An Administration NOT Governed by Polls??

Revolt · Jun 30, 2005

I thought that Bush said he doesn't govern by poll. So, why is this appearing in the press? For me, this brings out all my worst fears about BushCo. On one hand, they claim to be conducting the war based on principle alone, but when this kind of stuff comes out, one has to wonder what actions BushCo is taking in Iraq soley to prop up public opinion here.

When President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq and admits no mistakes, admirers see steely resolve and critics see exasperating stubbornness. But the president's full-speed-ahead message articulated in this week's prime-time address also reflects a purposeful strategy based on extensive study of public opinion about how to maintain support for a costly and problem-plagued military mission.

The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helpingBush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight. Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.
Click to expand...

Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: "Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?" and "Can the United States ultimately win?" In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning. They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls -- such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level -- are far less relevant now in gauging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable.
"The most important single factor in determining public support for a war is the perception that the mission will succeed," Gelpi said in an interview yesterday.
Click to expand...

Mel Brennan · Jun 30, 2005

lol...

DJPoopypants · Jun 30, 2005

I cannot blame the admin for this, even if my tax dollars are once again being used for partisan lies.

Bush does spin in the wind according to public opinion (9/11 commission, testifying, intelligence reform, etc)

If he truly feels Iraq is worth it, then he is within is rights to do his best to try to convince americans, so that polls don't make him change his mind for political expediency

verybdog · Jun 30, 2005

Revolt said:

I thought that Bush said he doesn't govern by poll.
Click to expand...

They don't if you believe them.

verybdog · Jun 30, 2005

DJPoopypants said:

Bush does spin in the wind according to public opinion
Click to expand...

Let's blame the public opinion, which is not always informed and correct.

NHRef · Jun 30, 2005

This can also be read the other way, that he has his mind made up, but is looking to put a spin on it to lead public opinion the way he needs it to go. Sort of like marketting, a bad idea with good marketting can be hugely successfull. A great idea with horrible marketting will fail.

superdave · Jun 30, 2005

Revolt...they're NOT basing policy on the information. They're not "governing" by polls. They're basing how to get the public behind their policy on the information. Completely different, and totally legitimate.

Revolt · Jun 30, 2005

superdave said:

Revolt...they're NOT basing policy on the information. They're not "governing" by polls. They're basing how to get the public behind their policy on the information. Completely different, and totally legitimate.
Click to expand...

I see it differently: BushCo is again changing the story on why we are in Iraq - this time to clearly suit polling trends. Its done all the time - and BushCo certainly isn't the only administration to have ever done this. So, that aspect is letigmate enough in relative terms.

I take BushCo to task on this because they specifically say polls don't influence the Iraq policy. I wanted to point this example out as yet another example of BushCo mendacity.

MasterShake29 · Jun 30, 2005

Depends how you define policy. If you define his policy as overthrowing Saddam and getting a functioning democracy in there by use of the millitary, then the policy has been consistent.

In which case he's polling on how best to get his message across. I'm not big on the feds spending money on pollsters, but if you're ok with that then I think you have to see this as legit. As you say, he's not the first.

Hard Karl · Jun 30, 2005

I hate the phrase "craft the message"... to me that sounds like "let's outright lie or just see how ambiguous we can get".

Dear Politicians,

I don't want to hear your "message", I want to hear the straight story.

Revolt · Jun 30, 2005

MattBurlew said:

Depends how you define policy. If you define his policy as overthrowing Saddam and getting a functioning democracy in there by use of the millitary, then the policy has been consistent.

In which case he's polling on how best to get his message across. I'm not big on the feds spending money on pollsters, but if you're ok with that then I think you have to see this as legit. As you say, he's not the first.
Click to expand...

But the larger problem is BushCo has NOT been consistent about why we need to be there. First it was Winnebagoes of Death and WMD, then it was Capital D Democracy, now its the war on terror and that's a battle we have to win.

Its okay, though, I'll just do a little Johnny Flame number in the corner by myself.

Meanwhile, Froomkin has a take:

Once in a blue moon, we actually get a peek under the White House's public-relations mask, and this morning it comes courtesy of Peter Baker and Dan Balz , whose front-pager in The Washington Post suggests that Bush's unflagging public confidence about his Iraq policy reflects the work of public opinion researchers.

Yes, the very same White House that outwardly exudes contempt for polls has in fact recently hired a prominent academic pollster onto the National Security Council staff and has concluded that the key to public support for the war is not the number of casualties in Iraq, nor whether the war was right or wrong -- but whether people feel like we're going to win.
Click to expand...

This is fascinating (to a guy on fire on the corner):

Feaver and Gelpi were Live Online on washingtonpost.com in 2003, shortly before the war began, and Feaver speculated on Bush's possible Achilles Heel:
"President Bush subscribes to the momentum theory of politics: that success breeds success, and political capital accrues to the one who spends political capital. So far, this has worked remarkably well . . .

"But the danger is that it can lead to over-reach -- if President Bush misjudges popular sentiment while pursuing this strategy he is likely to fall much further/faster than a more cautious politician who triangulated every issue and never tried to lead public opinion anywhere.

"For that reason, public sentiment is probably more important for President Bush than for other presidents -- he is trying to do more and is willing to get out in front of the public more than other Presidents and this makes him more exposed."

And here are Feaver and Gelpi 's home pages at Duke, if you want to read more.
Click to expand...

Revolt · Jun 30, 2005

And more:

Marc Sandalow writes in the San Francisco Chronicle: "Two weeks before the United States attacked Iraq, President Bush told the American people: 'Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change.'

"Tuesday evening on prime-time television, 28 months later, Bush said: 'Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East.'
Click to expand...