Polling For a Clash of Civilizations
In my continual hope that we don't end up with a stupid perpetual war, this polling is a bit unnerving. It is from FoxNews, and uses whatever stats-screen they have to zero in on "Likely Voters," but it is s a real poll. The major indications are likely correct.
30. Do you agree or disagree with the view that the military action being taken overseas in Iraq is necessary to protect Americans from having to fight radical Muslim terrorists on U.S. soil?
31. How likely do you think it is that within the next 20 years the United States will be involved in an all-out war with radical Muslim extremists that will affect our families and way of life?
But here's a ray of sunshine: about 3/4 of people (including a majority of Republicans) say it's time to start bringing our troops home from Iraq. I agree.
28. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. The United States has sacrificed enough for the people of Iraq, and now it is time that they take on most of the burden of security in their country and let U.S. troops start to come home.
And a creepy cloud of darkness: A solid majority of Republicans see no difference between the behavior of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton, or actually think what Clinton did was worse.
36. Which do you think is worse? (ROTATE)
SCALE: 1. Mark Foley using instant messaging to talk about sex with teenage boys or 2. Bill Clinton having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky? 3. (No difference) 4. (Don’t know)
That's the party of moral values for ya.
several different readingsMon, 2006-10-16 00:16 — Joe Felice
I've read other Fox polls and I find them to be more insidious than you, not with the basic questions, but definitely with the longer ones.
You're right #30 is terrible.
#31: I disagree with your reading--I'd say "somewhat" as well. It doesn't mean I want it, but I can see it.
I think #28 is a real faux ami, implying a world-view that makes me absolutely cringe. Count me in disagree.
#36: All Foley questions are void because 1, they never parsed who was familiar with it from who was not. (This is a group where 44% have NEVER HEARD of Denny Hastert, Nancy Pelosi, or John Bolton. (#4)) And 2, the only summary they provide is extremely vanilla. ("reports of inappropriate behavior"). Thus, with half of them gleaning the facts from the question itself, an opportunity to cluck about Clinton is tempting indeed.
good pointsMon, 2006-10-16 10:54 — Outlandish Josh
Good points, joe. Especially re: the Foley bit. People probably are only moderately aware, and happy to keep it that way.
On 28, I think the operative phrase is "let U.S. troops start to come home," not all the preceeding backslapping.