The Three Percenter's

[xrayzebra]

Oh, Bush is in the basement, but Congress is in the
sub-sub-basement. What's a person to think.

Released: August 01, 2007

UPI/Zogby Poll: 54% Lack Confidence in Bush's Ability As Commander in Chief

Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President

A majority of American adults (54%) lack confidence in President Bush’s ability as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. A majority (60%) said they do not trust the president’s judgment when it comes to the war, while 38% say they have faith in his military decisions.

Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse – only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war. This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats – some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq – expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue.

The online survey was conducted July 13–16, 2007, and included 7,590 respondents. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.1 percentage points.

To best show support for the troops, 42% believe Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, while 34% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding. Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support. Congress has proposed a bill continuing funding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops there by Spring of 2008 – a plan favored by 49% of Americans. But nearly as many (45%) are opposed to this plan.

Slightly more than half (54%) believe the U.S. should set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and 55% believe the U.S. should begin the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that funds the war in Iraq that also sets a date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops, but 52% would disagree with a presidential veto, while 44% would approve.

More than half (55%) believe if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq that it will be considered a defeat, while 41% disagree.

Half of Americans (51%) believe the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq incites anti-U.S. sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack within the United States. But 44% believe the U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists within Iraq so that the U.S. does not have to fight terrorists here at home.

Overall, slightly more than half (55%) said they oppose the war while 44% say they support it. While the vast majority of Democrats are in opposition to the war (93%), slightly more than half of independents (55%) and just 14% of Republicans take the same stance. Self-described conservatives (87%) and very conservatives (93%) show strong support for the war, but support among moderates (25%) is significantly less.

Dissatisfaction with how the war in Iraq is being handled is also considerable among past or current members of the military and their families – nearly three in four (71%) give the president negative ratings on his handling of the war and than half (54%) said they don’t trust the President’s judgment when it comes to the Iraq war. Nearly half (47%) say they lack confidence in Bush’s ability as Commander in Chief – 41% said they have no confidence in him at all. The vast majority (96%) also have a negative view of how Congress has handled the war, but there is disagreement about what Congress should do to support the troops. While half said Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, 29% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding and 16% believe Congress should cut all funding for the war in Iraq and bring the troops home.

Those with military ties are split over setting a timeline for withdrawal – 48% would favor withdrawal but 50% would oppose such a plan. There is a similar split when asked if the U.S. should begin the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year – 50% agree while 46% disagree. Slightly more than half (57%) believe withdrawal from Iraq would be considered a defeat, but 38% disagree with that perspective. Two in five (40%) favor a proposal by Congress to continue finding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops by the spring of 2008. Half (51%) would support a Presidential veto of a bill that funds the war by sets a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops, although nearly as many (46%) would oppose a veto.

Those with military ties mirror the feelings of Americans overall. While half (51%) believe U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists within Iraq so that the U.S. does not have to fight the terrorists domestically, nearly as many (45%) believe the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq incites anti-U.S. sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack here at home.

Bush also gets low ratings in dealing with veterans – two-thirds (67%) give Bush negative ratings for his performance in providing adequate health care for the veterans who have returned home from the ward in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among those who have or are currently serving in the military and their families, nearly as many agree (62%), while just 30% believe Bush has done a favorable job of providing health care for veterans.

For a complete methodological statement and a list of the questions asked on this survey, please visit:
http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1203

(8/1/2007)

[Wild Cobra]

I have a hard time believing those numbers. I really wonder what the text verbatim was. Low yes. 3%, NO!

The main stream media has so much propaganda power, the anti-American demonrats probable will win more seats. At least the surge is having good results so far. This would be disastrous for the demonrats, and they know it.

[EVAY]

I have a hard time believing those numbers. I really wonder what the text verbatim was. Low yes. 3%, NO!

The main stream media has so much propaganda power, the anti-American demonrats probable will win more seats. At least the surge is having good results so far. This would be disastrous for the demonrats, and they know it.
Couldn't you just read the questions? The full text was included by reference in the post above yours.

I don't agree with virtually ANYTHING that your sentiments reflect...but EVEN if they were all true...isn't that the function of a Democracy? Isn't that what we believe would benefit everyone on earth? Isn't that what our President says God has told him is our duty to spread around the world? If we are in the Iraq war to spread democracy, do we not want to abide by it in our own country? If our people want the war over (and they say that they do), and voted to effect that in the last election, why is it bad that they get want they want. It seems to me that if we are willing to have our citizens die in the pursuit of democracy overseas, we ought not to b_____ about it at home.

[clambake]

congress isn't handling the war. bush is.

don't forget that there is a large amount of republicans in congress, too.

[George Gervin's Afro]

the liberals are pissed at the demms
the independents who voted the dems in are disgusted (they're not to fond of the (R)s either)
the republicans hate the dems
and a tiny percentage of the far,far left is giddy



I really must confess that I am totally disgusted with the way the Dems have acted.....with that being said don't mistake me for a republican...

[Wild Cobra]

Couldn't you just read the questions? The full text was included by reference in the post above yours.
Hello... Is there any intelligent life here?

Do you understand English? I said "verbatim." It is a word that isn’t commonly thrown around in conversation because it has a specific meaning in English. Wiki definition of verbatim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbatim):

As a linguistic term, "verbatim" means an exact reproduction of a sentence, phrase, quote or other sequence of text from one source into another. The same words appear in exactly the same order, with no paraphrasing, substitution, or abbreviation of any kind, not even any trivial changes that wouldn't have affected the meaning in any way.
Didn't you notice the discrepancies? Questions 47 & 48:

47. Overall, how would you rate President Bush’s performance in handling the war in Iraq?

48. Overall, how would you rate Congress’s performance in handling the war in Iraq?
Both questions ask how you would rate these, but with no scale. I presume it's a 1 to 5 scale like others, but it may be simple approve/not approve. Maybe a 1 and 2 are two levels of disapproval with 4 and five being two levels of approval, and only a 5 is reported as a complete approval?

Notice also you cannot find the raw polling numbers. Other questions are NOT VERBATIM:

33. From the list of seven major functions performed by the United Nations, which in your opinion are the two most important areas where the United Nations should focus its efforts?

34. From the list of seven major functions performed by the United Nations, which in your opinion are the two areas where the United Nations has been most successful?
Where is the list of seven major functions?

Now I will admit to jumping to conclusions myself. I was surprised to find the text of the poll in XRay’s posting was actually released by Zogby. I assumed it was released by some journalist that was reporting and reading his own perspective into the numbers. I found the link the XRay posted here:

UPI/Zogby Poll: 54% Lack Confidence in Bush's Ability As Commander in Chief (http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343)

[xrayzebra]

congress isn't handling the war. bush is.

don't forget that there is a large amount of republicans in congress, too.

Congress is not "attempting" to handle the war? Give me
a break. They just passed another law saying troops
couldn't be sent back into war for two years after rotating.
They have tried every trick in the book to decide how
things should be done in Iraq. Including the leadership
saying we have lost already.

I guess you thing we need about 700 CinC to tell the
military how to run things. I don't.

[EVAY]

[QUOTE=

I really must confess that I am totally disgusted with the way the Dems have acted.....with that being said don't mistake me for a republican...[/QUOTE]


Well said

[EVAY]

Hello... Is there any intelligent life here?

Do you understand English? I said "verbatim." It is a word that isn’t commonly thrown around in conversation because it has a specific meaning in English. Wiki definition of verbatim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbatim):

Didn't you notice the discrepancies? Questions 47 & 48:

Both questions ask how you would rate these, but with no scale. I presume it's a 1 to 5 scale like others, but it may be simple approve/not approve. Maybe a 1 and 2 are two levels of disapproval with 4 and five being two levels of approval, and only a 5 is reported as a complete approval?

Notice also you cannot find the raw polling numbers. Other questions are NOT VERBATIM:

Where is the list of seven major functions?

Now I will admit to jumping to conclusions myself. I was surprised to find the text of the poll in XRay’s posting was actually released by Zogby. I assumed it was released by some journalist that was reporting and reading his own perspective into the numbers. I found the link the XRay posted here:

UPI/Zogby Poll: 54% Lack Confidence in Bush's Ability As Commander in Chief (http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1343)

You know, your affect is remarkably obnoxious for someone who eventually admits to "making assumptions" and having not ready the initial post quite as closely as one might have hoped.

The definition of verbatim is well known to me, and it you THINK about it for just a minute, you will (or perhaps YOU won't) acknowledge that the quotes in the original post are ACCURATE, which is what you were MANIFESTLY questioning with your broadside regarding "mainstream media". A doctoral degree in research methodology may lead me to interpret the logic of some questions (as in your 'alleged' discrepancy between questions 47 and 48?!?) as I know Zoghby to use them, but having done so does not warrant an insult of the nature of your opening response post. Please treat others like human beings. You might surprise yourself, and them, and save yourself some embarrassment.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, your affect is remarkably obnoxious for someone who eventually admits to "making assumptions" and having not ready the initial post quite as closely as one might have hoped.
OK, I am arrogant and obnoxious. I won’t deny that. However, I am seldom wrong, and I admit when I am.

Eventually admits? My God. You make such statements of assumption. Do you really consider one session to the next in the span of 13 hrs. and 54 min. a proper use of the word eventually? Isn’t it normally used for a longer vs. a brief time span? Shouldn’t it be used that way if the impact is intended to be accurate? I cannot argue the word is used wrong because you would win on the technicalities of the dictionary meaning. Only that the implication is wrong vs. it’s normal usage. A nice journalists trick.

Why are you assuming I didn’t read the initial posting closely? I had to search to find that the text of the poll was released by Zogby and not some journalist. XRay only linked the questions, because it was part of his quoted material. It was not the link to the initial posted material source. I supplied that.



The definition of verbatim is well known to me, and it you THINK about it for just a minute, you will (or perhaps YOU won't) acknowledge that the quotes in the original post are ACCURATE, which is what you were MANIFESTLY questioning with your broadside regarding "mainstream media".
I never said or implied that XRay was quoting the article wrong, nor did I ever think so. I admitted to assuming the MSM made up their own story around the poll results. Like I said, I will admit when I am wrong, and I volunteered that, I wasn’t called on it. I do one of two things when I discover I’m wrong. I either admit it right away, or wait and see if anyone is bright enough to call me on it. If I wait, and nobody calls me on it, I later disclose my error asking why nobody noticed if I hadn’t forgotten about it, which does happen more often than I like. Because of that, I usually come clean right away to maintain a level of integrity that very few people have.



A doctoral degree in research methodology may lead me to interpret the logic of some questions (as in your 'alleged' discrepancy between questions 47 and 48?!?) as I know Zoghby to use them, but having done so does not warrant an insult of the nature of your opening response post.
I never said there was a discrepancy between them. I am saying they are not verbatim because they do not have the accepted responses with them. I first pointed to these questions because they are the key to the 3% and the 24%. Right after quoting the two questions, I state why. I reinforced my reason with the two questions that ask for a selection of seven responses, and doesn’t provide them.



Please treat others like human beings. You might surprise yourself, and them, and save yourself some embarrassment.

I can be civil in an environment that is not like this forum. People are always attacking others, I just easily follow suit when people say stupid things, or attack me. Get everyone else to tone down, or make it a forum rule. I can comply. I choose not to when it seems to be the standard here.

Do you only ask people to be civil with you? I haven’t noticed you getting on others about it since I joined.

Embarrassment? From what? You failed to show why I should be. I can guess why the results came out like they did, but I don’t like to guess. If you have followed any of my postings you will find I am very good at backing up my statements. How about using that Ph.D. to use and tell me why I’m wrong in a few threads:

Ethanol Is Not A Alternative to Cheap-Oil (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74071)
It’s the Sun Dammit (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)
Damn Climate Change (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74209)

[Wild Cobra]

OK, hopefully the squabbling is over. I don’t wish to be a thread killer.

Back on topic. I really would like to understand why rather than assume why the 3% number exists. I understand the far right is upset that the democrats haven’t stopped the war or started impeachment hearings. I understand that the right is upset about pork, the borders, and spending. Still 3% just seems too low to believe.

Rather than assume, I wonder if anyone has access to the Zogby internals. What is the complete context of the questions WITH the acceptable responses. What is the breakdown of the people polled. How many responded to each outcome of a question. If anyone can find that, it would be appreciated.

I found some insight to my questions, it supports the 3% number and answers some of the questions.

From a similar UPI-Zogby poll titled UPI Poll: Congress worse than Bush on Iraq (http://www.upi.com/Zogby/UPI_Polls/2007/07/26/upi_poll_congress_worse_than_bush_on_iraq/3195/) dated 7/26/07:


WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- Respondents to a UPI-Zogby International poll give the U.S. Congress very bleak grades on its handling of the war in Iraq.

While many experts -- including the Democratic Party leadership -- said control of Congress changed hands last year because of promises to change U.S. policies on the Iraq war, U.S. residents who took part in a Zogby interactive poll shoved already sour congressional markings on the war down further.

More than three-quarters -- 75.1 percent -- said Congress' handling of the war was "poor," up substantially from the 59.5 percent who gave the same grade in June polling. Another 20.8 percent gave Congress a "poor" grade on Iraq in July, down from 34.6 percent in June.

The "positive" marks were also off in July, with 2.9 percent saying Congress' performance on Iraq was "good" and 0.2 percent saying it is "excellent." Those figures in June were 4.6 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively.

U.S. President George Bush's July figures on Iraq were 57.1 percent "poor," 18.1 percent "fair," 18.9 percent "good" and 5.1 percent "excellent."

Democratic respondents were tough on the Democratic-controlled Congress with 63.5 percent giving the lawmakers a "poor" grade and 30.3 percent saying "fair."

The poll was conducted July 13-16, before the U.S. Senate staged its all-night debate on the war. There is a margin of error of 1.1 percentage points in the data, compiled from responses from 7,562 U.S. residents.
OK, would it be safe to assume that the acceptable answers for the newer poll are excellent, good, fair, and poor? It appears that the 3% number is from both the excellent and good responses. I was wondering if it might only be a class similar to excellent only. Wow, the general consensus appears worse than I thought.

From very likely the same poll titled UPI Poll: Bush-on-Iraq support edges up (http://www.upi.com/Zogby/UPI_Polls/2007/07/26/upi_poll_bushoniraq_support_edges_up/7679/) dated the same day with the same number of repondants:

WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- Support among U.S. participants in a UPI-Zogby International poll for U.S. President George Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, while weak, inched up in July.

Results from a July 13-16 Zogby interactive poll showed a slight improvement from Bush's support in June and May. Still, the figures show a strong disapproval for Bush's performance on the Iraq war.

Overall this month 57.1 percent of respondents gave the president a "poor" rating on the Iraq war performance, which is relatively better than the 59.2 percent who said the same in June and equal to the 57.1 percent figure of May.

Another 18.1 percent in the current poll gave Bush a "fair" mark when that response pulled in 17.3 percent in June and 16.9 percent in May.

Bush's "good" rating totaled 18.9 percent in July, just better than last month's 18.2 percent but less than the 19.7 percent who said "good" in May.

In the "excellent" response, 5.1 percent gave that answer in July, 4.8 percent in June and 5.9 percent in May.

More than half -- 52.8 percent -- of participants said they strongly disagreed with the statement that they trust Bush when it comes to the war in Iraq. While 7.6 percent somewhat disagreed, 21.2 percent somewhat agreed and 17.1 percent strongly agreed.

The July poll collected data from 7,562 U.S. residents. There is a 1.1 percentage-point margin of error in the July poll figures.
Looks like I can safely assume on agreement questions the acceptable responses are strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree.

All in all, I can accept the 3% number limited to a relative point of view and I would be one who would give congress a very poor score. I just find it hard to believe that so many people would rate congress’ good and excellent performance so low.

Think about one thing however, and I think this is the key. At least in my mind. A rating of “fair” can mean limited approval.

Anyone have a key to Zogby’s ratings? Do they explain what they expect fror the acceptable answers anywhere? If we include “fair” to the 3%, well, in this 26 July poll it amounts to 33.6% for fair to excellent. The 8/1 poll release is probably around 33% too. Fair should be included because it does mean acceptable vs, unacceptable which poor implies.

Again, more info please…

This is making sense to me now. The 3% number is simply samples at a level I disagree with.

[EVAY]

[QUOTE

Ethanol Is Not A Alternative to Cheap-Oil (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74071)
It’s the Sun Dammit (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)
Damn Climate Change (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74209)[/QUOTE]


Because, absent the emotion, I generally agree with the positions as stated in those posts. Why do you assume that I wouldn't? There is a huge amount of fallacious reasoning being used in the climate debates. What I actually believe depends o the issue, and in the case of climate change, there are a whole lot of conclusions being drawn inadequate data to support them. That is not to say the climate is not changing. The REASONS for the change, or the "blame" for it occurring, is entirely something else. Finally, what should or should not be done in the face of global warming is absolutely a political issue, it seems to me.

Yes, I do tend only to ask folks to be nice when they attack me personally. Given my field, I do a lot more reading than I do posting (it's in my nature and my training). In fact, I don't know what got into me with these posts. I apologize truly, if I took you to task inappropriately. I don't like to tell others how to act (or write) and I don't like to be told by others, so I generally just observe. Sometimes I just despair of civility in the public discourse in this country. Sorry, you got what I thought about lots of folks on these forums.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, you got what I thought about lots of folks on these forums.
I should apologize to, I'm sorry. That's exactly what I did what treat you like another common poster here without realizing your posts normally make sense. Had I realized this sooner, I would have politely questioned your intent. Just before this posting, I did a search of your other few political postings. I only found one statement I could take you to task on, but that's another topic. Reply there:

Wouldn't this make the Left... (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40840)

[Nbadan]

Ethanol Is Not A Alternative to Cheap-Oil (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74071)
It’s the Sun Dammit (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)
Damn Climate Change (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74209)


Because, absent the emotion, I generally agree with the positions as stated in those posts. Why do you assume that I wouldn't? There is a huge amount of fallacious reasoning being used in the climate debates. What I actually believe depends o the issue, and in the case of climate change, there are a whole lot of conclusions being drawn inadequate data to support them. That is not to say the climate is not changing. The REASONS for the change, or the "blame" for it occurring, is entirely something else. Finally, what should or should not be done in the face of global warming is absolutely a political issue, it seems to me.

What?!? :lol

'Warming Of The Climate System Is Unequivocal'
Highlights Of The Fourth IPCC Assessment Report (http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue2/0207p08.htm)

The Truth About Denial
Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek)