AOL Poll with some interesting results; Iraq War...Please DU!

[WiseButAngrySara]

http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/031306?id=20060313104209990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Look at the third question!! How is it that the media polls always reflected almost a reverse of this? B* did not win the election because of 'moral' values OR support for the War. Just another indication of my firm conviction that Kerry really did win.

How confident are you that Iraq is headed in the right direction?
Not at all 67%
Very 18%
Somewhat 15%
Total Votes: 20,199

How helpful have Bush's recent speeches on Iraq been?
Not at all 72%
Very 15%
Somewhat 13%
Total Votes: 20,104

Did you support the war in Iraq in 2003?
No 61%
Yes 39%
Total Votes: 19,286

Do you support the war in Iraq now 2006?
No 72%
Yes 28%
Total Votes: 19,224

How long did you think the war would last?
More than three years 54%
One to three years 25%
Less than a year 22%
Total Votes: 20,143

How much longer do you think the war will last?
More than three years 68%
One to three years 29%
Less than a year 4%
Total Votes: 20,188

How much did you worry about a civil war in Iraq?
A lot 40%
Not at all 34%
A little 26%
Total Votes: 20,608

How much do you worry about a civil war in Iraq?
A lot 61%
Not at all 21%
A little 18%
Total Votes: 20,502

[Tommy_J]

1. Done!

[Burried News]

2. Done. K&R

[arcane1]

3. WTF is up with that graph at the bottom?

it seems a bit misleading...

[WiseButAngrySara]

6. It is extremely misleading. I noticed it too, but decided not to comment

on it in the initial post. I think that the second year had the greatest casualties, not the first. And the deaths THIS year are interpreted as an entire year rather than just 3 months. This is typical AOL...they rely on stupidity and ignorance to try and enhance their views. Even when their own polls tell them otherwise.

[arcane1]

11. I read it in a different, still mis-leading way

it looks like they are saying the deaths dropped dramatically from 2005 to 2006 by displaying it this way

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. I agree completely. I think it's intentional that they only included 3

months of an entire year; of course the numbers of deaths in 3 months is less than in 12 months. The deaths have not dropped off, nor do I think that they remained constant in 2004-2005 as they depicted.

[arcane1]

19. yeah, I suspect it was done that way to fool people who don't read

[Emit]

8. I noticed it, too, and thought it strange.

Strange and misleading.

[annabanana]

12. very stupid graph... 2006 just started.

shouldn't even be on there...

[WiseButAngrySara]

16. Exactly! ....n/t

[HockeyMom]

4. Done

But everything I had thought in 2003 has come to pass in 2006, which I am sure, is the majority view here on DU.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. Ditto. ....n/t

[peacebird]

5. done

[Catchawave]

9. Done and that chart was weird....

must mean we're winning ? :rofl:

[WiseButAngrySara]

14. Lol! See posts #3 and #6....n/t

[biscotti]

10. done

[Vidar]

13. done

[misternormal]

17. Done

[countingbluecars]

18. Done n/t

[Erika]

20. done n/t

[FtWayneBlue]

21. done.

and yes, the chart is very misleading.

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. It's intentional. I just know it. .....n/t

[WiseButAngrySara]

23. Kick before I hit the sack. ....n/t