A Danish blogger calling himself A Vassal's View points to the most extensive polling data that I've yet to see out of the New Iraq®.
Actually, it is the only poll I've seen out of the New Iraq® save one -- a rather mysterious survey of Baghdad residents reported by CBS around the beginning of June.
This new poll, however, comes with a bit more of a pedigree. It was collected by a British polling firm, YouGov. (No, I not gov. Shrub gov. Me blogger.)
You've probably never heard of them either. But hey, they have a web site, so they must be legit, right? They also claim to have done polls for The Observer, the Sunday Times, the New Statesman, and bunch of other British firms and publications. So I think we can give them a temporary hall pass at least.
Yougov says it does most of its polling on-line, but of course that isn't really feasible in Iraq. Hell, at this point Raed and Saalam Pax together probably make up a significant fraction of the Greater Baghdad on-line community.
Yougov says its Iraq poll, conducted July 8-10, consisted of face-to-face interviews with 798 adult residents "throughout" Baghdad. It doesn't state the MOE.
That said, the poll isn't exactly a ringing vote of confidence in our colonial administrators. Keep in mind, we're dealing with a country where until a couple of months ago an opinion poll was likely to look like this:
Q: When we torture you, would you prefer having your tongue cut out, or should we hook a car battery up to your genitals?
Tongue: 2%
Car battery: 1%
Whatever Saddam thinks best: 97%
So it's probably not unrealistic to assume the Yougov respondents were a tad reluctant to express their views freely -- particularly since the coalition has already reopened some of Saddam's old political prisons.
But look at these results:
Q: Do you think America and Britain's war against Saddam's regime was right or wrong?
Right: 50%
Wrong: 27%
Please don't cut out my tongue: 23%
OK, OK, so I made that last response up. It was actually:
No opinion: 23%
Now having no opinion about the relative merits of Colgate or Crest is one thing; not having an opinion about the downfall of a cruel totalitarian regime is another. But, if you've spent any time in any of the former Communist countries, you know that "no opinion" remained the attitude of choice for many people for many years. Old habits do die hard.
But who are these cautious Iraqis afraid of? The Americans? Or their old neighborhood Ba'athist informer? Either way, not breaking 50% on an existential question like that doesn't seem very impressive -- particularly when 27% of those polled are willing to tell a Western stranger with a clipboard that they think the entire liberation thing was a bad idea.
Moving on:
Q: What do you think was/were the main reason(s) for America and
Britain’s actions? (i.e. invading Iraq)
To secure oil supplies: 47%
To help Israel: 41%
To liberate the people of Iraq from dictatorship 23%
To protect Kuwait 7% (these folks seem to be thinking about the wrong war)
To find and destroy weapons of mass destruction: 6%
Other/don't know: 18%
So it's true: You really can't fool all of the people all of the time ... not in Iraq, anyway.
Q: What is your view towards the American and British forces currently stationed in Iraq?
Friendly: 26%
Hostile: 18%
Neither friendly nor hostile: 50%
No opinion: 6%
Now 26% friendly and 18% hostile is obviously better than the reverse, and it seems to lend some credence to conservative complaints that the press coverage has been too negative. But look at that "on the fence" vote. Again -- what motive would someone who is sympathetic to the occupation have for concealing their true opinion, compared to the motive for someone who secretly hates the Americans who now control the country (and its prisons)?
But this was the kicker -- both for A Vassal's View and for me:
Q: If you HAD to choose, would you rather live under Saddam or the Americans?
Prefer Saddam: 9%
Prefer Americans: 29%
No preference: 47%
No opinion: 15%
So, close to 10% of the Baghdad population (let's say about 500,000 people, give or take) would rather be living in a Ba'athist police state, while almost two-thirds say they could go either way. That's what I call keeping your options open.
But, whatever they may think about Saddam, most of those polled said they would just as soon not have their liberators hang around for long:
Q: Right now, would you prefer to see the US (and Britain) stay in Iraq or pull out?
