Iraq, the Media, and American Public Opinion

[JasonFin]

I find the results of this poll (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040421/nyw132_1.html) to be very disturbing. The boilerplate summary:ROCHESTER, N.Y., April 21 -- A new Harris Poll finds that public perceptions of the facts that led up to the invasion of Iraq remain almost unchanged in spite of a barrage of media reports that might have changed them.
For example:
-- A 51% to 38% majority continues to believe that "Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction," virtually unchanged since February.

-- A 49% to 36% plurality of all adults continues to believe that "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda has been found." These numbers have scarcely changed since June 2003.

-- A 51% to 43% plurality continues to believe that "intelligence given before the war to President Bush by the CIA and others about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction" was "completely" or "somewhat" accurate. In February a 50% to 45% plurality believed this.

-- While a 43% plurality believes that the "U.S. government deliberately exaggerated the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to increase support for war," a 50% plurality (also virtually unchanged over the last eight months) continues to believe that the government "tried to present the information accurately."In particular, it is very surprising to me that over 50% of Americans would still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the start of the war. Given the enormous amount of media coverage that these issues have had recently, I would have expected that this and related views would have become far less prevalent.

I can't see how this would be the case unless a very large number of people assume that media organizations, as a rule, don't tell the truth about what is happening in the world. This might be connected to the belief many people seem to have in a "liberal media." One can plausibly argue that most media organizations show some bias in editorials and how they present stories, and I assumed that this was the worst most people believed. I had interpreted recent studies (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/04/14/publics_cynicism_about_media_has_become_a_pressing_concern) showing increasing distrust of media organizations in this light.

However, if half of Americans think "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Queda has been found in Iraq," I think suspicion of the media must go much deeper. I suspect that a very large fraction of the population, when reading a news story that seems to reflect badly on President Bush, must simply assume the story is a lie — a severely distorted version of the facts or even a complete fabrication.

This helps to explain why Bush's popularity ratings don't seem to have suffered due to the continuing problems in Iraq. Moreover, in this light certain recent statements by the president make more sense. I had thought Bush's continuing unwillingness to accept that he was wrong about the threat Iraq posed was making him look increasingly out-of-touch and even silly, but now I see that this isn't the case. As long as Bush continues to maintain that weapons of mass destruction may still be found in Iraq, a huge fraction of the electorate will continue to believe him regardless of the evidence. If he never admits a mistake, they will assume he has never made a mistake.

I don't want to give the impression Bush is totally to blame here. This is a reasonable course of action for the president to take considering that the people who believe otherwise mostly wouldn't vote for him regardless of what he says, and it would be unreasonable to expect any politician to take actions that would reduce his chance of getting reelected.

Unfortunately, I think public opinion in this country has become such that it is less politically damaging for politicians to tell obvious lies about the state of the world and their past behavior than to admit mistakes. This is a recipe for extraordinarily bad policy. Am I totally off base here? If not, is there anything we can do about this?

[New Iskander]

I mostly agree with your statement that US public is generally skeptical about all information that comes from the media. However, I certainly disagree with your assumption that people in the US are mistrusting media because they trust Bush (or any POTUS). I lived in US for over 15 years and am yet to meet a single person who would say, "Did you hear what the President said? That's what WE must DO!", which was a common experience in USSR, where I came from. I think US public is skeptical of Media and President about equally, which is a very good thing.

Regarding Iraq, I was always skeptical myself about claims that "Bush deceived the Nation on Iraq invasion" in general. The way I always saw it, roughly 25% of US public wanted Saddam taken out long before Bush came into office, roughly 25% wanted US to kick some serious Arab butt after 9-11, roughly 25% were against the invasion no matter what, which leaves roughly 25% of US public left to be 'deceived'. No matter how you phrase it, 25% don't constitute a Nation.

Let's look at the poll.

As of now, 19% of 'die-hards' still "believe that clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq", while 21% of different 'die-hards' didn't "believe Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction when the war began" as early as June 2003.

Also, as of now, 40% "believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization, was generally accurate" ('die-hards' must be included here, of course), while 36% found it "misleading" as early as June 2003 (another group of 'die-hards' must be included here).

So we have roughly 40% for one side and 36% for the other. That leaves roughly 24% of US public remained to be influenced one way or another. I am pretty sure that the majority of these 24% were making an informed decision on how to regard administration claims regarding Iraq. The poll seems to show that the majority of those capable to change their minds were on the side of the Bush, but was it really the ‘Bush side’?

Don’t forget that before the invasion Media in general was not saying that WMD are not to be found in Iraq; quite the contrary, the general consensus in the Media was that they most certainly are going to be found. Thus, before the invasion Bush message and Media message were not all that different.

I’m all for politicians “to admit mistakes”. However, to expect them to do that in the middle of the election cycle is an extremely wishful thinking, equal only to throwing away a full can of bug repellent in the midst of summer woods in Minnesota.

[Rashak Mani]

I never cease to be amazed how many americans still beleive in WMD actually having been found... or that Iraq had them. The AQ and Saddam connection still somehow survives as a "truth". No wonder Bush hasn't dropped in polls. Ignorance prevails it seems. Cliché phrases like "stay the course" take the day.

Tis a sad thing indeed. When terrorism comes knockin' again then they might wake up and smell the coffee.

[laigle]

It's not that surprising. People "believe" it because it makes their idiotic acceptance of the pre-war rhetoric okay. They ignored all evidence to the contrary then, and now that they've royally screwed the country they're just plugging up their ears and chanting "we DID find WMDs" to drown out reality. Anyone who tells them that the AQ links were bogus, that the yellow cake papers were forged (let alone that Bush knew that before the State of the Union), or that the weapons inspectors said there was no justification for war must be a communist infiltrator.

Luckily there's a way to cure them. We just take everyone who votes for Bush next time around, give them a rifle, and sit their asses in a foxhole in Najaf until the Middle East is a stable society that accepts Western values and freedoms. That'll let the soldiers come home safely, and get rid of a large segment of our problem right there.

