Public Support for Iraq War weakening.

[drastik]

Wow, the general public may be brighter than millitant warmongers after all:

From USA Today (www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm):

Ninety percent of respondents said they don't doubt Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. But without new evidence from U.N. inspectors, 72% of respondents, including 60% of Republicans, said the president has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war.



read the rest of the article, it has some good info. One interesting point is that only 26% support unilateral action.

[krossfyter]

war is ahead

[SPG]

This sums it up pretty well:

http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com/

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by SPG
This sums it up pretty well:

http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com/


that was really cool man.


who made that?



it paints with a broad stroke... i dont know man... america has both good and bad.

people just like to highlight the bad most the time.


but cool site... i like the creative aspect of it.

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by drastik
One interesting point is that only 26% support unilateral action.

Why is this so interesting? A war without the UK is just not going to happen.


Chad4Mac

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by drastik
Public support for Iraq War weaking

Should read: Public support for Iraq war weaking if no weapons of mass distruction are found...and US foriegn intelligence is at the level of second graders."

Chad4Mac

[drastik]

Originally posted by Chad4Mac


Why is this so interesting? A war without the UK is just not going to happen.


Chad4Mac

Its interesting because it should put a little muzzle on the adminisrations threats for unilateral action. Bush like good press only, he is very good with PR and has that affable frat boy way about him. He is not going to support unpopular measures. My geuss is we will see less posturing from the admin now.

Related to this is Bush's quick move to not support Trent Lott, who the administration and Bush himself have repeatedly backed in the past. Now that he commits a big boo-boo, Bush and co. leave him in the dust.

[Backtothemac]

this is from the same polling company that put Gore up by 8 points in the last week of the election. Polls mean nothing, because they don't really sample the entire nation. Maybe in the cities that is the perception, but not in the heartland.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by drastik


Now that he commits a big boo-boo, Bush and co. leave him in the dust.

i dont know about leaving him in the dust... its more about distiguishing then anything else i guess.. telling the public they dont agree with his comment. Anyways.. he did say that he has apologized as he should have and he didnt believe he should resign. Hows that leaving him in the dust?

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
this is from the same polling company that put Gore up by 8 points in the last week of the election. Polls mean nothing, because they don't really sample the entire nation. Maybe in the cities that is the perception, but not in the heartland.


very true... come on its a usa today poll.


lol

[drastik]

Originally posted by krossfyter



very true... come on its a usa today poll.


lol

Actually, its a LA Times Poll, the article was in USA Today.

Polls are kind of innacurate, but I still think this is an interesting one. The same basic sample group (Greater LA would be my guess) were much more in favor of war a few onths ago. The problem with totaly discounting polls is that you are basically saying: "that isn't the opinion of the silent majority." No matter how big a majority you are, silence get you nothing. You can't just assume that you know the opinions of everyone out there who hasn't spoken up, there has to be some kind of scientific juping off point.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by drastik


Actually, its a LA Times Poll, the article was in USA Today.

Polls are kind of innacurate, but I still think this is an interesting one. The same basic sample group (Greater LA would be my guess) were much more in favor of war a few onths ago. The problem with totaly discounting polls is that you are basically saying: "that isn't the opinion of the silent majority." No matter how big a majority you are, silence get you nothing. You can't just assume that you know the opinions of everyone out there who hasn't spoken up, there has to be some kind of scientific juping off point.

my bad... poll from another biased media source announced on another bias media source. sorry.
yeah but there is a better way of illustrating that through more respectable accurate polls no?

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by krossfyter



yeah but there is a better way of illustrating that through more respectable accurate polls no?

what's so unrespectable/inaccurate about la times polls?

and which ones are more respectable/more accurate?

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


what's so unrespectable/inaccurate about la times polls?

and which ones are more respectable/more accurate?


thats what im wondering.


doesnt the La Times and USA Today have a liberal slant?


im not sure if they do... but its been my expierence that most media sources are.


if im wrong i apologize.

[drastik]

Originally posted by krossfyter



thats what im wondering.


doesnt the La Times and USA Today have a liberal slant?


im not sure if they do... but its been my expierence that most media sources are.


if im wrong i apologize.

Bias in the media is a hard thing to read. Many formerly liberal news outlets have become very conservative since 9/11. FoxNews is the big one here, but also CNN and to some extent the Gannet Newspaper chain.

As far as I can tell there are no unbiased news outlets. News organizations have an editorial slant. This is much less pronounced than it once was. At one point, newspapers would not even allow columnists to write against editorial policy. Thankfull, even the most biased outlets now have some counter point in their writing.

