Dow at 13,000. How to account for the disconnect?

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Call us skeptical by gimleteye

You read and hear the same news we do. Yesterday, on a day the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 13,000 for the first time, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll disclosed that only 22 percent believe the nation is headed in the right direction.

How to account for the disconnect?

Wall Street apparently believes that the consumer economy is strong. But is consumer confidence really so different from what people feel about the war in Iraq and the collapse of the housing markets and sharply tightening credit across the nation?

It is true that Wall Street has always tended to view gridlock in Washington as good for business, and business is generally good in a time of war.

We look, though, at the disparity in wages, between the economic elite and the mass of Americans ("Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans--those with incomes that year of more than $348,000--receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows." NY Times, March 29, 2007) and believe that something else is going on.

The earth has been "flattened" by globalization. Americans have benefited from high quality goods manufactured in low wage nations, but those benefits are diminishing. People are very anxious, and with good reason.

A dollar of US labor no longer towers over our neighbors or trading partners. We are not educating and training American workers fast enough to compete for higher paying jobs in the new global economy. Hungrier workers are getting those jobs.

It doesn't mean we aren't working hard. We are. In urban areas where housing costs have skyrocketed, two wage-earner families are on a fast treadmill just to keep pace with a single wage earner family, a few decades ago. And businesses are finding out that the last dollar of productivity squeezed by technological efficiencies is not necessarily protecting the higher paying jobs that remain.

The stock market is agnostic to the difficulties ordinary Americans are experiencing. The stock market likes what globalization is doing for large multinational corporations, whose executives are part of a new economic elite, defined by the highest wage differential with ordinary workers since the Great Depression.

The markets are glad. Americans are sad and increasingly irrelevant to the operation of the world economy.

In Nation this week, William Greider interviews economist Ralph Gomory who explains, "America... becomes increasingly dependent, buying from abroad more and more of what its citizens consume and producing relatively less at home. US incomes stagnate as the high-wage jobs disappear and US exports become a smaller share of the world total."

Greider writes, "The conventional win-win assurances... are facile generalizations ... some nations, in other words, do indeed become 'losers'."

What seems to be driving both foreign and domestic policy in the United States is the urgency of 'winners' to separate themselves from the afflicted losers of the global economy. It is not just the issue of wage disparity: that the "the top 1 percent (of income earners) recieved 21.8 percent of all reported income in 2005, up significantly from the 19.8 percent the year before and more than double their share of income in 1980. The peak was in 1928, when the top 1 percent reported 23.9 percent of all income." We all know what happened in 1928.

No, there are more subtle effects, like the fact that so many Americans are driving gas-guzzling SUV's while Exxon coasts from one record profit to the next, a promise sold to consumers by a domestic auto industry that claimed it could not afford high gas mileage standards, leaving Toyota to dismantle US jobs on the basis of better engineered and more fuel efficient products that US auto suppliers couldn't build then but apparently will have to build now, now that they have lost that war, and, American jobs.

We could be wrong. Every government bean counter and statistician for the government wants to find good news in the numbers and even will 'cook the books' (ie. how inflation is measured) when reality cuts too close to the bone.

We noted, yesterday, how the good news on manufacturing and exports highlighted the contribution of a single company, Boeing Aircraft.

It seems inevitable to us that the collapse of housing markets will drag the economy downward. We look at the cranes busily moving over the Miami skyline, hurrying massive condominiums toward certificates of occupancy, we watch our local county commission doing back flips to satisfy the greed of the development lobby, built on the back of liar loans, mortgage fraud, and incestuous relationships between builders and lenders, and shake our heads.

But we may not be wrong. We may just be early.

Bus closing in on Nixon territory at 28%

THE HARRIS POLL

Bush Approval Rating Falls to 28%,
Lowest Level So Far, in Harris Poll
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
April 26, 2007

61% say NOT accurate to compare withdrawal with surrender

One Senator[McCain] recently claimed that setting a date for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is more accurately described as a date for surrender — do you think it is accurate to compare withdrawal with surrender?

Yes: 33 percent
No: 61 percent

FOX POLL, APRIL 19, 2007 - PDF

World Opposed to U.S. as Global Cop

POLITICS

Eli Clifton

WASHINGTON, Apr 18 (IPS) - The world public rejects the U.S. role as a world leader, but still wants the United States to do its share in multilateral efforts and does not support a U.S. withdrawal from international affairs, says a poll released Wednesday.

The survey respondents see the United States as an unreliable "world policeman", but views are split on whether the superpower should reduce its overseas military bases.

The people of the United States generally agreed with the rest of the world that their country should not remain the world's pre-eminent leader or global cop, and prefer that it play a more cooperative role in multilateral efforts to address world problems.

The poll, the fourth in a series released by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org since the latter half of 2006, was conducted in China, India, United States, Indonesia, Russia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia and the Palestinian territories.

The three previous reports covered attitudes toward humanitarian military intervention, labour and environmental standards in international trade, and global warming. Those surveys found that the international public generally favoured more multilateral efforts to curb genocides and more far-reaching measures to protect labour rights and combat climate change than their governments have supported to date.

Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org, notes that this report confirms other polls which have shown that world opinion of the United States is bad and getting worse, however this survey more closely examines the way the world public would want to see Washington playing a positive role in the international community.

Although all 15 of the countries polled rejected the idea that, "the U.S. should continue to be the pre-eminent world leader in solving international problems," only Argentina and the Palestinian territories say it "should withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems."

The respondents tend to agree that the US should do "its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries" in: South Korea (79 percent), United States (75 percent), France (75 percent), China (68 percent), Israel (62 percent), Peru (61 percent), Mexico (59 percent), Armenia (58 percent), Philippines (55 percent), Ukraine (52 percent), Thailand (47 percent), India (42 percent) and Russia (42 percent).

In a majority of countries -- 13 out of 15 -- publics believe Washington is "playing the role of world policeman more than it should," including France (89 percent), Australia (80 percent), China (77 percent), Russia (76 percent), Peru (76 percent), Palestinian territories (74 percent) and South Korea (73 percent).

Seventy-six percent of those polled in the United States also agree that their country plays too big a role as a global cop, but 57 percent of Filipinos disagreed with the statement, and Israelis were evenly split on the issue.

Majorities think that the United States cannot be trusted to "act responsibly in the world" in: Argentina (84 percent), Peru (80 percent), Russia (73 percent), France (72 percent) and Indonesia (64 percent). But majorities or large percentages in the Philippines (85 percent), Israel (81 percent), Poland (51 percent), and Ukraine (49 percent) say the superpower can be at least "somewhat" trusted to act responsibly.

Although most of the countries involved in the poll had majorities who believe the U.S. was too involved in policing issues of international concern, there were mixed views about whether it should reduce its military presence around the world. Only five out of 12 publics favoured decreasing the number of overseas U.S. military bases: Argentina (75 percent), Palestinian territories (70 percent), France (69 percent), China (63 percent) and Ukraine (62 percent).

Majorities in the Philippines (78 percent), United States (68 percent), Israel (59 percent) and Poland (54 percent) favour maintaining or increasing the current levels of U.S. military bases. Armenia and Thailand lean in favour of maintaining current levels or reducing base locations, while India was divided. No country favoured increases.

The survey clearly shows that the perception of the U.S. role in the world is negative and getting worse, but some publics did have significant numbers who felt relations between their country and the United States are getting better.

