WaPo mischaracterizes poll numbers to portray electorate split on Iraq

August 27, 2006

WASHINGTON POST MISCHARACTERIZES POLL NUMBERS TO PORTRAY ELECTORATE AS "SPLIT" ON IRAQ.

Today's Washington Post has a long piece which struggles as hard as possible to portray Dems and the American public as evenly split over Iraq. To accomplish this objective, the piece mischaracterizes poll numbers, speculates about the motives of Dems based on exactly zero evidence, and tries to portray the fact that Dems won't advocate cutting funding for troops as a sign of political weakness.

First, the poll numbers. Here's what the piece says:



The above in bold is flat-out wrong. The poll is right here. That "46 percent in favor of withdrawal" cited by the Post is actually the number the poll cites as being is in favor of bringing home the troops "as soon as possible" or "now." In other words, in no way does that 46 percent represent all of those who want withdrawal in general, as the paper suggests. The Pew poll didn't appear to combine those favoring withdrawal "now" and those favoring a "timetable" into an overall general category favoring withdrawal, which is a more reliable yardstick that many other polls have used. And the second set of Pew numbers cited by the paper itself -- that respondents favor setting a timetable by a 52-41 margin -- also belies the suggestion that the poll found an even split.

Meawhile, the paper didn't bother mentioning that many other polls have shown that majorities want to set a withdrawal timetable, such as this CNN poll, which said respondents favor a timetable 57-40, or this Times poll, which says that 56 % favor a timetable. Then there's this Fox News poll, which said nearly 60 percent want all troops pulled out within a year.

In other absurdities, the Post piece writes that "many Democratic candidates are wary of going too far in challenging Bush's policies, fearing that voters might heed the president's warning last week that "leaving before the job was done would be a disaster" for Iraq and the region." Amazingly, the paper flat out reports on the motives of "many" Dems who are supposedly "fearing" the political potency of the President's message -- without quoting a single Dem saying anything like this, even anonymously.

And finally, the paper says: "(I)f Democrats wanted to take a hard line with Bush, they could threaten to hold up funding for military operations or take other steps to try to force the president's hand. There are no plans to do so." It's hard to describe how ridiculous this is. The insinuation here is that because Dems don't want to defund military operations while troops are still in Iraq, that somehow shows that they're unwilling to politically confront Bush, rather than showing that they simply want to do the right thing. Really, really crappy stuff.

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth