[BlackGriffen]

Check it out.

Includes question, margin of error, and most importantly, enough data to make trend lines.

Re: Bush's numbers
The only ratings that received statistically significant bumps (greater than MOE of 5%) are as follows:

Code:
Do you approve or disapprove of the
way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?
 
                Approve     Disapprove     No opinion      
12/14/03          58            38              4          
11/16/03          48            48              4    

Do you think the U.S. campaign against 
terrorism is going very well, fairly well, not too
well or not well at all?
 
             ----------Well----------     --------Not well--------     No     
             NET      Very     Fairly     NET     Not too   At all     op.    
12/14/03     65        17        47       33        21       12         2     
10/29/03     62         8        54       38        23       14         1

Note that the "handling Iraq" is blurred together with any boost he got there from the turkey stunt.

Most people got the news, so it isn't like people hadn't heard yet:

Code:
5. Do you happen to have heard or 
read about the news that Saddam Hussein was 
captured yesterday by U.S. forces in Iraq, or 
haven't you heard about that yet?
 
             Yes     No     No opinion
12/14/03     95       5          0

There is also an interesting contradiction in the minds of the electorate:

Code:
 5a. Do you think Saddam's capture 
means the big challenges facing the United 
States in Iraq are over, or do you think there are
big challenges to the United States in Iraq still 
ahead?
 
             Challenges     Challenges        No
                over          ahead        opinion
12/14/03          7             90            3

 

6. How much do you think Saddam's capture will do to: 
 
                            ------Help-------  ---------Not help--------
                                 Great  Some-       Not   Hardly  Won't    No
                            NET  deal   what   NET  much  at all  (vol.)  opin. 

a. restore peace and 
   stability to Iraq        81     39    41    18     8      8       2      2
 
b. end attacks on U.S. 
   and coalition military 
   forces in Iraq           64     15    49    30    16     12       3      6

They got the message that the job's not done, and that there are still trials ahead, but it doesn't seem to have hit home in the expectations of the impact the capture of Saddam Hussein will have. This is very bad for Bush. If anything, I would expect that attacks to increase in the short term. This is because the Ba'athists must realize that their time is short. They'll have to get something done soon, before Saddam Hussein hangs.

Whether the increase will be the dying breath or the reinvigoration of the insurgency, I can't tell. Too many variables, frankly.

Bush is certainly celebrating the capture, but let's all hope that this thing gets zipped up soon, or it looks like Humpty Dumpty is in for a fall.

Much as I dislike Bush, I would rather him lose for other reasons than for continuing to fck up in Iraq. The Iraqis and our troops deserve better.

BlackGriffen
Edits: fix formatting.

[OreoCookie]

Gimme two points and I'll draw a line.

We should wait a month or so, then we will see if this has helped Bush AFA public opinion is concerned.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Gimme two points and I'll draw a line.

We should wait a month or so, then we will see if this has helped Bush AFA public opinion is concerned.

Follow the link, and you'll get a whole lot more than just two points.

Granted, all but the last point will always be pre-saddam news.

BG

[ebuddy]

I don't think this will stop the celebrating. At least not the Iraqi celebration. I believe our administration reacted quite sober and practical regarding the news. I saw no real gloating. I also don't think America is involved in Iraq to boost poll ratings. He has to take the bad with the good. I guess if we're going to look at polls though; it was fun to see the Democrat reaction to all this. "This is good news, but...Oh and thank you to the 600 Americans handling this task perfectly."

I'm a little ashamed of our country though. The Industrial Military Complex should have carpet-bombed the entire area. What is this treating Saddam with respect and all that crap?!

Lastly; I don't think we're fxcking up in Iraq. Opinions differ on that one. At least, it seems to me the Iraqi's disagree with you.

ya take the good ya take the bad ya take 'em all and there ya have the facts of life doododo the facts of life.

[ebuddy]

I forgot to mention; I'm also glad we didn't pull our troops out when others wanted us to. This would've meant a failed mission (because everyone sees success or failure by virtue of what worthless leader we capture) and only would've reinforced the opposition's morale. We stuck it out through criticism and got the man. Now, let's get the other one...

[thunderous_funker]

I think the administration has painted itself in a corner again.

By insisting that the Iraqi resistance was almost entirely a function of Saddam-supporters, they only have "foreign terrorists" to fall back on if violence continues or increases with Saddam in custody.

The ideological blind-spot that won't let them admit that much of the insurrection is not Saddam inspired but nationalistic could turn out to be a much bigger liability than if they had never captured Saddam.

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think the administration has painted itself in a corner again.

By insisting that the Iraqi resistance was almost entirely a function of Saddam-supporters.....

..and this happened when? I don't remember the administration ever insisting that the resitance was almost entirely a function of Saddam supporters. Besides, even if they were, they don't have to stop resisting in support of Saddam just because Saddam has been captured. Nelson Mandela spent how many years in prison, and his supporters still acted on his behalf?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
..and this happened when? I don't remember the administration ever insisting that the resitance was almost entirely a function of Saddam supporters. Besides, even if they were, they don't have to stop resisting in support of Saddam just because Saddam has been captured. Nelson Mandela spent how many years in prison, and his supporters still acted on his behalf?

which is why after we get what information we can from him, we give him a short trip on a short rope with a sudden stop.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
..and this happened when? I don't remember the administration ever insisting that the resitance was almost entirely a function of Saddam supporters. Besides, even if they were, they don't have to stop resisting in support of Saddam just because Saddam has been captured. Nelson Mandela spent how many years in prison, and his supporters still acted on his behalf?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...rumsfeld_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/10/rumsfeld.speech.ap/

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think the administration has painted itself in a corner again.

By insisting that the Iraqi resistance was almost entirely a function of Saddam-supporters, they only have "foreign terrorists" to fall back on if violence continues or increases with Saddam in custody.

The ideological blind-spot that won't let them admit that much of the insurrection is not Saddam inspired but nationalistic could turn out to be a much bigger liability than if they had never captured Saddam.

My understanding was that they thought that it was foreigners and Saddamists the whole time.

You're right that they're stupid for ignoring the nationalists.

I also saw in interesting theory that the Shi'ites might be more willing to get rowdy now that SH can't come back.

We'll see soon, I guess.

BlackGriffen