Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq

[zimv20]

link (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528)


By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

Responses also varied by age and income. Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54%), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57%), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53%), West (51%), and even the South (50%).

Support for Impeachment Surged Since June

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos Public Affairs.

[...]

In August and September of 1998, 16 major polls asked about impeaching President Clinton (http://democrats.com/clinton-impeachment-polls). Only 36% supported hearings to consider impeachment, and only 26% supported actual impeachment and removal. Even so, the impeachment debate dominated the news for months, and the Republican Congress impeached Clinton despite overwhelming public opposition.

(more)

[Thanatoast]

please, don't get my hopes up....

[zimv20]

i'm cruel that way.

[leekohler]

Sorry, but I don't ever see this congress impeaching Bush.

[mactastic]

Sorry, but I don't ever see this congress impeaching Bush.
Let's see how the House looks in 13 months.

[~loserman~]

Let's see how the House looks in 13 months.

Basically the same as it does right now. There will not be more than 3 or 4 seat gains by the Democrats.

[IJ Reilly]

Basically the same as it does right now. There will not be more than 3 or 4 seat gains by the Democrats.

Oh, okay.








Obligatory: :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Basically the same as it does right now. There will not be more than 3 or 4 seat gains by the Democrats.
That's a bold prediction this far out. Lots of things can change between now and then. Things could swing the other way and the GOP could pick up seats. Who knows at this point.

[Thomas Veil]

On the one hand, even if it never comes to impeachment, it's good news that the public finally seems to be waking up.

On the other hand, what do they mean if he lied about Iraq? Short of Bush coming out and admitting it (riiiiiiiight), I think we've got as much proof as we're going to get.

[crdean1]

Give me a break, nice poll. Wow, they interviewed 1,000 people. And made one statement.

The statement was:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

Leading the witness anyone.........

I object!

[pseudobrit]

Give me a break, nice poll. Wow, they interviewed 1,000 people.

As polls go, that's a very healthy sample size.

[IJ Reilly]

Give me a break, nice poll. Wow, they interviewed 1,000 people. And made one statement.

The statement was:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

Leading the witness anyone.........

I object!

How would you have worded the question?

[mactastic]

Give me a break, nice poll. Wow, they interviewed 1,000 people. And made one statement.

The statement was:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

Leading the witness anyone.........

I object!
It's not a statement, it's a question. And did you realize that most polls are conducted using 1000 people? That's the threshhold for getting to that +/- 3% number you always see on polling. Lower than 1000 and your uncertainty rises quickly, however since IIRC it's a logarithmic calculation you need to get up to like 10,000 people to get your uncertainty down another one point. IOW, it's a diminishing return kind of thing.

Besides, if you know anything about polling, it's getting the representative sample right that's the real trick. If they did that, the results are probably very close to the population's actual numbers. If they didn't, then it's useless no matter how many people they ask.

Complaining about a 1000 person sample size just shows your ignorance of the statistical polling process.

[crdean1]

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

You are right mactastic, I don't fully understand the guidelines to polling, and I won't claim to. I just do not see how he can say the above from that conclusion.

My understanding of polling is that this type of polling is leading, these yes or no statements. It really doesn't give you an accurate view of how someone feels about the situation, particularly most Americans.

[skunk]

What I want to know is when 50% became a "solid plurality" - whatever the hell that means.

[mactastic]

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

You are right mactastic, I don't fully understand the guidelines to polling, and I won't claim to. I just do not see how he can say the above from that conclusion.

My understanding of polling is that this type of polling is leading, these yes or no statements. It really doesn't give you an accurate view of how someone feels about the situation, particularly most Americans.
Polling pretty much has to rely on categorizing answers into 'baskets' that can be labeled. Without that, few conclusions can be drawn. Sure they could have asked 'What do you think about President Bush?' and given people blank sheets of paper to write their responses on, but that kind of polling doesn't lead to very definitive answers. Sometimes this kind of polling is done, but usually only on questions that are very specific such as 'What do you think is the most important issue facing Americans today'. But without 'checking the box' by the answer most appropriate for you there is little way to get more than a handful of matching opinions. I think if you look, you'll also see that there were degrees of importance attached to the answers (ie. strongly agree, agree, don't know, disagree, strongly disagree). These further help break down the intensity of the feeling being polled. Respondents are also asked for their political affiliation, their rough income and education levels, and their gender at a very minimum. This further helps analyze what portions of the population are feeling what.

You also have to remember that polls are commissioned by people who are paying to find out about specific things. If you paid me to poll people about how they felt regarding impeachment if Bush lied about the Iraq war and I went out and and asked 'What do you think about Bush?' you might feel like I didn't do the job you paid me for.

There are partisan polls, and there are others that are considered more neutral. There is internal polling, never meant to be released publicly (which sometimes are leaked), and there are other polls that are designed to be released to the public. There are pollsters who are more accurate than others. Ultimately it's all a guessing game, but some are better at it than others. Like I said earlier, it's the representative sample that's the real trick. The process that goes into that is what separates they good pollsters from the rest.

Polling is a very interesting branch of statistics. I suggest you read up a little bit on it, if for no other reason than it's some really neat stuff if you like that kind of thing. Look at the formulas for determining error. Find out what the difference between a high and a low Standard Deviation means. Look at the shifting of the normal curve, the use of other curves besides the normal. Statistics really is some cool stuff.

Personally though, I think too many politicians make decisions based on polls, and thus I lie to every pollster I meet. I figure if enough people do this the politicians might just have to revert to having their own opinions again. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

What I want to know is when 50% became a "solid plurality" - whatever the hell that means.

Because 50% isn't, technically speaking, a majority?

[crdean1]

I'll be taking Statistics next semester. I wonder if they will cover some of that.

Agreed that politicians make too many decisions based on factors other than their educated opinions.

[katchow]

It sounds like the Clinton polls were taken after he had admitted to having relations with Monica? I just don't understand the comparison. Here, there's that looming 'if' part. Until you can prove that he lied what use are hypothetical polls?

[crdean1]

Let's think about this for a minute. It's no secret that several Dems voted for this war, and have since turned out to be some of Bush's biggest critics regarding the handling of it (rightly so, as have I in some cases).

I would not think that they voted to invade just because Bush said so. Even Clinton said while he was in office that "either Saddam needed to disarm, or Iraq is known to have WMD's", I can't remember specifically which it was.

Surely these fence jumpers were privy to more info. than just GWB's word, or they would not have voted yes.

Sooo....would you guys say that GDub made all of this up just to get the green light to pull the trigger.

I guess with this poll, I thought we were past this already. Seems like we are rehashing a very old debate.

[IJ Reilly]

Let's think about this for a minute. It's no secret that several Dems voted for this war, and have since turned out to be some of Bush's biggest critics regarding the handling of it (rightly so, as have I in some cases).

I would not think that they voted to invade just because Bush said so. Even Clinton said while he was in office that "either Saddam needed to disarm, or Iraq is known to have WMD's", I can't remember specifically which it was.

Surely these fence jumpers were privy to more info. than just GWB's word, or they would not have voted yes.

Sooo....would you guys say that GDub made all of this up just to get the green light to pull the trigger.

I guess with this poll, I thought we were past this already. Seems like we are rehashing a very old debate.

I don't believe we are rehashing an old debate so much as discussing the change in public opinion.

[katchow]

I don't believe we are rehashing an old debate so much as discussing the change in public opinion.

if asked before the war in iraq, "would you favor impeachment if Bush lied about getting us into a war" would the numbers be that different?

[skunk]

Sooo....would you guys say that GDub made all of this up just to get the green light to pull the trigger.Without being privy to all the facts of the case, I believe it would be safe to say, at the very least, that when a contentious war is contemplated, even the President of the United States - especially the President - has a duty not only to his country, but to humanity, to err on the side of caution, if he must err at all. George Bush failed in that duty, as did Tony Blair.

[MontyZ]

.

