Bush numbers rising

[lilcountriegal]

Americans back Iraq war 2-to-1
Poll finds candidate Dean out of step with majority sentiment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 22, 2003
2:40 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein boosted Americans' support for the war to a 2-to-1 margin, according to a new poll, putting voters increasingly at odds with Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean's anti-war stance.

"My position on the war has not changed," Dean said in a major foreign-policy address last week. "The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time."

In contrast, 67 percent of adults surveyed believe the Bush administration made the right decision in going to war with Iraq.

The poll of 1,001 adults conducted during three days last week for the Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs has a margin of error of +/- three percentage points.

Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of the president's handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism. That's up from 54 percent of those surveyed earlier this month.

Contrary to Dean's assertion that "the capture of Saddam [Hussein] has not made America safer," seven in 10 Americans said they believed the war in Iraq was an important part of the battle against terrorism, and 49 percent said the war made future terrorist attacks in the United States less likely. Forty percent believe attacks are more likely.

Dean spokesman Jay Carson dismissed the findings.

"Let's not forget the reason that we went to war: stopping an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction that have not been found or proven," Carson told the Washington Times.

The AP poll findings resemble other surveys.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec. 14 showed the public's assessment of Bush's management of the Iraq conflict jumped to 58 percent, up from 48 percent last month.

Eight in 10 Americans responding to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken Dec. 14 rejected the idea that, with Saddam now in custody, American forces should be withdrawn from Iraq.

Article

 

[5stringJeff]

Not good news when your major platform plank is opposed by 67% of Americans.

While Dean's anti-war-at-all-costs stance will be rewarded in the Party, it will be soundly rejected at the polls.

 

[jon_forward]

really out of touch, knows it and does nothing.... as Captain Dean stood at the wheel, the ship started to lisp....

 

[acludem]

Of course there will be a rise for Bush in these numbers. We caught Saddam. In a couple of months, when we still haven't found any weapons and insurgency continues, the numbers will go back down. Of course, polls aren't really that reliable anyway. You can get whatever results you want depending on how you frame the questions. News outlets love war, it's good for newspaper sales and television ratings.

 

[MtnBiker]

I wonder how reliable ABC thinks its own poll is?


ABC Still Won’t Report Hike in Bush Approval

ABC’s World News Tonight still hasn’t reported how, in the wake of the capture of Saddam Hussein, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that President Bush’s approval level overall rose four points with a ten point jump in approval for how he’s handling the situation in Iraq, but on Tuesday night Dan Rather found a few seconds to relay how a new CBS News/New York Times poll discovered a six point hike in Bush’s approval level.

Rather reported, over matching graphics listing the numbers: “The capture of Saddam has also changed U.S. public opinion about Iraq and President Bush. In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, 65 percent of Americans say U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going well -- 47 percent thought so before Saddam’s capture. You may want to note, though, that only one in four Americans believes there will be fewer attacks on U.S. troops now. As for President Bush, his job approval rating has gone up six points since the capture of Saddam. It now stands at 58 percent in our poll.”

For CBS’s rundown of the poll results: www.cbsnews.com

As the December 16 CyberAlert noted, NBC showcased on Monday’s NBC Nightly News its survey finding that after Hussein’s capture Bush’s approval rating jumped by six points while his margin over Howard Dean expanded from 12 to 21 points.

But though Monday’s Washington Post featured the results of the ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted on Sunday afternoon and evening, Peter Jennings didn’t utter a word about it on Monday night and he didn’t catch up on Tuesday.

The only hint as to the good news for Bush in the ABC poll came in a small graphic on screen for a few seconds on Monday’s Good Morning America as Claire Shipman tried to diminish the impact of catching Hussein. She highlighted how “ABC News has a new poll out today that shows most Americans don't believe Saddam's capture means the job is done there” as she warned that if “if the situation isn't stabilized,” the capture of Hussein “is not going to seem decisive for this administration."

As she was saying that, GMA put up a picture of a bearded Hussein which filled three-fourths the screen with the left-hand fourth showing a graphic citing a single poll number from an “ABC News/Washington Post poll” on “President Bush's Approval Rating,” listing it at 58 percent after Saddam's capture compared with 48 percent in mid-November. In fact, the numbers were for approval of how Bush is handling the situation in Iraq.