[Squink]

I never cease to be amazed how many americans still beleive in WMD actually having been found... or that Iraq had them. The AQ and Saddam connection still somehow survives as a "truth".
Juan Cole offers an interesting perspective on that today (http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#108287521120764481). It's a matter of faith: If it were accepted that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that he had no weapons of mass destruction (nor any significant programs for producing them), and that no evidence for such things has been uncovered after the US and its allies have had a year to comb through Baath documents-- if all that is accepted, then President Bush's credibility would suffer. For his partisans, it is absolutely crucial that the president retain his credibility. Therefore, rather than face reality, they re-jigger it to create a fantasy world in which Saddam and Usamah are buddies

[New Iskander]

I never cease to be amazed how many americans still beleive in WMD actually having been found... or that Iraq had them.We have our own stable percentages of 'die-hards' on the Right as well as the Left, which will never listen to the voice of reason. Every country has such segments of population comitted to a certain cause. I am pretty sure Brazil has too.

What I can't understand is why do You have such a bif bug up your cloaka about US fringe types. Why do we never hear from You about perversions of Brazilian politics? I'm sure you might tell us something we don't know. At least we could learn something new about the world, instead of having to refute your un-informed accusations.

[minty green]

I see it as evidence that America has been divided on partisan lines even over simple matters of fact. If the Republican party were to declare tomorrow that henceforth pi = 3.3, I would bet money that 49% of the American public would fall in line behind inexplicably mis-sized circles.

I take it also as further evidence--as if any were needed--that people are, by and large, stupid beyond belief.

[iamme99]

I think the reality (and the problem) is that people who participate in forums like this are political junkies. We are typically up on the latest news, have computers (usually with DSL/cable connections), know how to use a search engine and the Internet, and essentially, are interested in the subject. OTOH, the average person doesn't have the same level of interest and too many are under-educated and do not fully understand all the issues. These people get their political news from the sound bites featured on your average network TV news show (if they watch the news at all) or the headlines of a newspaper (if they even read a newspaper). In general, they know or care little about politics (local/state/national), don't understand finance or fiscal matters and have little knowledge of international affairs or geography.

There's really nothing that will change this reality short of requiring testing to be able to vote. Since that is unlikely at best, politicians will continue to be successful at "spinning" the news to best serve their core constituencies and influencing the fence sitters.

Here's an excellent article that serves to confirm my points above. While this is about kids still in school, remember, these kids will grow up to be adults and unfortunately, some of them will vote and participate in polls, sigh.

Nearing 'the claps of civilization'
Jaime O'Neill
Sunday, April 25, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

A student writes a paper about the practice of clitorectomies in her "anthology" class, a class she took last semester. She is still upset about what she learned.

I have known about clitorectomies for a long time, and the practice upsets me, too, but I am also upset about how it is possible for a student to take and pass a college anthropology class, and still not be aware of the name or meaning of the class she has just completed.

It is so surprising, in fact, that I think it must be a simple typographical error. When she makes the same error four more times throughout her paper, however, I'm left with the impression that she was not taught, or did not learn, the meaning of the prefix in the word "anthropology," and probably not the suffix, either.

When I return the papers, I ask her what class she was referring to in her essay, and she says "anthology." I ask what grade she got in the class. She says she got an A. On another paper in the stack I am returning, a student has written that he sometimes fears he is "slipping into the ibis."

I know just how he feels. Rather like a student a few years ago who wrote about her fear that we were nearing "the claps of civilization."

In another class, I use the word "negligee," but the looks on student faces suggest bewilderment. When I ask them if they know the word, they don't. I am mystified. Even though I am well aware of the fact that the size of the average person's vocabulary has plummeted over the past couple of generations, "negligee" would never have struck me as an obscure word. The vocabulary of the typical eighth-grader has declined from around 25,000 words to 10,000 words, a three-fifths decline in the ability to make sense of the world through language. Now I know that one of those lost words is "negligee," at least for many of my students.

I make up a brief current events/vocabulary quiz. It's something I do periodically as a means of trying to stay in touch with the audience I try to reach each week. From my students' answers, I learn that Russia is a city in Germany, as is "Belgim." A city in Iraq is "Haidi." Another city in Iraq is "Quate." Only three of 31 students can name a city in Spain, but in a valiant attempt at guessing, one student says that Argentina is a city in that country. Buffalo is a city in Canada, and Jordan is a city in Israel. A city in Brazil is "Chilie." Asked to name the state that borders on California to the north, one student writes "Ohio."

Full article (sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/25/INGIL68MT61.DTL )

[antechinus]

What I can't understand is why do You have such a bif bug up your cloaka about US fringe types.

The sad thing is that 'US fringe types' make up over half the population.

[dantheman]

I see it as evidence that America has been divided on partisan lines even over simple matters of fact. If the Republican party were to declare tomorrow that henceforth pi = 3.3, I would bet money that 49% of the American public would fall in line behind inexplicably mis-sized circles.

I take it also as further evidence--as if any were needed--that people are, by and large, stupid beyond belief.

We're much more polarized as a nation now than in recent years, too. If Republican pols say X, then registered Republican voters believe X. If Democratic pols say Y, registered Dems believe Y. And disbelieve vice versa.

I saw an informal chart recently that showed the potential electoral votes being split almost precisely down the middle, i.e. around the same as four years ago.

People, on the whole, don't like to admit they may have been wrong, preferring instead to cling to the hope that they may have been right, mounting evidence to the contrary. Since it's easier to believe what they've been believing than to change their minds, they choose the former.

[Ale]

What I can't understand is why do You have such a bif bug up your cloaka about US fringe types. Why do we never hear from You about perversions of Brazilian politics?

Because Brazilian political perversions stay at home, while US political perversions kill people abroad?

[yojimbo]

Also very few people would know or care enough to participate and the threads would die a very fast death.

Hey who wants to talk about the Fine Gael Árd-Fheis and the implications to the Irish electorate or maybe we'll debate the bin tax? ;)

And now back to your originally scheduled thread.

[Rashak Mani]

We have our own stable percentages of 'die-hards' on the Right as well as the Left, which will never listen to the voice of reason. Every country has such segments of population comitted to a certain cause. I am pretty sure Brazil has too.

What I can't understand is why do You have such a bif bug up your cloaka about US fringe types. Why do we never hear from You about perversions of Brazilian politics? I'm sure you might tell us something we don't know. At least we could learn something new about the world, instead of having to refute your un-informed accusations.