Stay for a few years: 31%
Stay for about a year: 25%
Leave inside 12 months: 20%
Leave immediately: 13%
No opinion: 11%
In other words, close to 60% want the coalition out in a year or less. That's not a whole lot of time to rebuild a devastated Third World Country and turn it into a beacon of progress and democracy.
And what about democracy? Are the Iraqis on the same wavelength as our neoconservative missionaries?
Q: What kind of political/governmental system would you like to see in Iraq?
British/American style democracy: 36%
Islamic rule, but tempered with modern practices: 26%
Strict Islamic rule: 6%
Bring back Saddam (classic Ba'ath): 5%
Single party/president (Ba'ath lite): 13%
Don't know: 12%
It would appear the Iraqis are on multiple wavelengths, which is likely to create some serious static if and when the time comes for the American Proconsul to transfer power to the locals. But that doesn't mean the locals are inclined to wait. They may not know what kind of government they want, but they want it quickly:
Q: How soon should Iraqis be handed political power?
Straight away: 40%
Within three months: 11%
Within six months: 11%
Within one year: 11%
More than one year: 9%
Iraqis should not be handed power: 7%
Don t know: 10%
The rest of the poll is fairly predictable: Life in post-Saddam Iraq would seem to meet at least two of Hobbes' three conditions for the state of nature: it's nasty and brutish, and at great risk of being short:
Q: Which, if any, of these problems are affecting you personally?
No electricity: 80%
Danger of attack on the streets: 67%
Danger of attack in your home/place of work: 50%
Lack of clean drinking water: 49%
Lack of medical facilities/medicines: 33%
Lack of clean washing water: 25%
Shortage of food: 24%
At this point, it appears the main thing keeping the Iraqis going -- and keeping the occupation semi-tolerable -- is hope:
Q: How do you expect your life to be in one year's time, compared to before the invasion?
Better: 43%
Worse: 16%
Don't Know: 28%
Q: In five year's time?
Better: 52%
Worse: 11%
Don't Know: 31%
But hope can't keep the lights on or make the streets safe. It won't put medicine in decrepit hospitals or food in empty bellies. And if conditions are terrible in Baghdad -- the country's largest and most cosmopolitian city -- how bad are they in the smaller cities and towns and rural villages where the vast majority of Iraqis live?
From the Yougov poll, it would appear the coalition has only a few months left -- a year at best -- to meet some extremely demanding political and economic expectations. It must also deal with a hard core of 5-10% of the population (and a much higher share of the Sunni minority) that is actively rooting for a Ba'athist come back. And it has to reckon with an even larger -- but mutually antagonistic -- grouping that desires either a Shi'a or Sunni Islamic government.
As a reporter for the British newspaper The Independent observed a few months ago, America's big problem in Iraq isn't that it has so many enemies -- the problem is that it has so very few friends.
Aren't YouGov actually the outfit that keeps fabricating dodgy polls to tell the Tories (their main employers) what they want to hear? Not that that should affect this Iraq poll particularly.
it would be interesting to see what the result of this poll would be in 3 months time (although without the MOE the changes won't necessarily mean a lot)
why did you skip this one, btw?
Q: Is Iraq a more dangerous or safer place for you to live since the Americans and British invaded?
Much more dangerous: 54%
A little more dangerous: 21%
TOTAL DANGEROUS: 75%
No real change: 10%
A little safer: 11%
Much safer: 3%
TOTAL SAFER: 14%
None of these: 1%
Not stated: 1%
why did you skip this one, btw?
It seemed a little obvious -- I think most people understand that Iraq has become a pretty dangerous place.
