THE USEFULNESS OF POLLS
Billmon points out a gem from the new Wasington Post poll:
I don't know what's funnier, looking at those numbers, or thinking about them. Presumably it is largely Republicans who say "unite" and Democrats who say "divide". That, in itself, is a division, proving the latter group right. Or thinking about it another way, a Bush Republican could try to argue that Democrats are dividing the country by virtue of their opinion in this poll. We could go on for hours.
But returning to objective reality, poll after poll has shown an evenly-divided race, with Bush's approval rating hovering at or just below 50%, and growing disapproval of his Iraq policy, the economy, etc. If I were a neoconservative Republican (or a garden-variety one, for that matter), and I was polled by the Post or anybody else, I'd definitely give answers that express my support for Bush's policies, at least a strong proportion of them. But how could I claim with a straight face that he's "united" the nation with his leadership and policies?
I thought a lot of people, including Bush himself at his press conference a week ago, talked about Iraq in terms of it being messy (and to an extent, controversial) right now, but we'll be proven right in the long run. Doesn't that inherently acknowledge that the policies are divisive at present?
Billmon points out a gem from the new Wasington Post poll:
Q: Overall do you think George W. Bush has done more to unite the country, or has done more to divide the country?Uh... huh.
Unite: 50%
Divide: 48%
Don't Know: 2%
I don't know what's funnier, looking at those numbers, or thinking about them. Presumably it is largely Republicans who say "unite" and Democrats who say "divide". That, in itself, is a division, proving the latter group right. Or thinking about it another way, a Bush Republican could try to argue that Democrats are dividing the country by virtue of their opinion in this poll. We could go on for hours.
But returning to objective reality, poll after poll has shown an evenly-divided race, with Bush's approval rating hovering at or just below 50%, and growing disapproval of his Iraq policy, the economy, etc. If I were a neoconservative Republican (or a garden-variety one, for that matter), and I was polled by the Post or anybody else, I'd definitely give answers that express my support for Bush's policies, at least a strong proportion of them. But how could I claim with a straight face that he's "united" the nation with his leadership and policies?
I thought a lot of people, including Bush himself at his press conference a week ago, talked about Iraq in terms of it being messy (and to an extent, controversial) right now, but we'll be proven right in the long run. Doesn't that inherently acknowledge that the policies are divisive at present?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home