Interesting poll results today from USA Today. The highlights:
•There is majority support for congressional action on Iraq: 51% back a non-binding resolution, 57% a cap on troop levels and 63% a timetable to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2008. However, 58% oppose denying funding for the additional troops.
•The Senate's failure to act last week rankled nearly two-thirds of those surveyed. By 51%-19%, they blamed Republicans. In a party-line vote, Senate Republicans refused to cut off debate and let action proceed on a resolution opposing the troop increase.•Seven of 10 say their representative's vote on the war will affect their vote in the next congressional election; more than four in 10 call it a major factor. However, nearly two-thirds aren't sure where their representative stands on the issue.
•Neither side gets high approval ratings. Just 30% approve of the way congressional Democrats are handling Iraq; 27% approve of congressional Republicans.
The first bullet is the one that prompted the headline for this post, and it raises a very interesting methodological question about polling positions on the Iraq war. If you take a look at the complete poll, you'll see that the questions were asked as a series of consecutive favor/oppose questions. As is almost always the case with polls like this, respondents were not given the opportunity to explain why they were giving a specific response. Its simply "favor" or "oppose," and that is all. With most polls that gives you all of the information you need, but in this case, it seems clear to me that it does not.
As I'm sure you noticed, there's a fairly large gap between those who support the non-binding resolution and those who support full withdrawal. What is noteworthy is that the more comprehensive the solution, the more support it receives. As a result, interpreting these results can be problematic. If the pattern went in the other direction (less support for more "radical" solutions) it would be fairly safe to assume that people opposed the more comprehensive solutions because of their comprehensiveness. But with the data pointing the other direction, it isn't as obvious how to interpret the less favorable results. Do people oppose non-binding resolutions because they aren't aggressive enough? Do they oppose them because prefer inaction to action? Or is it some combination of both?
Think about the non-binding resolution question specifically. My guess is that the "oppose" result represents two very different factions. On the one hand, you could oppose the resolution because you actually support the president's plan. On the other, you could oppose it because you believe it doesn't do enough to block the president's plan. But in both cases, your answer will be recorded the same way. There simply isn't any way to disaggregate those two groups within this single question.
However, using the results from two other questions within the poll, it might be possible to infer how those two groups break down. Take a look at the results for these two questions:
6. As you may know, the Bush administration has begun to significantly increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there. Do you favor or oppose this?
Favor: 38
Oppose: 60
Don't Know: 28. Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq? [...]
C. Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year
Favor: 63
Oppose: 35
Don't Know: 2
It is striking to me that the results are almost mirror images of one another. There is a core group of administration supporters out there, and they represent somewhere between 35-38% of the public (This matches the presidential approval rating of 37% detailed elsewhere in the poll). Those people prefer Bush's strategy of escalation in Iraq. The rest however, somewhere between 60-63%, prefer withdrawal.
And what about those other options? My hunch, although I cannot confirm it without the actual data, is that support for the other options drops off because among "surge" opponents, those options are less favorable than withdrawal itself. All things being equal, people would prefer withdrawal, but some are willing to contemplate other less "radical" options.
My point with all this is to suggest people should be very careful reading these poll results. If my interpretation is correct, Americans don't want lukewarm solutions to this war. They want it to end, and they want it to end now. Candidates in 2008, particularly those in the Democratic Party, who attempt to nuance their way out of this are going to have a serious uphill climb. As the war drags on, that withdrawal number is going to continue to climb. Those candidates who step forward now and lead are going to be richly rewarded. Those who do not, well...
Subscribe to this blog's feed