Yep, we have die-hards too... mostly communist wanna-bes. Some of the perversions of Brazilian politics to get to foreign new sources... but like someone put it well... these perversions don't upset the whole world or kill foreigners. We could open a thread about Brazilian politics if there were a demand for it... and in the past we did discuss some racial problems in Brazil.

As for your silly "refute your un-informed accusations" did you see the poll above ? I was referring to that poll, so either attack the poll or tone it down. We aren't talking about a "segment of the population" or "US fringe types". We are talking about half of americans beleiving in AQ = Saddam, beleiving in WMD claims and Bush not cherry picking Intelligence. If that is a "fringe" in the US... you got a big big fringe element.

(Yes we have a stupid electorate here too... before you ask. They just don't take in as much bullshit though. They consume smaller pieces.)

[New Iskander]

The sad thing is that 'US fringe types' make up over half the population.According to the OP poll, we have about 20% pro-war and 20% anti-war under any circumstances. What's Australian split on this or some other important issue?

[Evil Captor]

Another likely explanation -- though maybe not the whole explanation -- is that the Right has been buying the playing field thanks to relaxed FCC regulations regarding media ownership. Right wing hate radio, Fox News, the general shift in media ownership to the right ... the mass media consistently delivers the right wing message much more frequently and powerfully than the left wing message. Just because WE Internet denizens/news junkies have a clear understanding what's going on, doesn't mean the average person who consumes the bulk of his/her news from radio, newspapers and TV does. They may hear the occasional disquieting message about the lack of WMDs, or Osama's hatred of Saddam, but they hear enough soothing patriot-speak to blanket over it.

[New Iskander]

As for your silly "refute your un-informed accusations" did you see the poll above ? I was referring to that poll, so either attack the poll or tone it down. We aren't talking about a "segment of the population" or "US fringe types". We are talking about half of americans beleiving in AQ = Saddam, beleiving in WMD claims and Bush not cherry picking Intelligence. If that is a "fringe" in the US... you got a big big fringe element.I've already posted my understanding of the poll above, without "attacking" it. The split of 'fringes' on Iraq invasion appears to be roughly 20% pro to 20% contra.

1. "half of americans beleiving in AQ = Saddam"

Is AQ in Iraq or isn't it? Forget attacks on US troops for a moment. Let's go through big suicide bombings against other targets in chronological order. Who blew up Jordanian embassy? Who blew up UN mission headquarters? Who blew up Shiite mosques? Who blew up Kurds? You'd say US invasion brought AQ into Iraq, while 50% of US public think it might have been there before. You think you are right and 50% of US public think they are right. You'd say that under Saddam there was no suicide bombings against Shiite and Kurds and I say that there was no need for them, because Saddam was terrorizing Shiite and Kurds sufficiently. Saddam was terrorizing Shiite and Kurds then, AQ is terrorizing Shiite and Kurds now: just a coincidence? May be so, but don't say that people have no reasons to believe that Saddam and AQ were connected.

2. "half of americans ... beleiving in WMD claims"

Saddam might have had some WMD before the invasion. Most authorities were saying that he did. He was refusing to come completely clean, so might have been holding something back. Note that the question doesn't specify what scale were the stockpiles believed to be. Also note that 18% of US public changed their minds on this subject.

3. "half of americans beleiving in ... Bush not cherry picking Intelligence"

There is no question to that effect in the poll. The closest I see is: ""Do you believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war ... was generally accurate or misleading?" with 40% saying "Generally accurate", while again 15% changed their minds. Those 40% would include me, too. I looked at "what we were told" and concluded that on the basis of evidence presented, the case for invasion was non-existent. Let me make it perfectly clear: while I thought that the invasion might be necessary, I also thought that the case for it was non-existent. I assume that quite a few people followed a similar process.

You might "believe" that you are smarter than 50% of US public. However, Your "believe" might be quite detached from the reality.

[scotandrsn]

Let's get right to the source.

Here is Harris Interactive's report on their own poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=456).

First off, they interviewed less than 1000 people. They invoke statistical theory to say this should accurately represent public opinion within 3% in either direction. However, they also mention that they do not count people who refused to respond to the phone poll.

IMO, this is far too small a sample for this issue.

Furthermore, in their analysis of the results, they have chosen to lump those who said that "Somewhat Accurate" reflected their response to the question:

"Do you believe that intelligence given before the war to President Bush by the CIA and others about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction was completely accurate, somewhat accurate, somewhat misleading, or very misleading?"

If there had only been three responses ("completely accurate", "somewhat accurate", "misleading"), I might see how they would group the results this way. However, IMO, the responses "somewhat accurate" and "somewhat misleading" are just glass-half-full-or-empty versions of the same response. In fact, to me, in this context, "somewhat accurate" suggests: "mostly crap with shreds of truth", and "somewhat misleading" suggests: "mostly correct with some errors of fact", and that the responses are in the wrong order. 46% of people (the highest bracket) responded "somewhat accurate". Did they interpret that response my way, or Harris' way, which seems to imply small deviation from some midline?

With this sort of ambiguity in the phrasing of the question and the spread of the answers, I could easily interpret the selfsame results as "89% of American adults believe that the reports on Iraqi WMD's were at least partially misleading, with only 5% responding that they were completely accurate."

But again, the sample number is so small, I don't necessarily think the survey is indicative of anything very conclusive.

[New Iskander]

Some of the perversions of Brazilian politics to get to foreign new sources... but like someone put it well... these perversions don't upset the whole world or kill foreigners.If US will give all its munitions to Brazil and make Brazil the only suoerpower, what will be consequences to the World?

[iamme99]

I've already posted my understanding of the poll above, without "attacking" it. The split of 'fringes' on Iraq invasion appears to be roughly 20% pro to 20% contra.