Q: What do you think was/were the main reason(s) for America and
Britain’s actions? (i.e. invading Iraq)
...To protect Kuwait 7% (these folks seem to be thinking about the wrong war)
Don't be too sure about that -- they may know exactly what they're saying. See this blog post (from Skimble) and this one (from Seeing the Forest) -- both cite stories (this one, this one, and this one) that suggest that Iraq is pumping oil out of Iraq for Kuwait's benefit, even as Iraqis go without.
YouGov are dodgy all right, I'm one of their respondents (tho' they haven't asked me anything about Iraq)... if I answer 100 of their polls they send me £50... seriously, though, they're at least as reliable as any other UK polling outfit.
Just to clarify... "Private Eye" ran a piece a few weeks ago (not available online, alas), claiming that YouGov were skewing the polls they did for the Tories in order to keep their business.
On the other hand, there's no suggestion that they were making up their results (carefully-selected samples and carefully-worded questions will do the job without actual dishonesty), and I don't see any reason why they'd want to mess with the Iraq poll.
Er... that anonymous last post was mine, BTW.
800 people seems a bit low for a credible poll. Also the usual questions apply here: When, where, by whom (who acutally asked) was this poll conducted? Who payed for it? etc.
800 people seems a bit low for a credible poll. Also the usual questions apply here: When, where, by whom (who acutally asked) was this poll conducted? Who payed for it?
The usual questions all right. 800 isn't a bad sample size, especially for a single city -- I've seen reputable national U.S. polls based on less. But it probably is best to interpret this as a poll of Baghdad residents, not a poll of all Iraqis.
Poll was paid for by The Spectator, which is, I believe, a Tory-leaning British rag, and by Channel 4 News, which is one of the ITV outlets. I'm not aware that ITV has any particular ideological bias, but then I'm not really all that up to speed on the British media.
The Spectator is indeed a Tory rag. Channel 4 News is the most left-liberal leaning TV news bulletin. Strange bedfellows.
ITV and Channel 4 aren't the same thing. ITV used to be several regional independent TV channels all broadcasting on the same channel, each making programmes for the others to show, plus local programming. Now it still appears to be like that, but all the regional channels are actually owned by two companies, Carlton and Granada, and they keep on trying to merge.
Channel 4, on the other hand, is a national broadcaster with some sort of handwavey public/private partnership going on that I don't understand. Whereas ITV shows mostly lowest-common-denominator programmes, Channel 4 shows a lot of minority or special interest programming, although it has its fair share of trash. Channel 4 News has a very good reputation; ITV News used to have a good reputation when it was ITN, but now it's complete and utter rubbish.
Incidentally, have any of the Americans reading this ever read Private Eye?
Thomas Friedman, a man who lives inside his own ass, has written another condescending, insulting, and intellectually bankrupt column on Iraq and the Middle East, where he expresses his anger that Iraqis are not more grateful toward the occupying colonial power in their midst.
Iraqis have to prove that they really can work together and are willing to sacrifice for the chance to rule themselves. (Why are we offering them $55 million in rewards for finding Saddam and his sons? They should be paying us!) We don't need U.N. or French troops in Iraq right now. We need more Iraqis who want to sacrifice to be free.
He doesn't care about polls, because the Iraqis haven't proved their opinion means anything. And to think he's to the left of the administration! Simply amazing.
800 respondents is a good number for an American city with known demographics and sampling.
It's pitiful for a non-sampled survey.
Billmon, et. al.,
I am currently guest blogging at 'Deux Ego,' as one of the bloggers for that site is away through August 3rd. There are two others who are guest blogging there during this time, and the issue of Iraq and war may come up - it already has, in fact. Please check out my Pop Quiz on this issue - It is currently the second entry from the top at that site. Test your discernment skills on the issue of war...
Thanks!
"Iraqis have to prove that they really can work together and are willing to sacrifice for the chance to rule themselves. (Why are we offering them $55 million in rewards for finding Saddam and his sons? They should be paying us!) We don't need U.N. or French troops in Iraq right now. We need more Iraqis who want to sacrifice to be free."
