military.com editor cannot BELIEVE poll results!

[babylonsister]

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,142718,00.html

What to Make of a Poll?
Ward Carroll | July 18, 2007

A recent Military.com poll posed this question: "When should American troops withdraw from Iraq?" The response from readers was noteworthy. Forty two percent of the 5,440 respondents chose the answer worded "Now. We're wasting lives and resources" and another 17 percent chose "The end of 2008. That's plenty of time." Added together, the results show 59 percent of those who responded were either for an immediate withdrawal or precipitous pullout within the next year or so.

While this poll was technically "unscientific" in terms of how the data was gathered (Military.com membership was not required), when compared to similar polls conducted in previous months the results were a surprise to us here in Military.com's offices. The great majority of our readers have consistently demonstrated support for the war. As recently as late June, 57 percent of poll respondents voted "yes" to the question "Should Congress Give More Time for the Surge to Work?"

Is this poll an accurate accounting of the will of a credible segment of American society - servicemembers, veterans, families, and those with military affinity - or simply another example of how the public's attitude toward an issue can be co-opted by how the media chooses to cover it?

snip//

I'm just asking because the poll I'm referring to here wasn't conducted by CNN or ABC or The New York Times but by Military.com. We know who our audience is. Military.com regulars are pro-military, to put it mildly. The military experience isn't some vague concept to them. They served or are serving, along with their families.

Therefore I have trouble believing that Military.com readers can be manipulated solely by the MSM's one-sided coverage (if it's true that the coverage is one-sided). Take a look at any of our discussion pages. Do these folks seem to waiver in their convictions? As a recent SECDEF might have put it: "Goodness, no."

So if it's not the MSM, to what do we attribute this poll's results? (And please, loyal readers and cherished friends, don't tell me we're going to lose this thing . . .):eyes:

[wyldwolf]

1. Well, people on DU don't believe polls, either, when the results don't go their way.

[babylonsister]

3. But we don't blame it on the damn librul media, which is what this

guy seems to be doing.

[wyldwolf]

4. yes, people on DU do.

You (DU in general) claims the media is behind Clinton being ahead in the polls.

[babylonsister]

7. See, that's another good reason not to have made up my mind yet;

I stay away from those threads. Mostly. ;)

[Clark2008]

10. But you're one of the few whose reality matches the polls.

There was a thread last night about how the polling is NOT matching up with most people's experiences regarding Hillary's popularity.

Most people on this board, myself included, don't know anyone (or very few) people who support her, which doesn't jive with the polling information. You have explained that you know many people who do - but, you're an anomaly.

I don't live in a vacuum - quite the opposite - and I don't see that she has ANY supporters (or strong support in the very least). That's why I question the polling. It doesn't fit my reality. I don't think the pollsters are purposely trying to push her - I just think they're polling the same people over and over - insiders and/or people who believe everything the corporate media tells them.

However, I would suspect that most polling would show that people haven't even thought about this yet and won't for another couple of months.

[EVDebs]

2. Occupation is already failure

Time April 16, 2007 showed the Broken Army story. Conclusions were that a new 'mindset' was needed, or a magician to pay for the war (sic, Occupation).

[coalition_unwilling]

5. HaHa - The troops don't support the troops. LMAO about this -n/t

[Old and In the Way]

6. I don't understand why the 2 groups most effected by this war - the Iraqi's and our soldiers.

Aren't polled more often with greater visibility.

[TheBaldyMan]

8. not surprising really, they have lots of services and ex-services go to that site

Some of the contributors might be old, cold-warriors but that doesn't neccessarily reflect the readership. Servicemen and women are not RW robots. They reflect the society they are recruited from (minus the rich chickenhawks) so it's almost certain that this result is accurate.

I'm on their e-mail list and I voted in that poll.

[Babsbrain]

9. I am a member of military.com

Have participated in many discussions there.

The VAST majority of active duty members abhor the war.

p.s. They don't call it a war...it is a shooting gallery and they are the ducks.

[Clark2008]

11. Actually, I would rather think that military.com regulars who are

pro-military would be AGAINST this war in vast numbers.

How come this editor hasn't gotten it, yet? Does he not understand that, in the case with Iraq, as was the case with Vietnam, being pro-military means being anti-war? Who wants to get their asses shot off?

Looks to me like being pro-military would mean one DOESN'T support endless, needless war. The polling was probably well more accurate than those formal call-you-up polls that seem to poll the same, damn boring people over and over again (the people who believe what corp media is telling them to believe).