Most of the respondents in India (58 percent) and China (53 percent) felt relations were improving, while pluralities agree in Australia (50 percent), Armenia (48 percent), Indonesia (46 percent), and Thailand (37 percent). Majorities or pluralities in Poland (60 percent), South Korea (56 percent), Israel (52 percent), Ukraine (52 percent) and Russia (45 percent) say relations with the U.S. are about the same.

No countries had majorities or pluralities who say relations with the United States are getting worse.

‘US cannot be trusted to act responsibly’

CHICAGO: There is widespread global concern that the United States cannot be trusted to act responsibly in the world, according to a multinational poll released here Wednesday.

But while there is broad international frustration with how the United States conducts its foreign policy, few people around the world want the United States to completely back off its role as a global policeman, the poll found.

“There’s clearly a trend in terms of deepening negative attitudes to the US in how it executes foreign policy,” said Christopher Whitney, executive director for studies at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs which helped coordinate the 18-country study.

The United States has long faced criticism internationally for its ‘interventionalist foreign policy’, Whitney said. This survey found that the frustration is broader in scope than previously thought and has deepened in the wake of the war in Iraq. But mixed with this frustration is an understanding that the US has a significant role to play internationally and should not withdraw completely, Whitney said.

He noted there was not consistent support for closing US military bases overseas and that many respondents felt that their bilateral relationship with the United States was improving. “It is not a consistent message of “we don’t want the US to be involved,’ it’s more nuanced,” Whitney said.

“They just want the US to play a more cooperative role and be a more constructive international player in terms of working through international organisations and listening to allies and friends when they have concerns.”

The starkest results were those showing a lack of trust that the United States would act responsibly and a sense that it had overreached on the global stage.

A majority of respondents in Argentina (84 per cent), Peru (80 per cent), Russia (73 per cent) France (72 per cent), Armenia (58 per cent), Indonesia (64 per cent), China (59 per cent), Thailand (56 per cent), South Korea(53 per cent) and India (52 per cent) and more than a third of those in Australia (40 per cent) and Ukraine (37 per cent) answered “not at all” or “not very much” when asked how much they trusted the US “to act responsibly in the world,” the poll found.

The Philippines and Israel proved the staunchest supporters with 85 per cent and 81 per cent of respondents, respectively, saying they trusted the US either a “great deal” or “somewhat,” followed by Australia at 59 per cent and Poland at 51 per cent.

More than three out of four Americans think their country tends to take on the role of international enforcer more than it should. Large majorities elsewhere also felt that way: France at 89 per cent, Australia at 80 per cent, China at 77 per cent, Russia at 76 per cent, Peru at 76 per cent, the Palestinian territories at 74 per cent, South Korea at 73 per cent, Indonesia at 68 per cent, Ukraine at 67 per cent, Armenia at 63 per cent, Argentina at 62 per cent and India at 53 per cent.

Only one country surveyed had a majority of respondents who disagreed: the Philippines with 57 per cent. Israeli respondents were split at an even 48 per cent. The study was conducted in 18 countries — China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Russia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel and Armenia — plus the Palestinian territories. Not all questions were asked in each country. These represent roughly 56 per cent of the world’s population.

The random sample surveys were conducted by telephone and in person from June 2006 to March 2007, with margins of error ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 percentage points.

Iraq opinion gulf leaving GOP in peril

Cook

Poll shows independents coming down on Democrats' side

ANALYSIS

By Charlie Cook

National Journal

Updated: 2:39 p.m. MT April 17, 2007

WASHINGTON - The polarization between Democrats, Republicans and independents on both politics and policy cannot be overstated. The war in Iraq is perhaps the most vivid and important example of the stark differences in opinions based on party affiliation.

There is a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon between Republicans and Democrats on the Iraq war. More ominous for the GOP is that independents are coming down on the anti-war side, if slightly less vociferously than Democrats.

This portends potential peril for Republicans in 2008.

Let's look at the difference in attitudes on Iraq using a CBS News poll of 994 adults, conducted last Monday through Thursday, with a 3-point error margin.

Overall, 44 percent said the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out. Among Republicans, 76 percent said it was the right thing to do and 20 percent said the U.S. should have stayed out. For Democrats, on the other hand, it was almost the opposite: 21 percent said military action was the right choice, and 74 percent said staying out was the correct option. Just 38 percent of independents said it was the right thing to do, while 56 percent preferred staying out.

On the question of how things are going in Iraq, 2 percent of those polled thought the war was going very well and 29 percent said somewhat well, for a total of 31 percent. Thirty percent said the war was going somewhat badly and 36 percent said it was going very badly, for a total of 66 percent. Among just Republicans, 62 percent thought the war was going very or somewhat well, compared to 36 percent who said somewhat or very badly. Thirteen percent of Democrats said it was going well, and 85 percent said badly. Again, independents came down significantly closer to Democrats than Republicans, with 23 percent saying that it was going well and 74 percent saying it was going badly.

Those surveyed were asked, "regardless of whether you think taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, would you say that the U.S. is very likely to succeed in Iraq, somewhat likely to succeed, not very likely to succeed or not at all likely to succeed?"

Twelve percent said the U.S. is very likely to succeed; 33 percent said somewhat likely, 29 percent chose "not very likely" and another 24 percent said not at all likely.

Among Republicans, 72 percent said success is very or somewhat likely, compared with just 27 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents -- yet another example of the thinking of independents aligning much more with Democrats than Republicans.

In terms of what the United States should do now, overall, 21 percent said it should increase troop levels in Iraq, 13 percent said keep the same number, 27 percent said it should draw down troop numbers and 33 percent said remove all troops. Sixty-six percent of Republicans were in favor of increasing or maintaining troop levels, compared with 13 percent of Democrats and 28 percent of independents.

Just 31 percent of Republicans said the United States should decrease the number or remove all troops, compared with 81 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents.

Regarding a timetable for withdrawal, 57 percent of the total sample said they were in favor -- 34 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents. Sixty-two percent of Republicans surveyed said no to a timetable, but just 19 percent of Democrats and 36 percent of independents opposed one.

Finally, when posed with three approaches Congress could take on Iraq, just 9 percent overall said all funding for the war should be blocked. Twenty-nine percent said funding should be provided without a time limit, and 58 percent said Congress should allow funding for a limited period of time. Interestingly, only 13 percent of Democrats were for cutting off all funding no matter what, tracking relatively closely with the 4 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents. Seventy-four percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independents favored continued spending with a timetable, along with 38 percent of Republicans.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans said Congress should allow all funding without a time limit, but just 10 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents went along with that.

Looking at the data, it is understandable why the natural reaction of Republican lawmakers and 2008 GOP presidential contenders is to hang with President Bush on the war: Their base remains pretty supportive.

It is just as easy to understand why Democrats are behaving the way they are.

Notwithstanding what they personally believe, it's hard for lawmakers and presidential candidates to defy their bases. But pending some resolution or fundamental change in the fortunes of this war, the attitudes of independent voters may well come to haunt GOP candidates in the general election.

As with impeachment in 1998, Republicans are listening to their base, but independents are feeling very different, potentially setting the stage for another bad election for the GOP.

Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.Copyright 2007 by National Journal Group Inc.

Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Survey Reports

What Americans Know: 1989-2007

Released: April 15, 2007

Summary of Findings

What's Your News IQ?
Take the Quiz

Since the late 1980s, the emergence of 24-hour cable news as a dominant news source and the explosive growth of the internet have led to major changes in the American public's news habits. But a new nationwide survey finds that the coaxial and digital revolutions and attendant changes in news audience behaviors have had little impact on how much Americans know about national and international affairs.

On average, today's citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago. The new survey includes nine questions that are either identical or roughly comparable to questions asked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 2007, somewhat fewer were able to name their governor, the vice president, and the president of Russia, but more respondents than in the earlier era gave correct answers to questions pertaining to national politics.

In 1989, for example, 74% could come up with Dan Quayle's name when asked who the vice president is. Today, somewhat fewer (69%) are able to recall Dick Cheney. However, more Americans now know that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is generally considered a conservative and that Democrats control Congress than knew these things in 1989. Some of the largest knowledge differences between the two time periods may reflect differences in the amount of press coverage of a particular issue or public figure at the time the surveys were taken. But taken as a whole the findings suggest little change in overall levels of public knowledge.

The survey provides further evidence that changing news formats are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs. The polling does find the expected correlation between how much citizens know and how avidly they watch, read, or listen to news reports. The most knowledgeable third of the public is four times more likely than the least knowledgeable third to say they enjoy keeping up with the news "a lot."

There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events).

Aside from news media use, demographic characteristics, especially education, continue to be strongly associated with how much Americans know about the larger world. However, despite the fact that education levels have risen dramatically over the past 20 years, public knowledge has not increased accordingly.

These are the principal findings of an in-depth Pew Research Center survey that interviewed a representative national sample of 1,502 adults between Feb.1-13, 2007. Respondents were asked to identify public figures who had recently been in the news. They also were asked questions that measured how much they knew about important and widely covered news events. Awareness of public figures varied widely.

More than nine-in-ten Americans (93%) could identify Arnold Schwarzenegger as the California governor or a former action-movie star - both responses were counted as correct in the scoring. An equally large proportion of the public identified Hillary Clinton as a U.S. senator, a former first lady, a Democratic leader, or a candidate for president. Clear majorities can also correctly identify Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (65%) and Sen. Barack Obama (61%). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is recognized by about half of the public (49%).

Other prominent national figures and world leaders are not as well known. When asked to name the president of Russia, just 36% recalled Vladimir Putin. Only about three-in-ten (29%) could correctly identify former White House aide Scooter Libby; the survey was conducted during Libby's trial - but before his conviction - on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Public knowledge of news events also varies widely. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) knew that as part of his revised Iraq strategy, President Bush planned to increase U.S. military forces in the country. But only one-in-four Americans (24%) are aware that both houses of Congress passed legislation to increase the minimum wage and 34% knew that Congress voted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.

Distinct patterns emerge when these results are analyzed by key demographic groups. Education proves to be the single best predictor of knowledge. Holding all other factors equal, levels of knowledge rise with each additional year of formal schooling. At the extremes, these educational differences are dramatic: People with postgraduate degrees answer, on average, about 17 of the 23 questions correctly, while those who did not finish high school average only about eight correct answers.

Other demographic differences are also striking. Men, on average, knew more than women, all other factors being equal. Older Americans - particularly those 50 years old or older - did better than younger people. Whites scored better than blacks, while more affluent Americans knew more than those with lower household incomes.

As part of the Pew Knowledge Project, people are invited to test their own news IQ by taking an interactive knowledge quiz now available on the Pew Research Center website. The short quiz includes versions of the some of the same questions that were included in the national poll. Participants will instantly learn how they did on the quiz in comparison with the general public as well as with people like them. Take the quiz.

Grading the Public

To measure overall knowledge levels, a core group of 23 of the 26 questions was used to form a knowledge index. Each correct answer counted as one point, producing a scale that ranges from zero - no correct answers - to 23, a perfect score. Each respondent received a score based on the number of questions he or she answered correctly.¹

Eight people out of the 1,502 respondents answered all 23 questions correctly. At the other end of the spectrum, five people failed to answer a single question correctly. The average respondent got about 12 of the 23 questions right, or slightly more than half. 10 percent answered 20 or more questions accurately - and 5% got more than 20 questions wrong or said they did not know the answer.

Using a common school grading scale in which 90% correct is the minimum necessary to receive an A, 80% for a B, 70% for a C, 60% for a D and less than 60% is a failing grade, Americans did not fare too well. Fully half would have failed, while only about one-in-six would have earned an A or B. While such a scale is useful in the classroom, it may be a poor way to judge whether people are sufficiently informed. Opinions vary about what people "should" know about news events, and a different mix of questions could easily have produced very different results.

In fact, an experiment conducted in conjunction with this survey suggests that when people are given a "multiple-choice" version of key questions, the proportion who selected the correct response increased, sometimes dramatically.

For example, only 36% were able to volunteer Putin's name when asked in the February poll, "Who is the president of Russia?" But 60% correctly selected Putin when the question was asked this way in the test survey: "Can you tell me who is the president of Russia? Is it Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev, or is it someone else?" Similarly, only 21% correctly answered that Robert Gates is the secretary of defense in the February survey, compared with 37% who did so when asked to choose whether Gates was the defense secretary, a senator from Michigan, the chairman of General Motors or held another job.

On other questions, the differences attributable to alternative formats were less dramatic. About three-in-four (76%) were able to volunteer unaided that the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. When on the test respondents were asked which political party controlled the House, followed by the prompt: "Is it the Democratic Party or the Republican Party," 82% answered correctly, a six-percentage point increase.

The results do not suggest possible explanations for the differences. Some of the gap may be explained by lucky guessing on the part of people who heard the correct choice along with some incorrect alternatives. Or perhaps asking people to volunteer an answer causes some to grow anxious and momentarily forget the right answer, or simply to say they do not know in order to hurry the interview along.

Demographic Differences in What Americans Know

To compare knowledge levels between demographic groups, the sample was divided into roughly equal thirds on the basis of how many of the 23 questions they answered correctly. About 35% of the sample answered 15 or more correct out of 23 core questions. For purposes of this analysis, they were classified as the "High" knowledge group. About 31% answered 10 to 14 questions correctly, and they were classified as having "Medium" levels of knowledge. Those who got nine or fewer questions right were assigned to the "Low" knowledge group.

Using this yardstick, differences in knowledge levels among core demographic groups stand out in sharp relief. More than six-in-ten college graduates (63%) fall into the high knowledge group, compared with 20% of those with a high school education or less - among the largest disparities observed in the survey. At the other end of the scale, half of those who had no more than a high school diploma (49%) are in the low knowledge group while only about one-in-ten college graduates (11%) fare as poorly.

Traditionally, men are more likely than women to say they closely follow politics and international affairs, and the results of the knowledge survey appear to reflect this divide. Nearly half of all men (45%) score in the top third, compared with 25% of women. Among those at the bottom third of the scale, women (42%) outnumber men (26%). Whites are more likely to be represented in the top group, while a larger proportion of blacks than whites (44% vs. 31%) fall into the low-knowledge group.

Dramatic differences emerge when the results are broken down by age. Young people know the least: Only 15% percent of 18-29 year-olds are among the most informed third of the public, compared with 43% of those ages 65 and older. But it is not these oldest respondents who know the most. Instead, it is people in the age group younger than them - those ages 50-64 - who are slightly more likely to finish among the third of the sample who know the most (47% vs. 43%) and less likely to be represented among those who know the least (22% vs. 28%). This difference likely is caused by the very different life circumstances of the two oldest age groups. Many of those 65 and older are retired from work, and health problems as well as lifestyle changes can disproportionately work to diminish the interest or ability of some in this generation to keep up with the news.

More affluent Americans also are disproportionately represented in the high-knowledge group, a difference that held even after level of schooling, age, gender and race were taken into consideration in the analysis. A clear majority (55%) of those with household incomes of $100,000 or more are among the third of the sample that knew the most, compared with just 14% of those with household incomes of $20,000 or less.

Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least.

The survey also suggests that people who know more about politics and world events also tend to correctly identify popular celebrities. For example, nearly eight-in-ten respondents (78%) in the high-knowledge group could identify football star Peyton Manning, compared with 45% of those in the low-knowledge group. Similarly, those conversant with politics and world affairs also are more likely to correctly describe singer and actress Beyonce Knowles. While based on only two questions, these finding do suggest that more informed people may know a bit about a wide variety of subjects, including pop culture.

Knowledge Domains

Knowledgeable people tend to know things about both politics and foreign affairs while less informed Americans tended to know little about either subject, the survey found. For example, nine-in-ten of those who could name Vladimir Putin as the president of Russia also could identify Barack Obama. Similarly, nine-in-10 of those who didn't know the Illinois senator also couldn't correctly name the Russian leader.

Some demographic groups also did comparatively better on questions that broadly resonated with group members. For example, the survey found that blacks generally lagged behind whites in terms of their overall political knowledge. But African Americans had no trouble recognizing either Rice or Obama: 70% of all blacks and 66% of whites could identify Rice, and both races did about equally well identifying the Illinois senator. Other results suggest that women were somewhat more likely to know more about domestic politics than they did about international affairs, while men were more likely to know about as much on both subjects.

But overall, there was a close correlation between what people knew about domestic politics and foreign affairs. Only a handful of Americans - less than 3% of the total sample - were "knowledge specialists" who knew a lot about one subject but comparatively little about the other.

Knowledge and Political Engagement

More informed Americans enjoy keeping up with the news, believe they have a personal stake in what goes on in Washington, and are significantly more likely to be registered to vote than people who know less, the survey found.

Among those in the third of the sample who know the most, the overwhelming majority (90%) are registered to vote compared with about half (53%) of the least knowledgeable Americans. The knowledgeable public also is more likely to see issues debated in Washington as having a direct impact on their lives (73% vs. 59%).

Rather than being a burden, the survey suggests these informed Americans like keeping up with what's going on in the news. About seven-in-ten (69%) in the high-knowledge group say they enjoy keeping up with the news "a lot," compared with only 16% of the least informed.

Political Knowledge Over Time

The public's ability to recall the names of leading political figures has not changed substantially since 1989. In the current survey, 69% correctly named Dick Cheney as the vice president. In May 1989, slightly more (74%) were able to name Dan Quayle as vice president. Somewhat fewer people could name their state's governor now than did so in 1989, but again the differences are not dramatic (66% now, 74% then).

In terms of knowledge of politics and current events, significantly fewer people now know that the U.S. buys more goods from abroad than it sells than did so in 1989 (68% now vs. 81% then). But the political climate for this issue also has changed considerably. During the late 1980s, the U.S. trade deficit - especially trade tensions with Japan - drew much greater attention from the press and politicians than they do today.

On the other hand, there are subjects about which the public is better informed now than it was in 1989. Roughly three-quarters of Americans (76%) know that the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives, compared with 68% in 1989. The extensive press coverage of both the Democrats' victory last fall and the new Congress may be factors in the relatively high level of public awareness of this fact. In June 1995, a few months after Republicans won control of Congress, 73% knew that the GOP had a majority in the House - the second-highest percentage correctly answering this question since 1989.

In addition, 37% know that Chief Justice John Roberts is generally considered a conservative, rather than a moderate or liberal. Somewhat fewer were aware of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist's ideological background in 1989; 30% knew he was a conservative. In both cases, however, substantial numbers were unable to offer a response about the chief justice's ideology - 50% in 1989, 48% currently.

Differences in news environment also are apparent in other comparisons. In early February, 29% of the public could correctly identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was then facing trial for lying to federal investigators probing the unauthorized release of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the news media. In April, 1990, 60% of the public could identify former White House aide John Poindexter, who was then on trial for his involvement in the Iran-contra scandal, a much higher-profile, longer running and widely covered investigation than the Plame leak probe.

But a deeper analysis of the five identical questions asked in both 1989 and 2007 reveals a surprising pattern: Americans didn't do as well in 2007 compared with how similarly-educated Americans performed in 1989. Across the board, scores declined significantly among college graduates, those with some college as well as for those with a high school education or less.

For example, 74% of those with college degrees answered at least four questions correctly this year, compared with 80% in 1989. A similar pattern emerged among those who had attended college for at least a year but did not graduate: 51% in 2007 but 59% in 1989 got at least four questions right. Among those with no more than a high school diploma, the proportion getting four or five answers right declined 11 percentage points to 30%.

What keeps the overall knowledge scores from declining is that college grads still know more than less well-educated Americans - even if they know less in absolute terms than college grads in the past - and there are proportionally more of them now than there were 18 years ago. Currently about 27% of the public are college graduates, compared with 17% in 1989. At the same time, there are fewer people who have only a high school education (50% now compared with 60% in 1989). Education still leads to increased knowledge about prominent people and events in the news - but it does not confer as much of an advantage now as it did in 1989.

News and Knowledge

People inevitably must learn most of what they know about current events and political figures from the news media, since few have any direct way to obtain this information. Not surprisingly, people who say they regularly watch, read, or listen to the news know more than those who don't. And people who use more news sources know more than those who use fewer sources. The differences are dramatic. Nearly three quarters (73%) of those who say they don't get news regularly from any news source fell into the low knowledge group - correctly answering an average of only six out of the 23 questions in the quiz. By contrast, about half of those who regularly use at least seven sources score in the high knowledge group - getting an average of 18 questions correct.

The poll's respondents were asked if they regularly watched, read, or listened to each of 16 different sources.² Nearly everyone (94%) said they regularly get news from at least one of the news sources listed, and the average number of sources regularly used was between four and five (4.6). The audience size ranged widely. Local media garnered the largest regular audiences, with majorities reporting that they regularly watched local television news (71%) and read a daily newspaper (54%). Other television sources were also popular, with somewhat fewer than half watching network evening news (46%), the Fox News Channel (43%), and CNN (39%). About one third of respondents (34%) said they regularly watched the major network morning news shows.

Three more specialized television sources attracted smaller audiences. Fewer than one-in-five said they regularly watch "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly (17%), comedy news shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (16%), or the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (14%).

Nearly four-in-ten people (37%) regularly use at least one type of internet news source, either the news pages of major search engines such as Google or Yahoo (25%), the websites of the television news organizations (22%), or the websites of major national newspapers such as the New York Times or USA Today (12%). Additionally, about one-in-ten (11%) read online blogs where people discuss events in the news.

Two radio sources were included in the list: 28% said they regularly listen to news from National Public Radio, and 8% are regular listeners to Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

Profile of Audiences

But not all news sources are created equal. The audiences for different sources vary greatly in how much they know about what's going on, a consequence both of the kinds of people who rely on each type of medium and how much they may learn from specific sources.

Internet news sources, National Public Radio, news magazines, and Rush Limbaugh's radio show have the best educated audiences, with each of these having at least 36% of their regular readers and listeners having graduated from college. The internet sources along with the comedy news shows attract younger-than-average audiences, though many older Americans regularly get news from these sources as well. The audience for the morning network news shows is disproportionately female (61%), while Limbaugh's audience is heavily male (65%). A greater than average number of men are found in the audiences for the major newspaper websites (59%), for comedy news, The O'Reilly Factor, news magazines (54% each), and the TV news websites (53% male).

Conservatives and Republicans are especially attracted to Limbaugh, while more Democrats are found among the audiences for the NewsHour, the comedy news shows, news magazines, and the websites of major newspapers.

Which Audiences Know the Most?

Attention to the news is strongly associated with knowledge levels, but some news audiences know considerably more than others. Overall, 35% of the public was classified as having a high level of knowledge - on average, 18 correct answers out of the 23 total questions. Half or more of the audiences for six media sources scored this high: the comedy news shows and major newspaper websites (54% in the high knowledge group), the NewsHour (53%), National Public Radio (51%) and Rush Limbaugh's radio show (50%). Regular readers of news magazines were not far behind (48%).

By contrast, the regular audiences for many other sources scored no higher than the sample average. The audiences for morning news (34% high knowledge), local TV news (35%), Fox News Channel (35%), blogs (37%), and the network evening news (38%) were not significantly different from the norm for the whole sample (35%). The audiences for CNN, internet news sites such as Google and Yahoo, local newspapers, and TV news organization websites scored slightly higher (41%-44% high knowledge).

This pattern is evident on many of the individual questions in the survey. For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.

The fact that a particular news source's audience is very knowledgeable does not mean that people learned all that they know from that source. As noted earlier, some news sources draw especially well-educated audiences who are keenly interested in politics. Because of their education and life experiences, these individuals have more background information and may be better able to retain what they see in the news, regardless of where they see it.

Similarly, the news-hungry public tends to visit many outlets. The audiences for sources such as major TV news websites, the comedy shows, or the O'Reilly Factor tend to be fairly omnivorous in their media consumption - an average of more than seven separate sources for the regular audiences of each of these, compared with the overall average of 4.6 sources. Well-informed people do gravitate to particular places, but they also make use of a much wider range of news sources than do the less informed.

Still, differences in background characteristics and overall news habits do not explain all of the differences in knowledge across news audiences. Even after taking into account their overall news gathering habits and their political and demographic characteristics, the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.

Notes

¹Three questions were excluded from the scoring because they did not measure knowledge of political or world affairs. These questions included one that asked respondents to identify singer and actress Beyonce Knowles and a similar question about professional football star Peyton Manning. Responses to a third question about the roots of the conflict in Iraq did not correlate with knowledge about politics, current events or international affairs, and as a result this question was dropped from the scale.

²This question ("regularly or not") produces somewhat higher audience estimates than are found in Pew's biennial media consumption survey, which offers respondents the choice of "regularly, sometimes, hardly ever, or never." For example, last year's survey found 22% saying they were regular viewers of CNN; in the current survey, 39% did so. Similar differences are found for most of the sources tested.

FULL REPORT - PDF

Way Off Base: PAUL KRUGMAN

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Way Off Base

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: April 16, 2007

On key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions.

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public. You can see that happening right now to the Republicans: to have a chance of winning the party’s nomination, Republican presidential hopefuls have to take far-right positions on Iraq and social issues that will cost them a lot of votes in the general election.

But a funny thing has happened on the Democratic side: the party’s base seems to be more in touch with the mood of the country than many of the party’s leaders. And the result is peculiar: on key issues, reluctant Democratic politicians are being dragged by their base into taking highly popular positions.

Iraq is the most dramatic example. Strange as it may seem, Democratic strategists were initially reluctant to make Iraq a central issue in the midterm election. Even after their stunning victory, which demonstrated that the G.O.P.’s smear-and-fear tactics have stopped working, they were afraid that any attempt to rein in the Bush administration’s expansion of the war would be successfully portrayed as a betrayal of the troops and/or a treasonous undermining of the commander in chief.

Beltway insiders, who still don’t seem to realize how overwhelmingly the public has turned against President Bush, fed that fear. For example, as Democrats began, nervously, to confront the administration over Iraq war funding, David Broder declared that Mr. Bush was “poised for a political comeback.”

It took an angry base to push the Democrats into taking a tough line in the midterm election. And it took further prodding from that base — which was infuriated when Barack Obama seemed to say that he would support a funding bill without a timeline — to push them into confronting Mr. Bush over war funding. (Mr. Obama says that he didn’t mean to suggest that the president be given “carte blanche.”)

But the public hates this war, no longer has any trust in Mr. Bush’s leadership and doesn’t believe anything the administration says. Iraq was a big factor in the Democrats’ midterm victory. And far from being a risky political move, the confrontation over funding has overwhelming popular support: according to a new CBS News poll, only 29 percent of voters believe Congress should allow war funding without a time limit, while 67 percent either want to cut off funding or impose a time limit.

***

The only risk the party now faces is excessive caution on the part of its politicians. Or, to coin a phrase, the only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.

--MORE--

Americans Refute Link Between Iraq and U.S. Safety

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

April 10, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States believe the outcome of the coalition effort will not directly affect domestic security, according to the Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index released by Foreign Affairs. 61 per cent of respondents think America’s safety from terrorism does not depend upon the country’s success in Iraq.

The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,268 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 24,400 troops have been wounded in action.

In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

On Mar. 23, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 218-212 to authorize an emergency supplemental war spending bill, which sets a deadline of Aug. 31, 2008 for the end of the coalition effort in Iraq. On Mar. 29, the U.S. Senate voted 51-47 to pass a separate bill, which calls for all combat troops to be removed from Iraq by Mar. 31, 2008. 51 per cent of respondents would gradually withdraw all troops from Iraq over the next 12 months, 27 per cent think the soldiers should stay in Iraq, and 19 per cent would remove all troops immediately.

In his Apr. 7 radio address, U.S. president George W. Bush discussed the current situation, saying, "In both the House and Senate, Democratic majorities have passed bills that would impose restrictions on our military commanders, set an arbitrary date for withdrawal from Iraq, and fund domestic spending that has nothing to do with the war. The Democrats who passed these bills know that I will veto either version if it reaches my desk, and they know my veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And now the process is on hold for two weeks, until the full Congress returns to session."

Polling Data

Do you think America’s safety from terrorism depends upon our success in Iraq, or does it not depend on our success in Iraq?

Does not depend upon our success in Iraq	61%
Depends upon our success in Iraq	34%
Don’t know	5%

In your opinion, should the United States...?

Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately	19%
Gradually withdraw all troops over the next 12 months	51%
Have troops stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to stabilize the country	27%
Don’t know	3%

Source: Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index / Foreign Affairs
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,013 American adults, conducted from Feb. 21 to Mar. 4, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Complete Report (PDF)

Half of Americans Expect Conflict with Iran in Next Year

Related

Russian General Says U.S. Continues Preparations for Iran Strike
Ahmadinejad: Iran Expanding Nuclear Process
---
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Half of Americans Expect Conflict with Iran

April 9, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States believe a military conflict with Iran could develop within the next year, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 55 per cent of respondents think it is likely that the U.S. will be at war with Iran.

After being branded as part of an "axis of evil" by United States president George W. Bush in January 2002, Iran has contended that its nuclear program aims to produce energy, not weapons. In June 2005, former Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won Iran’s presidential election in a run-off over Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani with 61.6 per cent of all cast ballots.

In December 2006, the United Nations (UN) Security Council unanimously voted to impose sanctions against Iran after it failed to stop uranium enrichment. On Jan. 2, Ahmadinejad declared, "Let the world know that from the Iranian nation’s point of view, this resolution has no validity. I want (the United States) to know that the Iranian nation has humiliated you many times, and it will humiliate you in future."

