The Economist commissioned a poll of 600 Venezuelans. The results are: (Click graphs to view)
So only 13% of Venezuelans oppose the capture of Maduro.
So a plurality want the US to run the country. Certainly would be a better choice than the Vice-President.
Elections are what should occur, rather than let the current regime carry on.
This would explain why the poll has been almost ignored by other media.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
19 comments:
Anybody who avoids MSM and watches independent media knows this. Another interesting take can be found on the Iranian situation. Most Iranians also support the US and President Trump to rid them of a despotic regime . Again, watch overseas independent media, some of whom have millions of subscribers.
I am very much into sampling (which polling is a kind of) and the analysis of sample data and am at best very sceptical about this poll conducted by the Economist through YouGov.
To be at all meaningful, a sample has to be representative of the population from which it is drawn. This means, amongst other things, that the demographic variables of the sample have to reflect those of the population; that here was no conscious or unconscious sample selection involved; etc.
I'll wager a pound to a peanut that these conditions were not met by this poll. In fact I'll wager ten pounds to a peanut that the sample was so biased its findings were foregone conclusions.
As for 'independent media', we see 'headlines' from various actors in that comedy to the effect that Iran has sunk a US aircraft carrier, and the like. Massages the egos of the zealots but quite worthless with regard to information.
I watch Tousi TV. For those who up until now don't view independent media it seems very credible. Tousi is Iranian and receives information from those within the country. Also, in my view not alarmist and not sensationalist. Well worth a watch for open-minded people. Those who support the present regime, will of course, not be convinced. To each his own I guess.
Yes indeed Barend but the old maxim that “eventually the truth will out” is worth remembering .
For example, you only have to wait for a change of government (in a country claiming to be a democracy) for anything that may have been previously deliberately hidden from the public eyes to see the light of day - that’s just a fact.
And you can be sure that anything politically damaging will be exposed or made up in order to discredit political opponents - ie. The Russian conspiracy hoax and now the Epstein files..
Don’t you think that the Democrats would have already used any incriminating factual information contained in the FBI files against Trump before now if there was any.that could be verified by credible witnesses.
Yet we see them and their supporters reverting to their old pathetic tricks - if it doesn’t exist, make it up!
Shouldn’t we be more worried about things that have already been proven .re all “would be” pretenders to the throne of righteousness
Eg. Obama used ICE to deport millions of illegal immigrants when he was President yet there were no riots in the “Sanctuary Cities” at the time because there were none.
Go figure.
Tousi TV was set up by an Iranian emigre to the US. You can bet your bottom dollar his sampling isn't exactly representative either.
Janine offers a false choice based on whether one supports the current regime or not, the implication being that the former = 'false' and the latter = 'true'. Whatever happened to objective reporting such as some of us still associate with the good old BBC?
"Eventually the truth will out" often comes down to "eventually the narrative that we want to hear will be the dominant one". Bear in mind that history is written by the victors.
Whatever regime is toppled in a Middle Eastern country, there are always people 'dancing in the streets' and telling all and sundry about the atrocities of that regime. They then all too often become the next lot of transgressors.
In politics and particularly geopolitics, simple facts exist only in simple minds.
Tousi is UK. Have a watch Barend instead of always trying to points score.
I apply testable, objective criteria, not how I 'feel' about a report I watch.
If you don't watch the video you can't critique it. Forget Tousi, watch and observe and listen to the Iranian people. That's what I do. They are obviously in the UK because they had to flee Iran. Yes, many regimes in Iran have been harsh but the Iranians are saying this has reached a new level. What is your "objective criteria" on the Iran situation if you only watch the MSM? You say you don't believe in independent media.
We obviously function at very different intellectual levels.
"Watch and observe and listen to the Iranian people" - there are about 94 million of them so I would have to "watch and observe and listen to" a tiny sample thereof. It becomes all the more important to ensure the viability of that sample as a microcosm of the whole population.
"They had to flee Iran" - so OBVIOUSLY they are not going to be unbiased sources. Good heavens, how much more obvious does it get?
I don't only watch the MSM. I follow various Middle Eastern news sources including independent ones (I was there 17 years, after all). I know that if I dredge around for information and combine that with my considerable knowledge base, a consistent picture should emerge. I don't 'believe in' any sources but do have varying degrees of confidence in the accuracy of each one. Even the ones I award a low confidence rating can be informative when what they report is referenced to other sources.
