I've been kind of demoralized recently for a number of reasons, so haven't been posting very much. Not the least of those reasons is the mind-numbingly aggressive schadenfreude of the so-called "democratic" party as it tries to drum up any excuse it can to shove it to the Commander in Chief. For instance, Fred Barnes has
suggesting that the Iraqi poll item that has become the favorite talking point of the cut-and-runners is probably not very informative, for three reasons (h/t:
1. We don't know the "internals," so we don't know whether the poll was representative.
2. The poll results don't reflect other polls that ask an analogous question about support for US presence in Iraq (most of which suggest that the proportion who oppose US presence is much smaller, and their views are also more conditional).
3. The specific wording of this question is ambiguous: “Do you support the presence of coalition forces in Iraq?”
The general rule in designing a survey instrument is that if a question elicits a response frequency in the neighborhood of 80-90 percent then the question is probably too crude to be useful. At the very least you have to ask follow-up questions so that you can cross-tabulate. For instance such follow-ups might try to determine what the respondent defines as "support," and under what conditions that support might change. It also might be interesting to find out what the response to such an ambiguous question might be in S. Korea, Japan or Germany. If similar (and it probably would be similar in S. Korea) would the Democrats now be demanding that we pull out of those countries?
The essence of the issue here, if I might be so bold, is the distinction between democracy (power of the people) and demosophia (wisdom of the people). For, to have a robust democracy able to defend itself and make wise decisions about what course to chart through an uncertain and dangerous future "the people" have to be well-informed. It is therefore ironic that the core case the Democrats make is that the Bush administration misled the American people about the threat posed by Iraq. That's ironic because the present situation seems to remove all doubt that deception within the context of a war that threatens the very security of civilization is central to the Democrats' agenda. They know what's best, so whether "the people" are able to make wise and informed decisions is of little importance provided they can be herded in the "correct" direction.
And each time the bet is raised the potential loss becomes more catastrophic. Already the public has begun to suspect that things aren't going as badly in Iraq as they've been led to believe, and it's possible for most people to see that the stakes for the US outweigh any wager laid down by the Democrats or MSM. They're a long way from throwing in the towel, though.
1
I appreciate the effort of you and Fred Barnes, but this is like boxing a shadow. Would anyone seriously think that 80% number thrown around is legitimate? It's like trying to convince people that the famous 100,000 number was a load of crap. Of COURSE it was crap... but anyone inclined to believe it wouldn't listen to reason anyway.
Posted by: Tony B at December 19, 2005 02:19 AM (+/H6t)
2
I wondered why we hadn't heard from you in a while. I understand your feeling of being demoralized. I've had similar feelings myself off and on. The democrats have been relentlessly beating their drum. The monotone of it can be disconcerting after a while. And when new information surfaces, like the particulars of this poll, I get angry with myself for harboring doubts.
The sample size used for the poll was 1,264 Iraqis? Unbelieveable. Out of 25 million of three wildly different groups? With the Democrats touting this so proudly it brings the phrase 'grasping at straws' to a whole new level of meaning.
Posted by: Oyster at December 19, 2005 07:34 AM (YudAC)
3
Oyster:
The sample size used for the poll was 1,264 Iraqis? Unbelieveable. Out of 25 million of three wildly different groups? With the Democrats touting this so proudly it brings the phrase 'grasping at straws' to a whole new level of meaning.
1200 to 1300 is a fairly typical sample size, and (provided it was a randomly distributed sample) would yield a margin of error of about 5% up or down. So, if the prediction was 82% then the actual response was anywhere from 77% to 87%, give or take a bit. The size of the population, provided it's large, doesn't have a lot to do with the "margin of error" (commonly called the confidence interval).
Posted by: Demosophist at December 19, 2005 08:19 AM (NiHFm)
4
Well, demosophist, I have another poll that I took myself. 100% of Americans want the troops to come home, BUT, the majority want Iraq to be stabilized before we withdraw. And I also believe that 100% of Iraqis want US troops to depart, but again, just like us Americans, the majority of the people in Iraq want US troops to STAY until Iraq is stablilized.
How do you like my poll? Not exactly scientific, but true nonetheless.
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 08:55 AM (rUyw4)
5
"joe"--
100% of Americans do not want US troops to depart. Not even if you ask about after the Iraqi security forces are ready to fill in the void. You have merely stated an opinion while "Demo" has tried to use scientific survey data and principles.
Posted by: Chief RZ at December 19, 2005 09:35 AM (Bhat4)
6
I said it was an opinion, and never claimed it to be scientific. It was tongue-in-cheek. Geez, Chief, WTF?
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 19, 2005 09:44 AM (rUyw4)
7
"joe",
No where in your post do you use the word opinion. You do say in your third sentence that you "believe..." These types of misleading comments tend to confuse people who are easily mislead. This is the same type of misleading reporting the NYT, LAT and other leftist newspapers engage in on their front pages where news is supposed to reside.
For some facts from a person who has recently been in Iraq and talked with citizens there: They want the Americans there to help secure their freedom. The Iraqi government stated this on 28July04. They restated it again when another vote was taken, have just recently restated it and [in my opinion] will ask the United States Military to continue to assist in the stabilization of Iraq for a while longer.
I am waiting to hear from the government of Bosnia, Albania, Serbia, Former Yugoslavia and several other nations where we have been stationed for over 60 years now.
