Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Q Poll: Americans OPPOSE Iran nuke deal by more than 2-1

Q Poll: Americans OPPOSE Iran nuke deal by more than 2-1

Opposition is strong across age, gender and race, and even Democrats can’t muster a majority in support.

It appears likely that Democrats will have enough votes in the Senate to preserve an Obama veto of legislation disapproving of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Democrats may even have enough votes to filibuster to prevent a vote, though that is more uncertain.

What is crystal clear is that the Iran nuclear deal is wildly unpopular among the American public.

Quinnipiac just released its latest poll on the Iranian nuclear deal. I trust this poll more than others because it doesn’t try to describe the deal in terms that would influence the result. So if you ask a question such as “Do you support the Iranian nuclear deal that will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and avoid war” … you have gamed the question by presuming a positive result of the deal.

This mid-August CNN poll which showed even support/opposition, is a prime example of biased wording designed to increase supportive answers:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

Quinnipiac simply asks if people support the deal or not, without characterization. And the results show that Americans oppose the deal by more than 2-1 (55-25-20). There isn’t a single group (by party, age, race) in which there is majority support for the deal. Even Democrats only support it 46-25-28.

Independents oppose the deal 24-59-17. Republicans 4-87-9.

Every age group is against it, with the highest support being 65+ at a whopping 27-58-15. Among racial groups, the highest support is among blacks, at 39-38-23. Whites (23-58-19) and Hispanics (25-60-15) are solidly opposed.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2275

These numbers are devastating.

And the trend is moving against support:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us08312015_trends_U67fgwt.pdf

That may be why Debbie Wasserman Schultz reportedly refused to allow a Democratic National Committee vote on the deal — that would have committed the Democratic Party to supporting something Americans hate.

(Tweet via Twitchy)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare as well.

What good did that do?

    platypus in reply to mariner. | August 31, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    Exactly why we have to crush the establishment GOP. Their password is feckless.

      Valerie in reply to platypus. | August 31, 2015 at 2:38 pm

      Yes, we must crush the GOP instead of getting the Presidency and a veto-proof majority in Congress because…..

      oh yeah, because we support the Democrats!

      Losing focus and killing off your allies, instead of your opponents, is a sure way to swift defeat.

        ConradCA in reply to Valerie. | September 1, 2015 at 8:33 pm

        What is the point of electing Republicans when they break their promises and surrender to the progressive fascists? They promised to kill ObamaCare, but refused to defund it. They promised to kill Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty, but surrendered. They are helping Tyrant Obama the Liar ram his “Help Iran Build Nuclear Weapons” treaty down the throats of the country when it is within their power to kill it. No point in putting more Republicans in office until we kick out the traitors.

          Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | September 2, 2015 at 1:44 am

          You lie. It is not within their power to kill it, and you know this very well. To kill it requires 2/3 in each house, which they are still trying to get.

          It is also not within their power to kill the amnesty; again, that would require 2/3 in each house to override the inevitable veto. And they can’t defund 0bamacare without defunding the whole government at the same time; 0bama would veto any attempt to do so, and once again overriding it would take 2/3 in each house.

    Milhouse in reply to mariner. | September 2, 2015 at 1:47 am

    It did no good, because they had voted for a Democrat majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the Senate. We are not a direct democracy; public opinion only matters at election time. Not a single Republican voted for 0bamacare, but the people gave the Dems enough votes to pass it anyway, and there wasn’t anything the Reps could have done to stop it. Had there been only 59 Dems in the Senate, the Reps could and would have stopped it.

Boehner and McConnell had better be toast over this fiasco.

    Milhouse in reply to clafoutis. | September 2, 2015 at 1:49 am

    It’s got nothing to do with them. There is nothing they can do to stop it, except try to persuade the necessary 14 D senators and 44 D representatives to join them in overriding the veto.

DINORightMarie | August 31, 2015 at 12:43 pm

…..which O knew up-front, so he made this deal with McConnell and Boehner. And ONLY Sen. Cotton voted against it (in the initial vote – the one that, in the end, mattered most).

So……..

Consequences. There MUST be a vote against, and then GET THE VOTES for them to OVERRIDE.

That is the ONLY way the Republicans in Congress can in any way make up for this.

(Aside: I often wonder, what does Obama have on McConnell and Boehner, that they would do everything to enable this tyrant Obama? Or, do they just really agree with him, but are playing some kind of game………with us. Anyone else out there wonder this, too?)

    clafoutis in reply to DINORightMarie. | August 31, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    Most people frequently speculate about what O has on these two – and it must be extremely ugly stuff.

    There’s no other way to account for their behaviors.

    (Ignore the thumb down – missed the reply – sorry)

    What are you talking about? They’re trying to get the votes for an override, but those votes have to be DEMOCRATS. Every Republican is voting for the override, but there aren’t enough of them. So what do you want from them? What more can they do?

This probably won’t be enough to stop President Obama from doing whatever the heck he wants — freeing up the funds for the Iranians actually *is* a unilateral Presidential decision, the way the original sanctions were set up.