The December 16 CyberAlert also noted that “as of late Monday night, I could not find any story on the ABC News Web site” about the poll. At some point on Tuesday, the Web site corrected that with a piece by Gary Langer, “A Sober Response: After Saddam's Capture, Most Say Difficult Challenges Remain,” which carries a December 15 date.

Langer, the in-house polling expert for ABC News, wasn’t too impressed with the bump up for Bush, which may explain why the result never made it onto the air:
“Bush's approval rating on handling Iraq remains below its levels last spring and early summer. And his overall job approval rating didn't show a significant gain -- it's 57 percent in this poll, compared with 53 percent in an ABC/Post poll Dec. 7.”

But Langer acknowledged: “Still, the number who 'strongly’ approve of Bush's work, 37 percent, is now its highest since August, up seven points from its post-Sept. 11, 2001, low in late October.”
For Langer’s analysis: abcnews.go.com
Media research

 

[Annie]

Of course, polls aren't really that reliable anyway. You can get whatever results you want depending on how you frame the questions.

posted by acludem

This is a case in point, though probably not what you meant: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40031-2003Dec29.html



washingtonpost.com
Bush-Hatred: Fearful Loathing . . .


By Robert J. Samuelson

Tuesday, December 30, 2003; Page A19


The political story of 2003 was, in some ways, the fashionableness of "hate." It became respectable not simply to disagree with George W. Bush or to dislike him and criticize him -- but to go further and declare your everlasting hate for the man. People bragged about how much they hated Bush. This loathing of Bush from the left does not, as yet, seem any more vicious (and perhaps less so) than the loathing of Bill Clinton from the right. But what is different is the willingness to call it "hatred" and to have the label blessed by much of the press, which has concluded that Bush is different from other modern presidents.

Consider a recent Time cover story. Bush is the "Love Him, Hate Him President" who has "cleaved the nation into two tenaciously opposed camps even more than his predecessors. He is the man about whom Americans feel little ambivalence." Sounds convincing. But it doesn't seem to be true.

Of course, many Americans oppose Bush on everything from taxes to Iraq. They feel that he sold the war dishonestly and find his personal mannerisms -- his brittle language, his strutting -- deeply offensive. Jonathan Chait, justifying Bush hatred in the New Republic, put it this way: "Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest."

But just because lots of people feel passionately about Bush doesn't mean the country is split into Bush lovers and haters. Many Americans are ambivalent, as they often are. Some like Bush and not his policies -- or the reverse. Consider a Los Angeles Times survey in November (before Saddam Hussein's capture improved Bush's ratings): 40 percent liked the president and his policies; 6 percent liked his policies and disliked him; 28 percent liked him and disliked his policies; and 20 percent disliked him and his policies. Almost three-quarters liked the president or his policies. Interestingly, at the end of their presidencies, both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton enjoyed either personal or policy approval from about three-quarters of voters.

Nor is it unusual for presidents to be vilified. Lyndon Johnson was detested for the Vietnam War. Even before Watergate, Richard Nixon was seen as a dishonest schemer ("Tricky Dick"). Jimmy Carter was ridiculed as an incompetent who mismanaged the economy and foreign policy. Reagan was depicted as a far-right fanatic intent on dismantling the New Deal. To their detractors, all these presidents promoted national ruin. But none inspired the "H- word."

Indeed, among most Americans, Bush doesn't either. Because surveys didn't ask, we don't know how many Americans hated past presidents. But now the question is being asked, and the answers show that only a small minority -- millions, to be sure -- claim to hate Bush. One poll in December found that 3 percent did. The hating may have been slightly higher in the Clinton presidency, because the same poll asked respondents whether they now hate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and 5 percent said they did. But the central conclusion is striking: Most Americans don't see themselves as haters.

If "hate" were used loosely (as in, say, "kids hate spinach"), the word choice would be harmless. But people who claim to hate really mean it, and that's serious. It signifies that you've gone beyond discussion, compromise or even (to some extent) coexistence. The differences are too basic to be bridged. Genuine political hatred is usually reserved for true tyrants, whose unspeakable acts of brutality justify nothing less.

More than the language is butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit, stupidity, selfishness or evil. This was true of Clinton haters, and it's increasingly true of Bush haters. A small army of pundits and talking heads has now devoted itself to one story: the sins of Bush, Cheney and their supporters. They ruined the economy with massive tax cuts and budget deficits; the Iraq war was an excuse for corporate profiteering; their arrogance alienated foreign allies.

All ambiguity vanishes. For example: The economy is recovering, stimulated in part by huge budget deficits; and many traditional allies of the United States like having Bush as a political foil to excuse them from costly and unpopular commitments.

