WAPO poll: by an almost 2-to-1 margin, Americans are FOR an Iran-deal

[defcon4]

For real. Discuss a slanted question and its results?

How about,

Q- If you knew not what the deal involved, would you support a deal to allow Iran nuclear weapons?

-Geaux

Some morons would there is the prime example for it.
Speaker Palosi: "You can read what's in the bill after we passed it." (paraphrased)

 

[2aguy]

Unfortunately watch the hyper right wing of the GOP party try and turn this into a red team v blue team issue.

Remember it is only the Hyper Right who don't want a deal. The Rest of the World and majority of US wants one.

Iran and Saudis have a beef with each other... Let them at it

And the rest of the world wanted a deal with hitler to avoid a war.......how did that work out?

How about the question...knowing that iran will not honor any deal they agree to and will proceed to enrich uranium to create a nuclear weapon which they have stated they will detonate in Israel in order to kill as many innocent Israelis as they can....do you support a deal with Iran?

 

[2aguy]

Support for Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post


Of course, the devil is in the details:

All Americans: 59% for, 31% against, margin: +28% for. That's a massive margin.

RV only: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

By Party:

Democrats: 68% for, 22% against, margin: +46% for. That's a massive margin.

Republicans: 77% for, 44% against, margin: +3% for. That's a very thin plurality and statistically, a near-tie.

But here's the kicker:

Independents: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

By race:

Whites: 58% for, 34% against, margin: +24% for. That's a massive margin.

All non-whites together: 62% for, 26% against, margin: +36% for. That's a massive margin.

Blacks: 64% for, 26% against, margin: +38% for. That's a massive margin.


Religion:

White Evangelical Protestant: 49% for, 44% against, margin: +5% for. That's a lean plurality and almost a majority.

White Non-Evangelical Protestant: 55% for, 33% against, margin: +22% for. That's a massive margin.

White Catholic: 59% for, 33% against, margin: +26% for. That's a massive margin.

I currently see no rubrik for Jews in this poll.


Region:

Northeast: 65% for, 24% against, margin: +41% for. That's a massive margin.

Midwest: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

South: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

West: 56% for, 31% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.


Across, the board, the poll shows great uniformity by region, religion, adults vs. RV, and, excepting Republicans, party ID. And even among self-identified Republicans, more are for it than against it.

However, when asked if people really think that a deal will happen or be a success, the numbers look very different.

Go to the poll and see the rest for yourselves.

1,003 adults, MoE= +/-3.5.

More data later, including raws and internals.

Gotta get to work.

Discuss. Remember, this is just one poll, but it is very telling.

Be 100% if everyone were actually familar with the facts and realities involved. There is no military option to prevent Iran making nuclear weapons. Thus the ONLY alternative is a diplomatic deal.

Gee, I wonder what made Obamer change his tune

-Geaux

I'm in the camp of people, however, who take him at his word, in part because he's repeated himself on the subject so many times and in part because he has laid out such an effective argument against containment and for disruption, by force, if necessary. With the help of Armin Rosen, of The Atlantic's International Channel, I've posted below a partial accounting of Obama's statements on the subject. Of course, it is possible that in a second term, should he win his bid for reelection, he will change his mind on the subject, and it is possible, of course, that Iran will somehow manage to defy his demands. But the record is the record: Given the number of times he's told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:

June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."

June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."

October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"

November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."

February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."

January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."

July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."

May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."

November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."

December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."

January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."

March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.

March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."

September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon The Atlantic

And his line in the sand is??

Greg

Obama's line in the sand for iran is the same line he used in case assad used chemical weapons in Syria......

 

[defcon4]

Support for Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post


Of course, the devil is in the details:

All Americans: 59% for, 31% against, margin: +28% for. That's a massive margin.

RV only: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

By Party:

Democrats: 68% for, 22% against, margin: +46% for. That's a massive margin.

Republicans: 77% for, 44% against, margin: +3% for. That's a very thin plurality and statistically, a near-tie.

But here's the kicker:

Independents: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

By race:

Whites: 58% for, 34% against, margin: +24% for. That's a massive margin.

All non-whites together: 62% for, 26% against, margin: +36% for. That's a massive margin.

Blacks: 64% for, 26% against, margin: +38% for. That's a massive margin.


Religion:

White Evangelical Protestant: 49% for, 44% against, margin: +5% for. That's a lean plurality and almost a majority.

White Non-Evangelical Protestant: 55% for, 33% against, margin: +22% for. That's a massive margin.

White Catholic: 59% for, 33% against, margin: +26% for. That's a massive margin.

I currently see no rubrik for Jews in this poll.


Region:

Northeast: 65% for, 24% against, margin: +41% for. That's a massive margin.

Midwest: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

South: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

West: 56% for, 31% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.


Across, the board, the poll shows great uniformity by region, religion, adults vs. RV, and, excepting Republicans, party ID. And even among self-identified Republicans, more are for it than against it.

However, when asked if people really think that a deal will happen or be a success, the numbers look very different.

Go to the poll and see the rest for yourselves.

