New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose “Surge”
A new poll offers yet another indication that President George Bush is operating without political support in his plan for a troop “surge” (escalation) in Iraq:
Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll that serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush’s plan to send another 21,500 troops.
The opposition to boosting troop levels in Iraq reflects growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place and that a stable, democratic government can be established there. Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.
Sixty percent, meanwhile, think it is unlikely that a stable, democratic Iraqi government will be established.
Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops, and a like number don’t think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there. The telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush wanted to boost U.S. forces in Iraq.
Democrats are far more inclined to oppose an increase of troops, with 87 percent against the idea, compared to 42 percent of Republicans. Overall, 52 percent of Republicans support an increase in troops, although some key GOP constituencies are opposed. For example, 60 percent of white evangelical Christians oppose the idea and 56 percent of self-described conservatives are opposed.
In other words: it’s almost a mirror image of the election results. Bush has held onto some of his base but he has few Democrats. Other polls show most independent voters now agree with the Democrats. Seldom has the United States had a war that lacked such broad political support. This means — more than ever — that the GOP will pay severe political consequences if the war continues to worsen and the “surge” doesn’t lead to an improvement or the appearance of a so-far-nonexistent light at the end of the tunnel.
See our earlier ANALYSIS ROUNDUP HERE.
Rather than add to that long post, we URGE you to ALSO READ:
Our cobblogger Shaun Mullen’s MUST-READ and HIGHLY-COMPELLING post on his own blog HERE (wrong link now FIXED) Even people who don’t agree with Shaun will find lots of food for serious thought.
Pajamas Media.
Kitchen Table Politics
Middle Earth Journal
Drifting Through The Drift
Jon Swift
Tim at Balloon Juice
16 Responses to “New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Oppose “Surge””
Joe,
I find it interesting a moderate/centrist site like this would have so many of it’s bloggers appear to be supporting a surge when as you point out so many Americans are against it.
It would be interesting to put that question to each one of your bloggers . For or against the surge?
I believe that every co-blogger, by now, wrote his or her feelings about it down.
MVGD
You should update your somalia story , looks like the early reports you referred to were wrong.
We don’t put quotas on beliefs on this site. Everyone gives their honest take. Also, there is no poll that has been taken that shows that all moderates support x or all moderates oppose X. And this site “positions” will vary depending on who decides to post on a topic and what they feel about it. We don’t take off posts because too many people support or oppose a surge. If I only put up posts by people who totally agree with me I could probably never have any cobloggers on this site. I don’t even COUNT who believes what since I know they’re all giving their honest views on how they process the information that’s out there. If they disagree with me, I just shrug and move on to do my next post. The comments that so many support a surge is interesting since we had internal emails from some bloggers here saying our site was too anti-Bush in a lot of the posts. Again: a)no quotas, b)everyone gives their honest take c)the site’s character depends on who is posting at a given time and what they feel about issues.
Joe,
I could be wrong but I didn’t interpret corvus’ observation as being a criticism. I noticed the same thing and was a bit surprised at the number of co-bloggers who have voiced support for the surge. It made me reflect on whether it might turn out that the minority that supports the plan might be overrepresented by centrists. I look at it this way: partisan Democrats are not at all likely to be swayed at this point. Knee-jerk Bush supporters are in favor, but there certainly aren’t that many of them anymore even on the right. Then there is the rest of the conservative/GOP base, which has turned away from Bush to the point that many of them feel the need to distance themselves from anything to do with him. So, the truly independent thinkers might be the ones who are giving this plan a chance. To them, support of the plan is not based on whether or not they support Bush, it’s just an honest assessment of whether or not they believe it has a chance to succeed.
Reading the posts on the site today has led me to think it’s more hope and dreams than ‘chance to succeed.’
I mean no offense to those who think that we are in a situation so dire that grasping at the last straw on a 1,000,000 to 1 bet with everything you own is worth it…
But I think we should step back and take a deep breath and ponder whether or not we’re truly in such danger.
