A Post poll shortly after the strikes began found 39 percent supported “President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran,” while 52 percent opposed them and 9 percent were unsure. The new poll asked generally about the “U.S. military campaign against Iran,” finding 42 percent support it, 40 percent oppose it, and 17 percent are unsure. The absence of President Donald Trump in the new poll’s question may have led more people to say they are “unsure,” as views about the president tend to color people’s opinions of his actions and policies.
Polls! People are so easily manipulated by the wording of the question and/or the news report on the poll explains away results the editors disfavor. Here, the poll shows growing support for the war, but the article says maybe there is no growing support. It's just that the first poll had a lot of respondents who reacted to Trump's name and the second poll didn't say his name. Who knows? There might be even less support for the war and the big takeaway is that plenty of people loathe Trump.
Posts
101 comments:
…unlike some if the polls I’ve seen lately at least the result makes sense. Some people will oppose Trump even if it literally hurts homeless puppies…
It's a war on two fronts, and one of them is here at home, a politico-psychological one.
It's just that the first poll had a lot of respondents who reacted to Trump's name and the second poll didn't say his name. Who knows?
It is more accurate to say "President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran" than saying "U.S. strikes on Iran". Trump has not asked, nor did he inform, congress (or anyone else for that matter) for authorization for the strikes.
I liked the CNN poll the other day comparing Trump’s approval rating to recent Presidents at this point. Obama, W, Clinton…they forgot about Joe Biden I guess…
WaPout? Maybe, baby. Is it JI or AI (Anthropogenic a.k.a. human) hallucinating, salivating? Are there Agentic Influencers? Times... uh, time, will tell.
The progressive democrats are furiously doing their best to harvest the TDS they have carefully cultivated. It's a delicate balancing act: Making Trump the cause of all their problems, without appearing to be openly treasonous, but completely willing to attribute any anti-war sentiment to Trump leadership - optimally, losing a war badly with lots of American casualties would be a great outcome in the midterms blame game.
The new poll asked generally about the “U.S. military campaign against Iran,” finding 42 percent support it, 40 percent oppose it, and 17 percent are unsure. The absence of President Donald Trump in the new poll’s question may have led more people to say they are “unsure,” as views about the president tend to color people’s opinions of his actions and policies.
Translation:
Our new poll didn't give the answer we wanted, so now we're going to trash it.
because we're not about reporting the news, we're about pushing a political agenda. And that agenda is we hate America, hate the West, and want Muslim terrorists to have nuclear weapons so they can murder jews and other Westerners.
More people who answer polls loathe Trump… fixed it for you.
The difference between with Trump and without Trump is less than I might have expected, but it was enough to flip the result from plurality against to plurality for. (I dismiss the possibility that support for the war is growing based on the media's relentless playing up of the things that go wrong while largely ignoring the successes.)
Playing games with wording is a long-standing technique among biased pollsters. There's even a name for it--push poll. Because they push the respondent to answer in the desired way.
IOW, people are stupid and don't really know - or care - what the USA does with Iran so long as it doesn't effect them. Personally.
Put Trump in the equation, and then it changes from "Hey what about that war with Iran?" to "Do I like Trump?". Leftists, of course, view everything through the lens of enemy/friend and will hate anything Trump does.
We'll see a real-life measure of support for the war when Trump doesn his rally in kentucky to destroy Massie.
"People are so easily manipulated by the wording of the question"
It's just like referendums against income or property taxes. The wording sounds great to voters hearing about it for the first friggin time in a voting booth until they realize they're paying 25% sales tax 6 months later.
Freder Frederson said...
It is more accurate to say "President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran" than saying "U.S. strikes on Iran".
Only if you're a TDS addled loser.
Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Donald J Trump is the one and only President of the United States right now. You hate that. We get that.
We don't care, because your feelings don't matter.
The strikes on Iran carried out by the US military are "US strikes". It doesn't stop being America just because a Democrat isn't President.
Suck it up, losers
Another problem with opinion polls is their inherently more difficult to get accurate results than voting polls. Pollsters have huge reams of data on how people vote by every demographic and location, so they can get a sample that approximates the voters.
But with opinion polls there is no check for reasonableness. You're trying to get a sample that is representative of the USA public. But this sample could be unrepresentative. For example, in voting terms 80-90 percent of blacks will do the same thing. But who knows how similar their opinions on Iran are?
