How to read a poll
A Pew Research poll finds that of the 79% of Americans (surprised it's so low) who have heard about President Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear Iran,
most are opposed to the deal, don't trust Iran to abide by it, and have limited confidence in the West's ability to monitor it (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Among the 79% of Americans who have heard about the agreement, just
38% approve, while 48% disapprove (14% do not offer an opinion).
There is widespread skepticism about aspects of the agreement,
particularly the Iranian leadership’s commitment to the terms of the
deal: Most of those familiar with the agreement say they have not too
much (35%) or no confidence at all (38%) that Iran’s leaders will uphold
their side of the agreement. And while there is greater confidence in
the U.S. and international agencies’ ability to monitor Iran’s
compliance, 54% are not too (33%) or not at all (21%) confident, while a
smaller share (45%) express at least a fair amount of confidence in
their ability.
I'm sure many of you saw the Obama administration claiming that most Americans support the Iran deal, as shown by
polls like this one. So what's the difference? Why the gap in the results? Pew explains:
The different findings on public views of the Iran nuclear agreement
in the Washington Post/ABC News and Pew Research Center surveys
highlight how question wording – and the information provided in a
question – can impact public opinion, particularly on issues where
public views are still being shaped and information levels are
relatively low. The Pew Research question, which does not describe the
agreement, finds lower levels of support than the Post/ABC News
question, which details the intention to monitor Iran’s facilities and
raises the possibility of re-imposition of sanctions if Iran does not
comply.
In other questions, both the Washington Post/ABC survey and the Pew
Research Center survey find substantial public skepticism about the
agreement. The Pew Research Center survey asks about confidence
in Iran’s leadership to uphold their end of the deal and the ability of
the U.S. and international agencies to monitor compliance, finding that
majorities are not confident about either. And the Washington Post/ABC
News poll asks people how confident they are “that this agreement will
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – very confident, somewhat
confident, not so confident or not confident at all,” finding that 64%
are not confident in this.
Though levels of support for the agreement differ depending on how
the question is asked, both questions find large divides between
Democrats and Republicans in approval of the deal, although that
division is more pronounced in the Pew Research question than in the
Washington Post/ABC News question.
In other words, it's all in how you ask the question (and what results you choose to highlight), which is why large political campaigns all hire their own pollsters.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Pew poll, polls
More Americans want a more engaged foreign policy, but...
In the run-up to the US Presidential election, Hillary Clinton has been arguing for a more engaged foreign policy while Rand Paul has been arguing for isolationism. The American people would like a more engaged foreign policy. That would seem to favor Clinton, but in fact it may ensure that
neither candidate is his or her party's nominee.
The percentage of the public saying the country does too little has
almost doubled since November, from 17 to 31 percent. Thirty-nine
percent say the U.S. does too much.
Democratic former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has been arguing for a more engaged in U.S.
presence in the world ahead of a possible presidential run, in contrast
to possible opponent Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and, to some extent,
President Obama.
Despite the overall increase in those saying
they want the U.S. to do more, however only 24 percent of Clinton's own
party say the U.S. does too little, compared to 36 percent who say too
much. For Republicans, the numbers are reversed, with 46 percent saying
too much and 37 percent too little.
Okay, that last sentence doesn't sound right, does it? So I went to
the source:
Republicans, Democrats and independents all are more likely to say the
U.S. does too little to solve world problems, but the shift among
Republicans has been striking. Last fall, 52% of Republicans said the
U.S. does too much to help solve global problems, while just 18% said it
does too little. Today, 46% of Republicans think the U.S. does too
little to solve global problems, while 37% say it does too much.
Oh yeah, and then there's this:
Obama gets his best rating for handling race relations; nearly half
approve of how he is handling race relations (48%) compared with 42% who
disapprove. His ratings for handling other issues – including policy
toward Israel (37% approve), the situation involving Russia and Ukraine
(35%) and the situation in Iraq (35%) – are more negative than positive.
But The Hill doesn't mention that.
Oh, and by the way, Pew says that a majority of Americans thinks Obama isn't tough enough on foreign policy. What a surprise....
Obama’s approach to foreign policy continues to be viewed as not tough
enough: 54% say Obama is not tough enough in his approach on foreign
policy and national security issues, while 36% say his approach is about
right and just 3% say he is too tough.
Are Americans waking up to the disaster Obama has wrought? We can only hope.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Pew poll, Rand Paul, Republicans, US foreign policy, US presidential campaign 2016
Jewish Federations of North America hits iceberg, pats itself on the back
Earlier this week, the Jewish Federations of North America held their annual general assembly here in Jerusalem. Luckily, I wasn't paying attention or someone would have gotten me a ticket. I had way too much work to take a couple of days off to live blog a conference this week.