Cstanley
My original post was not intended to be a criticism. Sometimes I do believe this site leans more to the right just as i’m sure some folks at times feels it leans more to the left. Staying in the center on any subject is difficult that’s why I posed the question on this issue.
You hit on what I was thinking with the following phrase:
It made me reflect on whether it might turn out that the minority that supports the plan might be overrepresented by centrists.
That can’t be the case since it all depends on who decides to post. And we really don’t make any suggestion that what you see on this site represents how centrists would feel in a poll. I tell people: I have been lambasted in the same WEEK for being a closet right winger (a local Air America host invited me on last year and all he and his cohost did was to ask me how you can be a moderate,and they insinuated that since I used to work on our local paper I must be a closet rightist..they talked over me and mocked me when I tried to answer.) and a liberal hypocrite who says he’s a moderate when all he wants to do is to bash Bush. So it’s all in the eye of the beholder. We even have cobloggers who get upset because of other posts other people here write. But my view — and perhaps it comes from having been in both parties and having been on the far left and right, and having lived for nearly 10 years outside the US — is to simply shrug when I don’t agree with a writer. I had one blogger email me and say I was a lousy editor because I didn’t edit out nonmoderate posts. (He wanted posts that were too liberal from him off the site and he moved TMV from a moderate classification to a liberal classification on his site). So excuse me if I react sharply but this issue comes up all the time.
Well, you’re right in that the conclusion can’t be drawn, but all I’m saying is that it made me think about that possibility (and I gave my-maybe slightly more valid- reason for thinking that this might be so.) And primarily I was trying to say that I didn’t see this observation as being in the same category with “Hey, why do you allow all of these commies(or fascists) to blog here!” (though I can understand your fatigue of hearing that.) It was just, for whatever it is worth, a couple of us noticing that many of the bloggers who did choose to give their opinions, chose to (reluctantly) support the plan. That may or may not support our hypothesis about where centrists/independents mainly reside on this.
“That may or may not support our hypothesis about where centrists/independents mainly reside on this.”
Regarding the polls, which are suppossed to be representative and which show a clear majority against the surge, I’d say it doesn’t support our hypothesis. The view of the bloggers at TMV simply isn’t reflecting the stance of the broad public.
I feel in my case, it’s more of a hope and prey endorsement, rather than an “atta boy.”
I think there’s something that sucks you in about a “last chance” to get it right. Even if you were against the war from the beginning, think the president has an .000 batting average, and know realistically that the 20,000 needed to be 200,000 3 years ago. Its human nature to want something we’ve invested so much in to succeed-even if you know that the circumstances make your hope irrational. Its a terrible feeling to pull the plug and wait for our impending defeat. I personally oppose the surge, but I can understand the hopes of those who simply want a last chance to get it right.
Kim:
You have hit on a huge intangible.
Although it might have been the single-malt Scotch talking, I found myself thinking at several points during the president’s speech that I really wanted his “plan” to succeed. I really did and I really do, but I know that it cannot for by now well argued reasons, including those in my own post that Joe linked to.
I also briefly felt sorry for the president, but I quickly snapped out. Sympathy is the last thing he deserves.
Shaun- You’re right- he doesn’t deserve it, but he looked and sounded so pitiful, that I couldn’t help feeling sorry for him. Tim Russert spent time with him, and indicated that he is very well aware of how the country has turned against him, and that he is without reliable support from Congress. A little like Nixon during Watergate, Carter during the hostage crisis, or Clinton during his impeachment.
I guess we libs are just softies at heart, lol.
Shaun / Kim, Good points made by both of you regarding the wide range of thought brought out in the Bush speech last night.
I especially liked your, “I guess we libs are just softies at heart, lol” Kim. Partly because of the truth in it and partly because talk like that really annoys the winger branch on the other side.
Thanks, Steve K. You are right about annoying the wingers- though that’s not why I wrote it. It bugs the heck out of them when we won’t sink to their level. But I believe that Pelosi is right in insisting that the Dems be the party of civility and sanity- and let the GOP drown in their own excesses.
Is their any doubt that if the situation was reversed, and Bush was a Democrat that the GOP would have impeached him long ago???? All Clinton did was lie about sex with an intern.