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

[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.

What possible relevance could the other questions have in regard to the one we are talking about?

We won't know unless we seem them, will we. I am not wasting my time speculating over a story with fractional references.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Sure there is. This is the fundamental difference between quantitative and qualitative research*. This is a purely quantitative survey (i.e. how many, not "how and why") and you are taking the result of a single question to mean that everyone interpreted the meaning of that specific question in exactly the same way. I believe someone pointed this out fairly early on in the thread. And yes - there is ambiguity in the question, which is why its important to see the full survey. I mean - it isn't even established what they were looking for in the first place. What exactly were they trying to find out?

* BTW - Anyone who has done any survey work will tell you much the same thing.

[GaryC 7]

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.

You just can't spin it any other way. 1 in 5 dems want us to lose. To try and deflect it just isn't going to work.

[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.

Sure there is. This is the fundamental difference between quantitative and qualitative research*. This is a purely quantitative survey (i.e. how many, not "how and why") and you are taking the result of a single question to mean that everyone interpreted the meaning of that specific question in exactly the same way. I believe someone pointed this out fairly early on in the thread. And yes - there is ambiguity in the question, which is why its important to see the full survey. I mean - it isn't even established what they were looking for in the first place. What exactly were they trying to find out?

* BTW - Anyone who has done any survey work will tell you much the same thing.

How hard is it to understand a simple straight forward question with a simple yes or no answer. This isn't a scientific study, this is an opinion poll. The fact that some of you are trying so hard to discredit it speaks volumes. The fact remains, 11% of Americans want us to lose.

[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.

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.

Sure there is. This is the fundamental difference between quantitative and qualitative research*. This is a purely quantitative survey (i.e. how many, not "how and why") and you are taking the result of a single question to mean that everyone interpreted the meaning of that specific question in exactly the same way. I believe someone pointed this out fairly early on in the thread. And yes - there is ambiguity in the question, which is why its important to see the full survey. I mean - it isn't even established what they were looking for in the first place. What exactly were they trying to find out?

* BTW - Anyone who has done any survey work will tell you much the same thing.

Exactly.

[GaryC 7]

I think I made my point, you guys spin it however you want.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

You just can't spin it any other way. 1 in 5 dems want us to lose. To try and deflect it just isn't going to work.

It's not deflection - its a perfectly valid point. You are drawing a "truth" from this survey based on certain assumptions about the respondents.

Its not unknown in quantitative survey work for the surveyors to interview a micro-sample of the respondents in more detail - to get a feeling of why exactly they feel the way they do, what they understood by the phrasing of the questions etc. The reason they do this BTW - is so that they can refine future surveys and ask more accurate questions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The fact remains, 11% of Americans want us to lose.

And what exactly does that mean?

[Peikko 1,575]

If this is how you determine your opinions about things, then it's not really supsrising that you draw some of the political conclusions that you draw. This poll is very, very vague about this question. It's not a poll that relates to card carrying members of any party, nor is the meaning of the war ending in Iraq clear to me, nor I suspect those who were polled. The whole thing is a red herring. I would be as annoyed at it if someone did try to say that 24% of Republicans never want the war to end as I am by this claim that 1 in 5 Democrats are unpatriotic.

The whole thing is an attempt to get people stirred up in a way that actually damages the democratic process, not helps it, and I am rather saddened that anyone should be fooled in this way.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The fact remains, 11% of Americans want us to lose.

And what exactly does that mean?

It's just sad.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think I made my point, you guys spin it however you want.

What point? That a quarter of Republicans do not want this war to come to an end?

The fact remains, 11% of Americans want us to lose.

And what exactly does that mean?

It's just sad.

I find it more sad that a quarter of Republicans do not want this war to end.

[Marilyn. 340]

how is 900 people 11% of Americans?? or am I reading it wrong??

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You're mixing 'lose' with 'end'. Apples and oranges.

[GaryC 7]

I think I made my point, you guys spin it however you want.

What point? That a quarter of Republicans do not want this war to come to an end?

The fact remains, 11% of Americans want us to lose.

And what exactly does that mean?

It's just sad.

I find it more sad that a quarter of Republicans do not want this war to end.

:lol: Ok, now your off in left field. Does that mean that anyone that doesn't pray for the war to end wants it to go on forever? You just showed us how desperate you are to spin it.

Try spinning this. This is a direct quote from the house majority whip. I think this explains the result of the question.

"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."

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, I was simply pointing out that to base any conclusions on this particular rather flawed poll was a waste of time. Now you are bringing a completely different argument into the thread. What is your point? Are you really so one track that you can't see beyond Republican = Good, Democratic = Evil? Are you really so desperate to paint anyone who might have a democratic leaning as unpatriotic? Why?