Counterpoint: American Polling Showed Ahmadinejad With 2 To 1 Lead
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, Iran, Polls
As much as I hate to be fair to a guy like Ahmadinejad, I can’t ignore this story from the Washington Post which shows that he enjoyed a sizable lead before the election.
What’s more, the following pollsters have absolutely no reason to lie. In fact, they have every reason to shut up, but they decided to share their information with us anyway.
First, the methodology…
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
Next, the numbers…
The breadth of Ahmadinejad’s support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
And then you look at the work the guys at FiveThirtyEight have been doing, and a win by Admadinejad seems a little bit more plausible.
For instance, Nate Silver called into question a report that demonstrated how Iran’s election was rigged, by comparing it to the exact same numbers that were reported in our own election.
Now, they do suggest that there are some slightly implausible vote totals out of certain regions, but ultimately Nate comes to this conclusion…for now
Based on conversations with people who are a bit more informed about Iranian domestic politics, it seems absolutely possible that Ahmadinejad in fact won (although his share of the vote was probably boosted through “dirty tricks” — intimidation both before and during the election, jamming text messaging services, etc.) and also absolutely possible that the election was stolen. The statistical evidence is intriguing but, ultimately, inconclusive.
So that’s where we’re at right now, but I do think the meme that there’s no way Ahmadinejad could have won is starting to die. Yes, the results are fishy and yes, I don’t believe them either. But before we start taking sides (ahem, Mike Pence) we need to know more.
This entry was posted on Monday, June 15th, 2009 and is filed under Elections, Iran, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, I think this article should serve as a footnote to your post.
The point is still valid, Ahmadinejad could legitimately have won, but the actual results of the poll are less clear about his superiority than they appear at face value:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/about_those_iran_polls.html?wprss=behind-the-numbers
June 15th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Bumpkis!
34 percent of those polled said they’d vote for Ahmadinejad, 14 percent for Mousavi. That leaves 52 percent unaccounted for. In all, 27 percent expressed no opinion in the election, and another 15 percent refused to answer the question at all. Six percent said they’d vote for none of the listed candidates; the rest for minor candidates.
This doesn’t count the 4 in 10 who refused to even talk to the Pollster. Nor does it account for the rather odd results in.
also From 538.com:
Polling put his candidacy at around 7-10% of the national vote this time around, with the strong incumbent expected to pull more in the first round than he did in 2005 (19.1%). Karroubi’s numbers in his provinces of strength were better, with polling regularly put him at around 20-25% in his home region, with particular strength in the provinces of Lorestan, Ilam, and Khuzestan. This is where the provinicial results get fishy:
Not only did Ahmadinejad beat Karroubi in his base of support, he crushed him beyond all recognition. Karroubi’s share of the vote in Lorestan was cleaved by a factor of ten, and in only two other of the provinces did he break above 1%.
Call it what you will, but I say Fraud is Fraud. and this smells like fraud to me.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I wrote about this last week. The Supreme Leader of Iran is the one who makes all the rules in Iran. He makes all the decisions in the country or controls all the decisions.
In order to even be on the ballot you must be approved by a 12 person panel. 6 of that panel are appointed by the Supreme Leader and the other 6 are appointed by a group that is hand picked by the Supreme Leader.
Read more about it here and stick around for more good stuff-
http://libertarianhumor.com/2009/06/12/iran/
June 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I would not be suspicious if Ahhmadinejad merely claimed to win. He came close to winning the first round last time, and he wasn’t an incumbent then.
The trouble is he claims he got almost 2/3 of the vote. Which is simply ridiculous. I did a little research. Reagan would have killed for 60%. Roosevelt too. And those guys were pretty good at winning Presidential elections in large countries. Some polls put him ahead, but nobody had him anywhere near 50%, much less 65%.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Nate Silver was right to question the purported “proof” of fraud. The technique used really shows nothing one way or another.
The polling isn’t all that indicative for various reasons, but it’s certainly consistent with the announced results. And, believe it or not, there can be fraud that doesn’t change the outcome because it wasn’t that close in the first place.
Lastly, the presidency of Iran is little more than symbolic, and the real power lies with Khamanei as Supreme Leader, the Assembly of Experts, and the Guardian Council. A change in president would have meant little.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
It was irresponsible — and very misleading — of the WaPo to publish an op-ed by the two pollsters without including the actual numbers from their poll — 34% for Mamoud, 14% for Mousavi, and 52% unaccounted. There is no “2 to 1″ consistency with the announced results. The INCUMBENT registered 34% — a sure death knell for any incumbent anywhere in a fair election. The pollsters pretend that answers to other questions demonstrate that people would not have been afraid (or just prudent) in not declaring for the opposition, but that’s a thin reed to lean on. Dissenters in Iran have often been punished severely over the past 30 years and Iranians are well aware of that fact (that’s why they want reforms!). I think it would take a pretty brave or foolhardy 14% to declare to a starnger on the phone for Mousavi.
In any case, so what that WaPo commisioned a poll three weeks before the election? It proves absolutely nothing about the election but only serves as an excuse for those who don ‘t want to embrace and support Iran’s reformers.
In any case,
June 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The reality of the situation is most Iranians support Ahmadinejad and they are not the oppressed and mysterious group of downtrodden rogues much of the Western Media portrays them as. A first hand account of time in Iran and the Middle East in general reveals a different kind of populace than we are used to seeing.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
An AP take. Their correspondent seems to find the results suspicious as well, on entirely different grounds. We may never know.