Daily Kos

NY Times/CBS Poll: "Troop Buildup Has Not Raised Support, Poll Says"

Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:15:42 PM PDT

Update [2007-9-9 19:45:37 by DemFromCT]: full poll results (all 28 pages) here.
Update [2007-9-9 19:53:59 by DemFromCT]: Matthew Dowd on HuffPost: The Wisdom of Crowds. Perhaps not what you'd expect, given his bio.

On the heels of the WaPo poll, more bad news for the White House.

A majority of Americans say the United States made a mistake getting involved in the war in Iraq, and the increased numbers of troops in recent months has either made things worse or had no impact at all, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Still, more people now say President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq, the so-called surge, has helped to improve the situation than said so last spring. With Congress deeply divided over the course of the war, Democrats and Republicans are waiting for the release later this week of a Bush administration progress report and testimony from General David Petreaus and others on Capitol Hill.

The poll, which contained an oversample of members of the United States military and their families, found that Americans say the Iraqi government is not doing all it can realistically be expected to do to establish order.

From CBS, data suggesting that Bush was right to compare Iraq to Vietnam, though he did so for the wrong reasons:

Eighty-six percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Independents say the war was a mistake, while 31 percent of Republicans agree, according to the poll.

The 62 percent figure is reminiscent of the numbers recorded in Gallup Polls in the early 1970’s when respondents were asked whether the U.S. made a mistake getting involved in Vietnam. Sixty-one percent thought the Vietnam war was a mistake in May, 1971, and 60 percent thought American involvement in Vietnam was a mistake in January, 1973, according to Gallup polls.

CBS' headline is 'more people think that the surge is working', highlighting a  6 point gain from August, although "no difference" remains a plurality at 45%

What this and other polls appear to show (no details or cross-tabs available yet) is that a small number of Republican voters can be convinced to support the President for limited periods.

On the military front, Americans' views of the impact of the "surge" strategy are divided by political affiliation. Fifty-six percent of Republicans think surge is making things better in Iraq, while only 19 percent of Democrats and 32 percent of Independents do.

Congress, and the press, take note. A broad spectrum of the American people have rejected this war as a mistake, and the surge as the answer that makes things better. There is nothing that says a Republican minority out of touch with independents and Democrats should be dictating our policy, or writing your headlines (or, for that matter, being the dominant voices on your Sunday shows).

Look at the polls, and review the myriad of independent reports that don't come from the WH. The mainstream thinking that these polls represent requires representation in the halls of Congress and dissemination by the media. As stated earlier,

the findings, from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, underscore the depth of public antipathy toward the Iraq war, the doubts about the administration's policies and the limited confidence in the Iraqi government to meet its commitments to restore civil order.

While today's polls don't get at the intensity factor, these polls do. And anyone who thinks that the polls represent a political comeback for George W. Bush, the architect of the Iraq disaster, must be David Broder.

  • ::

Tags: Iraq, poll (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 89 comments

  •  at the risk of sounding (7+ / 0-)

    like a broken record on this:

    The Dems will not oppose the war regardless of any poll results, because they don't actually oppose the war.

    It's very important for us to internalize this. I really don't think we have.

  •  WTF? What a way to parse it! (21+ / 0-)

    United States made a mistake getting involved in the war in Iraq

    We didn't just "get involved" for crying out loud, WE STARTED IT!

    "In a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    by MA Liberal on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:15:08 PM PDT

    •  True but use the meme in our Favor (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MA Liberal, NogodsnomastersMary

      "getting involved in the war in Iraq"
      Leads to

      "Ending our involvement in Iraq" and that's fine with me.

      Saying the Iraq "Surge" worked is like saying Thelma & Louise had a flying car.

      by JML9999 on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:22:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  worst (3+ / 0-)

      right now, we are tearing up Iraq just to protect GOP's little ego.

      Iraq is imploding inside out, while the generals are playing "let's fix Iraq" so Chimpie can say he is kicking ass.

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:24:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wondered about that question myself (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MA Liberal, NogodsnomastersMary

      this morning when I read this in the Times. A strange choice of words.

      it tastes like burning...

      by eastvan on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:33:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm actually o.k. with that parsing... (0+ / 0-)

      ..., for the moment. I say that for two reasons. First, if the country ever takes responsibility for this mess, it won't be overnight. Second, I think such misleading parsings can nevertheless function as a slippery slope.

