Rob on Say Anything makes some valid points about the AP poll that the anti-war movement always cites when they want to make the case that they're now the majority. (h/t: Wizbang) The party affiliation numbers suggest it's not very representative of either the total or the voting population. He might be going a little too far, however, when he states:
The bottom line is, I’m not sure I’m going to be trusting any more of these polls touted by the media. It just doesn’t seem like any of them are really all that representative of the true opinions and feelings of the people.
Well, it's going to be tough knowing the public attitude and values if we stop conducting polls. And you could tell pretty easily that this AP poll wasn't representative... which suggests that one needn't necessarily be skeptical of all polls. Let's try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've helped design a number of academic surveys using reputable firms (like Angus Reid Group) and don't think it's wise to paint with such a broad brush. The cell phone problem is real, but there are countermeasures. And refusals that might bias the results have been around for a long time, so the same corrective measures would work with "don't call" lists. (Legitimate political surveys aren't included in the national "don't call" list anyway.)
By the way, to point out a problem that Rob didn't discuss: one thing that I rarely see mentioned in MSM coverage concerning polls that identify approval or disapproval of Bush's handling of the war is any attempt to distinguish between those who feel we're not sufficiently invested and those who feel we're too invested. Believe it or not there are quite a few folks who think Bush is "too liberal," and that we ought to be not only pressing the war against Syria and Iran, but that we also ought to engage against perfidious Arab media. MSM and the anti-war Left always assume that disapproval signifies "too conservative" (warmongering), which is simply not the case.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia, Anticipatory Retaliation and The Jawa Report)
Posted by Demosophist at August 12, 2005 01:18 PM | TrackBackBelieve it or not there are quite a few folks who think Bush is "too liberal."
He is. Well maybe it's because the left would have a fit if we conducted this war the way we did in WWll. I sure wish we could get really nasty and end this "insurgency." He's also too liberal with government spending.
Posted by: PatC at August 12, 2005 01:56 PMPat:
I'm not sure we need to care one whit whether the Left "freaks out," because they'll obviously freek out at anything. If Bush explained his reasons clearly and had a vision to share then we could just have a national debate on the matter that went over the heads of MSM, or co-opted them, and get on with it. His other option, with respect to Syria and Iran for instance, is to "just do it." There doesn't need to be a national referendum on he issue. The main issue would be convincing congress, possibly in secret sessions, that it has to be done. But if Bush were a decent communicator that's not an insurmountable problem.
As far as the "insurgency" goes, we're doing about as well as we can given the nature of the difficulty and the fact that we can't seem to prevent support from Iran, Syria and other Arab states.
Posted by: Demosophist at August 14, 2005 11:11 PMI never thought I'd wish for another Harry Truman.
Posted by: PatC at August 16, 2005 06:54 PM