Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't see any real purpose in this poll except to perpetuate the polarizing effect of a two party state and further create the impression that democrats are unpatriotic which is patently absurd.

It's widely known here that liberalism = communism = anti America = terrorism, while conservativism = God = family = country. I think there's a mathematical formula to back that up.

Steve, what you posted is perfect! Instead of it being sarcastic, just put your heart into it. Dude your so close.

Thanks, Marc. I say we round up all of them and shoot them for treason...those worthless hippie, bleeding heart, granola eating, communist, ** loving, liberal b!tches.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I don't see any real purpose in this poll except to perpetuate the polarizing effect of a two party state and further create the impression that democrats are unpatriotic which is patently absurd.

It's widely known here that liberalism = communism = anti America = terrorism, while conservativism = God = family = country. I think there's a mathematical formula to back that up.

Steve, what you posted is perfect! Instead of it being sarcastic, just put your heart into it. Dude your so close.

Thanks, Marc. I say we round up all of them and shoot them for treason...those worthless hippie, bleeding heart, granola eating, communist, ** loving, liberal b!tches.

you left out fur hating

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Thanks, Marc. I say we round up all of them and shoot them for treason...those worthless hippie, bleeding heart, granola eating, communist, ** loving, liberal b!tches.

you left out fur hating

Them hippies likes fur. I heard they didn't believe much in shaving.

Or am going off topic here?

[Peikko 1,575]

Off topic? Maybe, but it's about as relevant as the poll

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Off topic? Maybe, but it's about as relevant as the poll

The funny thing is that we still don't really know what that poll actually was. Fox didn't bother to provide the full poll as a source but rather only a tiny portion of it. I'd be interested what questions 1-39 actually were. Context is a beautiful thing.

[Peikko 1,575]

Which makes one suspect that the purpose of the poll is to polarise the electorate, which is one of the things that I find distasteful about the media frenzy surrounding the electoral process. If the media would actually report candidate's policies and aims rather than these meaningless emotive sound bites, the public might vote on real issues. That is too much to hope for though

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which makes one suspect that the purpose of the poll is to polarise the electorate, which is one of the things that I find distasteful about the media frenzy surrounding the electoral process. If the media would actually report candidate's policies and aims rather than these meaningless emotive sound bites, the public might vote on real issues. That is too much to hope for though

Yes it is.

[GaryC 7]

Off topic? Maybe, but it's about as relevant as the poll

The funny thing is that we still don't really know what that poll actually was. Fox didn't bother to provide the full poll as a source but rather only a tiny portion of it. I'd be interested what questions 1-39 actually were. Context is a beautiful thing.

The question speaks for itself.

"Do you personally think the world would be better off if the United States

loses the war in Iraq?"

What else is there to know? Do you want a in depth analysis of everyone that answered yes to it so you can understand what they meant? The answer to your question of context is this, there are 11% of the respondent's who think we should lose the war. Why they think that isn't stated and without asking each one of them more questions we can't know.

The other questions are obviously questions on another subject. Haven't you ever taken a poll before? The last one I took had 50+ questions and they were obviously grouped into different categories.

Edited October 7, 2007 by GaryC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Off topic? Maybe, but it's about as relevant as the poll

The funny thing is that we still don't really know what that poll actually was. Fox didn't bother to provide the full poll as a source but rather only a tiny portion of it. I'd be interested what questions 1-39 actually were. Context is a beautiful thing.

The question speaks for itself.

I'd like to make the decision what is and what isn't relevant in this poll for myself rather than having it dictated by the News network that is nothing but trying for a catchy headline. You may be happy with being given the information someone else thinks is relevant. I am not. A credible news source would provide the full source rather than cherry pick what to present to the readers.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Off topic? Maybe, but it's about as relevant as the poll

The funny thing is that we still don't really know what that poll actually was. Fox didn't bother to provide the full poll as a source but rather only a tiny portion of it. I'd be interested what questions 1-39 actually were. Context is a beautiful thing.

The question speaks for itself.

I'd like to make the decision what is and what isn't relevant in this poll for myself rather than having it dictated by the News network that is nothing but trying for a catchy headline. You may be happy with being given the information someone else thinks is relevant. I am not. A credible news source would provide the full source rather than cherry pick what to present to the readers.