I invite you to join in a converation based on facts [and opinions] where identified as such.
Posted by: Chief RZ at December 19, 2005 02:56 PM (Bhat4)
8
Chief RZ
WTF? I understood easily the the playful humor in jesusland joe's comment. It was cute & smart (and true). At the moment, your confusing me.
Posted by: hondo at December 19, 2005 04:12 PM (3aakz)
9
Demosophist,
I wasn't clear enough. I understand the whole concept of the margin of error in polls and how they work. I guess I should have been more explicit and expounded also on the fact that they are basically grouped in different parts of the country. There is no information on who was polled and where in a country of "25 million of three wildly different groups". That information should have been a very important part of the results.
Posted by: Oyster at December 19, 2005 06:41 PM (YudAC)
10
"hondo",
Sarcasm and figurative speech are usually understandable except when some people use it to dishonestly attempt to 'put one over on someone'. When called on it, they say, "I was just kidding". I heard this a lot in the public schools. When caught red-handed attempting to shake down innocent students, they would say, "I was just kidding, can't you take a joke", etc.
In this War on Terrorism, it would be helpful if more people as well as previously respected newsmedia would be honest in their reporting. One weakness of a democracy, or republic is that a good portion of the electorate can be swayed by emotion and not by facts. People who engage in this type of behavior [in my opinion] are being dishonest and immoral.
This 80% debate hinges on a sample (random) of a population. The more forceful sample was just recently taken on 15Dec in Iraq, just as in the US, the population elects representatives directly by casting votes. This is a much more powerful, and constitutional 'survey' than one taken by various NGOs. With the votes being counted and a parlament being constructed, perhaps we should wait to see what the properly and legally elected individuals determine for their own country and stop trying to put spin on our [opinions].
Posted by: Chief RZ at December 20, 2005 08:26 AM (iNTGz)
11
This is all academic. The average American, as well as European or Iraqi, is just too damned stupid to be entrusted to vote, as results show. I want a military coup.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 20, 2005 09:29 AM (0yYS2)
12
Hey, Chief, this is not the NYT here, this is a comment section of a post. The standard applies to the guy who made the post, not the guy in the comment section.
METHINKS YOU DO PROTEST TOO MUCH! HAHA!
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 10:27 AM (rUyw4)
13
"max", & (joe),
Well, let me start with some humor. From The Holy Grail: "Is there someone else up there I can talk to"? "joe", I was responding to your comments.
"max"--Was that sarcasm, your opinion or an observation?
If the latter, the answer is education, real education like the 1950s and 60s before 1969. I am amazed at the liberal slant being taught in public schools here in the USA. I have observed classrooms in several countries in Europe and they are about 6-8 years ahead of us at every grade level.
An informed electorate is essential to a democracy. As one great statesman said, 'you have a democracy if you can keep it! So, lets try to educate our citizens with facts and leave the emotions to other areas of life.
Posted by: Chief RZ at December 20, 2005 01:13 PM (38Xl6)
14
Asking anybody if they want a foreign force occupying their country is like asking, "Would you like a sharp stick poked in your eye?"
No sane person would answer Yes. Therefore, my conclusion is that most Iraqis are sane.
Posted by: Doug Purdie at December 20, 2005 01:25 PM (00DOn)
15
Chief,
This is for fun. Most people here are well educated both in school and in the school of hard knocks(life). What I said was my opinion, but I based my opinion on common sense things that either I have observed personally or what I observed from people I trust who have just come from Iraq. 100% is a figure that could only be arrived at when it comes to the offer of money, so what I meant was the vast majority of people.
My response was to demosophist, and he and many others who post on this blog know me and understood what I meant. I'm sorry you didn't, but truly, that's not important. It elicited a response from you, and really, that's the function of a blog after all. So blog on, my friend, make your points the way you want to, but please respect my freedom to do the same.
Posted by: jesusland joe at December 20, 2005 04:14 PM (rUyw4)
16
Money, education, assistance:
Joe-- Thanks for the understanding and reply.
The UN Charter allows for force being used to assist in the defense of a country, even newly established ones like Bosnia. The use of the word occupying is a bit slanted. How about assistance, stabilization, or implementation? We occupied Germany after WWII. France is still occupying Germany. They have military outposts there today! We occupied Japan. General McArthur ran that country like Caesar {American Caesar--the book}. An occupying force is required by international law to provide for non-combatants. That was one reason we did not continue to Bagdhad in 1991, but the main reason was to keep our word of only liberating Kuwait. We are not occupying Iraq. We are there to assist at the request of the democratically elected government. That is the fact pertinent here to this 80% survey question.
People and organizations involved with "surveys" have recently [in my opinion] done so to advance a political agenda. It would be nice if Mr. Barnes, et al, would question the "internals" of other "surveys". Thank you, Demosophist for your analysis. On the 80-90% rule of thumb, I have read that; another alternative is that an 80-90-100% response may also indicate that the proposition is universally accepted, such as: 95% of people surveyed last month said that they believed in God. Follow up questions could be: On faith (Luther)? On works (---)? On law (--)?
With our nation closely split on party lines, it behoves us to make an informed decision and stick with it to its conclusion, not swaying to the winds of "surveys" conducted by others with political agendas who were not elected by the people per the US Constitution. As Anne Coulter said: "let us vote on it"!
Posted by: Chief RZ at December 21, 2005 07:59 AM (iNTGz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
