The more that the American people get a chance to look at the nuclear deal with Iran, the less they like it.I'm not sure that's the issue at all. Instead, I think it's the very fact that Americans have no idea what kind of a rotten deal we're getting mixed up in, and are justifiably repulsed at a secret deal with a regime that still calls for the destruction of America and Israel.
1 comment:
It's interesting to see how the wording differs in different polls on this topic, and how it may effect the results. A certain commenter on this site crowed about how polls from Yougov, PPP, and WaPo/ABC showed a plurality in support of the deal.
YouGov: "Several world powers, including the United States, have reached an international agreement that will limit Iran's nuclear activity in return for the lifting of major economic sanctions against Iran. Do you support or oppose this agreement?" Notice how this misrepresents the agreement by calling it a done deal, and speculating that it will achieve a limit on Iran's nuclear activity, rather than just being aimed at doing so.
PPP: "The US and other countries have reached an agreement to place limits on Iran’s nuclear program in order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In exchange for limiting its nuclear program, Iran would receive gradual relief from US and international economic sanctions. The International Atomic Energy Agency would monitor Iran’s facilities and if Iran was caught breaking the agreement, the current economic sanctions would be imposed again. Would you say you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program?" In addition to being a sleep-inducing speech, this makes no mention of the severe restrictions placed on the ability to do any "monitoring" of Iran's activity. It also doesn't mention that you could not find anyone who actually thinks sanctions would be reimposed under this deal for any reason.
WP/ABC: "As you may know, an agreement has been reached between Iran and a group of six other nations, including the U.S. The agreement attempts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon by limiting Iran's ability to produce nuclear material and allowing inspections into Iran's nuclear sites in exchange for reducing certain economic sanctions that are currently in place. Do you support or oppose this agreement or do you not know enough to have an opinion?" Though this will also cause respondents' eyes to glaze over, the lobbying is a little less intense here. Maybe that's why the answers to this have gone from 36/17 in favor (June 15) to 35/33 today, and why the Washington Post was inspired to headline these results as "hemorrhaging support" for the deal.
In contrast, here's the question in the CNN poll: "As you may know, the U.S. Congress must approve the agreement the United States and five other countries reached with Iran that is aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons before it can take effect. Do you think Congress should approve or reject the deal with Iran?" This is a pretty simple question that isn't aimed at "educating" the respondent on aspects of the deal that the poll taker wants to highlight. Maybe that's why people responded 44/52 against the deal in this poll back in July.
But the most staightforward poll question (and the one most respecting of the intelligence of respondents) was the one in the Q poll this post was about: "Do you support or oppose the nuclear deal with Iran?" Wow. And 57/28 against.
I've always felt some enterprising news organization should do a multi-part seminar demonstrating just how much even slight word changes in a poll question can affect the numbers it results in.
Post a Comment