1. "half of americans beleiving in AQ = Saddam"

Is AQ in Iraq or isn't it? Forget attacks on US troops for a moment. Let's go through big suicide bombings against other targets in chronological order. Who blew up Jordanian embassy? Who blew up UN mission headquarters? Who blew up Shiite mosques? Who blew up Kurds? You'd say US invasion brought AQ into Iraq, while 50% of US public think it might have been there before. You think you are right and 50% of US public think they are right. You'd say that under Saddam there was no suicide bombings against Shiite and Kurds and I say that there was no need for them, because Saddam was terrorizing Shiite and Kurds sufficiently. Saddam was terrorizing Shiite and Kurds then, AQ is terrorizing Shiite and Kurds now: just a coincidence? May be so, but don't say that people have no reasons to believe that Saddam and AQ were connected.

2. "half of americans ... beleiving in WMD claims"

Saddam might have had some WMD before the invasion. Most authorities were saying that he did. He was refusing to come completely clean, so might have been holding something back. Note that the question doesn't specify what scale were the stockpiles believed to be. Also note that 18% of US public changed their minds on this subject.

3. "half of americans beleiving in ... Bush not cherry picking Intelligence"

There is no question to that effect in the poll. The closest I see is: ""Do you believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war ... was generally accurate or misleading?" with 40% saying "Generally accurate", while again 15% changed their minds. Those 40% would include me, too. I looked at "what we were told" and concluded that on the basis of evidence presented, the case for invasion was non-existent. Let me make it perfectly clear: while I thought that the invasion might be necessary, I also thought that the case for it was non-existent. I assume that quite a few people followed a similar process.
Well, I for one am not at all clear on much of the logic you used above, particularly this extracted statement:

"Let me make it perfectly clear: while I thought that the invasion might be necessary, I also thought that the case for it was non-existent."

You thought a [very expensive and potentially divisive] invasion of IRAQ might be necessary but that the case for doing so was non-existent? There seems to be a logical disconnect here.

[New Iskander]

You thought a [very expensive and potentially divisive] invasion of IRAQ might be necessary but that the case for doing so was non-existent? There seems to be a logical disconnect here.By 'case for the war' I meant the justification (casus belli).

[Airblairxxx]

Let's keep in mind this is an election year, and the first presidential election after 9/11.

So the electorate is going to be polarized to begin with. By that I mean there will be a certain percentage of voters who will vote one way or another regardless of the candidate or their positions on issues--i.e., a generic Republican or Democrat can count on, I guess, 25% of the vote to begin with.

Then you add the 2000 election, the war against Iraq, and the aforementioned 9/11, and each side goes up to 40% or so of the electorate who will vote their candidate, no question about it, LALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING TO ANYONE WHO TELLS ME OTHERWISE AND I WON'T PULL MY FINGERS OUT OF MY EARS UNTIL IT COMES TIME TO PUNCH A VOTER CARD.

That is what you're seeing here. It's Bush vs AnybodyButBush, evenly matched. You will get variations based on whether a poll queries registered voters vs likely voters, how a poll asks a certain question (scotandrsn parsed this pretty well), etc., etc.

I haven't seen anything that indicates one campaign is pulling ahead of the other. Remember, it's not statistically significant unless the difference between the candidates is at least twice as large as the margin of error. And there's a lot of people who haven't made up their minds yet, and won't until September at the earliest.

For every Kerry supporter who wonders how the hell Bush's numbers stayed where they were, and even rose, after the month he had, there's a Bush supporter wondering how Kerry's numbers didn't drop after $50 million worth of political carpet bombs dropped on the "battleground states".

Personally, what I think will happen is Bush will get so many votes from his "red states" that he'll end up winning the popular election . . . and lose in the electoral college. And the day after the election, it will be announced that Osama bin Laden was actually captured months before.

By the French forces that are in Afghanistan.

[jshore]

Let's get right to the source.

Here is Harris Interactive's report on their own poll (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=456).

First off, they interviewed less than 1000 people. They invoke statistical theory to say this should accurately represent public opinion within 3% in either direction. However, they also mention that they do not count people who refused to respond to the phone poll.

IMO, this is far too small a sample for this issue.

...

But again, the sample number is so small, I don't necessarily think the survey is indicative of anything very conclusive.

I don't understand your complaints about sample size. Have you looked at polls before? This is pretty much par for the course on sample sizes and, as they note, it gives you a statistical uncertainty on the order of +-3%. Now, there can always be more substantive problems with how they ask the question, etc. (as you noted) and how they did their sampling. But, if you are going to say you don't believe this poll because of its small sample size and/or its methodology in regards to people who refuse to respond, you are probably going to find there are few polls that you can believe.

[AmericanMaid]

Since I'm in a grad statistics class currently, maybe I can explain why there is a concern about sampling size (if I can't, I'll be screwed for my final next week). In statistics, if you survey a "large enough" sample, your results can represent the larger population within a certain margin of error. Usually, polling organizations work backwards from the margin of error they're willing to tolerate to the large enough sampling size. There's this big complicated formula to derive the sampling size. As a rule of thumb, a sample greater than 30 should be large enough. Since Harris Interactive is a marketing research firm, they should be quite capable of accurate surveys.

[scotandrsn]

I don't understand your complaints about sample size. Have you looked at polls before? This is pretty much par for the course on sample sizes and, as they note, it gives you a statistical uncertainty on the order of +-3%. Now, there can always be more substantive problems with how they ask the question, etc. (as you noted) and how they did their sampling. But, if you are going to say you don't believe this poll because of its small sample size and/or its methodology in regards to people who refuse to respond, you are probably going to find there are few polls that you can believe.

Actually, I don't tend to believe US opinion polls whose sample size is significantly less than 1% of the population of the population, despite what is declared by statistical theory. This poll, for example. To believe that it accurately depicts American Public opinion on the Iraq situation, I have to accept the assumptioin that ALL people across the broad range of opinion are equally willing to answer a phone poll, in this day of the Do Not Call Registry. Maybe you can make that assumption, maybe you can't, but until I could have some data on that to draw a conclusion from (and I am not sure how this would even be possible), I have no basis upon which to lend full creedence to the results. IMO, you can not make this assumption. I think the only people who would wish to answer a phone poll about Iraq would be those with VERY strong opinions.

Or perhaps the calls were not random. The poll report is mute on exactly who was called and how their information was obtained. Was it a really a representative sample?

