Washington Post and ABC News just released a poll of U.S. public opinion on Iraq. But the Post's numbers in their print version (in the body of the article) underestimates the "Out Now" position by more than 3 times. One has to look at their actual numbers (Poll Data) to see that support for "staying the course" is much smaller than the article suggests.
The Washington Post has published the results of their joint survey with ABC News on the front page today under the heading "Survey Finds Most Support Staying in Iraq - Public Skeptical About Gains Against Insurgents" by Richard Morin and Dan Balz.
The article is available online at:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700270.html
The first two paragraphs read:
"a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that most Americans do not believe the administration's claims that impressive gains are being made against the insurgency, but a clear majority is willing to keep U.S. forces there for an extended time to stabilize the country.
The survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an immediate pullout of U.S. forces, while a solid majority continues to agree with Bush that the United States must remain in Iraq until civil order is restored -- a goal that most of those surveyed acknowledge is, at best, several years away."
The article misrepresents the actual numbers as published under "Poll Data" which can be accessed through the article's webpage:
Poll Data (PDF):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll062705.pdf
Question #7 under "Poll Data" reads: "Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if it means civil order is not restored there?
Keep forces = 58%
Withdraw forces = 41%
No opinion = 2%
41% is just over two out of five, not "one in eight" (12.5%) as the second paragraph suggests. And 8% over half is not a "solid majority" for "staying the course." It would be more accurately described as a "slim majority!
I have studied the Poll Data, and I don't know where the Post gets "one in eight" for immediate pullout.
The graph on the website that reads "Just your best guess, about how much longer do you think the United States will need to keep U.S. military forces in Iraq?" (Question #15) shows just 6% support "pull out now," which is not "one in eight;" it's less than half that: one in sixteen. But Question #15 can be understood as a strategic and not a political question, and so it is not as reliable question of U.S. support for continued occupation vs withdrawal as question #7.
If this was an accident, it was a pretty sloppy one.
Comments
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
So much for the tolerance BushBaby talked about tonight.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
This is somewhat misleading given that the second question implies "Should we run away or retreat in an orderly fashion?" Most people want an ordered retreat... duh!
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
So, I accept your argument on the data figures, but not on the way they framed/termed the support for "staying the course".
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
It is based on question 13 and the follow-up question 14 (which was only asked of the 38 percent who answered "Decreased" to question 13.
To make it clear: 38% said the number of US military forces in Iraq should be decreased. Of these, 34% said they should be withdrawn immediately. 34% of 38 is about 12% (actually nearer to 13%).
So calm down, folks!
Bush is still a liar, of course. And personally I think the US should withdraw immediately. But the Post isn't doing a Jeff Gannon on this one.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
28 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
So why do some Jewish alpha males seem to beleive that providence has given them license to "choose" over others? Is it providence or is the victim motiff just a place for treachery and hate to hide behind as they collect their blood money? Vampires.
The last cycle, there have been others before for sure, began with Trotsky I guess, where Judeo secret police murdered millions of christians. Followed by a down cycle whereby the good Nazi ship Tel Aviv took zionists with pockets full of Nazi marks off to kill palestinias leaving the diaspora to be fed the gestapo.
Then Israel(
Is the down cycle beginning again or do the zionist in the DOD and banks of NY and bomb makers going to try and beat trotsky's kill rate before someone is forced to put a stop to it with extreme prejudice?
Is this how the cycle starts again - are the bad apples giving rise to a distrust and maybe hatred of all Jews? Judeo - stand up and take back your culture and let it be our time that ends, for all time, this eternal cycle of hate and retribution.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
13. Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be
(increased), (decreased), or kept about the same?
38% said decrease
BASED ON THOSE WHO ANSWERED "DECREASED" IN Q13
14. Should all U.S. forces in Iraq be withdrawn immediately, or should they be
decreased, but not all withdrawn immediately?
34% said widthdraw immediately
34% of 38% comes out too 13% or 1/8 of the total.
but to use that number is deliberately misleading, 38% of the total are still saying we should leave, the only difference is between pulling out graduly or all at once.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
I had the same thought as I was falling asleep last night. Guess I should have waited to write my analysis. It has been too long since I studied polling, but I think DesMondu is correct that each question should be considered independently.
I dispute Jeremius's contention that anything over 55% is "solid majority," despite the broad use of that terminology in regards to elections. A shift a few percentage points, which could happen in just a month's time, could bring this majority into minority, especially with a margin of error of 3-4%.
I still stand by my #1 claim - that the WashPost is underestimating support for withdrawal - but I'll have to add the caveat that it's somewhere between 12.5% and 41%.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
See the reply to Q. 13/14 NET at:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll062705.pdf
As to the 58% figure. In politics, that's a landslide.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
It's just more slime from the sh_t monsters! Open up and enjoy, if you like that kind of thing.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
counterpunch picked up this story up
29 Jun 2005
cheers to mike!
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
Imagine if that question was asked in the poll alongside the question about withdrawal, with the assumption about civil order removed. I for one am going to write to the authors of the poll (I have one email address, morinr (at) washpost.com) and suggest that the questions be asked this way in future versions of the poll.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
29 Jun 2005
(a) Questions 13 and 14 are not rationally paired. As I wrote in my letter [to the editor], "There is no contradiction between wanting the troops to come home now and wanting troop levels to be adequate." The linking of 13 and 14 may therefore underestimate (or, conceivably, overestimate) the real level of support for immediate withdrawal. Questions 7 and 14 would make a more rational pairing, since they are both about withdrawal, whereas question 13 is about troop levels.
(b) Question 7 is not a neutral measure of support for withdrawal vs. staying in, because it argumentatively links US military presence in Iraq with civil order in Iraq. It assumes, and encourages respondents to assume, that
(i) civil order can be achieved with US military presence
(ii) civil order can only be achieved with US military presence
(iii) US military presence is conducive to civil order
The part about civil order should be removed from the phraseology, as it tends to bias respondents toward saying "stay," at least those who care about Iraqi civil order.
(c) A question about the relationship between civil order and US military presence should be added, modeled on propositions (b)(i) - (b)(iii) above. Then question 10, which is flawed in a similar way to question 7, would no longer be needed.
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
30 Jun 2005
Re: Washington Post Underestimates "Out Now" opinion
30 Jun 2005