Public Support for Iraq War weakening.

Discussion in 'Community' started by drastik, Dec 17, 2002.

  1. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #1
    Wow, the general public may be brighter than millitant warmongers after all:

    read the rest of the article, it has some good info. One interesting point is that only 26% support unilateral action.
     
  2. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
  3. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #4

    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.
     
  4. Chad4Mac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5
    Re: Public Support for Iraq War weakening.

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


    Chad4Mac
     
  5. Chad4Mac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #6
    Re: Public Support for Iraq War weakening.

    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
     
  6. drastik thread starter macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #7
    Re: Re: Public Support for Iraq War weakening.

    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.
     
  7. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8
    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.
     
  8. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #9
    Re: Re: Re: Public Support for Iraq War weakening.

    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?
     
  9. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #10

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


    lol
     
  10. drastik thread starter macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #11
    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.
     
  11. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #12
    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?
     
  12. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #13
    what's so unrespectable/inaccurate about la times polls?

    and which ones are more respectable/more accurate?
     
  13. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city
    #14

    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.
     
  14. drastik thread starter macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #15
    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.
     
  15. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #16
    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.
     
  16. Chad4Mac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #17
    Re: Re: Re: Public Support for Iraq War weakening.


    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




    ...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
     
  17. Chad4Mac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #18
    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
     
  18. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #19
     
  19. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #20
    A properly implemented poll does mean a lot, and does mostly accurately sample the entire nation.
     
  20. Kethoticus macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #21
    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.
     
  21. drastik thread starter macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #22
    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.
     
  22. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #23
    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
     
  23. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #24
    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
     
  24. krossfyter macrumors 601

    krossfyter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    Location:
    secret city

Share This Page