There's another reason it was good I didn't go:
Michael Freund explains some of what I would have found frustrating:
But in light of the recent findings of the Pew Research Center
regarding American Jewry's frightful descent into assimilation, the
upbeat tone of this GA was entirely out of place and even inappropriate.
Indeed, even more than its predecessors, this GA was reminiscent of
the ill-fated RMS Titanic as it steamed straight for an iceberg in the
northern Atlantic ocean in April 1912, oblivious to the impending doom.
After all, it was more than a month ago that Pew shocked the Jewish
world with some grim data when its October 1 survey revealed that
intermarriage rates among non-Orthodox American Jews have soared to 71
percent and that nearly one-third of Jews under the age of 32 do not
identify themselves as Jewish by religion.
These are the statistics of shared suicide, a glaring sign that large
portions of American Jewry are simply melting away and shedding their
identity.
If the Jewish federations were serious about confronting this crisis,
they should have taken the extraordinary step of reformatting the GA's
schedule in order to focus on the existential emergency at hand.
Instead, in an act of pathetic hubris, they had the gall to add a
single session on Monday, with the self-aggrandizing title, "Responding
to Pew: How Federations are Successfully Engaging the Next Generation."
"Successfully"? Who are they kidding? BACK IN 1990, after the
National Jewish Population Survey revealed an intermarriage rate of 52%
(which was subsequently the subject of much debate), the Jewish world
was stirred into action, vowing to do whatever was necessary to stem the
tide of assimilation.
Here we are, more than two decades – and hundreds of millions of
dollars spent on bolstering Jewish identity – later, and for all intents
and purposes the situation has only worsened as growing numbers of Jews
turn their backs on their heritage.
Clearly, the Federation system has proven to be a colossal failure,
and it bears much of the blame for this catastrophic situation. It sets
the spending priorities of the Jewish community, allocates funds and
oversees various initiatives.
Nonetheless, they have presided over nothing less than a disaster of
epic proportions, even as they celebrate their own failures at the GA.
This isn't responsible leadership, it is a reckless letdown.
Read the whole thing. It's devastating.
One of my friends commented on Facebook:
And what was the crowning achievement of the GA?
Marching to the "Pluralistic Section" of the Kotel.
Literally banging their collective heads into The Wall.
I've quoted the Talmud many times that every generation gets the leadership it deserves. We're in bad shape.
Labels: American Jews, Jewish Federation General Assembly, Jewish Federations of North America, Pew poll
Hearing what they want to hear
One of the reasons why Israel's conflict with the 'Palestinians' has persisted for so long is the world's inability to acknowledge the simple truth that the 'Palestinians'
don't want peace.
Last week, Pew Research published a poll
with a seemingly encouraging headline: “Despite Their Wide Differences,
Many Israelis and Palestinians Want Bigger Role for Obama in Resolving
Conflict.” The poll indeed showed pluralities of both groups wanting
President Barack Obama to up his involvement, and if you only read the
headline, the implication would be clear: The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is solvable if America would just push a little harder, and
both sides truly want it to do so.
Yet reading the entire poll produces the opposite conclusion: The conflict clearly isn’t solvable
right now, because when asked whether there’s “a way for Israel and an
independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully,” a whopping 61
percent of Palestinians said “no,” while only 14 percent said “yes.”
(Israelis, in a triumph of hope over experience, said “yes” by a 50-38
margin.) In other words, a huge majority of Palestinians said that even
if a Palestinian state is established, the conflict will continue as
long as Israel continues to exist. So where does that leave the chances
for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Palestinians have actually been telling pollsters this for years. In a 2007 poll,
for instance, 77 percent of Palestinian respondents said “the rights
and needs of the Palestinian people cannot be taken care of as long as
the state of Israel exists.” And in a 2011 poll,
61 percent of Palestinians said they saw a two-state solution only as a
stepping-stone to Israel’s ultimate eradication. Thus the problem isn’t
that Palestinians are dishonest about their intentions; it’s that
Westerners consistently choose to ignore their frank avowals
and focus instead on anything that could possibly be interpreted as
grounds for optimism–like the desire for greater American involvement
voiced in last week’s poll.
...
When Palestinians say they want more American involvement, what they
mean is more pressure on Israel to make unilateral concessions. But like
Garcia-Margallo, Pew wanted to see hope where none exists.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Middle East peace process, Palestinians, Pew poll
Support for Israel still a 'wedge issue' in the US
A new Pew poll shows that
deep divisions remain between Republicans and Democrats over support for Israel even after President Obama's reelection.
Commenting on a recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll
that showed 75 percent of Conservative Republicans sympathizing with
Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, compared with 33 percent
of liberal Democrats siding with the Jewish state, the Republican Jewish
Coalition (RJC) on Jan. 3 noted the “continued existence of a large
‘Israel gap’” between the two parties.
In the Dec. 14 Pew poll, 2 percent of
Conservative Republicans and 22 percent of liberal Democrats said they
sympathized with the Palestinian side in the conflict.
Pew had asked 1,503 respondents the
following question: “In the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians,
which side do you sympathize with more, Israel or the Palestinians?”
From the poll’s results, Pew concluded that there continues to be “stark
partisan differences in Middle East sympathies.”
“This poll confirms the troubling shift
among rank-and-file Democrats, for whom support of Israel is now a
minority position,” RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said in a Jan. 3
statement. “Other polls this past year, as well as the boos from the
floor when a pro-Israel resolution was brought before the Democratic
National Convention last summer, all point to lower support for Israel
among Democrats. The traditional bipartisan support for Israel in
Congress and the country is threatened by the leftward shift of the
Democratic Party, a shift that increasingly makes it hard for some
Democratic leaders to support Israel because of liberal pressure.”
National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) President and CEO David A. Harris, in a statement about the Pew poll to JNS.org, said
“American Jews, who care deeply about Israel and follow current events
closely, have seen the unprecedented, powerful support shown for Israel
by President Barack Obama—and that displayed by Democrats throughout the
House and Senate, and across our Democratic Party.” The same American
Jews “have voted with their feet for decades and voted Democratic,”
including on Election Day 2012, Harris said.
'Unprecedented, powerful support... for Israel'?
Really?
Labels: Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, National Democratic Party, Pew poll, Republican party, US support for Israel
Pew poll shows Romney in the lead
Over lunch, Mrs. Carl asked me whether there are any truly unbiased pollsters in the US today. I said that I'm not sure, but that all the polls I have seen show that Mitt Romney gained significantly after Wednesday's debate. Well, Pew is about as close as you come to unbiased, and they show really strongly that Romney has - at least for now -
turned this race around. For example, look at the women
More generally, the poll finds Romney’s supporters far more engaged
in the campaign than they were in September. Fully 82% say they have
given a lot of thought to the election, up from 73% in September. The
new survey finds that Romney supporters hold a 15-point advantage over
Obama backers on this key engagement measure. Supporters on both sides
were about even in September.
Coming out of the debate, Mitt Romney’s personal image has improved.
His favorable rating has hit 50% among registered voters for the first
time in Pew Research Center surveys and has risen five points since
September. At the same time, Obama’s personal favorability rating has
fallen from 55% to 49%.
In the presidential horserace, Romney has made sizable gains over the
past month among women voters, white non-Hispanics and those younger
than 50. Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney).
Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women
likely voters.
...
Most notably, Obama and Romney now run even (44% each) in terms of
which candidate is the stronger leader. Obama held a 13-point advantage
on this a month ago. And Obama’s 14-point edge as the more honest and
truthful candidate has narrowed to just five points.
In June, Obama held a 17-point lead as the candidate voters thought
was more willing to work with leaders from the other party. Today, the
candidates run about even on this (45% say Obama, 42% Romney).
Similarly, Romney has made progress on the issues. He and Obama now
run about even on dealing with health care, Medicare, foreign policy and
taxes. Obama led on most of these issues by significant margins in
September. Romney also holds a significant 49% to 41% advantage on
improving the job situation, despite the fact that most of the
interviewing was conducted after the October jobs report, which showed
the unemployment rate falling below 8%.
Romney also has once again opened a double-digit advantage as the
candidate who can deal with the budget deficit (51% vs. 36%). Romney led
by 14 points on the budget deficit in July, but had lost that advantage
last month.
Read the whole thing. If the next debate goes this way....
Labels: Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney, Pew poll
Poll: Most Americans want Iran stopped by force if necessary
Most Americans want Iran stopped, even if it requires force, and
more of them want the United States to do it rather than Israel.
The public supports tough measures – including the possible use of military force – to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Just 30% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means that country develops nuclear weapons. These opinions are little changed from October 2009.
There have been reports in recent weeks that Israel may soon attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. About half of Americans (51%) say the United States should remain neutral if Israel takes action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but far more say the U.S. should support (39%) than oppose (5%) an Israeli attack.
...
There are large demographic differences in views about what the U.S. should do if Israel attacks Iran. A majority of women (55%) say the U.S. should stay neutral. Men are more divided over whether the U.S. should stay neutral (47%) or support Israel (45%). Young people also are far more likely than older Americans to say the U.S. should stay neutral.
Fully 64% of white evangelical Protestants say that the U.S. should support Israel if it attacks Iran in an effort to stop their nuclear weapon program. That compares with 42% of white mainline Protestants and 41% of white Catholics.
There is a wide divide among Republicans on the issue of Iran. Fully 71% of conservative Republicans think the U.S. should support Israel’s military action if they attack Iran, compared with 43% of moderate and liberal Republicans. A majority of independents and Democrats (including both liberal and more moderate Democrats) think the U.S. should stay neutral.
