Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(60,978 posts)
29. Where people are depends on the question
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 01:53 PM
Sep 2013

Here is a link that shows the question asked and the poll results. This poll was from Aug 28 and 29 - before Kerry's speech of last Friday and Obama's on Sunday. At that point, either side could take a specific question and claim it backs their position. (None show 91% of the country against it - I have no idea where that is coming from.)

Here, if you look at the second question, where specific alternatives are offered, only 26 percent favor "take military action". However, if you look at the questions 4 5 and 6, you see how the way the question is asked changes that number.

If the question is: "It has been reported that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its citizens. Do you think the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapons or not?", then 42% are in favor.

If the question is: "Now, more specifically, if U.S. military action in Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?" Asked Aug. 29 only; N=291. , then the response is 50% in favor.

If the question is: "Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The use of chemical weapons by any country is a 'red line' -- that is, an action that would require a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.," , the response is 58%.

Link:http://pollingreport.com/syria.htm

Note that this poll was taken on Wednesday and Thursday. This means that it does not reflect the success - or lack of success - of the Obama administration's actions. Kerry's first speech was on Monday - so that is likely reflected in the poll.

Now, I would say that the CLOSEST question asked to what Obama is proposing is number 5 - which had 50% approval on August 29. The two things that move people seem to be mentioning chemical weapons use and anything that limits the response.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That's good news. Now, let's just hope they don't change their LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #1
1 bulk order of pork, comin' right up! Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #13
Keynes said it was better for a government to pay people to dig holes and fill HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #14
King Canute, is that you? dawg Sep 2013 #18
LMFAO - great pic! - nt HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #19
Good! I hope the no column grows. But would that stop Obama? morningfog Sep 2013 #2
The fix is in. woo me with science Sep 2013 #24
Just as many Democrats will vote "yes" as will be needed woo me with science Sep 2013 #3
You're right, of course. Villain Rotation is a ploy that has worked. No need to give it up. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #5
Thanks for this, woo. Hadn't seen that article before. kath Sep 2013 #6
How'd that work for Cameron? LOL! KittyWampus Sep 2013 #11
Are all those "likely to" support and will "definitely" back the use of force chicken-hawks? AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #4
The politically correct term for Chicken Hawks is "Soaring Eagles" please use the correct term Dragonfli Sep 2013 #34
Point taken. AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #37
Republicans far more likely to oppose military action, while Democrats were likely to support it progressoid Sep 2013 #7
There are a few in each party who try to follow their conscience, LuvNewcastle Sep 2013 #8
Is there an estimate for the most liberal Democrats? David Krout Sep 2013 #17
So far 35 members of the Progressive Caucus were among those included in the OP link. pampango Sep 2013 #21
My figures are so far: Progressive Caucus-18 no, 10 yes, undecided 7; tea party caucus-20 no, 1 yes, pampango Sep 2013 #9
related bookmark bigtree Sep 2013 #23
What about the other 210, though? (Two vacancies, AL and MA) MADem Sep 2013 #10
How do you think the House will vote? nt David Krout Sep 2013 #15
When most Democrats supported the Amash amendment on the NSA, did you think it was interesting? David Krout Sep 2013 #16
I don't have "goals" and even if I did, they don't make a damn bit of difference when it comes to MADem Sep 2013 #20
Likely the deals regarding who's to get rich from the New War DirkGently Sep 2013 #12
This Congress knows where their bread is buttered. woo me with science Sep 2013 #22
so we have to lay our hopes on the repukes to do the right thing backwoodsbob Sep 2013 #25
Yup. We need Rand Paul :(. Pelosi and Feinstein are hacks when it comes to Natl Sec. . dkf Sep 2013 #28
Fortunately (?), Paul and the tea party caucus are not "hacks"? pampango Sep 2013 #32
I'm not talking about the progressive caucus, I'm speaking of Dem leadership. dkf Sep 2013 #33
"We need Rand Paul?" For what, precisely? nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #36
And the only reason you'll get the "right thing" out of the GOP CakeGrrl Sep 2013 #30
You can bet that AIPAC and MIC lobbyists.... HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #26
Where people are depends on the question karynnj Sep 2013 #29
Democrats are going to be called on to save Obama's credibility. Disgusting. dkf Sep 2013 #27
Thank Goodness for Barbara Lee. JRLeft Sep 2013 #31
This article is in error about the Iraq War Resolution vote. A majority of Democrats opposed. stevenleser Sep 2013 #35
It seems to correctly indicate in 2002 "Democrats in the House provided 'the bulk of the opposition' AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Syria Strike Whip Count -...»Reply #29