To take the results at face value, if I were to walk up a random person on the street and ask them these questions, the most likely set of responses I would expect to get from them would be:


that they favor withdrawing troops from Iraq within a year(51%)
that they think it very likely that the US will get bogged down there with no stable outcome(45%)
that they think the pre-war government statements about Iraq's WMDs and links to al Qaeda were misleading(51%)
that no clear evidence of WMD's have been found in Iraq(74%)
but that they had them anyway(51%)
However, clear evidence of an al Qaeda link HAS been found (49%)
that the intelligence provided to the administration was "somewhat accurate" (whatever that means)(46%)
that when the government presented its "misleading" case based on "somewhat accurate" intelligence, it tried to present it accurately rather than exaggerating(50%)


This collective mess respresents the opinion of exactly none of the dozens of people I have talked to myself in the last year about the war, so I have a hard time believing the above interview would be likely to take place.

The REAL data we need is to find out correlations between responses (how many people who wish to withdraw troops believe evidence of an al Qaeda link has been found, etc.). Perhaps Harris provides this to whoever paid for them to take the poll. That might tell us something conclusive, despite the small sample size.

Otherwise, I have a hard time drawing any coherent conclusions based on these numbers. This poll tells me next to nothing.

[SentientMeat]

yojimbo: or maybe we'll debate the bin tax?I guess someone who pays lots of tax would be veritably "bin Laden"?

[elucidator]

Drag him out and shoot him. I'll swear out the warrant later.

[Rashak Mani]

1. "half of americans beleiving in AQ = Saddam"

Is AQ in Iraq or isn't it? ... May be so, but don't say that people have no reasons to believe that Saddam and AQ were connected.


So beleiving allows for invading ? There has been ZERO proof of AQ activities in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion. After a year of occupation not a single pre-war proof. Quite the contrary seemed to be the case. AQ = radical islamist. Saddam = Secular dictator. Saddam didn't want religious types leaders in his sandbox.

If people beleive in AQ - Saddam connection because they want to... or because it makes the Iraq war excusable isn't a good point. Invading countries and then afterwards claiming that AQ was there all along is wrong and sick.

No one but Bushites and Blair were clearly convinced about the reasons for invading Iraq. Powell made that lame joke presentation in the UN... and the rest of the world clearly thought there was no proof.

[New Iskander]

So beleiving allows for invading ? There has been ZERO proof of AQ activities in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion. After a year of occupation not a single pre-war proof. Quite the contrary seemed to be the case. AQ = radical islamist. Saddam = Secular dictator. Saddam didn't want religious types leaders in his sandbox.

If people beleive in AQ - Saddam connection because they want to... or because it makes the Iraq war excusable isn't a good point. Invading countries and then afterwards claiming that AQ was there all along is wrong and sick.

No one but Bushites and Blair were clearly convinced about the reasons for invading Iraq. Powell made that lame joke presentation in the UN... and the rest of the world clearly thought there was no proof.You are mixing two completely different things: the Poll and the Reason for Invasion.

The Poll

There are good reasons to believe that there was Saddam-AlQ connection. It might appear as a ridiculous notion to you, but you must admit that you are biased on the subject beforehand. Stranger things have come to pass in recent history (Stalin and Hitler pact, for example). Statements like "Saddam didn't want religious types leaders in his sandbox" are meaningless and prove nothing. Of course he didn't want AlQ in his hair; still, he had all the reasons to rejoice seeing them in our hair. Whatever AlQ did to us, he was a prime suspect by default. Don't forget that out of the whole world, only Saddam and Palestinian media expressed some kind of approval for 9-11.


Reason for Invasion

Whatever you might think about 50% of US public that believes in "Saddam-AlQ connection" you must understand that those people didn't just get up and invaded Iraq. You must always put the issue in historical perspective, exactly what all Bush-haters always refuse to do. This issue was a thorn in US side for at least since 1991. US Army had to expel Saddam from Kuwait, with attendant losses of many US soldiers lives, while almost the whole world took it for granted (including Brazil). US and GB blockaded Saddam for 12 years with all the attendant expenses and dangers, while almost the whole world took it for granted (including Brazil). All those 12 years US public was exposed to endless stories of population suffering and Saddam prospering in Iraq, with other countries (may be including Brazil?) accusing US for all this. US public might have had good reasons to be well disposed to removing Saddam. That was the message that was coming out when Bush was preparing for the invasion: "Saddam has to go". What was wrong with that? Some people here try to insinuate that US public was 'deceived'. In reality, very few people were deceived. Most people I talked to didn't consider Bush arguments very convincing; they understood only that Bush wants Saddam out and they had no problem with that.

"The rest of the world" can pat itself on the back all it can imagining that they were smarter than US public. They were not smarter. They were simply impotent.

[elucidator]

...Most people I talked to didn't consider Bush arguments very convincing; they understood only that Bush wants Saddam out...

Stunning. It doesn't matter that the case was weak, because no one believed him anyway?

[New Iskander]

Stunning. It doesn't matter that the case was weak, because no one believed him anyway?Case in point. Any historical perspective is denied out of hand. There were three things to do: invade, do nothing and keep the sanctions going, or withdraw completely (the latter was never mentioned by anyone). Good part of US public didn't care for the perfect case under the circumstances, for they considered Saddam as a pest

Next time you might be tempted to stomp a cockroach STOP!.. and present a solid case.

[New Iskander]

Speaking about 'solid cases', can somebody please present a solid case that Bush did actually 'deceive' the US public?

The way I saw it (and the OP poll generally conforms):

- 20% of US public were clamoring for Bush to go after Saddam even before 9-11. They were angry at Bush for not doing it for a long time, calling him names like "Powell's sissy boy" or somesuch;

- 20% of US public didn't want Saddam removed, come hell or high water;

- 20% of US public looked at Bush case and said, "Yeah, I buy that, especially after 9-11";

- 20% of US public looked at Bush case and said, "No way I buy that";

- 20 % probably couldn't be bothered.

How the hell can anyone claim that Bush "deceived the Nation"?

What Bush did was hornswoggled enough Democratic Congressmen to vote for resolution that allowed him a free hand on Iraq. Those Democratic congressmen were doing it for their own personal reasons. Nobody was 'deceived'.