1,003 adults, MoE= +/-3.5.

More data later, including raws and internals.

Gotta get to work.

Discuss. Remember, this is just one poll, but it is very telling.

Be 100% if everyone were actually familar with the facts and realities involved. There is no military option to prevent Iran making nuclear weapons. Thus the ONLY alternative is a diplomatic deal.

Gee, I wonder what made Obamer change his tune

-Geaux

I'm in the camp of people, however, who take him at his word, in part because he's repeated himself on the subject so many times and in part because he has laid out such an effective argument against containment and for disruption, by force, if necessary. With the help of Armin Rosen, of The Atlantic's International Channel, I've posted below a partial accounting of Obama's statements on the subject. Of course, it is possible that in a second term, should he win his bid for reelection, he will change his mind on the subject, and it is possible, of course, that Iran will somehow manage to defy his demands. But the record is the record: Given the number of times he's told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:

June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."

June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."

October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"

November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."

February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."

January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."

July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."

May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."

November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."

December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."

January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."

March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.

March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."

September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon The Atlantic

And his line in the sand is??

Greg

Obama's line in the sand for iran is the same line he used in case assad used chemical weapons in Syria......

Now, we need to remember that sand shifts according to how hard and what direction the wind blows.

 

[Geaux4it]

Support for Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post


Of course, the devil is in the details:

All Americans: 59% for, 31% against, margin: +28% for. That's a massive margin.

RV only: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

By Party:

Democrats: 68% for, 22% against, margin: +46% for. That's a massive margin.

Republicans: 77% for, 44% against, margin: +3% for. That's a very thin plurality and statistically, a near-tie.

But here's the kicker:

Independents: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

By race:

Whites: 58% for, 34% against, margin: +24% for. That's a massive margin.

All non-whites together: 62% for, 26% against, margin: +36% for. That's a massive margin.

Blacks: 64% for, 26% against, margin: +38% for. That's a massive margin.


Religion:

White Evangelical Protestant: 49% for, 44% against, margin: +5% for. That's a lean plurality and almost a majority.

White Non-Evangelical Protestant: 55% for, 33% against, margin: +22% for. That's a massive margin.

White Catholic: 59% for, 33% against, margin: +26% for. That's a massive margin.

I currently see no rubrik for Jews in this poll.


Region:

Northeast: 65% for, 24% against, margin: +41% for. That's a massive margin.

Midwest: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

South: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

West: 56% for, 31% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.


Across, the board, the poll shows great uniformity by region, religion, adults vs. RV, and, excepting Republicans, party ID. And even among self-identified Republicans, more are for it than against it.

However, when asked if people really think that a deal will happen or be a success, the numbers look very different.

Go to the poll and see the rest for yourselves.

1,003 adults, MoE= +/-3.5.

More data later, including raws and internals.

Gotta get to work.

Discuss. Remember, this is just one poll, but it is very telling.

Be 100% if everyone were actually familar with the facts and realities involved. There is no military option to prevent Iran making nuclear weapons. Thus the ONLY alternative is a diplomatic deal.

Gee, I wonder what made Obamer change his tune

-Geaux

I'm in the camp of people, however, who take him at his word, in part because he's repeated himself on the subject so many times and in part because he has laid out such an effective argument against containment and for disruption, by force, if necessary. With the help of Armin Rosen, of The Atlantic's International Channel, I've posted below a partial accounting of Obama's statements on the subject. Of course, it is possible that in a second term, should he win his bid for reelection, he will change his mind on the subject, and it is possible, of course, that Iran will somehow manage to defy his demands. But the record is the record: Given the number of times he's told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:

June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."

June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."

October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"

November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."

February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."

January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."

July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."

May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."

November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."

December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."

January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."

March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.

March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."

September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon The Atlantic

And his line in the sand is??

Greg

Obama's line in the sand for iran is the same line he used in case assad used chemical weapons in Syria......

Here's Obamas legacy

 

[Obiwan]

Being for a deal, is not being for a bad deal. Thats the point.

true enough. YOu haven't proven this is a bad deal, yet.

Hell, even the French hate it. That's why Obama is already threatening them if they don't sign it.

 

[Anathema]

Or that the Average American is tired of watching young men and women come home in body bags because the Zionists dictate our policy.

If one were to agree with that concept (which I do not); then the way to fix it would be to become more Isolationist, not to stick our noses further into the business affairs of Israel and its neighbors. I am heavily in favor of Isolationism and Nationalism, personally.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Support for Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post


Of course, the devil is in the details:

All Americans: 59% for, 31% against, margin: +28% for. That's a massive margin.

RV only: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

By Party:

Democrats: 68% for, 22% against, margin: +46% for. That's a massive margin.

Republicans: 77% for, 44% against, margin: +3% for. That's a very thin plurality and statistically, a near-tie.

But here's the kicker:

Independents: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

By race:

Whites: 58% for, 34% against, margin: +24% for. That's a massive margin.

All non-whites together: 62% for, 26% against, margin: +36% for. That's a massive margin.