As expected, the support for this war is broken down along the great divide of 40% loyal Dem, 40% loyal Rep and 20% of wobbly Independents.
In one of college classes we did that. We were tasked with asking a sample of college students on some question with different students in the class using different question wording. The results were wildly different based on the wording of the question. Sociology 101.
The war is evolving poorly for supporters of Obama's Iran-Hamas Affair and who want to keep Persians in cages.
When people start paying 6 dollars a gallon for Gas, lets see how much they love bomb-bomb-Iran.
At least half of the independents hate Trump out of spite. Not a good looking prospect for the midterms unless Donald can pull a Chupacabra out of a Keffiyeh
My favorite new country is Spain. Their foreign minister asked the EU why they're silent on Epsteins fury but full of fight against Russia for their "immoral" attack on Ukraine. Of course, the answer is the Euro elite don't give a damn about their people. They're USA/Israel lapdogs.
if it literally hurts homeless puppies
Well, there is this religion…
Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
I'll call your Article II, Section 1and raise you (in part) Article I, Section 8:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Congress abdicated their plenary powers decades ago.
Freder Frederson said...Trump has not asked, nor did he inform, congress (or anyone else for that matter) for authorization for the strikes.
Surprising that you are unaware, given that it's right there in your post, but Trump is president. If he acted within his powers (and nobody has put forth an argument that he didn't), then Trump acting IS America acting.
You can shape the response to any poll by how you ask the question. Responsible polling organizations try to shape their polls to take polling biases out. And then there are the others. Led by media organizations. That’s why I pay little attention to polls these days.
Back in the early days CNN let you drill down on exactly how the poll was conducted, the demographics of the respondents, the questions that were asked, and so on down to the fine details. Strangely, they don’t do that any more. Now you just get the manufactured results they want you to hear.
I think deep down what your basic Libturd doesn't appreciate is that Donald Trump is merely using every bit of executive power and control that the mainstream uniparty has granted to the Federal government and POTUS for the past century. The DNC is pissed because they didn't take full advantage of it first.
If he acted within his powers (and nobody has put forth an argument that he didn't),
If you really believe this statement, you have not been paying attention!
I just made the argument, and it has been made ad nauseum over the last few weeks. Maybe it will eventually sink in.
Leftists don't really care about foreign policy, its all just an excuse to do what they always do: Attack Republicans.
Remember the Iraq war? Oh my, all the liberals/leftists pretended to be so upset at "Bush's war". And then the moment Obama got elected all the fake concern disappeared.
Its the same now. They're all worked up about "Trump's crazy foreign policy". But if Harris was doing it, they'd be indifferent or supporting it. That's why they're so Goddamn Boring.
I wonder how much coverage Trump will get after he's out of office. It's all the media has talked about for a decade. There are many people whose whole career is dependent on Trump being subject matter.
“The DNC is pissed because they didn't take full advantage of it first.“
Arguably they did when they surrendered Afghanistan back to the Taliban through Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, Sleepy Joe Biden.
“For example, in voting terms 80-90 percent of blacks will do the same thing. But who knows how similar their opinions on Iran are?“. It does not matter; how you vote is important, what you think is unimportant.
The fact that political originations pay for public polling and also pay for hidden insider polling tells you everything you need to know about the “science” of polling. I’m not talking about sampling theory, but how polling is really done.
Trump hate is a disease and a mental disorder
I just made the argument
You made a statement, which was a lie.
Trump has not asked, nor did he inform, congress
Trump informed Congress. He doesn’t have to ask. So if your argument is that Trump has to follow the law and inform Congress, which you didn’t make clear; well he did inform Congress as per law. Lying statements do not constitute much of an argument. It is mostly propaganda.
Remember the Iraq war? Oh my, all the liberals/leftists pretended to be so upset at "Bush's war". And then the moment Obama got elected all the fake concern disappeared.
I don't believe you. If true your liberal/leftist [friends, acquaintances?] are pretty shitty liberals/leftists.
It is going to be a shockeroo the day someone strikes the continental U.S. with a missile. Or even an effective drone.