[jshore]

Actually, I don't tend to believe US opinion polls whose sample size is significantly less than 1% of the population of the population, despite what is declared by statistical theory. This poll, for example. To believe that it accurately depicts American Public opinion on the Iraq situation, I have to accept the assumptioin that ALL people across the broad range of opinion are equally willing to answer a phone poll, in this day of the Do Not Call Registry. Maybe you can make that assumption, maybe you can't, but until I could have some data on that to draw a conclusion from (and I am not sure how this would even be possible), I have no basis upon which to lend full creedence to the results. IMO, you can not make this assumption. I think the only people who would wish to answer a phone poll about Iraq would be those with VERY strong opinions.

I think you are really confused on some statistical issues here. There is no reason why a statistical sampling of a large number of people has to be a few percent of the total number or more in order to give a good statistical sample, provided that the size of the sample itself is large enough in absolute numbers to reduce statistical fluctuations. Take an example of trying to determine the composition of the atmosphere: With your logic, one would argue that no practical measurement would be very accurate because your measurement device would presumably only collect a miniscule percentage of the total number of molecules in the atmosphere. However, I would argue that you could actually get fantastically good statistical results because although the fraction of the atmosphere might be small, the number of molecules in such a sampling could easily be on the order of something like 10 to the 20th power which will give you great statistics.

Now, you may be right that the way that they do the sampling introduces some systematic bias. However, that is a different issue and won't go away by making the sample size bigger. They could survey 20% of the population and still get biased results if the way the respondents are selected (e.g., by willingness to participate) actually significantly skews the results. In my atmosphere analogy, a systematic bias would occur, for example, by looking at atmospheric composition using a collection point that is right near the tailpipe of an automobile or a major manufacturing plant.

So, yes, there may be some systematic bias in this poll. However, it has nothing to do with its sample size. And, of course, this systematic bias is an issue that good pollsters deal with all the time and I assume that they have learned how to at least roughly deal with it or at least have learned (e.g., through comparisons with election results) how large or small it tends to be.

[jshore]

Oh yeah, one more point: There are probably two different types of systematic bias worth distinguishing here. One type is a bias in the sample, e.g., by who chooses to answer the poll or who selects to be on Do Not Call lists (although I am not sure such lists apply to polling organizations, or at least not-for-profit polling organizations). Another type of bias is a bias in the way the questions are phrased or the order in which they are presented. This type of bias won't go away even if you are able to improve your sampling technique in a way that reduces the first type of bias. (I think that one thing they do in some polls is randomize the order in which they ask the questions.)

[Rashak Mani]

You are mixing two completely different things: the Poll and the Reason for Invasion.

The Poll

Statements like "Saddam didn't want religious types leaders in his sandbox" are meaningless and prove nothing. Of course he didn't want AlQ in his hair; still, he had all the reasons to rejoice seeing them in our hair. Whatever AlQ did to us, he was a prime suspect by default.

Reason for Invasion

This issue was a thorn in US side for at least since 1991. US Army had to expel Saddam from Kuwait, with attendant losses of many US soldiers lives, while almost the whole world took it for granted (including Brazil). US and GB blockaded Saddam for 12 years with all the attendant expenses and dangers, while almost the whole world took it for granted (including Brazil). All those 12 years US public was exposed to endless stories of population suffering and Saddam prospering in Iraq, with other countries (may be including Brazil?) accusing US for all this. US public might have had good reasons to be well disposed to removing Saddam. That was the message that was coming out when Bush was preparing for the invasion: "Saddam has to go". What was wrong with that? Some people here try to insinuate that US public was 'deceived'. In reality, very few people were deceived. Most people I talked to didn't consider Bush arguments very convincing; they understood only that Bush wants Saddam out and they had no problem with that.

So you counter my "Saddam doesn't like AQ" statement with another statement: "Whatever AlQ did to us, he was a prime suspect by default." When in fact Saddam was NEVER the prime suspect ! Except for Bush maybe. Everyone pointed to ObL and AQ. In fact no one ever came up with a Iraq connection except the White House. (The CIA didn't either).

So in your historical perspective the US public wanted Saddam out anyway... what does that have to do with:

1. Terrorism
2. WMD that don't exist
3. Al Qaeda
4. 9-11
5. US national security

Like I said many times. Why didnt Bush just claim he wanted Saddam out and finish the Gulf War ? When he started making stuff up as an excuse, and badly so, that the world turned their back on the US. Bush a "straight talker"... come on... that's a joke.

[New Iskander]

So you counter my "Saddam doesn't like AQ" statement with another statement: "Whatever AlQ did to us, he was a prime suspect by default."I didn't counter your obvious statement, I said that there were perfectly valid reasons to think otherwise than you do.

So in your historical perspective the US public wanted Saddam out anyway... what does that have to do with:

1. Terrorism
2. WMD that don't exist
3. Al Qaeda
4. 9-11
5. US national securityI said 40% of US public likely wanted Saddam out (as OP poll indicates) while 40% likely didn't. What does it have to do with your list? Nothing.

You seem to be so obsessed with Bush that you throw everything you can at him in hope that something will stick. If it suits your purpose to declare that US public is a one single moronic mass that can be deceived to a last man, you immediately assume this on faith. The reality is quite different.

Why didnt Bush just claim he wanted Saddam out and finish the Gulf War ? When he started making stuff up as an excuse, and badly so, that the world turned their back on the US.Are you seriously saying that the same "world" that is having fits about 'Bush unilateralism' after Bush spent months trying to persuade it to see his side of things, would accept it if "Bush just claim he wanted Saddam out and finish the Gulf War" without a peep?

[scotandrsn]

I think you are really confused on some statistical issues here.


No, actually, I do realize that the sample size, in theory, ought to reflect public opinion, and that this a completely separate issue from potential bias.

What I am confused about is why I try to address these technical issues at my worst times of day, namely the crack of dawn and right after lunch. :)

My problem with the survey is that while it ought to reflect public opinion, in my dealings with a fairly random selection of people, it does not.

Take, for example, the 4th and 5th questions, where 51% of respondents believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction just prior to the American Invasion, despite the fact that 74% acknowledge that no clear evidence of them has been found after a year.

