Posted on 03/13/2015 8:03:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ineffective, fine. Stupid? Maybe, yeah. But “inappropriate”?
Never underestimate the Democratic messaging machine, my friends.
Many Americans haven’t noticed the story yet, according to a new survey conducted by YouGov from 10-11 March. 41% said they had heard nothing at all about “a letter written by a group of Republican lawmakers warning the leaders of Iran that any agreement they make with President Obama will only be an ‘executive agreement’ that could be revoked unless it gets congressional approval.”
Yet when asked whether writing such a letter was appropriate, 42% say it was not, compared to only 28% who say it was. 31% are undecided.
That’s a lot of people who haven’t heard about the letter yet. Could that explain the partisan tilt here? If, for instance, it turns out that many more liberals have heard about the letter than conservatives — which isn’t implausible given that the outrage is being driven by Obama and lefty media — then yeah, go figure that overall opinion might lean against the GOP. When you look at the actual numbers, though, that effect seems minor: 27 percent of Democrats say they’ve heard a lot about the letter versus 24 percent of independents and 21 percent of Republicans. Dems are overrepresented but not so much to explain a 14-point gap on the “inappropriate” question. Also, if you include people who’ve heard “a little” about the letter, GOPers actually outnumber Dems — 66 percent to 63. This isn’t a pure partisan phenomenon.
Speaking of which, here’s how the parties shake out on whether the deal was appropriate. Top line is yes, second line is no, third is not sure:
Independents tilt mildly towards “inappropriate” but the real action here is in the unusual partisan asymmetry. Democrats split 11/71 but Republicans split just 53/10. How come? I think it’s a combo of conservatives favoring a strong presidency with a basically free hand on foreign policy (their personal antipathy to Obama aside) and the unhappy optics of Republican senators attempting to communicate with the Iranian leadership for whatever reason. That’s not really what the letter did; it was a de facto op-ed about Congress’s constitutional prerogatives aimed more at the White House (as Rand Paul acknowledged) than at Iran, but framing it as a letter to the mullahs may not sit right with righties. Karol Markowicz, writing in the Federalist, says:
Second, we should not be sending letters to Iran, on any topic, at any time. Last November, Obama allegedly sent a secret letter asking the Ayatollah Khamenei to join us in fighting the Islamic State. And this isn’t the first time Obama has corresponded with Iran. He also sent a letter to Iran in 2009 seeking better ties. For clarity, we’re asking for better ties with a country that kills gay people by pushing them off roofs, imprisons journalists, and murders political opponents. Letters to Iran, by either party, do nothing but legitimize the backward leadership of that country. If our leadership wants to speak to Iran, it should address the Iranian people directly. This is a country held hostage by the mullahs, while we’re the leaders of the free world. Let’s act like we’ve noticed.
Addressing Iran’s leaders indirectly legitimizes them, which is anathema to righty hawks. In fact, Ron Johnson told reporters from Bloomberg this morning that framing the letter as a letter to Iran rather than to the White House is his only regret about signing it.
There may be one other reason for the results on “inappropriateness”: When push comes to shove, a plurality of Americans who’ve heard about Obama’s looming nuke deal with Iran support it. Not one in 100 of them could recite the basic details, I’d bet, but that’s also true of things like ObamaCare. Whether they’re in favor of the actual deal or whatever hazy notion they have about what the deal says, they’re in favor, splitting 36/17 towards support with 11 percent saying “not sure” and another 36 percent saying they don’t know enough to form an opinion yet. The partisan numbers are better for Dems than you might think too. Top line is support for the deal, second is opposition, third is not sure:
Republicans are split 29/30? That’ll change for sure once the deal is done and conservative media really lays into it, but it’s already received wisdom on the right that any agreement with Iran that has Obama’s signature on it will be an atrocious sellout. Tom Cotton’s letter, co-signed by 46 GOP colleagues, lends the party’s imprimatur to that suspicion. And still — just 29/30 among Republican voters. Either GOPers are more comfortable with the terms of the deal than their leadership or they’re war-weary and willing to accept a bargain to punt the risk of conflict a few more years into the future.
As for the rest of the public, like I said, never underestimate the Democratic messaging machine. Here’s what three weeks of White House/media whining about Bibi Netanyahu’s speech did to his support in the U.S.:
Fifteen points in less than a month, huh? Damn, that’s impressive lockstep.
I smell BS in the air
Yougov is now a “partner” of HuffPost.
Used to be a great insightful polling organization, now it’s just agitprop for the Dems.
I don’t know about the rest, but I don’t think Ted Cruz “focus groups” or polls too much before taking a stand.
Where was YOUGOV on predicting the November midterms? 5-6pts wrong like everybody else except the Des Moines Register? What accurate polls can they brag about, if any?
And I guarantee you 85% of said folks polled have not a clue what’s in the letter.
Ted Cruz doesn’t seem like the type of guy who would wet his finger and stick it in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing.
RINO’s would do just that, however.
I imagine you could frame the poll to get the answer you wanted.
I call BS.
And surrender to the Iranian mullahs is better???
I think it was in general a good idea but addressing it to Iran was just setting themselves up for being targets,
And Dems made good use of it.
The same letter addressed to Obama and posted in newspapers and websites would have been just as useful and not given DEms the same opening to accuse GOP of siding with Iranian ‘hardliners’.
I smell it and see it ;)
Polls are designed to sway opinion.
Back in the day when everybody had a land line, polls were directed to certain office codes (neighborhoods) known to be enclaves of certain ethnic groups (Irish, German, Blacks), making the results go the way the politicions wanted.
Today the polls are directed toward online neighborhoods with the population needed to get the wanted results. Polls originating from CNN and other liberal news source will get a far different result than a poll on FOX, as examples.
Obvious, but not so obvious to the low information crowd.
A plurality of Americans don’t even know the three branches of government or what their roles are.
Sheeeeyit. What's the breakdown by category of how many know what the word "appropriate" means?
who cares? this is a stupid internet poll.
42%
That is just about the plurality of Low Information voters that will elect the next President.
Just watching the MSM, the GOPe and the Democrats, my best guess is the next President will be the Democrat that promises to govern somewhere left of Obama.
.
Yeah, right. How many thought it was “appropriate” for Pelosi to put on a muslim babushka and go talk to Assad?
When liberals have an unpopular opinion (say, gay marriage), they claim the law supercedes popular opinion and they do everything in their power to take away the right of the people to affect law.
But when conservatives point out an indisputable legal fact (that the Senate must approve treaties), liberals do everything in their power to gin up opposition to conservatives. Then they cite popular opinion as proof that the law is illegitimate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.