US Thinktank Survey Forecast Ahmadinejad Win in May

[TruthSeeker]

The Iranian People Speak
Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Washington Post
6/15/2009
http://www.cggl.org/scripts/new.asp?id=962

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

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.

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.

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.

Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.

Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.

Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups' May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.

Full report of May survey:
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/up...ort%200609.pdf

[TruthSeeker]

The world press reporting on the above survey was very little and what there was downplayed the finding of a 2:1 vote advantage of Ahmedinejad over Mousavi. Another case where the media has its template of what it wants to happen and reports only those parts of the story that reinforce its preconceived notions.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

I find it fascinating that very little is being reported on the veracity of the vote rigging accusations in the Western media, and a lot of emphasis is being placed on the accusations and protests.

You can't just annul, or cast aspersions on the legitimacy of, the results of an election because of 'sore losers'.

Quite frankly a continuation of the lack of objectivity and skewed reporting on international issues by the US media that I first started noticing when I started following its coverage on Pakistan.

It has always been skewed on Israel, but I had not realized it extended elsewhere.

Now evidence may very well emerge that the elections had some irregularities (whether enough to really alter the victory will be another question) but Isee very little of this issue addressed in the media, and the majority of the chatter has been over 'the evil Mullah's suppressing the young Iranian population who just cannot wait to throw on mini skirts and go to discos.'

[wtf]

There are both sides of the debate on the press. But the election results story does not have pictures, while the riot stories have. Guess which one will appear on the front pages ? At least for the newspapers, bad news is good business.

Nevertheless here are some stories on the election issues.

CNN is saying that it is possible that Ahmadinejad actually won, but the 65% result is what is causing resentment.
Q & A: Was the Iranian election rigged? - CNN.com

Iranian bloggers are saying that it is impossible that Ahmadinejad got 55% votes in Azeri parts of Iran. Traditionally, Azeri candidates have won those regions and Ahmadinejad is not Azeri
Mondoweiss: 'Traditional media have completely failed us' (Iranians turn to brave citizen journalists)

Salon (A left leaning web magazine) has a list of issues from both sides of the debate. Their main contention is that it is impossible that Moussavi lost his hometown. The pro-Ahmadinejad contention is the 2:1 predicted results and his win in the televised debates
The arguments against (and for) trusting Iran's election results - War Room - Salon.com

[wtf]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

It has always been skewed on Israel, but I had not realized it extended elsewhere.

US press has always been biased towards people that are more "similar" to them. It is easier for them to write stories about countries shifting to capitalism, who are pro-liberty etc. I don't think it is a govt. induced bias, except for the case in Iraq with embedded reporters and white house leaking stories selectively to white house press.

( The whitehouse military analyst program , ie paying people to talk good things about Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html or the editors of newspapers pushing opinion instead of news
washingtonpost.com: The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story )

The Georgia-Russia dispute news coverage and the "Orange revolution" are other good examples.