|
Flawed "Invade Iraq" Poll
In the latest WaPost-ABC poll, the question is asked: The Bush administration says it will move soon to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, by war if necessary, working with countries that are willing to assist, even without the support of the United Nations. Overall, do you support or oppose this policy? Which yields: Support 59% The follow-up question, asked of those who "support" is: Do you support it WITH reservations or WITHOUT reservations? And this yields: Without reservation 58% ABC then sums up the poll with the storyline being: Support without reservation 34% Now, this result is similar the the three-way Gallup poll done last month, which showed about 3 out of 10 Americans are on either end of the spectrum, and the rest in the middle somewhere (for more on this click more). The flaw shows up in the WaPost-ABC polling presentation alongside their follow-up, asked of those that oppose or have reservations: What are your main reservations about the policy? Need the support of the United Nations 18% If you'll notice the only things bolded on this page, you'll notice the slight-of-hand performed by the pollster. How did 18% of those who volunteer that the Bush administration needs the support of the UN wind up pushed into the "59% support" group? The answer's in the loaded front-end 'positive push' of the question. Aside from that spin, what this poll shows is that 37% oppose invading Iraq no matter what; 34% support invading Iraq no matter what; and the rest are in the middle. But it's clear, taking out the Bush-push of the loaded question, that the question of "UN support" tips the majority away from Bush. Without UN support, the majority of 55% oppose invading Iraq. Also, to follow-up on an interesting trend here, the Gallup poll showed those in total opposition growing from 23% in early February to 26% later in the month; and now, this WaPost-ABC poll shows that those totally opposed has reached 37%. Meanwhile, those totally in favor of war has decreased from 39% to 30% and now is at 34%. What this means is that there are more people aligned with Sharpton and Kucinich than with Bush and Limbaugh. How do you think, seeing these numbers, all those compromised Democrats in Congress (led by Gephardt & Lieberman) think about their enabling of Bush now?
It's not a question of handing over US sovereignty to the UN (I can see why Kerry's CM Jordan might think this way, given that's Kerry's voting relationship with Bush on the matter... oh, DeLay thinks this to, nice company). It's a question of being held responsible to the world of nations, as a leader should be; and Bush fails that question (so also does Kerry, in his duplicity).
Jerome Armstrong on Mar 4 @ 10:20 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
This just shows why all the polls are bullshit. You can get a poll to say anything you want if you word it right. And if you don’t like the results, try again until you get what you want. Just like MyDD picking out the numbers he likes to support his left wing views, they are not to be taken serious. Posted by: moe on March 4, 2003 10:38 PMMe and my 55%... I'll take it then. Posted by: JB on March 4, 2003 10:49 PMI'm most interested in the valid name-brand poll results when Bush gives the invasion order. If Bush and Powell "exceed expectations" next week and get the nine Security Council votes, with no vetoes, then there'll be 60+% support for war. After all, it'll have U.N. authorization. Blair will be most happy with those nine votes. However, if there is no resolution, or if it is vetoed by France alone, the war will lack legitimacy. France shouldn't be trashed for a veto-- Bush should have been courting the conservative Chirac all along, but didn't. Without the U.N. security council, Bush's War will be perceived even more as Bush's War. Blair will be in a difficult position. Bush will no doubt invade--what else do you do with 300,000 troops--withdraw? Without the U.N., the mainstream press will definitely do Bush a favor and "lower expectations" about Bush's lone star invasion. If everything goes right with the invasion, Bush could still come out smellin' like a rose. Posted by: Father of Six on March 5, 2003 07:29 AMFather of Six I don't see how Mexico can be convinced. There are important election there this summer, and if Fox capitulates to Bush, he will lose. The guy likes to win, and probably will take his chances with the US, betting that Bush is a one-termer. Angola was easy, less than a billion in bribes. Posted by: JB on March 5, 2003 08:23 AMAlso, Turkey has elections on Sunday, and will not hold a vote on the US until after those elections. I would think that the number one campaign issue is how the candidate would vote on this measure. It's not to the point where you can write off BUsh's chances in Turkey and the UN, but the guy doesn't do very well in convincing democratic countries on going his way; he does much better with dictatorships. Posted by: JB on March 5, 2003 08:25 AM“War is over if you want it.” As much as they want to advance Wolfowitz’s 1992 Pax Americana imperialism, the most poll-driven administration in history will not attack without overwhelming American support. Sure, the public polls are spun, but they know the real numbers from their massive internal polling operations. Look for Smirk and Co. to declare victory as soon as they can claim they put teeth into the inspection and disarmament process by the endless post-Labor Day ’02 saber rattling. And to give the devil his due, this spin will be true. This is the only way they can get out of this without getting thrown out on their keisters in ’04, if not before ’04. Just my 2˘. Bill Bill, My goodness I think you're off-base. Bush/Rove are poll-driven, but they use polls to spin conservative positions so they look good. They don't respond to polls with a popular policy. Bush won't withdraw--it's too late and too risky 'cause it'll upset the "base". Bush'll invade, but he'll finally find the right rationale based on the polls. Take your pick. Bush changes war rationale like he changes his underwear --regime change, no; WMD, no; he tried to kill my dad, no; free the Iraqi people, no; democracy in the Mid-East; no; --gosh, better look at the polls..... Posted by: Father of Six on March 5, 2003 09:44 AMFather of Six, Sure they spin the polls. They spin everything to advance their right- wingnut-Goldwater-meets-John-Birch agenda. But I just don't see how they can pull this off politically. They must know an invasion will probably dash junior's chances for reelection (when was the last time you heard the "invincible in 2004" spin?). An invasion will not be greeted by cheers ala 1991. It will most likely have the same affect as the creepy Saturday impeachment proceedings that handed Clinton a 70% approval rating. Besides, their "base" is only about 28% and the smart people in his base have lost a fortune since Bush stole office. Posted by: on March 5, 2003 10:10 AMMoe, your right about manipulating the polls. That's what Tony Sanchez spent 60 millions dollars doing. Unfortunately, it got him nowhere. Posted by: pc on March 5, 2003 05:30 PMPost a comment
|