It will, however, be a nice club to beat Hillary or Biden with next year. Especially as news starts to trickle out about what Iran is doing with the money Obama freed up and how they’re cheating.

(The Cynical Pessimist who lives in my left temporal lobe says: Israel will have to bomb the nuclear lab next spring, and the MSM will claim that (1) nuclear residue in the fallout proves that Israel dropped a dirty bomb, not that there were illegal nuclear materials at the site; and (2) this proves that Republicans, Zionists, and Iranian hardliners are sounding a drumbeat towards a nuclear war that could have been prevented if only they’d signed on to President Obama’s Nobel-worthy peace-in-our-time treaty.)

    Milhouse in reply to clintack. | September 2, 2015 at 1:54 am

    It is a unilateral presidential decision, but 2/3 of both houses can change that. It’s not too late to get the necessary 14 D senators and 44 D reps to do this. But it is an uphill battle, and if it fails there will be no basis for blaming the Republicans.

Midwest Rhino | August 31, 2015 at 1:07 pm

Opposed 2:1, and even that is after MSM backing Obama, and after American war weariness.

Big Dem’s are coming out against it, but only to save their future election hides. Of course there are plenty of RINO enablers in the DC den of thieves.

Maybe Walker or Cruz can add “Star Wars” to their platform. Or at least major development on our anti-missile tech. MAD only works when nations have a degree of sanity. But the Imams are clamoring for their 12th imam to return under a cloud a great tyranny and violence.

” … a bad deal was signed with Iran. A very bad deal. If a nuclear suitcase blows up five years from now in New York or Madrid, it will be because of the deal that was signed this morning.”

If that happens, it will also be because of the Shi’ite belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam. According to Islamic tradition, the dispute between the majority Sunnis and the Shiat Ali (Party of Ali) began upon the death of Muhammad in 632. The Sunnis contended …

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/211676/now-twelfth-imam-can-come-robert-spencer

My democrat neighbor ten years ago said “can’t we just let them have nukes, like other nations?”, and I told him then, Iran’s leader’s MIGHT be the kind of religious zealots that would actually embrace a nuclear war, and it is a bigger risk than Russia or China.

I’m more sure of that risk now. Bowing Obama will be safe in Hawaii by then.

1. According to a Reuters report, the IAEA claims that Iran has since may actually built additional facilities at Parchin, the military facility where Iran probably tested triggers for nuclear weapons and where Iran will self-inspect.

2. According to a BBC report John Kerry says that the nuclear deal is not intended to reform Iran in other areas such as its support for terrorism. So if Iran’s Al Quds force or its proxies get additional American or Isreali (or anybody’s around the world) blood on its hands the US will still be obligated to meet the vile commitments under the JCPOA. Such as financing the very terrorist forces killing Americans.

3. According to the AP Iranian President Rouhani has urged the Iranian parliament not to vote on the JCPOA as that would make the terms legally binding on Iran. If the parliament doesn’t vote on it, then Iran’s cooperation is strictly voluntary. But this administration insists this deal is binding on the US and the “international community.”

I could go on, but the bottom line is that this isn’t simply a bad deal, it is a betrayal. And I don’t understand why some GOP senator doesn’t get up and tell the Democrats that the whole country will hold the Democrats responsible as this nation funds the Iranian terror regime as it continues to kill people around the world.

Not to mention the fact that it will continue to cheat and pursue nuclear weapons.

Actually I don’t know why every GOP senator doesn’t get up and say that. And promise to hold them accountable and tell make speeches, go on TV, whatever it takes to remind the American people every time the Iranians continue to act in accordance with its nature that the Democrats put the Obama cult of personality ahead to this country, the lives of its citizens, the lives of other people, even their own party.

And by doing so they have blood on their hands. I doubt that would be unpopular, as I take it by these statistics the American people not only see through this administration’s BS sales pitch, they don’t like having their intelligence insulted by Obama.

    Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | September 2, 2015 at 2:04 am

    So if Iran’s Al Quds force or its proxies get additional American or Isreali (or anybody’s around the world) blood on its hands the US will still be obligated to meet the vile commitments under the JCPOA. […] But this administration insists this deal is binding on the US and the “international community.”

    The US is not obligated to do anything. The JCPOA is not binding. Even if it were ratified by 2/3 of the senate as a treaty, or else passed by majorities in both houses as a statute, it would still not be binding, because it could be overridden by subsequent legislation; or in the first case it could be unilaterally abrogated by the president. But since neither of these is going to happen, there will be nothing to override or abrogate. There is nothing binding in the first place.

    Nor does Security Council Resolution 2231 require the USA to do anything. It merely permits countries to lift their sanctions; it doesn’t obligate them to do so. The USA could ignore JCPOA without in any way violating 2231.

William A. Jacobson | August 31, 2015 at 2:07 pm

I sent this email in identical form to numerous people:

The level of interpersonal hostility in the comment section is out of control. I don’t even like reading the comment section sometimes, and readers are complaining as well.

So I’m asking people to tone it down and to express viewpoints without name calling. Whatever has happened has happened, and I’m not interested in determining who started it.