On Apr. 3, Bush discussed the current state of affairs, saying, "I firmly believe that if Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, it would be a seriously destabilizing influence in the Middle East. And therefore, we have worked to build an international coalition to try to convince the Iranians to give up their weapon, to make it clear that they have choices to make—whether the choice be isolation, or missed opportunity to grow their economies."

Polling Data

How likely is it that the United States will be at war with Iran within the next year?

	Mar. 2007	Feb. 2007
Very likely	23%	23%
Somewhat likely	32%	34%
Not very likely	31%	26%
Not at all likely	4%	6%

Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 800 likely American voters, conducted on Mar. 28 and Mar. 29, 2007. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

U.S. is Biggest World Threat for Germans

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

April 2, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) – Many people in Germany consider the United States as more dangerous than Iran, according to a poll by Forsa released by Stern and RTL. 48 per cent of respondents say the U.S. is the biggest threat to global peace, while 31 per cent think Iran is.

In November 2005, Christian-Democratic Union (CDU) leader Angela Merkel was sworn in as Germany’s first female head of government. The current administration includes members of the CDU, the Bavarian Christian-Social Party (CSU), and the Social Democratic Party (SPD).

Each European Union (EU) member state presides over the Council of the EU for a period of six months, in accordance with a pre-established rotation. In January, Germany took over these responsibilities from Finland.

Last week, the EU held talks regarding U.S. plans to establish an anti-missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. Some German politicians are opposed to the plan. Martin Schulz, head of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, declared: "This missile defence system will solve nothing and get us into a new arms race."

On Mar. 23, fifteen British Navy personnel were taken at gunpoint by Iranian forces off the coast of Iraq, according to the British Ministry of Defence. Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed seizing the Britons "for investigation and questioning" and accused the British sailors of illegally entering its waters "a number of times."

Germany is part of a group of nations holding direct talks with Iran over its controversial nuclear program. German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called for the immediate release of the army officers, declaring, "If the leadership in Tehran thinks that anyone views this action as a demonstration of strength, it is mistaken. I appeal to the leadership in Tehran to defuse the tense situation. There must not be a further intensification."

Polling Data

Which of these countries poses the biggest threat to world peace?

United States	48%
Iran	31%
Both equally	15%

Source: Forsa / Stern / RTL
Methodology: Interviews with 1,003 German adults, conducted on Mar. 22 and Mar. 23, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Disapproval on Iraq Hits Record

More Than Half Favor a Deadline for Withdrawal, Bush Suffers Longest Streak Without Majority Support Since Truman

By GARY LANGER, ABC News Polling Director

Feb. 26, 2007 — - A record number of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, and a clear majority now favors the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces, even if civil order has not been restored there -- potentially a tipping point in public attitudes on the war.

While solutions remain vexing, for the first time ABC News/Washington Post polls show a narrow majority of Americans support setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Two-thirds oppose George W. Bush's troop surge; most oppose it strongly.

It all makes for a continued hard slog for the president: Just 36 percent approve of his job performance overall, very near his career low of 33 percent last month. Bush hasn't seen majority approval in more than two years -- the longest run without majority support for any president since Harry Truman from 1950-53.

While rooted in Iraq, Bush's problems with credibility and confidence reach beyond it. Sixty-three percent of Americans don't trust the administration to convey intelligence reports on potential threats from other countries honestly and accurately. And 58 percent lack confidence, specifically, in its ability to handle current tensions with Iran.

Iraq Weighs on President's Popularity

Bush is paying the continued price of an unpopular war. Sixty-four percent now say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting, up six points from last month to a new numerical high. (It was 63 percent in October.) A majority hasn't said the war was worth fighting since April 2004, and it's been even longer since a majority has approved of how Bush is handling it. Sixty-seven percent now disapprove; 55 percent disapprove strongly.

In a fundamental change, 56 percent now say U.S. forces should be withdrawn at some point even if civil order has not been restored in Iraq. That represents a continued, gradual departure from the "you break it, you've bought it" sentiment that until now has mitigated in favor of continued U.S. involvement until some stability is attained.

Another part of this change has been a shift in views on setting a withdrawal date. Given pro and con positions (avoiding casualties vs. encouraging insurgents), support for a deadline has risen from 39 percent in late 2005 to 47 percent last summer and 53 percent now. That's a majority, but not a large one; 46 percent still oppose a deadline, underscoring the difficulty of finding consensus on how to get out of Iraq.

Among those who do support a deadline, 85 percent said it should be within the next year (including 46 percent who said it should be within the next six months), essentially unchanged from previous polls. (Questions on troop withdrawal deadlines depend on the options offered.)

The Blame Game: Advantage Democrats

Views on Iraq are accompanied by a broad sense that the main blame for failing to control the violence in Iraq rests with its own government (70 percent say so), not the United States (18 percent).

Indeed, two-thirds favor reducing U.S. military and financial support if the Iraqis fail to make progress restoring order -- one of the popular steps proposed by the Iraq Study Group in December, but not taken up by Bush. (Another is the group's proposal for a shift to a military training mission, with most U.S. combat forces withdrawn by early 2008; at the time of the proposal, 69 percent supported it.)

The Democrats in Congress continue to hold the upper hand on Iraq (as well as more generally), but slightly less so than last month. Then 60 percent of Americans trusted the Democrats over Bush to handle the war; today, it's 54 percent.

The current political wrangling over Iraq may be a cause, as well as an almost inevitable comedown from the Democrats' election victory in November.

While 50 percent still approve of Nancy Pelosi's work as House speaker, her disapproval is up by six points, to 31 percent. (Comparing powerful Washington women, she's bettered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with 58 percent approval. Both vastly outshine Bush.)

One Democratic proposal on Iraq -- to block Bush's surge by changing troop rotation rules -- wins 58 percent support. But another -- restricting funding for the war in an effort to block the surge -- is more divisive, with 46 percent in favor and a slim majority, 51 percent, opposed. Military funding is sensitive with troops in the field.

The Democrats continue to lead Bush in other areas as well, including a 52-39 percent advantage in trust to handle terrorism (once Bush's cornerstone issue, a majority has disapproved of his work on terrorism steadily since October). The Democrats lead by wider margins in trust to handle the economy, despite its relatively good condition; the federal budget; and health care, with no gain for Bush from his State of the Union proposal to move health insurance tax breaks from corporations to individuals.

Iran's Role

The public divides about evenly on whether or not the administration has solid evidence that Iran is supporting insurgent attacks on U.S. forces.

As noted, though, more broadly, 63 percent don't trust the administration to report intelligence on threats from foreign nations honestly and accurately. That lack of trust can make it very hard to marshal public support when needed.

Nearly six in 10 also say they're not confident the administration will do a good job of handling the tensions with Iran. Just 11 percent are very confident it will handle this issue well; three times as many, 34 percent, are not confident at all.

Underscoring his problems, even among Republicans, just 28 percent are very confident in Bush's ability to deal with Iran, while among Democrats, 55 percent have no confidence whatsoever.

The Fight for Afghanistan

Views on the war in Afghanistan stand in contrast to those on Iraq.

A majority of Americans, 56 percent, say the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting, 22 points more than say that about the Iraq War.

But given broader, negative sentiment, there's hardly robust support for expanded U.S. commitment in Afghanistan: Six in 10 say the United States is "doing enough" to help rebuild that county.

If there's a strong case for expanded U.S. support for Afghanistan, as the administration has proposed, most Americans haven't been persuaded.