Was the US surprised by the Việt Cộng’s capacity to outmaneuver them? By Iraq s collapse? By the chaos in Libya after their intervention? By the return of the Taliban? Only strategic fools are surprised, by their own crass ignorance of history. Americans listening to Americans about how Americans think foreigners will respond — a good recipe for disaster.
40% approval is going to be a high-water mark for the remainder of Trump's presidency.
Most people in the U.S. are not highly engaged in day-to-day political news, and the full economic impact of this war is not even close to being felt in the U.S. As those factors start to enter into the national consciousness, Trump's top line number is going to fall further.
Elected Republican officials are a lot more attuned to day-to-day changes, and they are starting to panic, because they understand that they are going to get absolutely wiped out in November. Something is going to give in a few months.
There are many people whose whole career is dependent on Trump being subject matter.
This is most true of Trump himself.
Name one single liberal/leftist who isn’t “pretty shitty.” You can’t.
From ChatGPT:
A very short summary of common ways polls can become biased:
1. Question wording bias
Small wording changes can shift answers.
Example: Including the name Donald Trump may trigger strong feelings, producing different responses than a neutral description of the policy.
2. Question order effects
Earlier questions can “prime” respondents. If someone is first asked about political scandals, their later answers about politicians may become more negative.
3. Sampling bias
If the group surveyed doesn’t represent the population (too many older voters, certain regions, etc.), the results will skew.
4. Nonresponse bias
People who choose to answer polls may systematically differ from those who ignore them.
5. Framing/context bias
Providing extra context (“controversial plan,” “popular program”) nudges respondents toward a particular interpretation.
6. Social desirability bias
Respondents sometimes give answers they think sound more acceptable rather than what they truly think.
Bottom line:
Polls are very sensitive to wording, order, and who is asked, so even small design choices can noticeably change the results.
Name one single liberal/leftist who isn’t “pretty shitty.” You can’t.
Doesn't your own wife display some liberal tendencies?
“ There are many people whose whole career is dependent on Trump being subject matter.
This is most true of Trump himself.”
And also true of everyone else in the world.
Wasn't Trump's main campaign focus to avoid foreign conflicts but instead he has authorized numerous military actions in countries like Venezuela, Yemen, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia and Iran. Doesn't Meade even have a t-shirt with Trump and a dove of peace?
Name one single liberal/leftist who isn’t “pretty shitty.” You can’t.
Dolly Parton?
Ask her, Freder.
Trump really is quite good. It took the previous 4 presidents 20 years to replace the Taliban with Taliban. It took Trump just a week to replace Khamenei with Khamenei.
And also true of everyone else in the world.
But is especially true of Trump. Without his constant self-promotion (and his stint as a reality tv show host) he would just be another shitty NYC real estate developer like his father (although his dad did get mentioned in a Woody Guthrie song) and most likely broke.
“ It is going to be a shockeroo the day someone strikes the continental U.S. with a missile. ”
That happened on 9/11 and that made the point that effectively or ineffectively someone is going to pay dearly for attacking the US. Tit for tat is preordained. Even if it is misapplied. A democrat saying that we deserve to be hit is not going to win that one. Not even Obama objected to Afghanistan overtly.
“Wasn't Trump's main campaign focus to avoid foreign conflicts”
His focus was on ending existing wars and conflicts by putting the interests of America and Americans first and he’s been doing a damn fine job of it. Unlike his 4 recent predecessors did.
Ask her, Freder.
I am not married to her. And she is very cagey about what she believes or doesn't believe.
Ousting human rights abusers, female torturers / Islamic theocratic supremacists … makes progs sad.
@Freder: What was your opinion of Daniel Ortega then versus now. How about the Arab Spring......From what I've read, there were many on the left who thought of the OG Ayatollah as incorruptible, the Iranian version of Solzhenitsyn. The Iranian left, in particular, held radically different views of him after they were imprisoned.......There are reasons to find fault with our decisions in Iraq, but maybe someday we'll do something right.
Google swallowed my comment. Apologies if this is a repeat. What do the resident liberals now think of that incursion into Venezuela. I've read that hundreds of political prisoners there have now been released. I'm pretty sure that they've got a positive opinion of the raid. Plus Cuba is now seeking some kind of condominium with the United States. I'd put it in the plus column now. Are the liberals still opposed?
