Quote:
|
Originally Posted by astralis
one wonders if there would have been this level of questioning regarding accuracy if the results were more in line with our preconceived notions!  |
Probably not, but then again, it is not natural for people to think WTF? about something and not do a double take.
I wouldn't expect the inverse result necessarily, i.e. that 72% of service members in Iraq believe that the US should stay indefinitely until the job is done. I think something more along the lines of a relatively even split with more in favor of staying to get the job done is what I would have expected.
Anyways, I like to look behind the results of polls in many cases simply because it gives me a chance to apply some of the knowledge that I've been learning in my econometrics classes and to learn more about polling itself. In this case, not publishing methodology/questions/demographics is the first red flag. Then, using the excuse the "interviewers lives would be at stake" makes that red flag even larger - how would interviewers' lives be at stake? how would revealing the sample locations even reveal their identities? There's so many unanswered questions that I just don't find the explanation credible.
Also, given how distorted conclusions that are cited from polling statistics can be, I also like to look into the poll to see whether confirmation questions are asked and the numbers are consistent (I don't know the exact polling language, but basically, the same question is asked is various ways - inconsistent answers means that there is a bias that manifests itself by the way the question is asked). Once again, since there is no detailed methodology/questions/demographics published, you cannot investigate this.
Also, there are no questions that reveal motivations for answers. For example, a question about how willing servicemembers are to serve additional tours would reveal whether their "pull out" answers are motivated by their assessment of progress on the ground or whether they are tired of deploying. Also, there may be other factors that motivate their answers, such as a recent traumatic event in their unit. This poll may have tried to separate out these motivations or not - we'll never know if it did and the information wasn't released because it contradicted the "desired" results.
So, these are just a few of the reasons why I don't put much stock in the credibility of this poll - I am a trusting individual, but my philosophical outlook on trust is Reaganesque - "trust by verify." Well, you can't verify here, so I can't trust the results.