Welfare mothers and Iraqis -- in league with Tax and Spend Liberals to undermine our American Values! I knew it!
What load of cheap labor conservative swill!
It is a given that this poll is not quite up to U.S standards (and thats Gold, baby, Gold). The question I have is: what would be the results in Tikrit? In Mosul? In any one of the number of small towns that scatter the countryside? I would imagine that there would be great variation. Which means that there are substantial parts of the country that want us out now or else.
Of course, you don't need a majority of the population willing to act against an army to make life hell for the soldiers. You need a motivated hard core group and a big mass of indifferent folks. Which, I guess, is exactly that the poll shows.
I've read Private Eye a lot. Of course, I had to go to Britain to do it.
tersuki said;
The question I have is: what would be the results in Tikrit? In Mosul? In any one of the number of small towns that scatter the countryside? I would imagine that there would be great variation
Isn't Baghdad mostly Sunni? The Sunni would have a whole different skew on these questions, especially the question about whether they would like to see the U.S. and Brits leave. Without the troops in Bahgdad the Sunni are extremely vulnerable.
Billmon, These comment threads are just magnificent. + they sparkle with wit and verve. Everyone keep up the good work. Signed, Beloved Old Fart
G'day Billmon,
Absolutely beaut blog, mate, but did 42% of the sample get to choose more than one main reason; were 100% allowed to nominate more than one, yet 58% of them decline that opportunity; or were142% of the sample confined to one main reason?
Or is this how we explain the Tories' dramatic recent performance in the UK polls?
Deb,
You asked "Isn't Baghdad mostly Sunni? " I think the answer is no. B-dad has a majority Shia population--though it is likely (given that Sunni tend to be more wealthy, etc.) that the poll was skewed towards that response. Again, the problem with a small poll which does not break down respondants by relevant categories (shia, sunni, kurd, baathist, chalabi-ite).
did 42% of the sample get to choose more than one main reason; were 100% allowed to nominate more than one, yet 58% of them decline that opportunity; or were142% of the sample confined to one main reason?
I think with a lot of these questions we can safely assume that multiple answers were allowed.
I never claimed this poll was gospel ... Koranic truth. Just that it's the first poll with any kind of documentation behind it that I personally have seen come out of Iraq.
Consider it a straw in the wind, but at this point, when it comes to divining the will of the Iraqi people, straws are all we have.
Nice article, Billmon. I'm a survey researcher on health and environmental issues. Here's a few points about survey methodology and how it may affect the results of this poll:
1. The size of the sample in and of itself yields the same margin of error (MOE) regardless of how many folks are in the population -- unless the survey is answered by a large majority of the population. So it wouldn't matter whether the survey was of all Iraq, or just Bagdhad -- EXCEPT see point 3 below.
2. A sample of 800 yields a margin of error (MOE) of approximately +/- 4%, tho this varies depending on how divergent the results are. For example, questions with 20% of the sample giving one choice and 80% giving another choice would have a smaller MOE than questions that were a 60/40 split.
3. The key methodological issue with this survey would be whether and how the sampling was stratified along demographic lines that would influence the Baghdad population's answers to the specific questions being asked. For example, did the % of deeply religious Shia respondents in the survey match their % within Bagdhad overall?
4. Question wording, translation and cultural differences could have a tremendous impact on the statistics as well.
(Of course, some posters have already rightly noted points 3 and 4 above.) Good survey reports spend a lot of ink discussing such methodological details, and how they could influence the results.
Bottom line, I wouldn't trust the numbers specifically without knowing more about the sampling and question-wording issues, but I'd look at it for suggesting likely trends. It's just that you can't tell which results could be misleading without knowing more about the methodology. Still, it appears quite clear that a majority of Baghdad citizens do not feel, think, and believe what our Neocon warmongers want them to. The survey certainly gives the lie to many points of Bushco's propoganda with respect to Iraq.
YouGov is a solid organisation, with a silly name.