Interesting poll....majority favor military strike on Iran

[ChicosBailBonds]

Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM

A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

Democrats (63 percent) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51 percent) and Republicans (44 percent) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58 percent) are more likely than men (48 percent) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21 percent would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15 percent would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14 percent would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10 percent said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35 percent saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17 percent would prefer Obama and 7 percent view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28 percent), followed by McCain (21 percent) and Fred Thompson (9 percent). One in five independents chose Clinton (21 percent) over McCain (16 percent) and Giuliani (11 percent). Clinton was the top choice among women (24 percent), while 14 percent would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11 percent would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18 percent) to Clinton (17 percent) on this issue, while 15 percent said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19 percent overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23 percent would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29 percent said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20 percent were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37 percent) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15 percent) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28 percent).

As the possibility the U.S. my strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68 percent) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – of those, 27 percent believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31 percent) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22 percent said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15 percent said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9 percent believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.

© 2007 All Rights Reserved.

[Chili]

I am guessing that the result is within the margin of error. In reality the nation is evenly devided which means there should probably be more debate.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I am guessing that the result is within the margin of error. In reality the nation is evenly devided which means there should probably be more debate.

When does the debate end?

[Murffieus]

Most of the American public doesn't focus enough on foriegn policy to be able to make an intelligent
decision on Iran-----furthermore the public doesn't have the information that the President has.
When 37% of the American Public believes in GHOSTS (heard that on Public Radio the other day)-----how in the world are they qualified to influence national security issues!

[mu_hilltopper]

I agree, although I'm not sure if you're aiming that at the 52% of Americans who want to start a 3rd simultaneous war, or the 48% of Americans who do not.

[Chili]

Most of the American public doesn't focus enough on foriegn policy to be able to make an intelligent
decision on Iran-----furthermore the public doesn't have the information that the President has.
When 37% of the American Public believes in GHOSTS (heard that on Public Radio the other day)-----how in the world are they qualified to influence national security issues!

Yeah, who cares about the American people. I mean, who does the President think he works for?

Sorry, but I believe in democracy and the publics opinion should be taken into account as they are the ones paying for everything.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I believe in Democracy also....of course we have a Republic style of government in which we elect leaders and they make the decisions.

There is a reason we have ONE Commander in Chief and don't rule by committee, otherwise no decisions could ever be made.

Look, going into Iraq in 1991 had 52% support and I believe 53 Senators backed it....if we would have polled people about dropping the first or second A-bomb, what would the people have said...should it have mattered?

I don't know the answer, I'm just throwing it out there.  We do have a Democratic form of govt', but we don't (and shouldn't) be run by the polls or seeking everyone's opinion every day. 

[SoCalwarrior]

I believe in Democracy also....of course we have a Republic style of government in which we elect leaders and they make the decisions.

There is a reason we have ONE Commander in Chief and don't rule by committee, otherwise no decisions could ever be made.

Look, going into Iraq in 1991 had 52% support and I believe 53 Senators backed it....if we would have polled people about dropping the first or second A-bomb, what would the people have said...should it have mattered?

I don't know the answer, I'm just throwing it out there.  We do have a Democratic form of govt', but we don't (and shouldn't) be run by the polls or seeking everyone's opinion every day. 

Then why post all of the polls?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Because I thought it was interesting, especially in light of what the media has been saying.  That's why.

Let's take it a step further, why should we have a message board for MU basketball.  Afterall it's the coach who will make the decisions and our opinions mean nothing...should we stop talking?

I'm not suggesting that, nor am I suggesting we shouldn't poll people but I am suggesting regardless of what the people think, our elected leaders make the decisions.  Regardless of what we think about a player's progress, Crean will decide whether he plays or not.

[Murffieus]

How can a president govern/lead the nation by listenting to polls when 37% of its citizens believe in ghosts and another 1/3 think 9/11 was an inside job!

A leader can't govern by polls----listen to them, but govern by the facts in front of you not by the people polled who don't have all the facts!

[SoCalwarrior]

Because I thought it was interesting, especially in light of what the media has been saying.  That's why.

Let's take it a step further, why should we have a message board for MU basketball.  Afterall it's the coach who will make the decisions and our opinions mean nothing...should we stop talking?

I'm not suggesting that, nor am I suggesting we shouldn't poll people but I am suggesting regardless of what the people think, our elected leaders make the decisions.  Regardless of what we think about a player's progress, Crean will decide whether he plays or not.

Your analogy would work only if I constantly posted that message boards for MU basketball were stupid and we shouldn't read them.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Equally, if I posted "all of the polls" as your message implied I would agree with your original statement, but of course I don't post all of the polls and quite frankly not many at all.

I found this one interesting and posted it because I have read on countless occassions from the media that the citizenry was against this (maybe they are), etc, etc.