I propose distinguish
Legislated war vs
Executed war
MAGA sentiment on the war is poised to get worse than on the Epstein files at the current rate of non-progress.
In Iran we'll see what happens. If the stock market tanks and the world economy hits the skids, I'd say it was a bad idea. But right now, it's way too soon to tell. I might be for it before I was against it. It's way too soon to form a definite opinion. One can say with certainty, however, that Iran has not won this war.
I don't put Freder in this bucket, because he's been consistent; but it is interesting the people on the left complaining about Trump taking action or not informing Congress, when 3 weeks ago they were going all "TACO" and complaining Trump was just bluster and doing nothing. Trump warned everyone, and it was clear even all affected countries knew what was going to happen. That's why Keir Starmer was able to, in advance, say that UK bases could not be used (before he TACO'd and said they could).
All must submit to the progressive supremacist/ leftist domination thought police
One can say with certainty, however, that Iran has not won this war.
Like Vietnam, Iran doesn't need to win (whatever that means), but just persevere.
From what I've read, there were many on the left who thought of the OG Ayatollah as incorruptible, the Iranian version of Solzhenitsyn.
I don't know where you read that. If I remember correctly (and I was a high school senior, freshman in college when the Revolution occurred), liberals hated the Shah but didn't think turning Iran into a theocracy was a good idea.
Freder is just trying to personalize the argument. Its irrelevant what liberal/Leftists i know do (or don't) do. Falling back on the "Well, Im an X, and I dont" is a variation on "No true scotsman".
If all the liberal/leftists I knew were into child porn, would that prove anything? You tell me.
from grok:
“Many American leftists supported the 1979 Iranian Revolution as an anti-imperialist victory against the US-backed Shah.  
Figures like Richard Falk (NYT) called Khomeini an “honest” leader offering “humane governance” and social justice.  Edward Said and outlets like The Nation defended it against critical media, seeing religious elements as progressive.  They framed it as a blow to US empire, often ignoring or downplaying Islamist risks.”
Shitty leftist/liberals.
Freder is just trying to personalize the argument.
You were the one who claimed your leftist/liberal friends were against the Bush War and for Obama's war.
from grok:
And what exactly did you ask grok? I didn't say, nor do I believe, that the liberal/leftist take on the Iranian Revolution was monolithic. The NYT and the Nation tended, and continue, to be more centrist (no matter how much you claim they are leftist rags)
Freder: “The NYT and the Nation tended, and continue, to be more centrist (no matter how much you claim they are leftist rags).” The Alice in Wonderland Syndrome illustrated.
President Donald Reagan loved the mad mullahs so much, he served them up nearly 300 Marines to die, then he sold the Eyeatolla advanced weapons systems to fund death squads in Central America to defeat Daniel Ortega whom is still the Nicaraguan president.
Yeah, Meade. Fuck those fucking Libturds.
My question for grok was: What did shitty American leftists/liberals like Freder Frederson think/say about the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979?
What did shitty American leftists/liberals like Freder Frederson think/say about the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979?
Who pissed in your Cheerios this morning?
Read the NYT editorial by Richard Falk from Feb '79
Freder Frederson said...I just made the argument.
No, you didn't. You quoted a portion of the constitution, but you didn't say a word about how what you quoted applies. You seem to think it made the argument for you. (Hint: it didn't.)
I don't think you know what an argument is, because nobody else has made it any more than you have.
That's a weird thing to say about the Islamic Revolution, especially in 1979.
No, you didn't. You quoted a portion of the constitution
And your argument is to quote another portion of the constitution. So there!
@JosephBleau Those 9/11 "missiles" were our own planes whose hijackers we trained for their mission. Yes, they were effectively missiles but in a unique way. We had clues then, as well, clues that were missed.
I am thinking of our general sense of invulnerability, primarily due to our geography. Here is the government now warning California of the possibility of an Iranian missile being fired from a ship in the Pacific and getting through. That would be a very new kind of development. It would put a large hole into the safety net most of the American public feels and trusts.
North Korea may also be able to reach the West Coast. These are not the "responsible" enemies of the past, where Mutually Assured Destruction served as a logical deterrent.
