Improvements - If You Pick Your Timeline

By Cernig

The latest ABC/BBC poll from Iraq is out and ABC are doing sterling work as pro-occupation stenographers by insisting that the only relevant time period to be compared is from the height of violence last Summer until now.

Fifty-five percent of Iraqis say things in their own lives are going well, well up from 39 percent as recently as August. More, 62 percent, rate local security positively, up 19 points. And the number who expect conditions nationally to improve in the year ahead has doubled, to 46 percent in this new national poll

There's a lot more, and it's all being lapped up by conservative pundits. But ABC hardly gets to the really relevant metric - the differences between now and the last time violence was this low. After all, the last time these same levels of violence were enough to cause the breakdown of iraqi civil society. It would not bode well if Iraqi confidence in their society was even lower post-Surge than in 2005. Here's about the only mention ABC gives it:

In almost all cases, however, the improvement since August and March still has not brought Iraqi sentiment back to its pre-2007 levels. While 46 percent now expect improvements for the country in the next year, that's still far below its level in November 2005, 69 percent. While 55 percent say their own lives are going well, that's down from 71 percent in late 2005.

Ah.

Here's the ABC PDF version - but in many respects the BBC's PDF is clearer, in that it simply presents the data in a nice big type without adding ABC's commentary and charts, which all concentrate on the August-to-now period. The BBC also adds some much-needed perspective:

BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson says the continuing divisions make it "pretty meaningless to talk about 'Iraqi' opinion."

"What counts is how the individual groupings, Sunni, Shia and Kurdish, feel - and especially the Sunnis, since much of the violence is from that quarter," he says.

While 55% of all Iraqis believe that their lives are good, only 33% of Sunnis are happy with their lives, compared with 62% of Shias and 73% of Kurds.

"In spite of all the improvements, the Sunni population of Iraq clearly remains deeply alienated, and deeply hostile," our correspondent says.

...The poll suggests that Iraqis are sceptical about political progress.

Only 21% believe that the increase in US forces has made conditions for political dialogue in Iraq better, while 43% think the surge has made conditions worse.

And 38% want American forces to leave immediately, compared with 35% who want the troops to remain until security has been restored.

A look at the responses to questions now and in 2005 is instructive. In every case, Iraqis are more pessimistic than they were back then, with the percentages answering "much better" or "have great confidence" markedly down. One of the biggest changes in the poll numbers is in those who said they felt "very safe" in their own neighbourhoods - down from 63% in 2005 to 37% now. And 69% of Iraqis think things wouldn't get any worse if US forces left now.

The Balcony Collapses

By Cernig

Via Josh Marshall, the following graphs the descent of Rudy Mussolini Guiliani.


Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

What happened in New Hampshire

By Libby

I may be the only one not surprised by Hillary's win. I predicted it on Saturday. The polls surprised me but the result didn't. I lived most of my life in New England. I don't know much about polls. I usually ignore them. But I do know about cranky Yankees and I was pretty sure they weren't going to give Obama another win.

Everyone is speculating about why the polls were so wrong and the pollsters are doing some heavy explaining. I've been working since seven so I only scanned the headlines and read a few posts but I'd say everybody's right about what happened.

The Bradley Effect can't be discounted. Outside of the Greater Boston Area, there are not a lot of black people except in a few outlying urban enclaves and where they exist they're not thought of highly. Fourth generation and higher Yankees are not going to trust a black man, although only the lower income population would admit it publicly.

The Tweety Effect and the Crying Game was material. The insipid pile on over Hillary's flash of irritation at the debate and her 'crying' was so obviously unfair that it engendered some sympathy for her and added irritation with the media. Yankees are a proud people. They don't take kindly to manipulations and aren't above wanting to make fools of the city slickers. And there's a large feminist population that were going to vote for her no matter what.

Finally, never discount the power of the political machine. Hillary is still their anointed candidate and the machine is well oiled to deliver the vote in the urban areas where it counts.

Meanwhile, questions arise about the validity of the count. It is interesting to see where the votes were counted by a computer but I think New Hampshire isn't the place to make that fight. While I'm mindful that Hillary is the GOP's preferred candidate, the results here are not completely inexplicable and I fear we'll find more fertile grounds for that battle by Super Tuesday.

Absurdly low value information

That is about all I can say about the decision of a major media consortium's decision to do entrance polling for the Iowa caucus. Political Wire noted this Politico story:

a consortium of the major TV networks and The Associated Press will conduct an entrance poll to measure how people say they will vote.

Those results will be broadcast long before the official vote is announced and, in some cases, before the voting is finished...

The entrance poll has a greater chance of reflecting the official results on the Republican side than on the Democratic side.

That’s because Republican caucus voting is pretty straightforward in Iowa: A voter goes into the caucus site, listens to some speeches and then writes a name on a ballot. At the end of the evening, whichever candidate gets the most votes wins...

On the Democratic side, however, entrance polling is what we columnists like to describe as “fraught with peril.”

That’s because Democratic voting in the Iowa caucus is not straightforward. There is an “alignment” where voters go to different spots in the room to indicate whom they wish to vote for, and, if a candidate does not get 15 percent of those present, there is “realignment,” with those voters going to other candidates.

If the Democratic Iowa race is as tight as it seems so that the plurality winner and the expectations winner as well as the delegate count winner(s) will be highly dependent on both second choice realigned voters, and the vagaries of organization, local speechifying, and idiosyncratic social networking effects, the headline information released only an hour or two before good information starts coming in has very little value.

I can understand wanting to entrance poll to gain information for the cross tabs, and for analytical purposes but the headline numbers as an end in and of themselves don't sound like they have a lot of value.

America still believes the neocon Big Lie on Iran

By Cernig

The pouty-lipped paranoids of the extreme right are all agog today at a new Rasmussen poll that says the majority of Americans (66%) don't believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. In particular, they note, the poll found that "Twenty-nine percent (29%) of liberal voters believe that Iran has stopped its weapons program but 54% disagree."

This brings great jubilation to the War Party. Hah, no-one is as gullible as the intelligence community and career non-proliferation diplomats except lefty bloggers!

Now, back to the real world, where the majority public impression of foreign affairs is formed by White House agitprop stenographed by a tame media. The White House and its media enablers have banged the drum over the spectre of a nuclear Iran so long and so hard, the American public still haven't caught up with the latest news.

And it might take a long time, so deeply has the "nuke-armed mullahs" meme been set.

Recall this from March 2003?

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Or this from June this year?

A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events.

Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.

Further, a majority of people couldn't identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran.

Iran's nuclear threat has been the neocon's big lie for four years, one they are loathe to let go because it gives them their only grasp on power after they were proven so horribly wrong in Iraq. That their big lie was swallowed wholesale is the only thing measured by the latest Rasmussen poll.

Military families don't support Bush anymore

By Libby

The GOP and their reckless Deceiver-in-Chief have been claiming their warmongering blunders have all been in support of the troops, but the troops are no longer supporting them and neither are their families.

Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush's job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.

And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed. [...]

It's unsurprising. The death toll stands at nearly 3,900 and the wounded allegedly at 29,000, a figure that no doubt is too low considering the Pentagon's creative accounting system for such statistics. It surely doesn't count among the dead those who commit suicide at home once they return or those who are discharged for alleged pre-existing conditions without receiving the benefits rightly due to them. Nor do the figures convey the horror of the survivors who are left permanently disabled and grossly disfigured; injuries that will impact the soldiers and their families for a lifetime. Furthermore, a majority of the families agree that the administration's handling of the needs of the able-bodied troops still in theater is sorely lacking.

The most interesting statistic though is one that belies the warmonger's false contention that criticizing the occupation is unpatriotic.

And most military families and others surveyed took no exception to retired officers publicly criticizing the Bush administration's execution of the war. More than half of the respondents in both groups -- 58% -- say such candor is appropriate. Families with someone who had served in the war are about equally supportive at 55%.

In fact, one cannot show more support for the troops than by condeming the occupation. If we at home, and those who have lived through real wars, don't speak up, who will advocate for the troops while the Bush administration consistently turns their backs on them?

Republicans feeling alright

By Libby

Gallup is touting a new poll showing that Republicans are self-reporting better mental health than Democrats or Independents. Under the heading, unintentionally hilarious, Gallup ponders this deeper meaning of the statitics.

Correlation is no proof of causation, of course. The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel).

Perhaps they might want to consider the significant variable is self-reported and I'm betting the numbers reflect mostly the 30percenters who still think Bush is a great president. Of course those Republicans think their mental health is fine. They've somehow managed to learn to live with a level of cognitive dissonance that would make most people's head explode. The rest of us aren't feeling so good ourselves because we see what the Bush adminstration is doing and don't find it acceptable on any level.

That's the trouble with living in reality. It tends to dampen the old peace of mind when you see everything that was once great about this country being incrementally destroyed.

Duelling Polls On Clinton

By Cernig

Yesterday: "Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a [Zogby] poll released on Monday."

Today: "A new Gallup Poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton with a slim but not statistically significant advantage over both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain in head-to-head matchups for the 2008 general election for president. Clinton has much more substantial leads over former Sen. Fred Thompson and former Gov. Mitt Romney."

Conclusion: 100% certainty that the pollsters don't have a frickin' clue what's going on and neither do the electorate.

Can we have some discussion of policies rather than handicapping a horserace now?

The 2008 slugfest

by shamanic

Looking at these Rasmussen numbers, I can't help but think that once the primaries conclude (and it looks like in every meaningful sense of the word, that'll be in February), we're going to be treated to a nearly year-long slugfest between Hillary Clinton and whoever ends up the Republican nominee.

What will they be jabbing each other for? About 3-5% of the electorate - the number that will take either one to the coveted 50.1% on election day next November.

It gives me a headache, particularly the idea that I'll be penning supportive screeds about Hillary Clinton against whichever poor bastard eventually energizes enough Republicans to win the nomination.

I'm still hoping for a topsy turvey primary process, where Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee make surprisingly strong showings and Rudy, Mitt, and Fred all have to scramble. Edwards comes in strong in Iowa and Obama somehow pulls out a tough second in New Hampshire. Something. I'd like there to be some sense that voters are continuing to evaluate the candidates, not merely crowning the presumed front runners in a quest for their party to triumph.

Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife?

How do they do it?!!

Do you personally think the world would be better off if the United States loses the war in Iraq?

That is the question FOXNews/Opinion Dynamics posed to 900 registered voters. It is claimed the poll has a 3-point margin of error. I'm speechless.

They call this winning?

By Libby

I find it incomprehensible that five years into the occupation, the propaganda is still working. Who are these people who are so easily fooled by White House spin?

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s up three points from a month ago and just a point shy of the highest level of confidence measured in 2007. The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 32% now say the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 36% in July.

A breakdown of the stats reveals the majority of them are Republicans who apparently are still unwilling to admit their chosen president is an abject failure but a disturbing amount of independents and Democrats also seem to be buying the lies.

I don't know how anyone can even consider the question valid. Nobody is winning in this mess. All I see are losers all around. Iraq is falling apart, the Middle East is a roiling stew of uncertainty with the potential to explode into ravaging violence at any moment and the US is bleeding out troops and treasure at a pace that is destroying our strength at a time when we need it the most.

By every metric, the surge has failed. Our media fails to keep us informed. We need facts, but all we get is propaganda. Our world standing is in tatters and terrorists never had recruitment so easy. So by what criteria do these people believe we are achieving victory?

U.S. Among Least Peaceful Nations In New Study

By Cernig

Make of it what you will -

WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the world, ranking 96th between Yemen and Iran, according to a new index released on Wednesday that evaluates 121 nations based on their peacefulness.

According to the Global Peace Index, created by The Economist Intelligence Unit, Norway is the most peaceful nation in the world and Iraq is the least, just after Russia, Israel and Sudan.

"The objective of the Global Peace Index was to go beyond a crude measure of wars by systemically exploring the texture of peace," said Global Peace Index President Clyde McConaghy.

He said the inaugural effort proves "peace can and has and will continue to be measured."

The index was compiled based on 24 indicators measuring peace inside and outside of a country. They included the number of wars a country was involved in the past five years, how many soldiers were killed overseas and how much money was made in arms sales.

Domestic indicators included the level of violent crimes, relations with neighboring countries and level of distrust in other citizens.

The results were then reviewed by a panel of international experts.

..."Democracy didn't actually correlate with peace, but a well-functioning democracy did. Efficient, accountable government seems to be the leading determinant of peace. Beyond that, income helps."

Fifteen of the top 20 most peaceful nations are in Western Europe, and countries with higher income appeared to lead to higher levels of peace, he said.

The United States ranked 96th out of 121 nations, just worse than Yemen and just better than Iran, Honduras and South Africa.

The Economist, by the way, strongly advocates free trade and fiscal conservatism in its editorials. It supported George W. Bush's election campaign in 2000 and as of January 2007 maintains vocal support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Hardly a bulwark of the "lib'rul" media.