Polls, however, are relatively free from slant. They are conducted by phone from what is supposed to be a random sampling of people. Nothing is known about these people except where they live. This can create bias though. For instance, you average voter in Massachusetts is a liberal, the state has been for a hundred years or so. Your average Alabaman is conservative. The polling organizations are supposed to take this into account and spread the polls evenly. In that since, LA is probably a good place to do it, as they have a wide range of political opinion, as opposed to the rest of California (predominatly liberal).

The problem here is that there is no way to insure absolute accuracy in any poll. The oposing side can always say that the results don't represent there party.

Man, I wish we could force everyone to vote, or at least make the regulations around voting easier for people to understand. Crap like consevative campaigning in black neighborhoods not to vote, and the instance in LForida where retirement home residents were sent letters from an unknown source telling them that the electon had been moved back a week, are just infuriating.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by krossfyter

thats what im wondering.


well you laughed at the idea of a usa today poll being fair/accurate. which, while i agree polls aren't going to be 100% accurate or unbiased, i wouldn't have any idea which ones are "better".

that said, as drastik pointed out, the same general area polled had different feelings a few months ago. so if nothing else, SOME of the pro war folks are becoming less pro war.

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by drastik
He is not going to support unpopular measures. My geuss is we will see less posturing from the admin now.


Not hardly:

In the WSJ this morning, "Powell repeated U.S. skepticism about the Iraqi document, and said the military will be used if Iraq refuses to disarm."

...and again on ABC News:

Colin Powell (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20021216_1718.html)


[i]Related to this is Bush's quick move to not support Trent Lott, who the administration and Bush himself have repeatedly backed in the past. Now that he commits a big boo-boo, Bush and co. leave him in the dust. [/B]

...because the Republician Party is going after the African American vote, which is more important than Trend Lott, a widely disliked figure in the African American community, as Senate majority Leader.

That's right, a big boo-boo. I think that Lott should be let go. I think that my party holds itself to a higher standard. You say something that offends people (even if it is an accident) or conduct yourself in a unexceptable manner, you are cut. That's life. Just because he's under the presidents doesn't mean that Bush has to support him.

Bush is doing the right thing....


Chad4Mac

[Chad4Mac]

Originally posted by drastik

In that since, LA is probably a good place to do it, as they have a wide range of political opinion, as opposed to the rest of California (predominatly liberal).

How do you figure the rest of California "predominatly liberal."

Just judging by the recent governor's race 2002, on paper, it looks like the states 6% shy of even:

Davis 3,127,588 48%
Simon 2,754,247 42%

Hardly "predominatly liberal"

Chad4Mac

[aloofman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by drastik



In that since (sic), LA is probably a good place to do it, as they have a wide range of political opinion, as opposed to the rest of California (predominatly liberal).

As a resident of the LA area, I can tell you that your assumptions are a little off. Most of Los Angeles county and the San Francisco Bay area are fairly liberal, but the rest of the state is somewhat to very conservative (especially San Diego, Orange County, most of the San Joaquin Valley and other farming communities). California comes off as a liberal state overall because most of the population lives in those two metropolitan areas, but it really has the same urban/rural split that most of the country has.

As for LA Times polls, I've been a subscriber for years. Unless they've changed their policies recently without my knowledge, I believe their polls are taken nationwide by phone, not just in the LA area. Polls can still be pretty misleading though, as you mentioned, especially in the phrasing of questions and the choices made available to the respondents.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
this is from the same polling company that put Gore up by 8 points in the last week of the election. Polls mean nothing, because they don't really sample the entire nation. Maybe in the cities that is the perception, but not in the heartland.
A properly implemented poll does mean a lot, and does mostly accurately sample the entire nation.

[Kethoticus]

I personally am in favor of attacking Iraq, but I understand why so many people want some caution before we do. Bush really should present his evidence, if he truly has any, to key players in the UN, at least to our so-called allies. And if he doesn't, he needs to come clean on why it is he's so dead-set on attacking Saddam. (Unless of course it is truly only about oil or racism, as some conspiracy theorists enjoy suggesting. If those were his true motives, he'd never come clean.)

But I also think that people may be wondering why it is he kisses Mexican and Saudi hiney, confronts N Korea's transgressions diplomatically, but then decides to attack Iraq. There seems to be a weird double standard in his foreign policy, and if nothing else, I think many of these people polled want some rationale. I'd sure like one, altho I do have some ideas.

[drastik]

Sorry about my misuderstandings of the Cali politics, I don't live out there. My assumtion was based on the few people in LA who I know, most of which are conservative.

Interestingly, I just saw on ABC News a poll that listed 58% of response in favor of Bush showing more evidence before an attack. This was up 8% from September.

[Taft]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
this is from the same polling company that put Gore up by 8 points in the last week of the election. Polls mean nothing, because they don't really sample the entire nation. Maybe in the cities that is the perception, but not in the heartland.

How do you know where they polled?? Any poll worth anything would be smart enough to get a cross section of Americans, not just New Yorkers or city-folk.

While I don't trust polls any more than you, I don't think either of us can make statements like "the city thinks A, while the heartland thinks B." I think this poll reflects the general sentiment of news and opinions I've heard lately. Even the most staunch advocates for war are in agreement that the UN should be allowed to do its job before we are justified in mounting an offensive against Iraq.

If they DEFINITELY have WMDs like you say they do, why can't we just sit back and let them be found. THEN we can talk about war.

Taft

[Roger1]

I had a statistics class a few years back, and we discussed polls.
If I remember correctly, a guy named Harris (as in Harris Poll) came up with a mathmatic formula to do polls with. It has to do with getting an accurate cross section of people (I don't remember what it is). To get an accuracy of +/- 5%, you need to poll about 1500 people; to get an accuracy of +/- 1% you need to poll (I believe) 9000 people.

Of course, my memory could be slipping. :) I'll ask my wife for her opinion :D

[krossfyter]

hey if its right its right.

[SPG]

There was an interesting piece a while back on NPR's "On the Media" where they discussed some scientific studies of current polling practice and why so many are skewed away from reality. One of the things they mentioned was the unwillingness of certain groups of people to be polled, especially wealthy, educated professionals who don't want to sit on the phone talking to pollsters.
If you were to cruise around Seattle these days you would think that 100% opposed the war with the amount of stickers, flyers, posters, and protests against the war.
The other funny thing is that in NYC support for a war on Iraq seems pretty low too. Go out to the suburbs and there's more flag waving, but the people in the city itself don't seem so hyped on a war.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Chad4Mac

...because the Republician Party is going after the African American vote, which is more important than Trend Lott, a widely disliked figure in the African American community, as Senate majority Leader.

That's right, a big boo-boo. I think that Lott should be let go. I think that my party holds itself to a higher standard. You say something that offends people (even if it is an accident) or conduct yourself in a unexceptable manner, you are cut. That's life. Just because he's under the presidents doesn't mean that Bush has to support him.

Bush is doing the right thing....


Chad4Mac

What you say here actually sums up the problem pretty well. The Republican Party wants the black vote, but doesn't think it has to do much for those voters. The bigger issue here is that the Republicans need the centrist vote and the less committed swing voters who are less likely to side with a party that they see as racist.
Trent Lott's apology is the kind where he apologizes that you were offended for his mistake and not for what he actually did or in this case apologize for who he is. He spoke openly when he thought mistakenly that there was no camera on. The man is a racist pure and simple. His vote record shows it, his support for the CCC (a white rights group) shows it, his actions in keeping blacks out of his colege fraternity shows it, his leading the drive to reinstate Jefferson Davis' citizenship shows it, need I go on? Some Republicans from the south feel that it's okay to use code like "state's rights" for "segragation" to let their fellow racists know that they are on their side without being openly held accountable for their racist views. This time Trent Lott stepped over the line and got caught.
Bush only rebuked him almost a week after the fact, not in his own words but through his press secretary Ari Fleisher, after he couldn't ignore the issue anymore. When this wasn't enough, Dubya hisself had to say something, but even then come short of asking for a resignation. Lott won't resign his leadership, but that will be taken from him, and they may give him the opportunity to withdraw and save face if he knows it is inevitable. I doubt that Lott will resign from the Senate and won't be asked to from his party either since the Governor of Missisipi is a Democrat and would surely appoint a Dem to replace him, and gasp! He might even send in a BLACK Democrat!

[wdlove]

Now that Sec. Colin Powell & Donald Rumsfeld has declared that Iraq in material breach, according to the declaration made by the UN resolution. Iraq has not been forthcoming in their 12,000 page document. If Bush gives a national address to Americans they will once again show support.

[wdlove]

According to Gallup Poll Bush with a 63% approval rating, the downside he needs to get more information out to the public about his economic policies.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021219_5.html

Gallup Poll shows strong support for war, stonger among whites.

http://www.gopbi.com/partners/pbpost/epaper/editions/saturday/accent_e3301aa194d0814c006c.html