      Joe Citizen: We definitely made a mistake getting involved with that war in Iraq.

      Co-worker: Say, why did we get involved in the first place?

      Joe Citizen: We got involved 'cause the President said Iraq had weapons of mass...

      White House Spokesperson: CUT! STOP THE CAMERA!"

      Can't go there, now, can we? It's a multi-step process, really. First, we get people to talk about the war in terms of a "mistake". Once most of America is on board with that assessment, then we can begin to clarify the nature and extent of the mistake, e.g. "How big of a mistake was it?" (Answer: real big, because we didn't just "get involved"; we started the whole damn thing), "Who's responsible for the mistake?", etc.

      In short, whatever responsibility Americans take for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is not going to happen overnight. That nearly two-thirds of the population is starting to agree with the assessment that the war was a mistake is a substantial starting-point.

      "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

      by machopicasso on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:46:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We are trying to treat cancer with penicillin. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JML9999, NogodsnomastersMary

    The chemotherapy called for is spelled d i p l o m a c y.  

  •  Last. Republican. President. Ever. (8+ / 0-)

    It's so sad that it had to come to this.  The Republicans were like an irritating distant relative.  He'd come around and make everyone unhappy for awhile and then go back to wherever he came from and we'd forget and mistakenly invite him back again after a few months.

    Now he's come over, killed the family pets, raped the kids, possibly murdered some neighbors, burned down half the houses on the street, wrecked all our cars, and somehow still manages to avoid jail time.  We've learned to never invite the destructive SOB over again at the cost of nearly having our "house" wrecked for good, and our neighbors permanently pissed at us.

    The price of being right is unfairly high.  It's not something I am particularly pleased about.  But I was.  We were.

    "There he goes again! Who's laughing now, betch?" -- Jimmy Carter

    by slippytoad on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:17:39 PM PDT

  •  who cares what the people think... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    dufffbeer, madgranny

    Why poll Americans on topics they either, A) know nothing about or, B) are grossly misinformed.  Such as if the surge is working or whats the situation in Iraq.  A better poll, albeit impossible to attain is to survey field commanders, rather than the American public who are the recipients of 9th hand information.

    We make like or dislike the war and policy, but lets leave the report cards to the military, so we then can dismiss them as bias administration drivel.

  •  The Surge is Working... (0+ / 0-)

    the way a tourniquet works. Sooner or later there will have to be an amputation. I say sooner.

  •  It didn't take long ... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DemFromCT, SadTexan, Dallasdoc, jnhobbs

    For the black helicopters to show up in this thread.

    A large majority of the public - but not quite an overwhelming majority - are sick of the war and want out of it. Bush doesn't, the Republicans are shacked to him by their base, and without peeling some of them off the Dems have only the very bluntest possible ax, the power of the purse.

    It's easy for us here to talk about just cutting off the money, but the people who'd have to do it have to worry about what happens next? Does Bush play chicken with the troops? Does he draw from other accounts? Does he simply kite checks? What then?

    And how does the public react to the resulting Beltway battle, while soldiers are still dying?

    The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

    by al Fubar on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:22:33 PM PDT

    •  Some mistakes (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      DemFromCT, al Fubar, beltane

      aren't easy to fix, as Democrats are belatedly discovering.

    •  The longer the mistake goes on, the more... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      al Fubar, Nimbus, costello7

      difficult the outcome.

      I've learned in my life that sometimes it's best to stop heading in a bad direction and head off in another.  And that has almost never been easy.  

      But the first step is recognizing the mistake in the first place.  Otherwise, no matter in what direction you head, you're gonna end up screwed.

      •  When have American politicans ever chosen (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        ShainZona

        the more difficult option? Especially Republican ones... Their whole mantra seems to be about how, if you just let nature take it's course, things will work out OK. God and the Marketplace will lead us to the right path. It's when arrogant know it all government bureaucrats start meddling in things that it all goes haywire. There are no mistakes when you adopt a completely laissez-faire mentality.  

        •  Gawd I hate that attitude (4+ / 0-)

          that the "market will decide."  The market has already decided that war makes money, that tax cuts benefit corporations, that selling cheaply-made goods from China is profitable, that healthcare belongs only to those who can afford it...

          Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

          by Unstable Isotope on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:01:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, its clearly easier than taking (0+ / 0-)

            responsibility, to rely on a system like that, or any other, to guide you. Who has time to figure things out nowadays? We live in a plugged-in society that likes to have things spelled out for them, so that everyone can concentrate on themselves, and their lives. There is no emphasis on longterm ideas, only how to make it through another election, or ratings season.

    •  The dying is going to keep going on (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      pickandshovel, costello7

      regardless of what we do even if Bush manages to run the clock out. Right now, it just comes down to when and how many.  Somehow I just don't beleive there will be a surge in troop deaths if we have a planned covered withdrawal.

      If Bush starts playing with the troops lives after congress has spoken then I think the far far away dream of impeachment and removal becomes a reality that would happen very quickly.

      I think the R's would lead it too. They are the ones that would have to deal with the aftermath. They too would great credit for it which means more of them in the next cycles.

      Bush has misread everything so far, so there is no chance they he would do the right thing if the war was defunded. I think then the public would scream and even the Bush Dogs would sit up and take notice after they got done licking themselves.

      Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

      by Dburn on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:00:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good point (0+ / 0-)

      Basically what Bush has been able to do is to deny the Dems the Repub votes they needed in the Senate. Coleman, Sununu, Collins, Voinovic aren't courageous enough to vote against the pResident as long as he strings out this thread of hope.

  •  So it looks like this massive PR effort... (8+ / 0-)

    ... has had about as much effect as Bush's "Social Security Tour" a couple of years back.

    Note to Democrats: They are back on their heels. Knock `em down and grind your heels into their throats. No compromise on Iraq funding. America wants us out!

  •  I suggest asking our soldiers (4+ / 0-)

    On their fourth or fifth tours to Iraq, loaded down with body armour in 120 degree heat, maybe with a newborn they have never seen (and fear they may never see), in danger daily, if we, to use the words of our distinguished president "are kicking ass."

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

    by Navy Vet Terp on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:29:41 PM PDT

  •  It's not bad news for the White House (0+ / 0-)

    It's bad news for the American people that the White House continues to ignore reality and the will of the electorate.

    McCain's 3AM ad is really a Flomax commercial.

    by jhecht on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:30:52 PM PDT

  •  The only explanation I can come up with... (3+ / 0-)

    is that, like Bush, politicians in DC can't read.

    What other reason could there be for such stupidity from our newly elected Dems?

  •  The "Reason" we are in Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    Bush propagandists, under the direction of Dick Cheney, sold the Iraq war to the Congress.
    They wanted this war in order for Halliburton etal.
    to war profiteer from its outcome.  
    The war was over long ago.  About the time they pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein.
    They sent mercenaries, alias "contractors", to
    continue the war by inciting the two factions into action.  That has worked.  It worked until the Iraqi
    government and the people got wise to it.
    This war generated one trillion dollars in war
    profiteering money.  This was the "Reason".  
    It doesn't work anymore.  
    The real goal of the war was to create a colony out
    of Iraq,  This is the reason for Tony Blair and his
    Brits to make an appearance.  They have more experience in creating colonies than anyone else in the World.
    This is why the stupid excuse that Al Qaeda had
    anything to do with Iraq just didn't figure.
    There still are no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

  •  do you think the reason the dem. candidates... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ShainZona

    ...aren't pushing for an immediate and comprehensive pull-out is that they know that it would take roughly eight to twelve months to complete, a.k.a. right about the time they're taking office.

    So, not only will the new president appear ineffective at stemming the potential, and some consider likely, chaos that will follow, a burden any president will have to face assuming the nation doesn't leave fully victorious, but since they advocated that course of action they will look even less competent since as a candidate (and Senator or Representative, if applicable) for prominently pushing the legislation.

    With the short memory of the electorate, who not too far into the president's term will have forgotten the previous administration's blunders, that double whammy would surely haunt the incoming president.

    With the potential geopolitical losses and human tragedies that may follow, the new president then is cast as weak and ineffective as president in regards to the all-consuming foreign policy issue, terror.

