, people love to talk about war-mongering Bush and how he just loves to arrogantly spread his will by military force... but they don't recognize all the political/diplomatic/economic power being exerted. we ARE spreading freedom, just not through military means (exactly how we did for 12 years before operation iraqi freedom w/oil sanctions). n.korea, cuba, and iran are all severely handicapped by our non-military policies. china is experiencing more change in the last 50 years than they have in the last 1000 because they know they must bend over backwards to meet our brand of capitalism on our terms. things are being done about every example you cited.

you cannot lament U.S.'s use of military power while citing examples where there are obvious political/diplomatic/economic measures in place to bloodlessly achieve the same goals.

I'd say Seaver's response hit the nail on the head.

The results so far: over 60% turnout, with observers calling the election free and fair. Kurds and Shi'its waiting for hours to vote, and Sunni's mostly staying at home, heeding a call to boycot the election (for fear of losing power). There were a few idiots blowing themselves up, but 36 killed isn't a lot compared to the scenarios some news networks predicted. The insurgents threatened to kill lots of people and turn this into a bloodbath, but they failed miserably.

Apparently, the average Iraqi is indeed capable of understanding democracy, and doesn't support the insurgents one bit. Boy, what a surprise that was...

But then again, the people not fighting the "occupation" must be brainwashed fools, cowering before the American-backed puppet-government, right???

(edit: updated the number of deaths. Still low.)

Nice to know the Iraqi election is going pretty well so far.

Thank you. I thought I hit it quite directly if you read my whole post.

Rough estimates, which admittely isn't the most reliable or accurate, coming from CNN.com are 72%. What a wash this election has been!