...
Despite the recent push for tougher economic sanctions against Iran by the U.S. and its allies, 64% of the public thinks that tougher economic sanctions will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. Just 21% think they will work. In October 2009, 56% thought tougher economic sanctions would not work in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
There is wide consensus across party lines that tougher economic sanctions on Iran will be ineffective. Most Republicans (72%) and independents (67%), as well as 56% of Democrats, say that Iran will not give up its nuclear program even with tougher economic sanctions.
...
An overwhelming majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party (84%) say that the U.S. should prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. That compares with a smaller majority (64%) of Republicans who disagree with or have no opinion of the Tea Party.
The gap among Republicans is even larger on what the U.S. should do if Israel attacks Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program. Fully 81% of Tea Party Republicans say the U.S. should support Israel’s military action, compared with just 43% of non-Tea Party Republicans.
All of this is an argument why Israel must attack Iran before the US elections, while public opinion still matters to Obama. There is no choice.
Labels: Iranian nuclear threat, Israel Air Force, Pew poll
'Land for peace' is dead
In an earlier post, I reported that moderate Elliot Jager has declared the '
land for peace' formula dead. But Evelyn Gordon reports that Jager is just one of several commentators on the center-left who have now declared that
'land for peace' is dead.
Guy Bechor, a regular columnist for the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth, bluntly declared the land-for-peace formula “dead” last week. Even Akiva Eldar of Haaretz, a diehard leftist who still wants an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, admitted despairingly after last month’s cross-border terror attacks from Sinai that “When the border between Israel and Egypt is open to murderers, it’s harder to condemn Israel’s leaders for refusing to utter the words ‘negotiation on the basis of the ’67 borders.’”
As Bechor noted, the land-for-peace approach has several inherent problems. First, it encourages the Arabs to view peace as a concession Israel must pay for rather than something of value to them. Second, it trades an easily-reversed asset (peace) for an almost irreversible one (land), which undermines deterrence: The Arabs can abrogate their side of the bargain without fear of losing the quid pro quo they received. I’d also add a third: It encourages war by making aggression cost-free. After all, the land in question was captured in a defensive war against three Arab states in 1967; agreeing to return every last inch – as Israel did in Sinai and Gaza and is now expected to do in the West Bank – thus sends the message Arabs risk no permanent territorial losses by attacking Israel.
All these evils are obviously compounded when territory is given to people who loathe Israel (as both Egyptians and Palestinians do). Many Westerners seem to think this hostility would disappear if Israel would just “end the occupation.” Prize-winning reporter Anthony Shadid, for instance, asserted in the New York Times last month Egypt’s current hostility stems from “deep popular resentment over the plight of Palestinians,” thus implying it would vanish were this plight alleviated.
There’s only one problem with this theory: As a 2007 Pew Global Attitudes poll found, fully 80 percent of Egyptians think “Palestinians’ rights cannot be taken care of if Israel exists.” In short, their problem isn’t Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank, it’s Israel’s very existence. And 77 percent of Palestinians say the same.
Hmmm. And the Obama administration thinks
this is the time to cut a deal? What could go wrong?
Labels: Land for peace, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Pew poll, two-state solution
Jordan erupts
And here we go again....
Jordan's king has
fired his country's cabinet and has asked an ex-Prime Minister to form a new government and launch 'reforms' in response to protests in his little 'Palestinian' fiefdom (Hat Tip:
Shy Guy). Sound familiar? It should....
The dismissal follows several large protests across Jordan_ inspired by similar demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt — calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Samir Rifai, who is blamed for a rise in fuel and food prices and slowed political reforms.
A Royal Palace statement said Abdullah accepted Rifai's resignation tendered earlier Tuesday.
The king named Marouf al-Bakhit as his prime minister-designate, instructing him to "undertake quick and tangible steps for real political reforms, which reflect our vision for comprehensive modernization and development in Jordan," the palace statement said.
Al-Bakhit previously served as Jordan's premier from 2005-2007.
The king also stressed that economic reform was a "necessity to provide a better life for our people, but we won't be able to attain that without real political reforms, which must increase popular participation in the decision-making."
He asked al-Bakhit for a "comprehensive assessment ... to correct the mistakes of the past." He did not elaborate. The statement said Abdullah also demanded an "immediate revision" of laws governing politics and public freedoms.
You can bet that one thing 'his majesty' won't do is allow the country's 70% 'Palestinian' population to vote him out of office. But consider this: Remember how I wrote about Egypt's
Pew poll numbers earlier this week? There's only one country in the poll whose support for the terror organizations is higher than Egypt's.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Hosni Mubarak, Jordanian King Abdullah, Pew poll, Politics, World Politics
