Believe your eyes, not opinion polls (You gonna believe me or your own lyin' eyes? Giggle Alert!)

The Baltimore Sun ^ | March 26, 2003 | Daniel Meltzer

[Timesink]

[...]

Does an overwhelming majority of Americans, as poll figures seem to indicate, believe the president and support the war? Or do the large protest rallies and marches suggest instead that most citizens doubt his motives and oppose what is being called the most radical and arguably the most perilous shift in U.S. foreign policy in half a century -- "preventive warfare" against nations that have neither attacked us nor threatened to attack in the belief that they may in the future?

[...]

Not mentioned at all during broadcast reports of the poll, however, and buried inside The Times that day was that its survey's conclusion was based on interviews with no more than 463 American adults, randomly chosen by computer from various households across the country. Pollsters consistently claim that their samplings, regardless of how minuscule, represent, within a negligible margin of error, the opinions of all Americans.

To put this into proper perspective, bear in mind that the 463 "adults" reportedly contacted by telephone represent an infinitesimal fraction of our population of about 280 million. And yet the clear conclusion suggested in virtually all reports of the poll was that Americans overwhelmingly support the war on Iraq.

[Timesink]

Includes a gratuitous insult at Fox News, so you know the author, a professor of journalism at NYU, is lying through his teeth. (Objectivity? What's that?)

Daniel Meltzer's email: dm22@nyu.edu

[VRWC_minion]

A journalist ignorant of statistics is no different than Freepers who trash polls for the same reason.

[steve in DC]

But when similarly structured polls indicated 60% favorability ratings for IMPOTUS, that was unquestionably the truth.

These guys kill me.

[laz17]

But of course, every single poll during Clinton's term which was used to beat us over the head with his popularity was completely accurate. These people are such sick and twisted hypocrites.

[math=power]

Actually statistical samples are VERY powerful tools as long as the sample was truely random. Problems sometimes arise when the data collection scheme introduces some unknown bias. I fo believe, however, that most Americans do support this war (70%) easy.

[Bob J]

Tonight we welcomew new show host TOM ATKINS! *GARY ALDRICH Former FBI agent, Author of Unlimited Access Gary will discuss his new book, and America's current political situation.
*PIERRE DE HAIL Former French Special Ops fighter, president of Risk Management International Pierre will offer exceptional insight in the Iraq war, and controversial opinions on France, Europe

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room! OPEN AND CHATTING NOW!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

A wh*re should be judged by the same criteria as other professionals offering services for pay -- such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients?
It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent wh*res is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.

HEINLEIN

[AlmightySR]

The only polls that count are the ones where only VOTERS are questioned. people that dont vote have NO say

[DWPittelli]

First, the New York Times conducted a "nationwide poll of 2,383 adults" not 463 adults as claimed here. And since other polls tend to confirm their figures, the sample size is irrelevant. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/international/worldspecial/26POLL.html

Second, polls can be based on biased questions or methodologies, but the New York Times is opposed to the war, so it's absurd to imply that it's biasing the poll toward the pro-war position. Especially given their biased (anti-war) headline "Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs War Costs" and lead paragraphs (they bury the 70% support for the war to near the end).

It is profoundly anti-democratic of SunSpot to think that noisy protesters should outweigh either random opinion polls or (even more so), votes in Congress and in elections. (The Congress voted 3 to 1 in favor of allowing Bush to use armed force against Iraq, and the voters showed no propensity to throw out the hawks.) If they did, we should soon have thuggish street theater making all our decisions, as in certain Latin American and Arab nations.

[weegee]

people that dont vote have NO say

This man cannot vote because he is not a US citizen but he still thinks that he should have a say in who we elect.

[Blood of Tyrants]

If you put a penny up to your eye, it blots out the entire sun. When you drop it on the ground at your feet, it's insignificance is obvious.

[Nucluside]

We need to have the INS check his green card. Wasn't he suppopsed to be here to pick fruit?

[Rudder]

Freepers who trash polls...

'Don't trash that poll, hand me the plyers.

[Tamzee]

The gent is ridiculous. No matter how large a population size, at most 384 sample size is needed to get within a 5% margin of error. When you increase the sample size from there, the margin of error gets much smaller.

Can't believe this guy is a professor, this has been hard science for decades ;-)

[Katya]

Unfortunately the polls on Clinton were accurate...and yes it was very frustrating.
By now we all know that the public at large always supports the status quo...thank God, presently the right people are the status quo.

[AmericanVictory]

One difference would seem to be that, unlike polls surrounding elections, there is little or no incentive to "game" pollsters over the war and little likelihood that most Americans would "game" about something so deadly serious.

[Timesink]

Can't believe this guy is a professor, this has been hard science for decades ;-)

The author suffers from Academic Arrogance Syndome (pronounced ASS), a mental disorder in which one believes that because he has been granted tenure in a given academic dicipline, he is qualified to issue forth meaningful opinions on any other subject under the sun, no matter how far removed it might be from his own field. (Cf. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman.)

[mhking]

[alnick]

Thank you for that e-mail address. I enjoyed using it.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

During the last few election cycles, polls consistently gave democrats about an 8% edge that was not evident on election day.