The latest poll on impeachment comissioned from Zogby by OpEdNews is quite a disappointment. The numbers are so low as to be, to my mind, not credible. But we paid for it, they did it, and there's no undoing it.
If every polling company were out there polling the issue, there would be a few polls wildly low or high, but it would be possible to take the median outcome somewhat seriously. As it is, all we have to go by is the very small number of polls done over the past few years and collected at http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling
You'll notice in the history of impeachment polling collected at that site that Zogby has done a few impeachment related polls before. There was also a long period during which Zogby refused to poll on impeachment even for money.
You'll also notice that support for impeachment has always tended to be higher whenever a bit of context has been added, such as by asking "Would you support impeachment if..." and then naming some crime that Bush and Cheney have indisputably committed. OpEdNews has considered commissioning a poll with several questions in order to provide greater context, with the final question asking simply about support for impeachment hearings. That might be the way to go, given the blackout in the media, assuming a level of honesty and skill in the polling.
If Zogby's latest results are at all accurate, the public is not going to clamor for impeachment until given some context, and the media will not provide that until Congress impeaches, which effectively reverses the democratic process and turns the public into spectators.
Zogby found much lower support for impeachment than have a number of polls in the past (see http://afterdowningstreet.org/polling ) and at a time when Bush and Cheney's approval ratings have reached record historic lows.
"Do you support or oppose the efforts of the members of the house judiciary committee to begin impeachment hearings to investigate vice president Dick Cheney?" That was the question asked. Zogby found 55% opposed and 34% in favor. In part this result came from Zogby including a large pecentage of Independents in the poll, and those Independents being unusually opposed to impeachment. Among Democrats 60 percent were in favor, among Republicans 12. The marins of error for these subcategories are of course something significantly higher than the ± 3 percentage points for the overall results. Rays of hope can be found - again, assuming there's anything accurate here - in various other demographic categories. See the attached tables below. [Rob will add them]
Rob kall here:
While the total poll had 3% margin of error, specific demographic stats have a higher margin of error. I'm not sure I agree with David about there being too many independents in the poll, as the percentage seems about right to me based onthe past polls that have been done, give or take a few points.
here's a summary.
Keep in mind that OpEdNews ran another zogby poll, in the state of PA in May 2006, asking almost the identical question, and that poll
For Against impeachment total poll 34 55 progressives 68 30 liberals 55 33 moderates 33 53 under 30, 44 41 Jews 63 30 Protestants(over 50% ofpoll)28 61 Catholics 32 56 other religion (20% of polled)47 43 Dems, 60 31 Republicans 12 79 Independents 26 59 Blacks 47 42 Hispanics 43 46 whites 31 59 Single 47 38 Married 30 61 $25-35K income 44 36 under $25K 42 43 Less than High school ed. 40 37 Male 33 61 female 35 50
I (Rob Kall) shared the new poll and the 2006 PA poll results with Cheryl Biren Wright. She observed:
Looking at the groups that weighed in higher than the 33.9% that support impeachment, we've got:
Union members at 40.9% (50% in '06). Certainly, union support is important to the Democrats. Currently, I know of 3 union groups that have endorsed impeachment:
AFSCME Local 2083, Seattle Public Library Union 6/23/06
Greater Seattle Local, American Postal Workers Union 5/07
DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.
I think that effectively ends the prospect of impeachment unfortunately. Can't see Congress taking political risks with that level of support for the question that was put.
Thanks for the information. Sorry its disappointing news.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 10:51:46 PM
Actually, I find the poll numbers of some encouragement. Look, the Democratic leadership has said "Impeachment is off the table". The Republican leadership has complained bitterly about every single effort directed toward accountability, including the Contempt charges against Miers and Bolton. The main stream press has not been willing to even discuss impeachment. Yet, based on percentages, there are millions of Americans who are providing a voice saying they support "impeachment". If you look at the numbers, they are very close to the Stanley Milgram's percentages for people who are "obedient to authority" (60% of population who will do whatever they are told) and 40% who will eventually question authority rather than follow it blindly. If you want to increase these percentages now, you have to get the enlightened people who understand the importance of not following authority blindly to get those in authority to come around publically to altering their attitudes toward impeachment. That obviously isn't going to come from Republican leadership, so it has to come from the Democratic leadership.
by
Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 164 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 8:26:19 AM
I agree. I don't know if it can be done but I think the way you outline is the best chance. With a "first shift" effect, in which someone very prominent comes out and says, look I was against impeachment before because X, but having now considered Y in light of Z, I think the balance has shifted, and I am now in favor of impeachment.
But to move so many authority-followers would require several "first shifters" I think. Obviously you'd need the Democratic leadership (Pelosi and Conyers) that would get the media talking about it, but I think you'd also need a shift from at least one senior Republican.
There are plenty of X's building up, FISA immunity, the Mier-Bolten contempt issue and the overreaching by Cheney that the House Judiciary Committee may hold hearings on consistent with Wexlers initiative to try to use the hearings to get some accountability.
Recently Margaret Basset provided a link to a video in which Pelosi was "conversing". The video was old I think, but did give some insight into Pelosi's thinking and I suspect into the thinking of the leading Democrats. They are genuinely mindful I think, of the need to protect America. They are not of the camp that thinks that 9-11 was an inside job. They see the threats of the Bush administration and know that the Republicans will spin fear into policy, but they also see that there is a real threat of terrorism.
If Pelosi and Conyers come to see that the greater threat to America is from internal sources and hits at the integrity of its processes and checks and balances rather than externally then that would be impeachments best chance. That is certainly where I think the greater threat to America is for the moment - but the external threat will rise very quickly (I think in the time of the next President - probably Obama, wreaking havoc on his Presidency) if the rest of the world sees that Americans are going to give their Presidents carte blanche to break humanities most serious laws.
We are living in "interesting times".
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 4:34:17 PM
I have long argued that the word progressive has lost its meaning and to a terrible degree has been made meaningless by so many Democrats and Liberals that simply would rather call themselves progressives. What is needed is hard criteria by which to define progressives. These poll data provide one very important, relevant criterion: A real progressive is one who supports impeachment of Bush/Cheney.
In my view, another criterion would be whether a person supports the candidacy of Ralph Nader; if yes, then a real progressive.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (126 articles, 31 quicklinks, 58 diaries, 508 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 8:34:48 AM
I think to be a progressive in the current world one
has to be looking globally not just nationally.
What happens in America of course matters a great deal but when torture and aggressive invasions are being used and are not being repudiated a lot of the traditional progressive issues that define progressives in normal times within a nation simply pale in comparison.
I think self-proclaimed progressives need to be challenged constantly when they are nationalistic. Perhaps the most dangerous mind pattern in the world at present is American exceptionalism.
It would be good to see some articles on what being a progressive in these times means. What are the more important values (and associated policies), the bedrock ones which are absolutely necessary for any of the others to exist.
I submit that the rule of law (globally, modelled by the strong) has got to be one of the highest. When America models lawbreaking everyone in the world watches and with dismay or resolution or in some cases validation the rest of the world will pick up the sword again.
Amongst the laws that matter most has got to be the ones that deal with the most serious offences against human beings. These have got to be the laws against aggressive invasion (which sparks all the associated war crimes) and torture.
I don't think its being a progressive to just tick a majority of boxes. I think there needs to be some weighting of the relative importance of issues. Better health care, better education, a progressive tax system, these will always be progressive issues but they are almost inconsequential compared to the need to support the rule of law by ensuring that solemn oaths taken to the Constitution are kept.
Progressives must defend first what is worth conserving from attack by regressives or they will have nothing to build on.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1010 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 4:57:25 PM
Most of us too vividly recall back in the 1990's that a dominant force within the Republican party decided to impeach Clinton. Having made this decision they embarked on a relentless effort to find some grounds for impeaching him, and eventually they found a grounds on which they could impeach him. He was never convicted and the Republican party suffered in popular opinion as a result of the effort.
Now in the 21'st century, the Democratic leadership has taken this message to heart and apparently has concluded that impeachment should be off the table, presumably because it would bring the rath of public opinion down on the Democratic party.
In my opinion, what brought down public opinion was the corruption of the impeachment process, not the impeachment process itself. A properly executed impeachment process begins with an accusation of a particular offense or a body of particular offenses that justify investigation. The initial question should never be whether to impeach, but rather it should be to investigate claims of wrong-doing. The investigation, should it uncover impeachable offenses, should lead to debate in the House of Representatives, then impeachment and finally conviction in the Senate.
Viewed in this light, the results of the poll are quite reasonable. The public is still opposed to the corruption of the impeachment process which makes the decision to impeach before an investigation is conducted which uncovers appropriate evidence. The poll did not say that there should be no investigation of wrong-doing on the part of the administration, and I doubt that a poll would find such results (sorry for the multiple negatives in this sentence).
In closing, I would add that a premature decision to impeach, such as the Republican effort to impeach Clinton represents a corruption of the process, but so does a premature decision not to impeach. The House leadership has made such a corrupt decision and the Democratic party is suffering a downturn in opinion because of this alternate form of corruption.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 329 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 9:44:37 AM
I might add, the impeachment of Bill Clinton did result in one thing -- the truth about his behavior. Clinton was not going to tell the truth until he was forced to do it. If we can just get the truth out, I think the assessment of whether there should be a conviction based on the charges will be a "no brainer" for the Senate. How can the truth ever be learned when the House Leadership feels their one enforcement tool won't be used.
It is correct that you investigate first and decide what laws or violations have been made that are impeachable. There seems no dirth of issues worth investigating there. Once firm evidence exists, the House judiciary committee decides to approve their findings and present them to the total House for a vote up on down on Impeachment. After that Impeachment the charge then passes to the Senate for the final trial and decision of whether a conviction is warrented. Bill Clinton was not convicted because it takes a 2/3rd majority in the senate to convict. Furthermore, after Bill went around apologizing profusely for his misbehavior, many in the public felt his sexual indiscretion was more of an issue between himself and his wife and not really an impeachable offense. I doubt if the truth came out the public would feel similarly about George W. Bush and Richard Cheney's actions and behaviors. Moreover, I suspect like Nixon there would be no apology for what they have done either.
by
Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 164 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 12:40:43 PM
The initial question should never be whether to impeach, but rather it should be to investigate claims of wrong-doing.
Your comment the "Question is Wrong" is off base. Take another look at David's article above. The question asked in this poll was not "Should the Vice President be impeached," but "Do you support or oppose the efforts of the members of the house judiciary committee to begin impeachment hearings to investigate vice president Dick Cheney?"
by
Cheryl Biren-Wright (19 articles, 23 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 351 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 10:28:11 PM
But the point is that the phrasing of a poll is important. Putting yourself in the place of the man or woman on the street who typically is not well informed and is not following political issues very closely, the question of impeachment without a statement of a specific charge of wrongdoingsounds much like what was done to Clinton. It is not surprising that such a person would be opposed to what sounds like a fishing expedition.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 329 comments)
on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 8:44:40 AM
I believe the real reason Pelosi and the media have kept Impeachment off the table has to do with Iraq. If impeachment were supported, an admission would have to be made by Americans that invading Iraq was a mistake. No one wants to admit a mistake. Once an admission is made we would then be compelled to withdraw...The real problem here is that most Americans thought we would get the Iraqi oil in the end, that the war wouldn't cost us much and that we would be able to continue our mad consumption after a short "justifiable" war. Most Americans bought into the "might makes right " idea, that we're the good guys and that Empire is still our manifest destiny. As Americans, we are cultured to be selfish and war like in search of our "national interests". Until that philosophy changes the public will feel hesitant to blame the president, especially if they feel 9/11 was an "outside" attack on our country.
Because of the economy, the public is waking up and getting pissed off.... the Bush White House obstruction over the Miers/ Bolton case may help focus public anger towards this very unpopular president, but if there is the perception that impeachment is a waste of legislative time, the public still won't get behind it... That is why the media blackout and Pelosi's misleadership is so infuriating..... I'm grateful to Wexler and Waxman and some of the others for their incrementalism and persistence.
I think the above commentor, PRMaine, has a correct analysis...The polling question was wrong. Again, the example is 9/11. It is fruitless to ask, "Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?" because the public does not have enough information to make an educated answer, and again, the media won't discuss it. The question to ask is, "Do you believe that hearings into the unanswered questions about 911 should be reopened?
I hope those supporting impeachment will keep up the effort. I hear Wexler was passing out buttons the other day which say, "If you oppose impeaching Bush/Cheney you are soft on crime."
by
GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 1:43:33 PM
Libertarians like to portray themselves as Constitutionalists but if only 19% of Libertarians support impeachment of Bush and Cheney as indicated in the poll then the large majority of Libertarians are nothing but frauds. No one with a brain can honestly say Bush and Cheney haven't committed impeachable offenses.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 821 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 5:00:47 PM
If one sometimes doubt that the average voter can dance and chew gum at the same time, one would also consider that voters are pretty alert to a couple of governmental issues. They're going to get a check from Uncle Sam, which they probably already spent, and Barack Obama is fun to follow. Even the ones worried about his middle name.
Trying to draw parallels with Nixon, I think things are a little in reverse. There was a seething group who held our tongues for fear they might upset the apple cart. The problem was everyone was waiting for the press' smoking gun. This time around people I meet are sure that Bush has done them wrong, and they are waiting for the government to do something about it. When "the government" speaks finally the cannons can go off.
The government means the House and John Conyers who is waiting for a couple of things to happen. One--or is that two--is Tuesday elections. There is Kucinich and Obama involved. And Conyers has concern over that race.
Peace!
by
Margaret Bassett (25 articles, 1669 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 1011 comments)
on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 6:58:37 PM
12 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