In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated -- and here, too, the parallels with Clinton are strong. This hatred embodies much fear and insecurity. The anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority. What really infuriated them was that he kept succeeding -- he won reelection, his approval ratings stayed high -- and that diminished their standing. If Clinton was approved, they must be disapproved.

Ditto for Bush. If he succeeded less, he'd be hated less. His fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he's mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them. They fear he's exiling them politically. On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage; but on another level, it's a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority -- something that makes them feel better about themselves. Either way, it represents another dreary chapter in the continuing coarsening of public discourse.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

[DKSuddeth]

Not to demean bush's numbers, this is more a reflection on the 'fickleness' of the american people, but what the hell is wrong with us? probably half of this population will swing in favor of anything that is working or that looks good instead of picking a stance and sticking with it. just a few months ago a majority of americans were in dissaproval of the iraq war because of how it was appearing to have not made progress and now that hussein is caught its 2 to 1 in favor.

The more I know people, the less proud I am of them sometimes.

 

[DKSuddeth]

The economy is recovering, stimulated in part by huge budget deficits

and someone PLEASE tell me how this works

 

[Annie]

probably half of this population will swing in favor of anything that is working or that looks good instead of picking a stance and sticking with it.

by DK

Hmm, one should stick with a position that doesn't work? The point in that would be?

Personally, I respect those that are open minded enough to change positions they previously firmly believed to be right, when better options are presented.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I should rephrase that. just remove the working part. Of course if something isn't working then yes, you should accept the new position.

Looking good or bad is another matter entirely.

I'll give bush his props here, at least he stuck with a decision, that initially, looked bad (pushing for war with iraq) and had popular world opinion against him. It worked out for him in this instance, which is good, but the 'swing' of popular approval is what I was referring to.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
and someone PLEASE tell me how this works

Large defecits = more gov't spending = more money flowing into the economy = rising economy.

I don't agree with doing this, necessarily. I think that this type of government spending artificially inflates the economy. If the government stopped spending so much, the economy would then very likely see a slight recession.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I thought so. a good analogy would be trading handfuls of sand. while each hand gets to feel full from time to time, you lose some of it every time.

 

[r3volut!on]

The poll of 1,001 adults conducted during three days last week

Wait a second...there are nearly 300 million people in the United States. How on EARTH can a poll of 1,001 adults ever possibly be an accurate reflection of general public opinion? That's less than 0.000003% of the population. Furthermore, where was the poll conducted?

 

[Annie]

Depends on the poll. Haven't taken 400 level stats yet?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by r3volut!on
Wait a second...there are nearly 300 million people in the United States. How on EARTH can a poll of 1,001 adults ever possibly be an accurate reflection of general public opinion? That's less than 0.000003% of the population. Furthermore, where was the poll conducted?

That's the same percentage polled when the foaming at the mouth liberals claimed "7 in 10 Americans think Saddam played a major role in 9/11". The liberals jumped on that poll for weeks!

Now the same figures show a trend that the libs don't like. Funny how that happens!

 

[r3volut!on]

Depends on the poll. Haven't taken 400 level stats yet?

Kathianne, if you know so much about statistics, why don't you enlighten me instead of patronizing?

 

[DKSuddeth]

That's the same percentage polled when the foaming at the mouth liberals claimed "7 in 10 Americans think Saddam played a major role in 9/11". The liberals jumped on that poll for weeks!

I think it was more than liberals that jumped on that jim. but i get your point.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I think it was more than liberals that jumped on that jim. but i get your point.

Fair enough, quite a few uninformed jumped on the bandwagon as well. That wasn't directed at anyone here. I belong to quite a few boards and the census was the same at all of them. I had that very same argument on no less than 5 different boards. I was drilled from ten different angles about how these polls are taken and just how accurate they are. Shoot, I even had that very argument on this board.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne, if you know so much about statistics, why don't you enlighten me instead of patronizing?

posted by r3volut!on

You're right, that was patronizing, I'm sorry. Check this out:

http://www.graphpad.com/articles/interpret/principles/stat_sig.htm

Here's another on polling: http://www.uoregon.edu/~mgall/statistical_significance_v.htm

Truth to tell, depending on the methodology employed, one can get very good results with a very small sample. Zogby is a good case in point, though I Hate his politics.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I hear ya jim, thats why I don't pay a hell of a lot of attention to polls.