[zimv20]

nice summary, mac. i'll only add that another thing pollsters do is repeat the same poll over time to watch trends. from the original article:

The Ipsos poll shows a dramatic transformation in support for Bush's impeachment since late June. (This is only the second poll that has asked Americans about their support for impeaching Bush in 2005, despite his record-low approval ratings.) The Zogby poll conducted June 27-29 of 905 likely voters found that 42% agreed and 50% disagreed with a statement virtually identical to the one used by Ipsos Public Affairs.

[SummerBreeze]

Too bad this will never happen, although this poll does show promise for a Democratic president to be elected in 2008. While it makes me elated to think that Bush could get impeached during this term, I know that all I can hope for is a new president to come in a few years and pick up the pieces.

[tristan]

Wow! They should make a deck of cards! :p

[Mike Teezie]

Cheney's nickname on that wanted poster above....."Flatline"

LMAO!

:D

[MontyZ]

.

[matticus008]

What I want to know is when 50% became a "solid plurality" - whatever the hell that means.

50% is about as solid as a plurality as you can have. The reason they're not declaring it a majority is because it'd have to be a veritable 50%+1 person to be a majority, and with the +/- 3% margin, that's impossible to state. A plurality is what elects most candidates on the local level--it's the person with the most, even if it's not more than 50%.

So if you had 3 people running for Mayor, and the split turned out to be 40/32/28, then the person with 40 has a plurality and would be elected (unless local electoral rules require a majority, in which case, poor Mr. 28% would be dropped and there'd be a runoff election). Most national elections, actually, signify a plurality on some level, because far fewer than 50% of voters usually turn out to vote, so you have a majority within a minority, which becomes a very complicated situation from a policy analyst's perspective, but I don't think anyone cares about that here, beyond myself.

I'd really like to see some aggressive Democrats pursue an investigation and make a formal presentation, but unfortunately getting the Senate to investigate at all would require Republican cooperation, and I don't see the 2006 elections as being able to achieve a Democratic majority in both houses. If they can squeeze out a majority in the Senate, enough to get the ball rolling, then impeachment is a real possibility, especially for that 20% of the Republican populace that supports a measure to this end. And there should be more Republicans behind it, if they want to stand on a "moral" high ground all the time.

[zimv20]

A plurality [...] --it's the person with the most, even if it's not more than 50%.

more to the point, a plurality cannot be greater than 50%, then it's a majority.

Most national elections, actually, signify a plurality on some level, because far fewer than 50% of voters usually turn out to vote

plurality is based on the number of votes cast, not the number registered.

though now that i think about it, i'd like to see election results posted as percentage of eligible voters, not votes cast. so we'd see something like:

14th District Results:
Martin (R) 9.4%
Lee (D) 7.2%
Albert (I) 1.4%

maybe then people would start realizing that they should get their asses to the polls.

[matticus008]

plurality is based on the number of votes cast, not the number registered.

though now that i think about it, i'd like to see election results posted as percentage of eligible voters, not votes cast. so we'd see something like:

14th District Results:
Martin (R) 9.4%
Lee (D) 7.2%
Albert (I) 1.4%

maybe then people would start realizing that they should get their asses to the polls.

Right, hence the "on some level" because our voter registration in this country is not automatic and our voting is not compulsory. Therefore, you have to take into consideration latent opinion. A plurality is based, technically, on public support. We've artificially chosen a system (voting) that counts, logically, votes cast. But the root meaning is no different, and so almost every election represents a plurality in the sense that no one achieves a majority of all eligible citizens (even with a majority of votes cast).

The fact that the US system still uses a first past the post system is turning into a problem in some areas, but with SMD, it's just the most effective way to approach it, and without a large number of active political parties, there's no incentive to change.

[yg17]

Pfft....Nothing new. I think nearly half of the country favored his impeachment the day he took office in 2001

[solvs]

Pfft....Nothing new. I think nearly half of the country favored his impeachment the day he took office in 2001
Nearly half the voters. ;) Over half the population.