Blacks: 64% for, 26% against, margin: +38% for. That's a massive margin.


Religion:

White Evangelical Protestant: 49% for, 44% against, margin: +5% for. That's a lean plurality and almost a majority.

White Non-Evangelical Protestant: 55% for, 33% against, margin: +22% for. That's a massive margin.

White Catholic: 59% for, 33% against, margin: +26% for. That's a massive margin.

I currently see no rubrik for Jews in this poll.


Region:

Northeast: 65% for, 24% against, margin: +41% for. That's a massive margin.

Midwest: 57% for, 32% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.

South: 60% for, 33% against, margin: +27% for. That's a massive margin.

West: 56% for, 31% against, margin: +25% for. That's a massive margin.


Across, the board, the poll shows great uniformity by region, religion, adults vs. RV, and, excepting Republicans, party ID. And even among self-identified Republicans, more are for it than against it.

However, when asked if people really think that a deal will happen or be a success, the numbers look very different.

Go to the poll and see the rest for yourselves.

1,003 adults, MoE= +/-3.5.

More data later, including raws and internals.

Gotta get to work.

Discuss. Remember, this is just one poll, but it is very telling.

Even a bad deal? Thats like saying 100% of people are for breathing. While failing mentioning they'll be breathing sarin gas.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Question: Do you support a nuclear arms deal with Iran that would avert total nuclear war?
Yeah no wonder.
How about this:
Do you support an agreement with Iran that would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon in 2 years?

Let me write the question and I'll get the poll answer you want.

Um. I'm guessing you didn't bother to click the link in the OP, which is a little silly.

This is the question that was asked:

Q: Thinking now about the situation with Iran - would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?

Thats not whats happening.

 

[defcon4]

Or that the Average American is tired of watching young men and women come home in body bags because the Zionists dictate our policy.

If one were to agree with that concept (which I do not); then the way to fix it would be to become more Isolationist, not to stick our noses further into the business affairs of Israel and its neighbors. I am heavily in favor of Isolationism and Nationalism, personally.

Nationalism is hard to achieve while the left thrives on dividing. Political Correctness, black vs. white, christian vs. secular, fag vs. straight, smoker vs. anti smoker, male vs. female, gun owner vs. anti gunner and on and on and on…

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary (lol) should make a nuclear Iran her main foreign policy theme in 2016

 

[Jackson]

And if there was a poll asking if those same people have been following the stories on the negotiations every day,it would be 2to 1 that they haven't. That most likely was an uninformed vote.

 

[Anathema]

Nationalism is hard to achieve while the left thrives on dividing. Political Correctness, black vs. white, christian vs. secular, fag vs. straight, smoker vs. anti smoker, male vs. female, gun owner vs. anti gunner and on and on and on…

Then maybe certain elements need to be removed from the country in order to make it possible. Simple answers to simple questions.

 

[blackhawk]

Just because a majority support something does not mean it is the right or smart thing to do. In the 1930s the majority of Brits supported making a deal with Hitler to prevent another war in Europe they got a deal and about a year later they got another war.

 

[Freewill]

Unfortunately watch the hyper right wing of the GOP party try and turn this into a red team v blue team issue.

Remember it is only the Hyper Right who don't want a deal. The Rest of the World and majority of US wants one.

Iran and Saudis have a beef with each other... Let them at it

What deal is it you want? What deal do you think we will get?

We all would want a deal where nuclear proliferation ends with Iran, no bomb for Iran. Anything less is no deal at all.

I don't think that Iran will sign such a deal.

I also don't think it matters that much except to Israel. We still have peace through brute force, Obama isn't quite down gutting that deterrent.

 

[Freewill]

Just because a majority support something does not mean it is the right or smart thing to do. In the 1930s the majority of Brits supported making a deal with Hitler to prevent another war in Europe they got a deal and about a year later they got another war.

the majority does, or did, support bans on gay marriage, the majority certainly didn't matter to the left wing on that issue. The majority only matters to liberals when they THINK it is in their favor.

 

[Freewill]

BTW, isn't this a duty of the UN to come to an agreement?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Question: Do you support a nuclear arms deal with Iran that would avert total nuclear war?
Yeah no wonder.
How about this:
Do you support an agreement with Iran that would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon in 2 years?

Let me write the question and I'll get the poll answer you want.

Only, that wasn't the poll question.

This is the poll-question:

Thinking now about the situation with Iran - would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Q: How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?

Detailed View
**NET Very/Smwt confident**

37%

Very confident

4

Somewhat confident

33

**NET Not so/Not at all confident**

59

Not so confident

26

Not confident at all

34

No Opinion

3

Not a resounding endorsement.

Greg

Thank you for providing that. As I wrote in the OP, there is more data and I encouraged people to go see more of the poll, which you did. Kudos to you.

Well done, gtopa1

Not only that, I wrote:

However, when asked if people really think that a deal will happen or be a success, the numbers look very different.

 

[Statistikhengst]

in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?

So if an agreement makes it harder than sanctions then by all means. Bunker Busters might help as well.

Greg

Sure, I can understand that.