Comments on: Counterpoint: American Polling Showed Ahmadinejad With 2 To 1 Lead

By: Tully

Tully — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:15:03 +0000

An AP take. Their correspondent seems to find the results suspicious as well, on entirely different grounds. We may never know.

By: David Anthony Hohol

David Anthony Hohol — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:00:00 +0000

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.

By: John Burke

John Burke — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:15:08 +0000

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,

By: Tully

Tully — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:56:55 +0000

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.

By: Nick Benjamin

Nick Benjamin — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:53:50 +0000

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%.

By: BigEdsBlog

BigEdsBlog — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:51:56 +0000

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/

By: bloodstar

bloodstar — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:51:22 +0000

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.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:15:17 +0000

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