From this point forward, comments will be deleted, with blocking accounts a last option.

Thanks.

I take it since I didn’t get that email, Prof. Jacobson, that comment wasn’t directed at me. Which is good, as I have no hostility toward anyone commenting here. But I am hostile to the Iranian regime, and frankly the Obama administration.

I’d like to remind everyone of Chuck Hagel’s Freudian slips during his Congressional confirmation hearings when he was nominated to become Secretary of Defense.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/chuck-hagel-stumbles-on-iran-question-087001

He accidentally told the truth. 1) he revealed that the administration’s true policy toward Iran’s nuclear program was containment, not prevention. The Senators corrected him, but the fact is we now know that containment has been this administration’s goal since 2011. A close adviser to Rouhani bragged about the fact that in 2011 the Obama administration was offering in secret backchannel communications through intermediaries to recognize Iran as a nuclear power in order to get a deal, any deal.

It’s a sad fact that the Iranians have been more truthful about the true state of things than a nominally American President.

Also the Europeans at the negotiating table have been public about the fact that the Obama administration was putting more pressure on them then they were on the Iranians. Specifically to drop the goal of prevention and accept the administration’s goal of containment.

Frankly the Obama administration was lying to the American people about their goals. As they did on numerous occasions on Iran’s behalf during negotiations when they kept moving the goal posts or simply denying the truth to claim that Iran had met its commitments under the provisional JCPOA. They had not.

2) Hagel revealed that the administration believes Iran is a legitimate government. It is not; it’s a terror regime. It pretends to be a legitimate state within the international system when it suits its purposes. Otherwise it acts true to it’s revolutionary nature. I is just as dedicated as ISIS to demolishing the international nation state system and establishing a caliphate, the only difference is that the Iranian Shiite mullahs want to dominate that caliphate.

It is equally clear that this administration wants to legitimize the terrorist Mullacracy. And they will speak out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, the members of the Obama crime family will admit it’s not the purpose of this fraudulent nuclear deal to moderate the Iranian government. ON the other hand as they insist that we normalize relations with Iran, as this regime has with Cuba, they will lie to the American people and insist that the Iranian government has moderated due to Obama’s “brilliant” diplomacy.

This is not a hard prediction to make. Rapprochement with Iran, as with Cuba, is Obama’s true goal. And as with the Castro regime, the Iranians will not have to mend their ways to get it. In addition to the lies the Obama regime has told on the road to this nuclear deal, I have specific examples of how they have lied to cover for the true nature of the Iranian regime in general.

If I had been in the Senate in 2013 I would have thanked Chuck Hagel for accidentally revealing Obama’s true intentions. And if I were in the Senate now I’d remind the Democrats of that fact, and others, and that the American public and history will hold them accountable for their willful blindness to the facts in favor of showing blind loyalty to a man who has repeatedly lied to them.

In fact, that was the very criticism that the other members of the DNC directed at DWS when she blocked a resolution in favor of support for this Iran deal. Regardless of the merits or lack thereof it was her job as DNC chairman to show loyalty to the President.

If there ever a time for blunt talk from GOP Senators, it’s now. I don’t expect to get from more than a few, such as Tom Cotton.

Catcher in the Wry | August 31, 2015 at 6:00 pm

A dangerous bad deal with a dangerous bad nation from a dangerous bad president makes for dangerous and bad times.
You wonder why the president is so intensely invested in seeing this deal go through…it can only be to shift the balance of power in the Middle East away from the US and it’s allies there.

What’s it with Muslims and that index finger?

Now we see that McConnell and the other RHINO Senators are co-conspirators with Tyrant Obama the Liar. They are helping him ram this treaty down the throats of the USA. It is just as bad if not worse than Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in Our Time” treaty that helped Hitler almost win WW2.

The fact is that when you read the constitution it’s clear that the Senate could easily kill this treaty. All they have to do is exercise their power consent for treaties. This power isn’t dependent on the actions of the President. It doesn’t matter what he calls his treaties or if he refuses to submit them for ratification.

    Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | September 2, 2015 at 2:18 am

    That is garbage and you know it. There is nothing the senate can do to kill this. The president hasn’t asked for consent in the first place, so how can they refuse it? They can tell him that if he asks they will say no, but he has no intention of asking. The bottom line is that he doesn’t need their consent, because there isn’t anything in the JCPOA that he doesn’t already have the power to do.

    Here’s the fundamental point that you keep deliberately ignoring: A treaty that has failed ratification (whether the vote was 66-34 in favor or 100-0 against) is exactly the same as one that was never submitted in the first place. Which is exactly what the JCPOA’s status is now. Refusing to ratify it would change nothing. The president remains free to implement it on his own authority. The only way to stop him is for Congress to pass a bill removing that authority, and then to override his inevitable veto.

    Milhouse in reply to mwsomerset. | September 2, 2015 at 2:21 am

    People were subjected to a detailed list of critiques of the agreement, followed by rebuttals to those arguments with reasons to get behind the deal.

    That invalidates this so-called “poll” right there. It’s a deliberate fraud.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend