Excellent letter to MWO looks at the Kerry/Dean Iraq poll

There has been a fair amount of noise recently about a poll that showed Democrats favored a candidate who shared Kerry's positions on Iraq, rather than those of Dean. This letter to MWO (http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/) contains a bit of deconstruction of the question involved. It's interesting -


<snip>
Horse,

I read with interest Dan Balz's article about the Democracy Corps poll. As you know, the crux of the article is that voters want a candidate like Kerry, who "supported" the war initially and then criticized it, rather than one like Dean, who was critical of the war from the start.

But take a look at the question on the actual poll which can be found here:

"Choose one statement:

"1) I want a Democratic nominee who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

"2) I want a Democratic nominee who supported military action against Saddam Hussein but was critical of Bush for failing to win international support for the war."

The implication is that Dean would fall under statement #1, and his opponents under the second. But this is a simplification of Dean's pre-war stance. Dean opposed the war, in part, *because* Bush failed to win international support. In fact, by the time the war started, it was clear that such international support would not be forthcoming. Furthermore, Dean did not simply "oppose" the war without offering other solutions. He called for further inspections - exactly what our international allies were also calling for.

So Dean's position really falls somewhere between these two statements. Ditto, I think, for most Democratic voters. In my view more respondents chose the second statement because it has more clauses. To illustrate this point, consider the following statements:

1) I hate all vegetables.

2) I love all vegetables, as long as they are tasty and well prepared.

Most people's opinion would fall somewhere between these two statements, but if asked, most would choose #2 over #1, simply because #2 seems a more "balanced" response. In fact, in most cases, people will choose statement two if the two statements are phrased thusly...

1) I oppose "X."

2) I support "X," but only under certain conditions.

Insert a couple issues for "X" and you'll see what I mean. Bottom line, this poll is slanted and should not be taken seriously as a representation of what "voters" want in a nominee.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Damian Carroll

</snip>

:thumbsup:

dean supporters use a person's vote to go to war as justification not voting for someone. Now when a poll shows that people do not consider that to be a major issue, well, there's something wrong with the poll.

It's a straight question:

1) I want a Democratic nominee who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

2) I want a Democratic nominee who supported military action against Saddam Hussein but was critical of Bush for failing to win international support for the war.

It's not like:

What color do you prefer?
1) Red
2) Yellow
3) Purple
4) Howard Dean

Every poll that dean leads is an honest opinion.
Every poll that dean doesn't lead in is crooked.

The poll didn't say whether voters consider Iraq to be a major issue or not.

Nor did I say that I thought the poll was flawed. For all we know, the results actually reflect what voters are looking for in a candidate's "Iraq stand".

I just thought the analysis was interesting.

and not exactly too far apart from Kerry's stance. Something for which I noted many months ago to jeers from his supporters. Glad to see my analysis helps Dean in the long run, in case he needs it.

.

The Dem primary could use more fairminded leaning people like you.

;)))))

Dean.

Dean never said that he was a pacifist and he has always said as his main argument against the 2003 Iraq war and the 2002 Iraq War Resolution that he opposed the Iraq war because Bush failed to prove his case and the facts, or lack thereof, have proven Dean and the anti-war movement right. The bulk of the anti-war movement supporters were not pacifists. They were like Dean -- opposed the Iraq War because Bush's reasoning was false.

Why do you always feel the need to change apples to oranges. The post is about the fact that there is little difference between the two positions. Certainly not enough to warrant Dean being called antiwar and the polling going against him because of it.

It's the point that when I said as much here at DU, I was jeered. When a writer says the same to MWO, he's applauded for his perception.

Prof. Plum understood.

2. Or one who was honest?

They couldn't use that question because it would be slanted against Dean.

remember how he constantly misrepresented himself? Man, what a loser.

Do you want me to document some of Dean's lies here? I'd be happy to.

See what a focus group had to say to Peter Hart about that:

The focus-group voters were most scornful of the Democratic candidates who serve in Congress. Anissa Mitchell, a Democrat who works as a human-resources officer, said Washington insiders were "spoiled." Grunklee said the insiders were already corrupted, and Fernandes said "new blood" would help the party. That way, "maybe there would be less lying," he said.

They strongly assailed two veteran insiders, Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt. They summarily dismissed Gephardt as a "typical politician." And they don't see Lieberman as a strong figure. Moto said Lieberman seemed "fragile in his demeanor and his face. He looks like he's breakable." (The worst moment for Gephardt came after Hart posted his picture on the wall. One voter thought it was a photo of an astronaut.)

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7079353.htm

They have been saying for months (almost a year) that there are only two positions: pro-war and anti-war (or pro-Bush and anti-Bush). In fact, Dean has been saying the same thing.

We have gone many rounds together dissecting the nuances of the two positions. Philosophically, I feel Dean falls under #2, but he has campaigned as #1 for a long time now. That counts for something. Dean twisted himself into #1 by jumping on Kerry every time the slightest nuance is introduced. I have no pity for him now that he's painted himself into a corner.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leder of the NEW Democratic Party.

:dunce:

You either supported the invasion or not.

Dean, clearly, was against the war. And since I'm not anti-war and was against the Iraq war, I was never fooled into thinking Dean was the next Ghandi.

Anti-war is just a smear designed to lower the debate and peg Dean as an ultraliberal.

Kerry carefully parsed his language project the image of supporting the war, while having enough vagueness to come back and say he was against it should it go sour. It wasn't nuanced so much as calculated.

Take his response to this question, for example.

On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

Does he say, "No. It was the wrong decision. War must be a last resort, and I feel there was still room for diplomacy. I'm glad Saddam was disarmed, but the invasion was pre-mature."

Why, no, because that would be a clear response that he was against the invasion but not disarmament.

Instead, he says:

I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

I'm don't feel sorry for Kerry getting called on trying to have it both ways.

Care to argue with killbotfactory, Professor?

Pro-War
Anti-War
Pro-Iraq Invasion
Anti-Iraq Invasion