Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Fun with Numbers (Polls, That Is...)
The Gallup Organization has released some additional results from their polling of last week.0 comments
With Transfer of Sovereignty Looming, Attitudes About Iraq Remain Negative
It appears that the American public may be settling into a numerical plateau for now on its attitudes towards the Bush administration's handling of its Iraq invasion.
With the results they released last week, showing Senator John Kerry pulling slightly ahead of President George W. Bush, it appears the great American beast is sitting, unhappily, winded, gathering its breath and its wits, waiting for the next wave of developments before reacting.
Lydia Saad, writing for this week's Gallup Poll release, seems to feel that this could be good news for Bush. That, while things are trending negative, he still has the chance to turn things around. Obviously, it will be up to Kerry's campaign to not allow him to do that.
I do not dispute any of these findings, I believe they make sense.
But, as opposed to last week's release, I do have a couple of bones to pick with Ms. Saad and the Gallup folks.
As they seem to be looking at the numbers in a vacuum, and not in the context that fueled the numbers, I fully disagree with some of their assessments of their own numbers.
Bush's numbers suffered an alarming drop in his approval numbers from January 2004 to April 2004 (61% to 49%). That coincides with the "ass-kicking" that much of the American public looked to inflict on the "evildoers" being turned back on us.
This was a period of almost nonstop car bombings and U.S. deaths ranging from a few a day to a dozen. And while Americans were digesting the daily carnage, the official final reports acknowledging the total absence of any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq hit the streets.
Americans were forced to look back and forth between 700+ U.S. dead and no WMDs. $150 billion from the Treasury gone and no WMDs. Back and forth. Back and forth.
This period ended with the killing and mutilation of four American corporate soldiers-for-hire, who were sold to the U.S. public as our "brave heroes," even though they were pulling down $1,500/day to be a private army, while our actual troops were being ripped off for food and materiel by U.S. corporations in Iraq.
The deaths of these mercenaries led to the extended siege at Fallujah, which was a complete military disaster.
A 12 point drop? Bush is lucky the American public didn't come after him with torches and pitchforks.
In all of their subsequent polling, Bush is firmly in negative territory, with negative numbers holding steady in the sub-60% range.
I believe Gallup makes another misread with their "Worth it, or not?" results.
Ms. Saad presents it as a simple trend:
At the same time, only 41% of Americans think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq; 58% disagree. This attitude has been markedly stable for the last eight months, although earlier in 2003, far fewer Americans (roughly one-quarter) felt the troop deployment was a mistake.
A simplistic read, at best.
Remember, polls are snapshots.
In reality, the trends from this question show The Tale of Two Wars.
Four days after the invasion, America was prettty gung-ho (only 23% thought it was a mistake, growing slightly to 27% in early July). Bush declared the war over on May 1, 2003, while taking a Mick Jagger turn across the deck of an aircraft carrier.
But, by the time the July poll was taken, Americans were already becoming concerned about "the war that wouldn't die."
"It's over," they said. "The president said so. Why are our boys still dying there? What's going on?" became a national refrain.
At the same time, a barrage of reports began to surface about the inaccurracies in the administration's case for war. The Niger nuclear fiasco surfaced; the press was rife with stories about who was responsible for misstatements in the State of the Union speech. Were all of these lies? Or just errors? CIA agent Valerie Plame was illegally out-ed at this time as well, setting off a firestorm of fury aimed at the White House since only about six individuals in the White House would have the "Need-to-know" clearance to know who she really was. And Americans wondered why is it that upwards to 25% of our fallen soldiers to that point had been killed since the war "ended"?
These were all surfacing as Bush got his last fully positive numbers on this question. The next poll's (Oct. 6-8) "not worth it" numbers jumped to 40%, and have hovered between there and 44% since. And will remain there.
This is a tea leaves number and must be looked at with a microscope for miniscule changes over time.
Due to the astonishingly conflicted American psyche these days, you won't see large swings in this number—if you do, that means all hell is breaking loose and you should run for your life. No, look for minute changes in this number.
How can America openly say that it wasn't worth the effort; that it wasn't worth the deaths of 800 soldiers and 10,000-20,000 Iraqis; wasn't worth the total destruction of the Treasury, and still sleep at night? However would the American public ever be able to "Support Our Troops" and still admit that it was all a waste? All those brave troops we "Supported," now buried or broken...a waste?
Simply, it won't happen.
These are the average people who get their hair cut every Saturday, and now have to face their barber who recently lost his son in Fallujah. Or the folks in the office, who have asked the guy two cubicles away about his nephew or brother in Iraq every week or two for the last year; now that the terrible word has arrived, what, if anything, do they say to him now?
No, Americans will be very close to the vest with this question from here on in.
However, as a researcher, here are the parts of this release which gall me the most.
On web page 2, they list their tables. They list the results from a question where they show the results from polling during and after major U.S. conflicts.
I was interested to see that the Gulf War numbers were so positive, uniformly in the high-60% to low-80% range. The positive Afghanistan numbers are almost off the chart. While the Vietnam and Yugoslavian numbers were evenly divided, as are the Iraq numbers.
Then I found out why.
On Question 17, the folks at Gallup are not as forthcoming with question wording changes over time, as they are on other questions in their survey. This has calamitous results.
For years, they have asked the American public about their attitudes about the various conflicts where U.S. troops have been in harm's way.
But they have played fast and loose with their wording of the questions asked about these conflicts. First, Iraq:
Q.17 In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
The key element in this line of questioning is to find out the level of blood sacrifice that's palatable to the U.S. public.
To do that, you must focus the respondent on the potential for the death of U.S. troops. Not rub their noses in it, of course, but focus them all the same.
Here is their wording for the other conflicts tested (all emphases will be mine):
Q.17 (MISTAKE SENDING TROOPS TO IRAQ) CONTINUED
AFGHANISTAN WORDING: Do you think the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, or not?
YUGOSLAVIA WORDING: In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Yugoslavia, do you think the United States made a mistake sending military forces to fight in Yugoslavia?
PERSIAN GULF WAR WORDING (Feb. 28-Mar 3, 1991-Jul. 18-21, 1991): In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to the Persian Gulf region, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to the Persian Gulf region, or not?
PERSIAN GULF WAR WORDING (Aug. 16-19, 1990-Feb. 7-10, 1990): In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Saudi Arabia, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Saudi Arabia, or not?
VIETNAM WAR WORDING (1990-2000): Looking back, do you think the United States made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?
VIETNAM WAR WORDING (1965-1973): In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Vietnam, do you think the U.S. made a mistake sending troops to fight in Vietnam?
KOREAN WAR WORDING (2000): Based on what you have heard or read, do you think the United States made a mistake in going into the war in Korea, or not?
KOREAN WAR WORDING (Feb. 1951-Jan. 1953): Do you think the United States made a mistake in going into the war in Korea, or not?
KOREAN WAR WORDING (Aug. 1950-Jan. 1951): In view of the developments since we entered the fighting in Korea, do you think the United States made a mistake in deciding to defend Korea, or not?
Americans aren't dumb. Asked if they have a problem with having troops IN the Persian Gulf, most will say, No, no problem. You can send our troops anywhere you damned well feel like.
But, if they're dying, well, that's a different story.
Ask if they have a problem having troops FIGHTING IN the Persian Gulf, and you'll see dramatically different numbers.
The most dramatic language affect is on the Korean War, which had just started on June 25, 1950.
Asked the warm and fuzzy "to defend" Korea on August 20-25, Americans responded positively and could only muster a 20% "Mistake" vote. [Note: I was born after this, on the very day of the Inchon invasion.]
However, by January, with the war not going quite so well, Gallup changed the wording to "going into the war in" Korea and the "Mistake" numbers skyrocketed to 49%. The country then remained fairly split on Korea's having been a mistake until the truce in 1953.
With this background of different emotional swings, egged on by biases within the wording of the questions, how much trouble is President George W. Bush really in with his Iraq invasion?
Let's repeat the Iraq question:
Q.17 In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?
Considering the American public was given this puffball a question; they remain as conflicted as they are about their sons and daughters feeling supported while they're getting blown up daily; and yet are still as divided as they were over the "fighting" and "war" questions about Yugoslavia, Vietnam and Korea, George W. Bush quickly needs to grab the nearest foxhole he can find. And if Karl Rove doesn't fit as well, push him out.
For if the Gallup Organization clears up this serious question-wording problem, Bush's numbers drop like a rock.
posted by Gotham 1:33 PM
0 Comments:
