Current Events » in reply to Feinstein callers oppose war on Iraq by a wide margin

Re: Feinstein callers oppose war on Iraq

Tom Brosz — 9/26/2002 4:17:34 PM (archived)

Call-in polls should be treated with suspicion, as there are no controls as there are in more formal polls, and the surveys tend to be self-selecting. Same thing goes double for Internet polls.

Formal surveys still show a healthy majority supporting Bush and action against Iraq, although answers vary depending on how the question is phrased, with the issue of "going in alone" being most controversial.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (36 posts)

• Feinstein callers oppose war on Iraq by a wide margin - Splinx - 9/26/2002 2:35:59 PM
  • UPDATE: 44.8 to 1 against war - Splinx - 9/26/2002 4:53:58 PM
    • Polls - Lindy - 9/26/2002 4:50:55 PM
  • Re: Feinstein callers oppose war on Iraq - Tom Brosz - 9/26/2002 4:17:34 PM
    • So where does this "70% favor" number come from, that's been quoted around here? n/t (n/t) - alcaray - 9/26/2002 4:28:09 PM
      • Re: That was from me, and one (1) time . . . - D. Spires - 9/26/2002 7:53:10 PM
      • Different polls, different weeks, different numbers - Larry J - 9/26/2002 5:36:58 PM
        • Thanks for the links - alcaray - 9/26/2002 5:55:12 PM
          • How do you know he wasn't? - Larry J - 9/26/2002 6:02:17 PM
            • Re: How do you know he wasn't? - Splinx - 9/26/2002 7:06:15 PM
              • And who is John Pilger and how would he know? - Larry J - 9/26/2002 9:40:28 AM
                • He's a second rate Noam Chomsky - Gary - 9/26/2002 5:07:45 PM
                • Re: John Pilger, NY Times, CIA - Splinx - 9/26/2002 11:39:37 AM
            • How do I know anyone wasn't? Are you one of the 51%? n/t (n/t) - alcaray - 9/26/2002 8:34:06 AM
              • The question remains, how do you know he wasn't involved? - Larry J - 9/26/2002 9:42:41 AM
                • Good grief! Are you serious? - alcaray - 9/26/2002 10:08:52 AM
                  • You're stooping to a new low ... - Larry J - 9/27/2002 1:10:14 PM
                    • Re: ;^) - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 2:35:33 PM
                  • Re: Hardly McCarthyism (& Co) . . . - D. Spires - 9/26/2002 11:25:11 AM
                    • Well - alcaray - 9/27/2002 3:55:49 PM
                      • Re: As I've stated many times, 9-11 is not the issue, and Hussein remains guilty of 'great crimes' against humanity . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 4:10:25 PM
                        • These are much better reasons for attacking Iraq. But they aren't what we were talking about. n/t (n/t) - alcaray - 9/27/2002 4:26:39 PM
                          • Re: No, it went off on a pointless tangent . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 4:33:34 PM
                            • You really think 51% of Americans... - alcaray - 9/27/2002 5:32:54 PM
                              • Re: Still . . . (n/t) (n/t) - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 5:51:59 PM
                                • As opposed to Barbara Striesand's spelling, which seems to be fascinating. n/t (n/t) - alcaray - 9/27/2002 6:30:15 PM
                                  • Re: I said it was 'sadly funny' . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 6:45:53 PM
                  • If bin Ladin asked Sadam for help would Sadam have given help? - Scott - 9/26/2002 10:26:30 AM
                    • Interjection Here - Lindy - 9/26/2002 4:35:28 PM
                      • Re: Probably because the left would have already shot him . . . (n/t) (n/t) - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 12:53:13 PM
                    • So to keep America from attacking... - alcaray - 9/26/2002 11:09:09 AM
                      • Re: Involvement don't enter into it . . . - D. Spires - 9/26/2002 11:29:10 AM
  • Re: Feinstein callers oppose war on Iraq by a wide margin - SDAI-Tech1 - 9/26/2002 2:46:50 PM
    • fatigue - McFly - 9/26/2002 4:00:41 PM
      • Insanity or InSaddamCity? - SDAI-Tech1 - 9/26/2002 4:08:10 PM
        • LOL...I rest my case :-) n/t (n/t) - McFly - 9/26/2002 4:38:20 PM