Here’s your basic instant reaction from the Gallup Poll on the question of who’s winning in Iraq:
|
U.S. and |
Insurgents |
Neither |
No |
|
|
2005 Jun 28 (Post-speech) |
54% |
7 |
35 |
4 |
|
2005 Jun 24-27 (Pre-speech) |
44% |
9 |
44 |
3 |
That’s bigger bump in “we’re winning” than I would have expected, and bad news for those Democrats who insist we aren’t fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, let alone winning.
H/t Bill Quick.
Not many people watched him.
Remember, it’s vacation week.
Cook some hot dogs.
I sense the construction of an alternate reality here, with its own facts and everything.
Who answers the phone these days? One thing I heard in an interview with Mr. Newport who heads up Gallup Poll is that the polls can’t reach young people on cell phones, and sophisticated viewers aren’t likely to answer their phones. Also, there is a substrata that doesn’t have either kind of phones. But then, who votes? and on and on.
It’s probably mainly stay-at-home moms, recently released felons, and retirees.
Sounds like a jury! (Last jury call I attended had about 300 faces, most of them like you describe, and a very small smattering of dark faces.)
Also, the poll’s already been debunked: they had far more Repubs than the general population in that poll.
You said the same thing about the pre-election polls that showed Bush winning, but what happened?
BTW, in today’s WaPo, see this.
In short, the speech didn’t get much attention from anyone but the base … “Newport says the partisan skew in Bush’s television audiences has been visible for most of his presidency; there was also a partisan slant to Bill Clinton’s audiences, though it was less pronounced than Bush’s.”
I imagine it must be pretty hard for those who didn’t vote for him to watch him do battle with eh English language.