Only 21% of Americans Support the "Iran Deal"

[22*43*51]

Support for Iran Nuclear Agreement Falls
Public Awareness of Issue Has Declined Since July

http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/21/iran-nuclear-agreement-meets-with-public-skepticism/
In mid-July, a week after President Obama announced the deal, 33% of the public approved of the agreement, while 45% disapproved and 22% had no opinion. Over the past six weeks, the share approving of the agreement has fallen 12 percentage points (from 33% to 21%), while disapproval has held fairly steady (45% then, 49% now). Somewhat more express no opinion than did so in July (22% then, 30% now).

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 3-7 among 1,004 adults, finds that the contentious debate over the Iran agreement has not resonated widely with the public. In fact, the share saying they have heard either a lot or a little about the agreement has declined from 79% in July to 69% in the new survey. The share saying they have heard “nothing at all” about it has increased nine percentage points, from 21% to 30%.

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats or independents to say they have heard about the agreement, and these differences have widened since July. Today, 86% of Republicans, 69% of Democrats and 63% of independents have heard at least a little about the nuclear agreement. Since July, the percentage of Republicans who say they are aware of the agreement is unchanged (84% then) while declining nine percentage points among Democrats (78% to 69%) and 14 points among independents (77% to 63%).

While the partisan divide over the nuclear agreement remains substantial, support for the deal has slipped across the board since July. Currently, 42% of Democrats approve of the agreement, while 29% disapprove and an identical percentage has no opinion. In July, 50% of Democrats approved, 27% disapproved and 22% had no opinion.

Republican support for the agreement, already low, has dropped even further (from 13% to 6%). Independents’ support for the agreement also has fallen (from 31% to 20%), although – as with Democrats – the share disapproving has held steady since July, at 47%.

When opinion about the Iran nuclear agreement is based only on those who have heard a lot or a little about the agreement, opposition to the agreement exceeds support by more than a two-to-one margin (57% to 27%).

Among those aware of the Iran deal, the share approving of the agreement has declined 11 percentage points since July, while the percentage disapproving has risen nine points.

 

[cigaretteman]

Support for Iran Nuclear Agreement Falls
Public Awareness of Issue Has Declined Since July

In mid-July, a week after President Obama announced the deal, 33% of the public approved of the agreement, while 45% disapproved and 22% had no opinion. Over the past six weeks, the share approving of the agreement has fallen 12 percentage points (from 33% to 21%), while disapproval has held fairly steady (45% then, 49% now). Somewhat more express no opinion than did so in July (22% then, 30% now).

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 3-7 among 1,004 adults, finds that the contentious debate over the Iran agreement has not resonated widely with the public. In fact, the share saying they have heard either a lot or a little about the agreement has declined from 79% in July to 69% in the new survey. The share saying they have heard “nothing at all” about it has increased nine percentage points, from 21% to 30%.

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats or independents to say they have heard about the agreement, and these differences have widened since July. Today, 86% of Republicans, 69% of Democrats and 63% of independents have heard at least a little about the nuclear agreement. Since July, the percentage of Republicans who say they are aware of the agreement is unchanged (84% then) while declining nine percentage points among Democrats (78% to 69%) and 14 points among independents (77% to 63%).

While the partisan divide over the nuclear agreement remains substantial, support for the deal has slipped across the board since July. Currently, 42% of Democrats approve of the agreement, while 29% disapprove and an identical percentage has no opinion. In July, 50% of Democrats approved, 27% disapproved and 22% had no opinion.

Republican support for the agreement, already low, has dropped even further (from 13% to 6%). Independents’ support for the agreement also has fallen (from 31% to 20%), although – as with Democrats – the share disapproving has held steady since July, at 47%.

When opinion about the Iran nuclear agreement is based only on those who have heard a lot or a little about the agreement, opposition to the agreement exceeds support by more than a two-to-one margin (57% to 27%).

Among those aware of the Iran deal, the share approving of the agreement has declined 11 percentage points since July, while the percentage disapproving has risen nine points.

All the lies spread by AIPAC and the wingnut echo chamber have paid off for them. Too bad so few actually took the time to understand the deal and the consequences of rejecting it.

 

[hawkeye54545]

Out of Ciggy's thousands of cut and paste posts every day somehow this article slipped passed him. I wonder why that is.

 

[22*43*51]

All the lies spread by AIPAC and the wingnut echo chamber have paid off for them. Too bad so few actually took the time to understand the deal and the consequences of rejecting it.

Additionally, the polling reveals that Democrats are less informed than Republicans.

...You just happened to show up on queue.

You also said "echo chamber". You know the Ciggy posting rules...

Drink!

 

[hawkeye54545]

All the lies spread by AIPAC and the wingnut echo chamber have paid off for them. Too bad so few actually took the time to understand the deal and the consequences of rejecting it.

You have to be a Republican playing a character on HROT. Kudos if you are, because you have it nailed.

 

[cigaretteman]

What's particularly interesting about these numbers is that while the share of Americans who told researchers that they now disapprove of the Iran deal grew just slightly in that same period -- four points -- the share who said that they don't have a position ticked up eight points and now includes nearly one-third of the American public. So while just two in 10 Americans support the deal, another three in 10 simply don't know. Not quite a majority (49 percent) oppose it, even as opposition far outpaces support.

And it seems that the growing uncertainty is not simply a matter of ideological disagreement with the president. Both Democrats and independents expressed more uncertainly about the deal in September than they did back in July. That was especially true of independents. Support for the deal also grew among both groups. But the don't-know category includes nearly 30 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents -- not at all small numbers.

Pew Research Center
Pollsters asked a limited number of questions about the deal, so no one at Pew could really tell us why the share of Americans who put themselves in the don't-know category grew the way that it did between July and September. It could be statistical noise. But Quinnipiac's polling has also shown the number of undecideds ticking up slightly -- from 15 percent in July to 20 percent a month later -- and a CBS News poll a month ago showed those who didn't know enough to rate the deal at a remarkable 46 percent.

Clearly, there are many people who simply haven't tuned in. And some who did might be tuning out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...congress-so-why-are-so-many-americans-unsure/

 

[22*43*51]

Are CNN polls also part of the right-wing "echo-chamber" Ciggy?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/politics/iran-deal-poll-majority-americans-disapprove/

 

[gusto79]

Additionally, the polling reveals that Democrats are less informed than Republicans.

...You just happened to show up on queue.

You also said "echo chamber". You know the Ciggy posting rules...

Drink!

Just because more Republicans say they've heard about the agreement doesn't mean they are more informed.

 

[hawkeye54545]

Just because more Republicans say they've heard about the agreement doesn't mean they are more informed.

True, it is highly doubtful people will hear about this at the welfare office or at Walmart.

 

[at4iowa]

I would wager that less than 21% of Americans could give one detail about the Iran deal.

 

[22*43*51]

Are CNN polls also part of the right-wing "echo-chamber" Ciggy?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/politics/iran-deal-poll-majority-americans-disapprove/

How about Quinnipiac?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2265

Or, Monmouth University?

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/50df5d33-1c13-40bd-a318-1163d92dc29f.pdf

Or, CBS for crissakes?!?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-the-iran-deal/

 

[TexMichFan]

What's particularly interesting about these numbers is that while the share of Americans who told researchers that they now disapprove of the Iran deal grew just slightly in that same period -- four points -- the share who said that they don't have a position ticked up eight points and now includes nearly one-third of the American public. So while just two in 10 Americans support the deal, another three in 10 simply don't know. Not quite a majority (49 percent) oppose it, even as opposition far outpaces support.

And it seems that the growing uncertainty is not simply a matter of ideological disagreement with the president. Both Democrats and independents expressed more uncertainly about the deal in September than they did back in July. That was especially true of independents. Support for the deal also grew among both groups. But the don't-know category includes nearly 30 percent of Democrats and 33 percent of independents -- not at all small numbers.

Pew Research Center
Pollsters asked a limited number of questions about the deal, so no one at Pew could really tell us why the share of Americans who put themselves in the don't-know category grew the way that it did between July and September. It could be statistical noise. But Quinnipiac's polling has also shown the number of undecideds ticking up slightly -- from 15 percent in July to 20 percent a month later -- and a CBS News poll a month ago showed those who didn't know enough to rate the deal at a remarkable 46 percent.

Clearly, there are many people who simply haven't tuned in. And some who did might be tuning out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...congress-so-why-are-so-many-americans-unsure/

This is a lot better post than your first one.

The up tick in disapproval and don't know numbers is to be expected as more is known. In the end it is not going to matter that the majority of congress disapproves and that the majority of the American people disapprove or have no opinion and that is a strange way for the administration to claim this as a victory.

 

[gusto79]

How about Quinnipiac?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2265

Or, Monmouth University?

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32...1087/50df5d33-1c13-40bd-a318-1163d92dc29f.pdf

Or, CBS for crissakes?!?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-more-americans-disapprove-than-approve-of-the-iran-deal/

This doesn't disprove what cigaretteman said about the right wing echo chamber.

 

[22*43*51]

This doesn't disprove what cigaretteman said about the right wing echo chamber.

It may prove that you and Cig have front row seats in the Left-Wing echo chamber.

 

[cigaretteman]

It may prove that you and Cig have front row seats in the Left-Wing echo chamber.

No, it just proves that a lot of people are uninformed and misinformed about the deal.

 

[gusto79]

It may prove that you and Cig have front row seats in the Left-Wing echo chamber.

I watch fox news every day, CNN once every month or two, and have watched msnbc maybe five times ever.

 

[22*43*51]

No, it just proves that a lot of people are uninformed and misinformed about the deal.

"Misinformed" usually works to the Dems advantage.

 

[txhawk I]

No, it just proves that a lot of people are uninformed and misinformed about the deal.

They really need a GFY button on this site.

 

[fredjr82]

"Misinformed" usually works to the Dems advantage.

When in doubt post Jonathan Gruber. You love playing that card!!!

Face it, people in this country still have a fear of radical Islam. They associate Iran with radical Islam. Enough spin has occurred on this deal that people hear something and automatically believe it because their fear of radical Islam won't allow them to not believe it. Those people against it probably heard the spin that this just allows Iran carte blanche to build a nuclear weapon whenever they want. That simply isn't true. We either monitor their activity or do nothing. Sending troops into Iran isn't an option (in my opinion). They are subject to searches and have to comply with the agreement.

I'm curious what in the agreement would cause someone to be against it? Sure there are some guidelines that I don't agree with, but I'm of the opinion that this agreement is better than nothing.

 

[22*43*51]

When in doubt post Jonathan Gruber. You love playing that card!!!

You know I do...

 

[joelbc1]

I think the percentage of supporters is directly related to the percentage of 'mericans who understand the realities of our policy in the ME. Those familiar with these realities, seem by and large to think this is a workable agreement.
For the most part, "we the people" are ignorant masses who are easily persuaded by out emotions and not the realities of life.

 

[gusto79]

When in doubt post Jonathan Gruber. You love playing that card!!!

Face it, people in this country still have a fear of radical Islam. They associate Iran with radical Islam. Enough spin has occurred on this deal that people hear something and automatically believe it because their fear of radical Islam won't allow them to not believe it. Those people against it probably heard the spin that this just allows Iran carte blanche to build a nuclear weapon whenever they want. That simply isn't true. We either monitor their activity or do nothing. Sending troops into Iran isn't an option (in my opinion). They are subject to searches and have to comply with the agreement.

I'm curious what in the agreement would cause someone to be against it? Sure there are some guidelines that I don't agree with, but I'm of the opinion that this agreement is better than nothing.

I bet there is a decent percentage of people that believe we are giving Iran nukes. I just went to google and typed in "are we giving" and these were the results:
money to iran
iran 150 billion dollars
iran nuclear weapons
iran nukes

 

[Pepperman]

Face it, people in this country still have a fear of radical Islam. They associate Iran with radical Islam.

Why would that be, I wonder? Which party coddles these Islamic animals? Which party wants to end them?

 

[fredjr82]

Why would that be, I wonder? Which party coddles these Islamic animals? Which party wants to end them?

You're smarter than this.

I don't disagree that there are bad Muslims in this world. The Democrats prefer that the Republicans don't lump all Muslims into the category of "Radical Muslim". Do you think every Muslim in Iran, London, US, etc are radical? I'm curious since you responded what your ideas are regarding this? Do we just let them do what they want? Do we say screw our allies and go it alone if Iran DOES do something? What are the big ideas of those against this agreement?

 

[22*43*51]

The Democrats prefer that the Republicans don't lump all Muslims into the category of "Radical Muslim".

I'm pretty sure if all Muslims were "Radical" then we would just call the "Muslims".

There wouldn't be a need to qualify.

 

[fredjr82]

I'm pretty sure if all Muslims were "Radical" then we would just call the "Muslims".

There wouldn't be a need to qualify.

Maybe you could pass that memo onto the GOP. They seem to think all should suffer for the actions of a few.

 

[22*43*51]

Maybe you could pass that memo onto the GOP. They seem to think all should suffer for the actions of a few.

No you're operating in absolutes too.

Must be a National day for that or, something.

 

[Pepperman]

You're smarter than this.

I don't disagree that there are bad Muslims in this world. The Democrats prefer that the Republicans don't lump all Muslims into the category of "Radical Muslim". Do you think every Muslim in Iran, London, US, etc are radical? I'm curious since you responded what your ideas are regarding this? Do we just let them do what they want? Do we say screw our allies and go it alone if Iran DOES do something? What are the big ideas of those against this agreement?

I'm talking about the radical ones. Don't coddle them. Stop thinking they want YOUR democracy. They do not. They want to kill us. This is why many are afraid of radical Islam. Your assertion earlier was "for some reason..." and I told you (along with a visual aid showing the biggest terrorist attack ever).

 

[KennyPowers_96]

 

[timinatoria]

I watch fox news every day, CNN once every month or two, and have watched msnbc maybe five times ever.

Do you think there IS a left wing echo chamber?

 

[gusto79]

Do you think there IS a left wing echo chamber?

Yes, but I don't think it is as big as the right wing echo chamber.

 

[timinatoria]

Yes, but I don't think it is as big as the right wing echo chamber.

How much bigger is the right wing echo chamber than the left wing echo chamber?

 

[gusto79]

How much bigger is the right wing echo chamber than the left wing echo chamber?

4 units.

 

[timinatoria]

4 units.

See......kind of a silly idea about an 'echo chamber'.....right? Even sillier is anyone who believes that one side is 'bigger' than another.

 

[gusto79]

See......kind of a silly idea about an 'echo chamber'.....right? Even sillier is anyone who believes that one side is 'bigger' than another.

Not really. Just because it isn't easy to quantify doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[timinatoria]

Not really. Just because it isn't easy to quantify doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Could you define 'echo chamber' for me? Then tell me how you quantify one side being bigger than the other.

 

[gusto79]

Could you define 'echo chamber' for me? Then tell me how you quantify one side being bigger than the other.

Are you trying to say that there isn't an "echo chamber" effect? I'm not going to try to prove which side (right vs left) is affected more. I said they both are. It's just my personal observation that it is worse on the right.

Wikipedia does a good job defining it:

In media, an echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed or otherwise underrepresented.

Observers of journalism in the mass media describe an echo chamber effect in media discourse.[1][2] One purveyor of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form)[3] until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true.[4]

Participants in online communities may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, which reinforces their individual belief systems. This can create significant barriers to critical discourse within an online medium. Due to forming friendships and communities with like-minded people, this effect can also occur in real life. The echo chamber effect may also prevent individuals from noticing changes in language and culture involving groups other than their own. Regardless, the echo chamber effect reinforces one's own present world view, making it seem more correct and more universally accepted than it really is.[5] Another emerging term for this echoing and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is cultural tribalism.[6]

 

[timinatoria]

I asked you to define it because I see it thrown around so much on here I feel that most don't even really know what it means, but Wiki's got you covered.

The fact that you're convinced one side's is 'bigger' than the other made me slightly suspect as to what you were talking about. The fact that you think one side is more effected is silly in my book, but hey, suit yourself.

You aren't going to try to prove what side is affected more because you can't.

 

[gusto79]

I asked you to define it because I see it thrown around so much on here I feel that most don't even really know what it means, but Wiki's got you covered.

The fact that you're convinced one side's is 'bigger' than the other made me slightly suspect as to what you were talking about. The fact that you think one side is more effected is silly in my book, but hey, suit yourself.

You aren't going to try to prove what side is affected more because you can't.

So, you admit the effect exists, but think both sides are affected exactly the same?

 

[22*43*51]

So, you admit the effect exists, but think both sides are affected exactly the same?

If you can't measure it, then how can you say you are being victimized to a greater degree?