Poll: Public Worry About Iraq Growing, Most Want U.N. to Take Lead Role

flabbergasted that it is that high on the approval. I guess I just read too much du. it all seems so devilish to me. most people must just watch tv, i swear. i think the end of the world is near, and 42% of the people think all is well in iraq. i just don't get it

W.C. Fields may have expressed it most succinctly: "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public, they're dumber than you think." Which obviously is exactly what the Bush-Chaney junta is counting on.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I would certainly like to see a link to that quote.

Welcome to DU!

how come his job approval is still 55 percent when only 51 percent think things are going well in Iraq? That's not exactly high but shouldn't it be in line with the Iraq number? Regardless, this is not good for the WH.

Many people identify the office of the Presidency with the country itself; thus to ask if they approve of the person holding that office is, in a way, to ask if they approve of the country. Hence the response to an approval question related to the office is generally larger than the response to a question relating to some specific issue.

In early August the question asked how things are going...
Very well 6%
Somewhat well 47%
Somewhat badly 28%
Very badly 13%

The "media" would have reported it 53% "yes", 41% "no".

On Edit: The "no's" are up 6% because of undecideds. It's bad news.

This is all just my theory:

People think if things get real really rough the UN can save the day. They think Bush is holding on only because of the election. I think Bush is trying to work out a deal where his cronies retain control of the oil wells and other resources while the UN manages the people. The question is how much of either that crude or the money from that crude us the Bush cronies going to have to pay the UN Security Council countries before they send in their boys to die?

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/iraq_back082903.pdf

Things are not looking good for whistle-ass

Here's what gets me: Bush's approval rating on the economy is 39 percent and 50 percent on foreign policy. But his overall rating is 55 percent??!! Can anyone explain this? (Also, who are the 27 percent of Dems who approve of Bush? Geez.)

is it possible that some repubs, when asked party affiliation, say they are dems just to mess with the poll? Given that they would have given Bush high marks for everything, it would stand out for sure. Just a thought, a slightly devious thought.

It seems evident from this poll that approximately 2-4% misidentified themselves as "Democrats". From the poll:
____________________ UNWEIGHTED WEIGHTED
Total Respondents .. 930
Total Republicans .. 288 ...... 294
Total Democrats .... 308 ...... 299
Total Independents . 334 ...... 337

From what I see in the above, the actual R/D/I responses to the poll were 31.0%/33.1%/35.9%. After weighting, this became 31.6%/32.2%/36.2%. This represents a subpopulation change of 2.1%/-2.9%/0.9% due to weighting. When "R" is amplified by 2.1% and "D" is suppressed by 2.9%, this represents a net shift of 5.0% in the proportional responses to highly partisan question. It also skews the "D" response demographics.

AFAIK, this is a right-wing "poll busting" technique. Such polls are conducted by telephone and typically have reject rates (no answer, refused to answer, no adult answering, etc.) generally around 50%. Since the polling organization knows their final 'sample' won't be demographically congruent with the general population, they "weight" the number of respondants based on their answers to demographic questions (often "Are you D, R, or I?"). When one takes into account the 50% response rate, it only takes 1-2% of those who are called to skew a poll by 2-4% in the raw percentages, which can net to twice that in the deltas. I don't believe it's an accident that the polls seem shifted, particularly on partisan positions, by up to 6-8%.

that would mean that our Fearless Furher would have to admit that he was WRONG!!!!!! He'll never ever do that!

We have always been at war with Oceana.

It's room 101 for you!

q47 When it comes to their dealing with Iraq, do you think members of the
Bush Administration have been telling the entire truth, usually telling
the truth but hiding some things, or have they been mostly lying?
Entire truth 17 33 6 12
Hiding 61 62 60 60
Lying 19 4 30 22
DK/NA 3 1 4 6

Hiding+Lying=80%

That's not good for them at all....

All that freedom fry bullshit sure bit us in the ass real quick.

Do you remember, there was to be a battle, Wallace had pulled off some great victories but Edward got his bribes through to the Scottish nobles. When it really mattered the nobles just kinda smiled at Wallace and trotted off the field.

It so reminds me of this situation. We are Wallace only we don't have noble intentions.......

The nobles trotting off the field would be represented by Old Europe here only they weren't bought off by bribes. The upstart (Bush) got out of hand and is now about to be deservedly knocked down a few pegs.

I dunno, I see history replayed all around me.

Daily I think of Bush's Rove as Henry VIII's Thomas Cromwell (who BTW was also a Machiavelli fan--as well as a contemporary). What we need now is a Henry II (of England) and a version of his brilliant right hand man, Beckett.

Julie

anything but the exact opposite.

Just a few months ago the UN was 'irrelevant'.

There is almost no question the UN will eventually take over, I hope they tell Bush it is on their terms period.

I fear that we will be given an ultimatum by the U.N.
Come back to compliance with major international agreements and end unilateralism, or we pull out of the whole region.

I think the brutal message sent the U.N. was that there is a fine line between intercessors for peace, and tools of occupation.

weren't we just calling the U.N., a bunch of girlie men, afraid to do what needs to be done. now we won't them to take the lead, somebody has got the message wrong here.