This necessitates that a certain number of people are of the opinion that Iraq had sufficient stockpiles of WMDs to warrant a pre-emptive invasion that have by some means remained completely elusive for over 12 months.

Given the numbers involved and the stated margin of error, this overlap amounts to anywhere from 19% to 31% of the total sample, and by implication of the general adult populace.

This means that on average, roughly every fifth to every third random person whose opinion I might hear on this topic should express just this viewpoint. However, I have heard exactly one person who claims to hold such a belief at this time: President Bush. From others, I hear justifications for the war based on other criteria, but I do not hear anyone I happen to meet (and there are no shortage of random people willing to share their opinion on this subject) saying they still think some massive stockpile has somehow evaded detection.

My clumsy posts have simply been an attempt at exploring how the poll results could be so off from reality. I simply may be a statistical anomoly, but I don't know anyone who could tell me where anything like the number of people who amount to 19-31% of Magic WMD believers might be. They apparently only talk to pollsters.

Or there's something not quite right with the poll.

[scotandrsn]

Come to think of it, the numbers I gave previously only account for the situation with the least amount of overlap, taking into account the extremes of the margin of error. Actually, the results as stated would allow for a full 51% of respondents to believe in phantom weapons, or anything in between that and 19%. So somewhere between every fifth person you run across and every other person you'll find someone confident that the weapons will be found.

I have nothing in my own experience other than this poll to suggest that this is remotely true.

[jshore]

This means that on average, roughly every fifth to every third random person whose opinion I might hear on this topic should express just this viewpoint. However, I have heard exactly one person who claims to hold such a belief at this time: President Bush. From others, I hear justifications for the war based on other criteria, but I do not hear anyone I happen to meet (and there are no shortage of random people willing to share their opinion on this subject) saying they still think some massive stockpile has somehow evaded detection.

Well, maybe you are just hanging out with the right people. ;) In fact, I have seen a number of people on this board say things like:

(1) I bet the weapons were sent over to Syria.

or

(2) It is easy to take a bunch of weapons and bury them in the sand somewhere and then they are nearly impossible to find. (Some cite the example of the one part from a centrifuge or whatever that was dug up in one of the nuclear scientists' backyard.)

I don't know if this sort of thinking accounts for as high a percentage as need be. There are probably also some people who just haven't thought it through that much and so the answer they give depends on how the question is asked. I.e., they vaguely hold the view that there must have been WMDs because Bush and Co. were so insistent there were; however, at the same time, they have heard enough news to know noone has found any. So, they just don't really give a lot of thought to how to reconcile these two views.

[scotandrsn]

(1) I bet the weapons were sent over to Syria.

or

(2) It is easy to take a bunch of weapons and bury them in the sand somewhere and then they are nearly impossible to find. (Some cite the example of the one part from a centrifuge or whatever that was dug up in one of the nuclear scientists' backyard.)

I don't know if this sort of thinking accounts for as high a percentage as need be.

My point exactly. And furthermore, what percentage of people have posted such notions in the last three months, which is what the poll was measuring?

There are probably also some people who just haven't thought it through that much and so the answer they give depends on how the question is asked. I.e., they vaguely hold the view that there must have been WMDs because Bush and Co. were so insistent there were; however, at the same time, they have heard enough news to know noone has found any. So, they just don't really give a lot of thought to how to reconcile these two views.

I agree. But still, 19-51% ?!? (I wish Harris Interactive had published some of this overlap data so we knew the actual number.)

According to the Census Bureau (Alert! PDF file) (http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf) , there are about 200 million adults in this country. (I'm allowing for a discrepancy between Harris' sense of an adult being over 18 or over 21 which I didn't see them state, the fact that 2 years have gone by since this summary was current, the Bureau's home page estimate that we've added over 10 million people in that time, and rounding off to the nearest 8th power of 10. How's that for accuracy?)

Where, oh where, do you round up 38,000,000 to 102,000,000 grown Americans that aren't simply supporter of Bush or the war, but today believe the WMD's were there and have been spirited away?

Hence, my bafflement at the poll results.

[PatriotX]

As of now, 19% of 'die-hards' still "believe that clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq", while 21% of different 'die-hards' didn't "believe Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction when the war began" as early as June 2003.

Also, as of now, 40% "believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization, was generally accurate" ('die-hards' must be included here, of course), while 36% found it "misleading" as early as June 2003 (another group of 'die-hards' must be included here).

So we have roughly 40% for one side and 36% for the other. That leaves roughly 24% of US public remained to be influenced one way or another. I am pretty sure that the majority of these 24% were making an informed decision on how to regard administration claims regarding Iraq. The poll seems to show that the majority of those capable to change their minds were on the side of the Bush, but was it really the ‘Bush side’?

Since some of the issues addressed in this and previous polls are the public's awareness of facts, (opposed to the assessment of the split amongst equally valid "beliefs"), the evidence indicates that people are not making "an informed decision."

[Rashak Mani]

I didn't counter your obvious statement, I said that there were perfectly valid reasons to think otherwise than you do.

I said 40% of US public likely wanted Saddam out (as OP poll indicates) while 40% likely didn't. What does it have to do with your list? Nothing.

You claim Saddam was the prime suspect... where did you get that from ? He was the prime suspect when ? Thinking Saddam was the 9-11 mastermind seems very little "valid".

The US public didn't decide to invade Iraq. Bush did. What were the reasons Bush gave for invading then ? My list includes most of the reasons given... and most of these reasons appear to have been bloated or cherry picked. Or did Bush openly say toppling Saddam was the major reason ?

[New Iskander]

Since some of the issues addressed in this and previous polls are the public's awareness of facts, (opposed to the assessment of the split amongst equally valid "beliefs"), the evidence indicates that people are not making "an informed decision."There you go again with 'people' in general. I said 24% "were making an informed decision". There is no such thing as people in general, btw. Otherwise You and I would be thinking but a single thought at the same time.

[New Iskander]

You claim Saddam was the prime suspect... where did you get that from ? He was the prime suspect when ?Saddam was the prime suspect immediately after 9-11. The possibility of Saddam involvement was immediately discussed everywhere. Nobody said, "Who, Saddam? How ridiculous!" True, his involvement was never proven, but that is not what I am talking about.
What were the reasons Bush gave for invading then ? My list includes most of the reasons given... and most of these reasons appear to have been bloated or cherry picked. Or did Bush openly say toppling Saddam was the major reason ?Bush presented a typical case fpr the prosecution, amassing everything negative he could find on Saddam. His objective was to remove Saddam. That's what he said in the ultimatum. He didn't say Saddam must open all the doors, he said "Saddam and his sons must leave Iraq". THat's how it was understood by other world powers. For example, at the final days before the invasion Russian envoy made a final attempt to convince Saddam to leave (http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2003/04/13/stories/2003041301351400.htm). Not come compleately clean, but leave.

[Squink]

Saddam was the prime suspect immediately after 9-11. The possibility of Saddam involvement was immediately discussed everywhere. Nobody said, "Who, Saddam? How ridiculous!"
Sure they did. Here's what Richard Clarke had to say on Sept. 12: (http://www.iht.com/articles/512393.html)
In his new book, "Against All Enemies," Clarke recounts that the president pulled him and several other aides into the White House Situation Room on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, and instructed them "to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." Clarke was incredulous, he said in the book. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this," he said he responded. "I know, I know," Bush answered, according to Clarke's account, adding, But "see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred." Last week, the White House said it had no record that Bush had even been in the Situation Room that day and said the president had no recollection of such a conversation. After independent corroboration, the white house backed off the denials, and admitted the meeting took place.

[Merijeek]

Another likely explanation -- though maybe not the whole explanation -- is that the Right has been buying the playing field thanks to relaxed FCC regulations regarding media ownership. Right wing hate radio, Fox News, the general shift in media ownership to the right ... the mass media consistently delivers the right wing message much more frequently and powerfully than the left wing message.

Funny, you think that Jews, being the Evil Media Conspiracy would lean more liberal. Stupid competing conspiracy theories.

Here's something interesting about the Right-Wing hate radio:

On Monday I was driving to New Orleans with my boss (a huge Rush fan, and a believer that GWB is like the second coming of Christ, only more impressive) and he, of course, turns on Gasbag Limbaugh.

Something that got just slipped in there was a cheap shot during one of his blurbs about checking out his 'document stack' online on John Kerry.

Thrown into the hate speech about Kerry with the typical "Liberal blah blah blah" was "French-Looking".

So, apparently John Kerry looks "French".

Thanks Rush. Glad to see you're still the voice of reason.

How's the hearing, you deaf bloated bag of shit?

-Joe

[PatriotX]

Thrown into the hate speech about Kerry with the typical "Liberal blah blah blah" was "French-Looking".

So, apparently John Kerry looks "French".


"The French-looking John Kerry" is a joke. It's just a joke. He's making fun of certain members of his audience.

[Rashak Mani]

Saddam was the prime suspect immediately after 9-11. The possibility of Saddam involvement was immediately discussed everywhere. Nobody said, "Who, Saddam? How ridiculous!" True, his involvement was never proven, but that is not what I am talking about.

hhhmm... nope. AQ was immediately the prime suspect. After all they had bombed the 2 embassies in Africa. Saddam was never suspected in any direct terrorist activity in the past at all ! (Unless invading Kuwait is a "terrorist" act). I'm talking about people with beyond high school mental abilities.

You could say that the common unwashed masses thought Saddam did it... but I seriously doubt that they came up with that spontaneosly. Everything from palestinians to iranians was a more "normal" thought... but not Saddam. (I don't remember Iraq being a major issue right at that time)

Follow that Richard Clarke link for more details about Bushthinking.

[Evil Captor]

Funny, you think that Jews, being the Evil Media Conspiracy would lean more liberal. Stupid competing conspiracy theories.

Nice strawman. Allow me to beat the stuffing out of it.

The proposition that the right wing has been buying the media is not a conspiracy theory because conspiracies involve secrecy, and there's nothing secret going on here. Rupert Murdoch doesn't secretly own Fox News. That jerk who runs Clear Channel doesn't secretly own Clear Channel. The Moonies don't secretly own the Washington Times. And there's no big secret to the notion that wealthy people tend to own newspapers chains, broadcasting stations of various sorts, and that wealthy people tend to be conservative.

An observation of a social phenomenon is not a conspiracy theory, and saying that it's equivalent to the belief that the Jews conspire to control the media among right wing loonies is just the kind of self-serving baloney that people who like to present themselves as "balanced" tend to come up with. You're not balanced, you're just not paying attention.

All your conspiracy accusation are baloney to us. When come back bring pie.

[Merijeek]

"The French-looking John Kerry" is a joke. It's just a joke. He's making fun of certain members of his audience.

Really? Care to explain the joke?

-Joe

[Merijeek]

Nice strawman. Allow me to beat the stuffing out of it.

The proposition that the right wing has been buying the media is not a conspiracy theory because conspiracies involve secrecy, and there's nothing secret going on here. Rupert Murdoch doesn't secretly own Fox News. That jerk who runs Clear Channel doesn't secretly own Clear Channel. The Moonies don't secretly own the Washington Times. And there's no big secret to the notion that wealthy people tend to own newspapers chains, broadcasting stations of various sorts, and that wealthy people tend to be conservative.

An observation of a social phenomenon is not a conspiracy theory, and saying that it's equivalent to the belief that the Jews conspire to control the media among right wing loonies is just the kind of self-serving baloney that people who like to present themselves as "balanced" tend to come up with. You're not balanced, you're just not paying attention.

All your conspiracy accusation are baloney to us. When come back bring pie.

Sigh.

It wasn't a straw man, it was a one-liner.

It was making fun of the whackos who are convinced that the Evil Jews secretly control the media (along with everything else). You know, the big conspiracy that's so super secret that every White Power Troglodyte knows about it because he and his bretheren are the only ones with the sense to see through The Big Lie.

Going on to line 7 of my explanation of my one-liner, if the Right is buying up all the media (causing the trends in opinon being discussed), then, apparently the Evil Zionist Conspiracy is actually a load of horseshit.

-Joe, line 11 of my one-liner explanation, understanding that when it actually posts it will be less lines.