    That, added to easily assailable government social programs and reforms, that while being desperately needed, enacted by a Democratic president (if one were elected), which will be compromises because of the insane debt left by the current administration, to me results in an unproductive four years and a loss in 2012.

    Just a thought.

    Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?

    by kafkaesque on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:35:45 PM PDT

    •  Probably. But there are elections so often, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      costello7

      some politician is going to get the short end of the stick no matter when we leave.

      In the meantime, our dead troop count will just continue to grow.

    •  I think if the D's do nothing (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      costello7

      the next four years will be somewhat like the Carter years. Voters will have become totally disconnected from Washington. I think there will be more focus on state and local government if there is any interest at all.

      I think the govt itself will be a mess. A weakened presidency by a mess in congress with a little of this and a little of that in both houses with majority's shifting when someone dies or gets caught giving BJs in the mens room.

      No one will beleive anything coming out of Washington and Washington will have it's hands tied by 10 Trillion in debt or more which is where it will probably be around Jan of 2009.

      I really hope it's not 4 in and then out like the what happened with Carter which brought us the 12 years of Reagan/Bush - Bush/Quayle  but looking back and looking ahead it sure looks like that's what's going to happen. We'll get hit with a monster recession and many people will lose everything probably right in the middle of the four years.

      History won't be kind to the 110th Congress.  

      Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

      by Dburn on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:18:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush Is Trying To Save His War (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    never forget 2000

    Using the same techniques he used to lie us into it.

     

    Republicans think leadership = photo-op's & public relations.

     

    The media frames the questions wrong.  We didn't "get involved" we "started" the Iraq war.

     

    Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress are still to fucking scared to stand up to the most unpopular President ever.

    "The question isn't 'Is America ready for Barack Obama;' the question is, 'Is America ready for a smart President." John Lovitz

    by Kdoug on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:36:36 PM PDT

  •  Would ya just look at that! (0+ / 0-)

    If you have already played your super double whammy duper get of jail and own Boardwalk for free going to the mattresses Colin Powell card, the majority of Americans just know the truth and know the truth and know the truth some more!  It's like viral or something.

    "People die. Strategies fail. Blame is laid. And we, as a nation, are made to look like assholes." - Brandon Friedman

    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:46:31 PM PDT

  •  Note the little (real little ) bump in approval (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder if he gets that when he "sticks it to em  lebrels" regardless of the reason and the D's polls go down as being a the recipient of that stick.

    It would be interesting to the see the poll results- just once-tell them it's a science experiment so as not to frighten anyone- if the D's stayed unified and reversed the sharp end of the stick.  

    With no science, links or any other facts to back me up, I personally think Congressional D approval ratings would skyrocket. Hell they might start posting here again.

    Support Col Hackworth's because tomorrow is just a promise, not a guarantee

    by Dburn on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:49:07 PM PDT

  •  I have this premonition (5+ / 0-)

    of a future news story, dateline January of 2009:

    With a newly sworn in Democratic President, a new fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a 3-to-1 margin in the House Of Representatives, Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement today saying they "are looking forward to working towards bi-partisan compromise."

    Are you speaking "bat?" Is that what bat sounds like?

    by jazzmaniac on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:51:27 PM PDT

  •  But...General Petaeus will save them! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SecondComing

    (SWOON!)

    He'll be such a dream straight-shootin' no sir-yes-ma'am military studmuffins that Tweetie and the gang will sprout immediate wood, and buy everything he's saying.  

    Actually I think Petraeus overplayed his hand, and overestimated his straight-shootin' charm by pulling facts out of his straight-shootin' ass in the media over the last couple of weeks.  

    It was an almost-brilliant plan, and certainly a diabolical one, for the Bushies to make this all about an objective, long-serving military guy's take on the whole Iraq thing.  And while many of the usual Beltway lapdogs went for it, I think too many Americans know in their bones now that this thing has been a disaster of epic proportions.  There's no turning back from that, even if there are temporary little "surges" of more support.  The long-term trend is:  fuck this occupation, and fuck the people who got us there.

    JOHN McCAIN = George W. Bush's 3rd term.

    by chumley on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 01:58:53 PM PDT

  •  69% of registered Republicans (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    costello7

    are either blithering idiots or batshit insane.

    Why am I not surprised?