Hoist on your own petard Barend - using your own words, simple facts are in the eyes of the beholder. In other words your assessment of the facts are based on the methods YOU use but are contestable by others who have every right to consider their own methodology is the right one..
This argument about the accuracy of polling methods can only be decided by the results achieved at election time or when events prove whose right and whose wrong.
That’s why l prefer Trafalgar polls when comparing US pollsters predictions about the outcome of elections.
History suggests they are more likely to more accurately predict results than the alternative who generally reflect the opinions and support of one party or the other.
Otherwise, you must include yourself in the group of “simple minds” you pompously refer to.
Sorry Clive, but you are way out of your depth.
The methods I use can be found in any text on inferential stats and sampling theory. They are not of my making. If you want to contest long-established principles of sampling and sample analysis, go ahead - I look forward to your critique in a leading academic journal.
You are assuming that people's responses to polls are true reflections of the way they will vote. Not so. The further a poll is distanced from the next election, the more people will use them to send messages to the incumbent govt. Exit polls tend to be the most accurate - but by then the votes have already been cast so their predictive function is rather questionable.
I will respond to the "we function at different intellectual levels". That's pretty arrogant. You use that argument to most people that have different views to yourself. The situation in Iran is not an " intellectual" one. It is thousands of people being slaughtered by the regime. They either deserve rescuing or they don't. sometimes us "mere mortals" do have empathy and feelings.
"They either deserve rescuing or they don't"...... [sigh] I sometimes wish I could think as simplistically as that.
Your 4th and 5th sentences are pure emotion. This does not help when trying to understand a complex situation.
"Deserving rescuing" implies Western powers taking military action to change the course of events there. This is known as the 'R2P doctrine' ('responsibility to protect'). Unfortunately, this doctrine all too easily becomes 'R2C' - change a regime we don't like. The doctrine was largely abandoned after it was obviously abused by NATO in Libya in 2011, and that poor war-torn country is still paying the price.
Doing what 'seems right' to 'mere mortals' isn't always the best thing to do.
Barend
Neither is assuming your methodology is best because it the one adopted by people of superior intellect.
You only have to look at the disaster that approach has delivered in the Ivy League universities in the US or the Introduction of sanctuary cities which prevent the use of ICE to deport illegal immigrants.
And guess who are supporters of both methodologies (sigh) - well of course the “intellectual elite - a class of people you modestly claim to be a member of.
I must have missed you kicking in the taillight of the ICE car Barend..
Not the most intelligent way of expressing your anger don’t you think.
It actually shows the perpetrator of such ill judged acts as being someone he claimed not to be.
You have totally lost me, Clive.
There is no connection between sampling theory and probability theory and what happens over in the sanctuary cities of the US.
Supporters of 'both methodologies' - ?!? - there isn't a second one here (or a first for that matter).
I don't know why I would want to kick in a vehicle's taillight.
You're using words you don't understand the meaning of, Clive.
Janine claims without evidence that "most Iranians also support the US and President Trump to rid them of a despotic regime."
We know that some do, but I wonder if Janine would like to demonstrate that "most" feel this way, without resorting to claims made by the Israeli or US state departments who would naturally say anything to give themselves an excuse to install a compliant regime in Iran.
If you resort to AI then the response comes up "Most recent surveys show Iranians do not support the present regime". 80% against 20% for. However, for those who don't see clearly, nothing will convince them.
I fail to understand why people need to argue the toss about the dire situation for the Iranian people. Anything is better than being shot in the face or through the back of the head when lying in your hospital bed.
Of course most Iranians don't support the current regime. Given over 40% inflation, a rise in absolute as well as relative poverty, and an economy in the doldrums owing to external sanctions, one would expect closer to 100% to disapprove.
Remember the return of the old Ayatollah from exile in France in 1979? Out with the old moderate, Westernised monarchical regime, and in with the Ayatollahs and Imams.
Now we see the possibility of the reinstatement of the monarchy.......... or the slide of Iran into chaos and anarchy as per Libya and Syria.
However, we have the Revolutionary Guards to consider. These have the clout and the savvy to instal a military dictatorship (which might not be such a bad thing).
Most Iranians will remain Shi'a and committed to countering the Saudi-led Sunni camp.
Welcome to the Middle East, folks, where nothing is quite what it seems.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.