Confidence in the War on Terror is up sharply compared to a month ago. Forty-eight percent (48%) Americans now believe the U.S. and its Allies are winning. That's up nine points from 39% a month ago and represents the highest level of confidence measured in 2005.
Just 28% now believe the terrorists are winning, down six points from 34% a month ago. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night following the President's speech outlining his strategy in Iraq.
The breakdown by party is particularly interesting because it shows an increase in positive views of the war even among Democrats:
Huge partisan divisions on questions dealing with Iraq remain. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe the U.S. and its allies are winning. That's up from 64% a month ago.
Just 28% of Democrats believe the U.S. is winning while 45% of Nancy Pelosi's party believe the terrorists are winning. Even that is a more optimistic assessment than last month when just 19% of Democrats said the U.S. was winning.
One doesn't want to linger too long in admiration of the forthright identification of Democrats as "Nancy Pelosi's party" before one moves on to notice perhaps the most important trend:
Among those those [sic] not affiliated with either major party, 40% now say the U.S. and its allies are winning. Thirty percent (30%) take the opposite view. A month ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided.
Readers of this blog (Ha ha...Are there any, really?) know that I am a fervent admirer of James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds, which contends that ordinary groups of us human beings may, given the right set of circumstances, make better choices than a single expert (in whatever field) or even a group of "experts." Just take the last presidential election as an example.
So in my inexpert view, this last trend among people who identify themselves with neither party shows that the war is going far better than the mainstream media contend and, even more encouraging, the smokescreen laid down by the MSM is not having the desired effect.
13 comments:
Yes..there is a reader of this blog.I read your blog often..if not everyday.I just don't post comments because I am not a sharp wit.
Tara,
Thanks! I'm honored.
And don't sell yourself short.
;-)
Jamie
Hi Tara,
Honesty outweighs wit here. It is always a pleasure to hear an honest opinion, whether in agreement or in disagreement.
Jamie,
This piece returns us to the "weight" of the MSM. All the huffing and puffing and howling and scowling of the "opinion setters" is of little consequence when the truth cannot be suppressed.
I don't buy into the wisdom of crowds, primarily because I've watched such wisdom lead to some peculiar behavior. When does a crowd become a mob? What do you say of its wisdom when it heads off of a cliff?
The President can turn public opinion because he speaks infrequently (at leasst in comparison to his predecessor). The less that he speaks the more weight is given to his words - the more the MSM nitwits jabber, the more ephemeral the weight of each utterance.
Rick and David,
Your objections are valid, and Surowiecki deals with them. The point of his book is definitely not that "The crowd is always right."
He's worth reading.
Jamie
Knuck,
Thanks. Those were great essays!
Jamie
Knuck,
Was that too harsh?
One can never be too harsh in criticizing fools!
;-)
Jamie
P.S. I've enjoyed TmjUtah, too.
Tara,
Just post in the vicinity of one of my comments, you're bound to come off loooking good in comparison to the gibberish I come up with.
As for when crowds become mobs, I love the portrayal of crowds in the Simpsons -- basically the last person to give them bad advice always turn them into a lynch mob.
Knuck
I love both pieces. In Baker's piece he hits the nail for me when he talks about shaking up the status quo. That has been the thought underlying my support for Iraq from day one...and out of that will hopefully come freedom for Iraq and hopefully for others.
His last paragraph I just have to quote because it encapsulates the fear of the outcome as well as the promise:
We have, surely, unleashed a violent fury of terrorism and guerrilla war that has a broader reach than Iraq or even the Middle East. But we have also unleashed the great virtue that in time will conquer these vices — not hope this time, though we could use some of that, but freedom. It would be a tragic mistake to cut our losses now, long before we have ensured that the virtue triumphs over the vices.
I think the fact that Iraq is keeping on keeping on has a lot to do with it.
After all, the pessismists have been promising mayhem and chaos and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis for years now.
I also think the fact that there is a possibility of a troop draw down makes people think there might really be some hope.
Bush getting out there and defending himself and his policy did not hurt either.
OK Jamie,
I ordered the book - Amazon paired it with Freakonomics which I've been wanting to read.
Lack of specific knowledge will still not forestall me from facile comment. Why should I be different?
The first critical poll won't be out until March. As promising as Rasmussen's shift looks I can think of a few events which could cause a downturn.
The absolutely cool thing about this is that it highlights the diminishing importance of the MSM. The sooner their irrelevance is generally acknowledged the sooner they will take their earned position next to the Dodo.
Rick,
Lack of specific knowledge will still not forestall me from facile comment. Why should I be different?
Lack of specific knowledge is what permits me to bloviate in my little fragment of the Great Blogosphere!
A little learning is a dang'rous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring!
What the hell did Pope know?
;-)
Jamie Irons
Knuck
Love the wretchard piece, as usual.
Made me think of the sudden embrace of Murtha by Pelosi, who just a few days previously had told him he stands on his own out there.
It's like she feels the force of her convictions begining to slip so she must, absolutely must, embrace the extreme in order to hold on.
And the more who embrace that cut-and-run extreme, the harder and farther they'll fall when our Iraq victory becomes obvious.
re 'battle of the narrative' and the power of words: sometimes a few throwaway words can ring a person's head like the Bells of St Peters. one such phrase that keeps coming back to me has to do with the OIF "plan" and the hay that the JFkarrions make of the lack of a check-mark column stretching off into the future. If that plan has to be perfect or Bush is scum, then why not DO the plan, and go ahead and check-off "we win" NOW, so that the terrorists can sack up their beans and bombs and head on home to the goatery? But the wortds that come back are something like these: "After 911, Saddam represented an intolerable status quo. Whatever follows could be no worse than intolerable, because the situation was already intolerable." Plan, schplan. Just do it. If it gets us all killed, well screw it, at least we tried.
Post a Comment