A 1979 op-ed by Richard Falk in the NYT praising the Ayatollah Khomenei as an honest man surrounded by moderates concerned with human rights : r/agedlikemilk https://share.google/JjQFnfciwfKlkLCju
Seriously hezbollah howard
The most ridiculous op ed until larry johnson 22 years later
Taking "We asked 1,000 Americans if U.S. strikes on Iran should continue" in context with “U.S. military campaign against Iran,” and contrasting that with “President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran,” it appears to me that even more than whether or not "Trump" is used, the two questions are apples and oranges. The first question mentioned, but second one chronologically, is a question of whether military action against Iran should continue. The second question, but first chronologically, is a question of whether military action against Iran should start (or have been started). I am not surprised at all that the majority of respondents would have prefered to not initiate further active hostilities with Iran but once those activities are ongoing are more willing to support them, at least in the short term.
Yes they are playing games
“Howard said...
Read the NYT editorial by Richard Falk from Feb '79”
Yes, Freder, read it and think about it with all your liberal critical thinking skills. https://www.nytimes.com/1979/02/16/archives/trusting-khomeini.html?unlocked_article_code=1.S1A.RflV.hBO40JlIAkmL&smid=url-share
It has become a legendary example of wrong think
Based on nothing but unicorn dreams
Freder insists that it’s not the US that’s bombing Iran, but Trump, as if he were not the freely-elected and not-yet-impeached (this time around) president. He refuses to make the same distinction for Iran, where it is far more appropriate: we are not bombing “Iran”, but the evil junta that seized power there in 1979 and has ruled with insane brutality since, slaughtering anyone who deviates from their idiotic policies. The people of Iran are cheering us on, calling in the coordinates of Basiji roadblocks so we can drone them. Why the blatant double standard?
Because hes an evil drone
https://x.com/wretchardthecat/status/2032422624933117977
If liberals think using fossil fuels is bad, then how come they don’t like higher gas prices?
Freder: Trump "would just be another shitty NYC real estate developer like his father"
I thought Trump was a nepo baby, born on third base, getting automatically advanced to home on a walk, and claiming credit for the whole grand slam? That would mean Fred wasn't so shitty, wouldn't it? CC, JSM
Trump has not asked, nor did he inform, congress (or anyone else for that matter) for authorization for the strikes.
And he didn't need to, shithead. How many times do you need to be told this?
Trump is taking a big step to correct Carter's catastrophe and to mitigate Obama's progression, regression, aggression.
Freder Frederson said...And your argument is to quote another portion of the constitution.
Point to where I did that.
https://x.com/chiIIum/status/2032533090996715828
"You were the one who claimed your leftist/liberal friends were against the Bush War and for Obama's war."
LOL - that's what you read into it. Its not in the text.
Polls are perceived as opportunities to stick it to the other side, so people will choose answers that may be quite absurd but that resolutely oppose whatever the other side is presumed to believe. People know that Trump is president and they are likely to support or oppose things based on whether or not they like Trump. Those who would change their answer based on whether Trump is explicitly mentioned in the question are only a small group.
Meade:
To answer your challenge:
Harold Ford
Michel Foucault was likewise a great supporter of the Iranian Revolution. He learned about Islam through the works of French intellectuals and had no understanding of what it meant in Iran. Apparently, he believed the revolution would be led by philosophers, rather than by puritanical and provincial clerics. He died before he could get thrown off a building.
"Michel Foucault was likewise a great supporter of the Iranian Revolution."
Good for him. Wasn't a fan. But this is a point in his favor.
Its not a compliment khomeini would have hung foucault had he the chance
How can we talk about 1979 without mentioning Ted Koppel reporting on the hostages in Iran every night.
the big takeaway is that plenty of people loathe Trump
No, the big takeaway is that the media loathes Trump, and many people turn off their brains and accept whatever the media tells them is true.
Freder Frederson said...
Initial Freder:
It is more accurate to say "President Trump ordering airstrikes against Iran" than saying "U.S. strikes on Iran"
Me: Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Him: I'll call your Article II, Section 1and raise you (in part) Article I, Section 8:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
"strikes" != "war"
What's that? you say they're "acts of war"? why yes, they are.
Just like Iran's many acts of war, starting with invading teh US Embassy in Tehran in November of 1979.
They are completely justified US strikes and US actions, ordered by President Trump.
Get over it
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.