Longest Streak Since Truman

As noted, Bush hasn't received majority approval in any ABC/Post poll in the last two years -- specifically in 25 months, since Jan. 16, 2005.

Compared with ABC/Post polls since the Reagan presidency, and Gallup polls before them, that's the longest run with less than majority approval for any president since Truman.

It's worth noting not just the length and breadth but also the continued depth of Bush's unpopularity. Barely two in 10 Americans (19 percent) strongly approve of his job performance, while 49 percent strongly disapprove.

As noted, 55 percent strongly disapprove of his work on Iraq, while just 17 percent strongly approve. And in a more personal measure, 29 percent are "angry" about the administration's work in Iraq, while just 7 percent are pleased.

And beyond customary partisanship, there are other sharp differences between groups, though partisanship fuels some of them.

Among blacks, for example, just 9 percent approve of Bush's job performance, and just 11 percent say that, given its costs versus benefits, the war was worth fighting.

This is largely (but not exclusively) because blacks overwhelmingly are Democrats. (Among Democrats, 8 percent approve of Bush, and the same number call the war worth fighting.)

In addition to blacks, sentiment against the war peaks among women and young adults. Sixty-three percent of women and 67 percent of people under 30 favor withdrawing U.S. forces even if civil order is not restored. Many fewer men (48 percent) or older adults (53 percent) agree.

This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 22-25, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,082 adults, including an oversample of black respondents. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.

Click here for PDF version with full questionnaire and results.

ABC News polls can be found on ABCNEWS.com at http://abcnews.com/pollvault.html.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

Contact Palestinian Government, Say Israelis

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

March 24, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Israel believe their government should talk with the new Palestinian administration, according to a poll by Maagar Mochot released by Israel Radio. 52 per cent of respondents think Israel should have day-to-day contacts with the Palestinian unity government.

Fatah member Mahmoud Abbas won the January 2005 Palestinian Authority presidential ballot with 62.32 per cent of all cast ballots. In January 2006, Hamas—an organization listed as "terrorist" by several countries including the United States, Canada and Israel, and the European Union (EU)—won the Palestinian Legislative Council election, securing 74 of the 112 seats at stake. After negotiations geared at establishing a unity government with Hamas and Fatah failed in October 2006, tensions escalated between armed supporters of the two rival factions.

On Feb. 8 in Saudi Arabia, Hamas and Fatah leaders reached an accord which sets the guidelines for a power-sharing administration, headed by Hamas, which would "respect" past peace agreements with Israel. In all, Hamas would control eight cabinet positions, with Fatah taking five. Three key portfolios—finance, interior and foreign affairs—will be handled by independents.

On Mar. 17, the Palestinian unity government presented its program, which does not include an explicit recognition of Israel. Yesterday, German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger discussed the EU’s views on the new administration, saying, "The EU is prepared to cooperate with the Palestinian government of national unity insofar as it reflects the Quartet criteria in its statements and its actions. (...) We believe we should approach this issue calmly and observe how the new government acts in the days and weeks ahead."

The four preconditions—disarming, recognizing Israel, rejecting terror and changing the organization’s charter—were proposed by the European Union (EU), the United States, the United Nations (UN) and Russia to Hamas.

Polling Data

Should the government of Israel have day-to-day contacts with the Palestinian unity government?

Yes	52%
No	36%
Other replies	12%

Source: Maagar Mochot / Israel Radio
Methodology: Interviews with 534 Israeli adults, conducted on Mar. 21, 2007. Margin of error is 4.5 per cent.

Iraq Surge Will Not Help, Say Americans

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research

March 23, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in the United States believe their government’s new strategy for the coalition effort will not be effective, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 54 per cent of respondents think sending 20,000 troops to Iraq to fight the insurgents will not improve security, and 49 per cent think the policy is wrong.

The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,229 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 24,100 troops have been wounded in action.

In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.

On Jan. 10, U.S. president George W. Bush introduced his new course of action for the coalition effort, which includes an increase in U.S. troop levels. On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives voted 246-182 in favour of a non-binding resolution condemning Bush’s proposed strategy.

On Mar. 19, Bush discussed the current state of affairs, saying, "I want to stress that this operation is still in the early stages, it’s still in the beginning stages. Fewer than half of the troop reinforcements we are sending have arrived in Baghdad. The new strategy will need more time to take effect. And there will be good days, and there will be bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds."

Polling Data

The United States is sending about 20,000 troops to Iraq to fight the insurgents there. Do you think…?

This will improve security and reduce killings	26%
This will not improve security and reduce killings	54%
Not sure	19%

Still thinking about the 20,000 additional troops, do you believe this is the right thing or the wrong thing for the United States to do?

Right thing	29%
Wrong thing	49%
Not sure	21%

Source: Harris Interactive
Methodology: Online interviews with 2,223 American adults, conducted from Mar. 6 to Mar. 14, 2007. Margin of error is 2 per cent.

Most Afghan civilians turning against NATO, towards Taliban: survey

What? They don't appreciate our 'help'?
---
Related
Poor Iraq. First the lies and now, even worse: more help
---

Afghans rejecting Canadian troops for Taliban, survey finds
Globe and Mail, Canada - 19 Mar 2007
LONDON — Afghan civilians are increasingly turning against Canadian troops and their country's government and toward support of the Taliban, according to a ...

Taliban Support Rising In Afghanistan: Study Online - International News Network, Pakistan - 17 hours ago LONDON: Canadian troops are facing another challenge in Afghanistan as Taliban support among civilians has rocketed to nearly 27 per cent, ctv.ca reported. ...

Not welcome Macleans.ca, Canada - 19 Mar 2007 Maclean's 50 member Scott Taylor, who travelled with the Senlis Council in Kandahar earlier this year, says it's time for a comprehensive re-assessment of ...

Most Afghan civilians turning against NATO, towards Taliban: survey Winnipeg Free Press, Canada - 19 Mar 2007 TORONTO (CP) — A new survey conducted this month in Afghanistan suggests civilians there are turning against Canadian and other NATO troops as well as their ... Poverty "driving people into arms of Taliban" Kuwait News Agency, Kuwait - 19 Mar 2007 LONDON, March 19 (KUNA) -- More than a quarter of men in southern and eastern Afghanistan support the Taliban, according to research released here Monday. ... Losing Afghan hearts, minds Toronto Star, Canada - 20 Mar 2007 Canada and other Western countries are losing the battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan while the Taliban is seizing the advantage, says a survey from ...

More than half of all Israelis disagree with their government's decision to boycott the Palestinians' new governing alliance

Most Israelis advocate Palestinian contacts: poll
AMY TEIBEL

Associated Press

JERUSALEM — More than half of all Israelis disagree with their government's decision to boycott the Palestinians' new governing alliance, which doesn't explicitly recognize the Jewish state's right to exist, a poll showed on Monday.

Thirty-nine per cent of the 517 people surveyed by the Dahaf Research Institute said Israel should talk with the new Palestinian government, made up of the militant Islamic Hamas and the more moderate Fatah. An additional 17 per cent said their government should engage only Fatah cabinet ministers. The poll had a margin of error of 4.3 percentage points.

Past polls have also shown the broader Israeli public to be more flexible than its government on various issues related to peacemaking.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said peace talks with the Palestinian coalition government would be impossible as long as it refused to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist.

“We can't have contact with members of a government that justifies resistance, or, in other words, terror,” Mr. Olmert told his cabinet. The cabinet endorsed the Prime Minister's hard line, and urged the West to maintain harsh economic sanctions imposed after Hamas, which killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, swept parliamentary elections last year.

Israel and the Quartet of Mideast peacemakers — the United States, EU, UN and Russia — imposed sanctions to pressure Hamas to recognize the Jewish state's right to exist and disarm. Despite widespread economic hardship, Hamas rejected the Quartet's demands.

Palestinians hope the new alliance between the moderate Fatah and Hamas would lead Israel and western countries to lift the sanctions, urging the international community to give their new government a chance.

And there are signs — troubling to Israel — that the tough international stance against Hamas could crumble in the wake of the Islamic group's alliance with Fatah.

Micaela Schweitzer-Bluhm, spokeswoman for the U.S. Consulate, said Sunday the United States would likely maintain contact with non-Hamas members of the new government.

Norway, a major donor to the Palestinians, has already agreed to resume aid to the Palestinians. And Britain and the United Nations have also signalled flexibility.

Palestinian officials urged Israel to reconsider.

“This statement continues the long-standing Israeli policy that says there is no Palestinian partner for peace,” said Azzam al-Ahmed of Fatah, the new deputy prime minister. “Israel doesn't want to revive the peace process.”

Mr. Olmert said he would maintain contacts with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who was elected separately and is not part of the new cabinet. But he said any talks would be limited to humanitarian issues.

The new Palestinian platform appears to soften Hamas' militant stance. Though it refers to resistance “in all forms” to Israeli occupation, it also calls for consolidating and expanding a truce with Israel.

The platform appears to implicitly recognize Israel by calling for a Palestinian state on lands the Israelis captured in 1967, in contrast with Hamas' past calls to destroy Israel.

It also pledges to “respect” previous Palestinian agreements with Israel and authorizes Mr. Abbas to conduct future peace talks. Any future deal would be submitted to a national referendum, apparently taking away veto power from Hamas.

Almost as soon as the government was sworn in, however, divisions began to emerge in the Palestinian coalition. The Hamas movement issued a statement Sunday distancing itself from the government: “We call on the national unity government to support the choice of resistance against the occupation.”

During Saturday's swearing-in ceremony, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said the Palestinians maintained the right to resist occupation but would also seek to widen a truce with Israel. Mr. Abbas has said the deal is the best he can get from Hamas.

In Washington, White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said Mr. Haniyeh's comments were “a little troubling” and said the United States would watch the new government's deeds closely. He called on the Palestinians to free an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas-allied militants last June and to halt rocket attacks out of the Gaza Strip.

Arab leaders, meanwhile, pledged support for the unity government. The Jordanian and Saudi kings expressed hope it would lead to Palestinian independence, and the Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa called for an end to international sanctions.

The creation of the new Palestinian coalition came ahead of a March 28 Arab summit, where Mideast leaders are hoping to build momentum for a resumption of peacemaking.

In addition to its struggle for international legitimacy, the Palestinian coalition also faces the challenge of keeping itself from unravelling over ideological differences and lingering enmity between Fatah and Hamas.

Late Sunday, Hamas issued a statement protesting the appointment of Fatah's Gaza strongman, Mohammed Dahlan, to oversee Palestinian security affairs. As Gaza security chief in the 1990s, Mr. Dahlan led a crackdown on Hamas militants, and bad blood persists between the two sides.

Poll: Confidence in Iraq war down sharply

Story Highlights• Percentage who say they're confident, proud of Iraq war drops by more than half
• In 2003, 83 percent of Americans said they were confident, 65 percent proud
• 61 percent of those polled now say it was not worth invading Iraq, poll says
• Support for Afghanistan war drops from 88 percent in 2001 to 53 percent today

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans are starkly less confident and proud of their country's involvement in Iraq, according to poll results released Sunday.

However, the poll -- results of which were released on the eve of the Iraq war's 4-year anniversary -- also indicated that Americans are no more worried about the conflict than they were when it began in March 2003.

The CNN poll of 1,027 adults was conducted March 9-11 by Opinion Research Corp. The sampling error for the poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

According to the results, 35 percent of Americans are confident about the war, the poll said. When the war began, 83 percent of Americans expressed confidence in the campaign.

Similarly, 30 percent of those polled this month said they were proud of the war, as opposed to 65 percent who expressed that sentiment in 2003.

The poll also showed that 33 percent of Americans are afraid of the war and 55 percent are worried by it. Those percentages are roughly the same as they were four years ago.

Sunday's results came on the heels of a Saturday release indicating that years of war had whittled away at Americans' support for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When the Iraq war began, 68 percent of Americans said they felt the situation in the country was worth fighting over. Now, 61 percent of those surveyed say it was not worth invading Iraq, according to the poll.

That survey of 1,027 adults by Opinion Research Corp. was conducted by telephone March 9-11 as well. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The poll showed that support for the Iraq war had dwindled to 35 percent. In 2004, support for the war was about 56 percent. Last year, the number dipped to 37 percent, and today about 35 percent of Americans say they support the war, according to the poll.

Support for the war in Afghanistan also has seen a considerable decline as 88 percent of those polled in 2001 said they were behind the conflict. This month's poll indicates that support lingers around 53 percent.

Also, according to the poll, about 55 percent of Americans feel the war in Afghanistan is "going badly," according to the poll.

CNN's Keating Holland contributed to this report.

Baghdad poll numbers show low confidence in security, government

Politics

Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner
Mar 14, 2007 3:00 AM (2 days ago)
Current rank: # 93 of 19,878

WASHINGTON - A confidential poll for the Iraq government shows Baghdad citizens harbor a bleak outlook for future security, while Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suffers low job-approval ratings.

The door-to-door survey of more than 4,000 residents in Baghdad Province in mid-February showed only 3 percent of respondents said security had improved in their neighborhoods in the past three months. Just 10 percent said it will improve in the next three months.

Baghdad is the central focus of President Bush’s Jan. 10 reinforcement plan of more than 25,000 troops to quell sectarian and terrorist violence.

“These numbers are bad,” said a U.S. Army source, who read the poll results to The Examiner on condition of anonymity. “They are all in the tank.”

The Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies, an Iraqi firm, conducted the poll for the al-Maliki government. Al-Maliki uses the numbers to assess public support for his policies.

There is a caveat, the Army source said. Surveyors went door to door at a time when the new counterinsurgency plan had just begun. The military reports that attacks declined in March, a trend that could bring higher numbers in the next government-sponsored poll.

“We changed strategy in part to address these issues in the poll,” the Army source said.

The United States worries that a lack of public confidence in security measures could mean residents are less likely to cooperate in providing tips on insurgent activity.

But Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O’Hanlon said poor polls numbers do not always translate that way.

“Even if people are somewhat pessimistic, it doesn’t mean they will refuse to help or actively oppose the effort,” he said. “It’s just as likely that they will hope to be proven wrong in their sentiments and give Maliki and the surge another chance.”

The survey addressed issues such as security, government approval and Shiite militias.

Al-Maliki’s job approval stood at 34 percent, down from 45 percent last September before waves of Sunni-Shiite violence rocked the capital. The number, however, was an uptick from the prime minister’s 25 percent rating in December.

On security, 32 percent of citizens considered their neighborhoods secure, compared with 43 percent in September.

In a bright spot for al-Maliki, who says he has tried to curtail militias and associated death squads, only 23 percent of residents believe those paramilitaries make Baghdad safer, as opposed to 32 percent in September.

rscarborough@dcexaminer.com

Examiner