    How much is enough, Gordon?

    by SecondComing on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:02:04 PM PDT

  •  The important polls will be out in about a week (0+ / 0-)

    The poll is mostly pre-Osama tape, pre-911 anniversary, and pre-Petraeus report.

    The numbers the Dems and GOP are looking for will be several days after these big three events after they sunk in with the masses.

    If support for the surge leaves the mid 30s and goes up to the low to mid 40s then expect almost no GOP defections and a number of DLC defections.

    •  different measurement (0+ / 0-)

      this looks at the PR campaign so far, though both the WaPo and the CNN poll suggest the majority of the public doesn't care what the WH and Petraeus say (they've made up their mind, and don't trust the messenger).

      The end-of-September polls will dispute or confirm that.

      The 'important polls' are the congress bill vote tallies and on election day 2008. Everything else is a precursor and a harbinger.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by DemFromCT on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:26:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have a question (0+ / 0-)

    does it really matter what the polls show when it comes to the Iraq surge? I mean, Bush is going to do whatever the hell he wants to do and there really isn't a hell of a lot anyone can do about it. Think about it. Are the democrats in Congress going to get the troops out and change the Iraq policy? If you say yes, I want some of what you're smoking.

    You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

    by tazz on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:05:02 PM PDT

    •  It matters (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      costello7

      Pressure from the voting public is the only thing that will get this debacle ended.

      Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

      by Unstable Isotope on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:06:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't call this pressure (0+ / 0-)

        Both the GOP and Dems will look at the same poll and take what they want from it.

        The GOP will look at the support for the surge going from 19% in July to 29% in August to 35% in September and be happy and believe the public is moving their way.

        Dems will look at the support for the invasion not moving and be happy. And, neither will change their minds one bit.

      •  Now I definitely want what you're smoking! (0+ / 0-)

        Pressure from the voting public. Ok. It's worked so far, hasn't it? I hate to sound so cynical, but for 72 years I've witnessed some pretty big things where public pressure got us. Like 200 years of this nation's history when African Americans were not equal citizens. When Joe McCarthy destroyed so many lives on a whim. A decade of war in Vietnam that made even less sense than this war does. So I guess I am wondering what has changed to make anyone think public pressure will do anything.

        You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war..... Albert Einstein,

        by tazz on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:13:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Very interesting poll results (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DemFromCT, costello7

    It looks like America has made up its mind about Bush.  I've always thought that once you've lost the trust of the people you can't get it back.

    Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

    by Unstable Isotope on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:05:56 PM PDT

  •  It Has Raised Support, Slightly (0+ / 0-)

    The war still has the same non-support that it had before, maybe even slightly increased, so what is going to be different this time around?  Are we expecting the Democrats, faced with the same situation as last time, to act differently?  Isn't that someone's definition of insanity.

  •  Don't' worry, be happy... (0+ / 0-)

    'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

    by Nestor Makhnow on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:10:07 PM PDT

  •  whats a dem congresscritter to do??? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    costello7

    is there some poll that tells them what to do?
    whats a non constituent listening dem congresscritter to do??? oh, its such hard work, inside the beltway. lies, scams, cheats, such hard work. talking points, no action dem congresscritters. is there some bipartisan bills or something??? how about a nice bipartisan lunch?

  •  Dear Joe Biden... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    never forget 2000, costello7

    do you know what is cheaper and safer than the magical vehicles you are about to vote borrowed funding for?

    if we bring the soldiers home.

  •  PUT PRESSURE ON YOUR CONGRESSIONAL POLITICIANS (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    costello7

    Make this as simple as possible (they're too spineless to deal with any complexities). Let them know if they vote for ANY funding that does not include a strict timeline for withdrawal of American troops, you will mobilize your energy and efforts to elect ANYONE who WILL run on that platform.  

    No excuses, no deals, no debate, no compromise, no benchmarks, no more delay.  No enforceable timetable for withdrawal?  No funding.  Period.  

    You can't prop up a jellyfish.  You can't support a party without a backbone.  It's time for democrats to prove they're worthy of our continued support, not for us to support them in their continued duplicity, laziness, corruption and cowardice.  

    Experience Failure 2008: McCain

    by crescentdave on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:25:19 PM PDT

  •  "Oversample" = biased poll data (0+ / 0-)

    The poll, which contained an oversample of members of the United States military and their families...

    Seriously, WTF?  People (even here on this thread) are discussing the impact of a 6% increase in support for the surge, but overlooking the implication of the "oversample."  Talk about introducing a sample bias!  Hey, why not oversample FOX News viewers, or only make random calls to strong Republican suburbs in Red states?  

    I don't know the level of "oversampling." Say that active duty military is about 1M out of 200M adults.  Maybe 3x that if including immediate family.  OK, so the sample should maybe have about 1.5% of respondents that fall into this category.  Typical polls like this are a little under 1000 respondents.  If they had 20 military/families instead of the anticipated 15, well maybe not a big impact on the overall survey results.  If they had 100 out of 1000 respondents being military/families - that introduces (potentially) a huge bias.

    Why is this oversampling of ostensibly pro-Bush adults happening now, when BushCo is desperately trying to spin support for the war? What internal bias and/or pressure is at WaPo to even use the poll data (given that it may not be represenative)?

    •  why would a meaningless 6% concern you (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Habitat Vic

      even if it were not oversampled? (and it's NY Times, not WaPo). That's actually one of the least significant numbers in the poll.

      But it's a good question and without seeing the raw data, I don't have an answer, other than if the oversample were not accounted for/corrected, it's even worse for Bush and the WH.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by DemFromCT on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:58:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry, meant the NYT/CBS poll (0+ / 0-)

        And, yes, I think it important that in either poll the Republicans are forced to focus on relatively small increases and upward trends - trying to ignore that the increases are for what remains the minority opinion.

        I've become much more skeptical these last 10 years of the data that is put forth by traditional media, especially the NYT and WaPo which I once held in high regard. The oversample may wind up being statistically significant, but may be of little overall impact to the results. I hope that's the case.

  •  Petraeus lacks credibility (0+ / 0-)

    Contrary to the conventional wisdom of DC pundits, with whom there seems to be a consensus that Petraeus does indeed have the necessary objectivity on the subject of the Iraq war, most Americans say they lack confidence in General Petraeus' ability to assert a truly independent point of view in the face of pressure coming out of the White House. Petraeus is first and foremost a career man, not the type to put the well-being of the country over his own career. In the final analysis, he will distort and misrepresent the facts in his testimony to be more consistent with the policy goals of the Bush administration.

    From the WaPo article, most Americans are skeptical of the general's upcoming testimony:

    ...public assessment of progress in Iraq remains largely negative, most expected Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to express a rosier view when he begins his congressional testimony tomorrow.

    A minority of the American public expect the general to give an accurate report.

    Only about four in 10 said they expect the general to give an accurate accounting of the situation in Iraq. A majority, 53 percent, said they think his report will try to make the situation in Iraq look better than it really is.

    The issue is clearly partisan, with Republicans on one side and Democrats and independents on the other.

    Just 23 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents expected an honest depiction of conditions in Iraq. By contrast, two-thirds of Republicans anticipated a straightforward accounting.

    --
    Gimme back my broken night
    my mirrored room, my secret life
    --Leonard Cohen, The Future

    by Tenuous Leemployed on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:49:18 PM PDT

  •  The "surge" was a slap in our face (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    costello7

    The November 2006 election was a mandate: stop it.

    We told the Congress, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS that the Iraq occupation is unacceptable. We want this unrestrained looting of our Treasury to stop. Immediately.

    In response to this clear message, George W. Bush said that he heard us loud and clear, and his answer was to escalate the number of troops kicking in doors and terrorizing the Iraqi people. In other words, Bush told us that in response to our message, he would do the exact opposite of what we wanted.

    I don't give a shit what Petraeus has to report, or what the White House messages his thoughts to say, or what the official line on this is, because the surge itself was wrong. It was the exact opposite of what we asked for.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 02:50:25 PM PDT

  •  duh (0+ / 0-)

    Of course the American people think that the Iraq war was a mistake.  Unlike the perpetually delusional supporters of the president's policy the average American can see that the Iraq War if failing.  No duh the American people are pissed off at the president, we are now spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives for a cause that is widely unpopular, not just in america but also in a little place called the rest of the fucking world

Permalink | 89 comments