But what is there to cherry pick? They asked a question and gave the result. What relevance do the other questions have? None. The results would be the same if they asked 100 other questions or just this one. The facts are this, 11% of this country want us to lose in Iraq.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Off topic? Maybe, but it's about as relevant as the poll

The funny thing is that we still don't really know what that poll actually was. Fox didn't bother to provide the full poll as a source but rather only a tiny portion of it. I'd be interested what questions 1-39 actually were. Context is a beautiful thing.

The question speaks for itself.

I'd like to make the decision what is and what isn't relevant in this poll for myself rather than having it dictated by the News network that is nothing but trying for a catchy headline. You may be happy with being given the information someone else thinks is relevant. I am not. A credible news source would provide the full source rather than cherry pick what to present to the readers.

But what is there to cherry pick? They asked a question and gave the result. What relevance do the other questions have? None. The results would be the same if they asked 100 other questions or just this one. The facts are this, 11% of this country want us to lose in Iraq.

They omitted questions 1-39. Why? What were questions 1-39 and what, if any, context may they have provided for questions 40 and up? I don't know 'cause I haven't seen them. You don't know either so how can you make a statement to the relevance or the lack thereof. You're left guessing just as much as the next guy. I find that unacceptable for a news network that wants to be taken seriously.

[Peikko 1,575]

1 in 5 who have declared themselves to be democrats (I am not sure if that means they lean towards democratic thinking or that they are card holding members of the party) think that the world would be better off if the US loses the war in Iraq.

What do the pollsters think that means? As has been pointed out, the US claims to have won the war already so how can anything meaningful be gained from a poll which is asking about something that didn't happen and can't be changed regardless of anyone's so called opinion.

Maybe the pollsters where responding to their interpretation of what the question asked, perhaps would the world be a better place if the US troops withdrew from Iraq or the world would be a better place if the US had lost? I don't really know though so I can't draw any conclusions from this poll, except to suspect the pollsters of being disingenuous.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[GaryC 7]

Off topic? Maybe, but it's about as relevant as the poll

The funny thing is that we still don't really know what that poll actually was. Fox didn't bother to provide the full poll as a source but rather only a tiny portion of it. I'd be interested what questions 1-39 actually were. Context is a beautiful thing.

The question speaks for itself.

I'd like to make the decision what is and what isn't relevant in this poll for myself rather than having it dictated by the News network that is nothing but trying for a catchy headline. You may be happy with being given the information someone else thinks is relevant. I am not. A credible news source would provide the full source rather than cherry pick what to present to the readers.

But what is there to cherry pick? They asked a question and gave the result. What relevance do the other questions have? None. The results would be the same if they asked 100 other questions or just this one. The facts are this, 11% of this country want us to lose in Iraq.

They omitted questions 1-39. Why? What were questions 1-39 and what, if any, context may they have provided for questions 40 and up? I don't know 'cause I haven't seen them. You don't know either so how can you make a statement to the relevance or the lack thereof. You're left guessing just as much as the next guy. I find that unacceptable for a news network that wants to be taken seriously.

What possible relevance could the other questions have in regard to the one we are talking about? They could have been about health care for all we know. It doesn't matter. They asked a straight forward question and they got a yes or no answer to it. There is no ambiguity or wiggle room.

[GaryC 7]

I have a feeling this could be the motivation for 1 in 5 dems wanting us to lose in Iraq.

Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza

Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.

Clyburn also address the reasons behind declining approval ratings for Congress, which spiked earlier in the year when Democrats took over the House and Senate. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed just 37 percent approving of the performance of Congress.

"Remember right after the election it went very high on approval,?" he said. "Then all of a sudden people saw that we were not yielding the kind of result that they wanted to yield."

He said most Americans still do not know some of the domestic legislation that has been approved. Fewer understand that, despite Democratic majorities in both houses, that it takes 60 votes to pass anything legislation in the Senate.

Clyburn noted that while overall approval ratings of Congress are low, people still rate Democrats higher than Republicans. "People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don't feel real good about the Congress itself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7073001380.html

[Peikko 1,575]

How about this statistic from the same poll, 24% of Republicans have NEVER prayed for the war in Iraq to end.

Ok, I could present that as an argument that there is a significant proportion of Republicans who don't want the war to end. Or, I could present that as something less contentious, maybe 24% of Republicans have never thought to pray about the war ending. Which way I present it colours the statement, but neither statement says anything meaningful about what "those who consider themselves to be Republican" (which is what the pollsters are asked, not if they are card carrying members of any party) believe about the situation in Iraq. We are already foggy about the meaning of the war ending anyway. This poll really is too vague to draw anything useful from.