{"id":109951,"date":"2017-12-04T14:18:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-04T14:18:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T10:56:34","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T10:56:34","slug":"poll-numbers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/04\/poll-numbers\/","title":{"rendered":"Poll Numbers"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>As the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq passes 3,000, the Gannett-owned &#8220;Military Times&#8221; newspapers are <a href=\"http:\/\/www.armytimes.com\/story.php?f=1-292925-2449372.php\">out with their annual survey of members of the armed services<\/a>, which (at first blush) shows decreased support for the war and President Bush.<\/p>\n<p>According  to the poll, only one-third of the nation&#8217;s military personnel approve  of Mr. Bush&#8217;s handling of the war, and just 50% believe we&#8217;ll be  successful in Iraq. Those numbers represent a significant slide in  support over previous surveys. According to the Times, more than 80% of  survey respondents in 2004 expected success in Iraq; in that same poll,  63% of military personnel expressed support for Mr. Bush&#8217;s handling of  the war.<\/p>\n<p>But, as we cautioned in <a href=\"http:\/\/formerspook.blogspot.com\/2006\/01\/survey-says.html\">our analysis of the 2005 poll<\/a>, there are potential problems with the survey and its results. As in the past, the <em>Military Times<\/em> used a mail-in survey, directed to its subscribers. Internals for this  year&#8217;s survey were not available, but if the 2005 breakout is any  indication, the poll had an overall response rate of 30%&#8211;not bad for  that type of survey, but it still begs an obvious question: why use such  a dated technique when far more effective methods are available? <em>Military Times<\/em> claims that the mail-in approach makes it easier to reach readers in  combat zone, but that assertion is questionable. Afterall, opinion  surveys are conducted in Iraq on a regular basis, despite the dangers.  If pollsters can reach the Iraqi public, it shouldn&#8217;t be that hard to  measure opinion among military personnel at various bases and camps  within that country.<\/p>\n<p>We&#8217;ve also questioned the ability of the <em>Times&#8217;<\/em> mail-in survey to accurately reflect its audience. When the 2005 poll  was published, an alert Michelle Malkin reader noted that 58% of those  respondents had never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, suggesting an  under-representation of combat veterans. Among this year&#8217;s participants,  66% said they had deployed to one of those combat zones, an 18%  increase over the 2005 poll. That begs a couple of obvious questions:  first, why were past polls under-weighted in that category (suggesting  that some respondents based their opinions more on media reporting than  personal experience), and secondly, how did the <em>Times<\/em> manage to increase the number of combat veterans in its poll by almost 20%&#8211;in one year&#8211;using a voluntary, mail-in survey?<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the <em>Times<\/em> publications manage to contradict themselves on the poll&#8217;s reliability,  all in the span of a few sentences. At one point, editor Robert  Hodierne notes:<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">&#8220;The results should  not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey\u00c2\u2019s  respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be  officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>But, just two paragraphs later, Mr. Hodierne trumpets his survey<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\">The  poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional  career military. It is the only independent poll done on an annual  basis. The margin of error on this year\u00c2\u2019s poll is plus or minus 3  percentage points. <\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 85%;\"><\/span><br \/>So,  what is it? Either you&#8217;re an accurate barometer of the nation&#8217;s  military, or you&#8217;re a flawed, mail-in survey that may or may not be an  accurate reflection of opinions in the armed services. After last year&#8217;s  poll was published, a number of bloggers and posters suggested that  readership of the <em>Times<\/em> publications had actually declined  among career military personnel, who are suspicious of the paper&#8217;s  ownership and editorial slant. If that&#8217;s accurate&#8211;and I would  appreciate any historical data on readership\/circulation trends among  these publications&#8211;it brings us back to that originalfundamentalal  issue: exactly who is responding to this survey and how accurately does  it reflect thsentimentsts of those who wear the uniform? To its  discredit, the <em>Military Times <\/em>papers typically require a  separate, e-mail request from readers and pollsters who want to examine  their data, and how it was derived.<\/p>\n<p>Given the steady drumbeat of  bad news from Iraq, there is little doubt that support for the war&#8211;and  Mr. Bush&#8211;has declined among military personnel. But has it plunged as  much as the <em>Times&#8217;<\/em> survey would indicate? Absent more detailed  data on the poll&#8217;s internals, we&#8217;ll offer the same advice as in early  2006&#8211;take this one with a huge grain of salt.<\/p>\n<p>****<\/p>\n<p>Careful  readers may recall that Mr. Hodierne is the same journalist whose  reports from Vietnam were oncdescribeded as &#8220;giving aid and comfort to  the enemy.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq passes 3,000, the Gannett-owned &#8220;Military Times&#8221; newspapers are out with their annual survey of members of the armed services, which (at first blush) shows decreased support for the war and President Bush. According to the poll, only one-third of the nation&#8217;s military personnel approve of Mr. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109951"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109951\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}