Washington Post: Other than Trump, Republicans, how was your poll?
The Post-ABC News pollsters caution that while Donald Trump leads the latest poll with 24 percent: “Support for Trump fell sharply on the one night that voters were surveyed following those comments. Telephone interviewing for the poll began Thursday, and most calls were completed before the news about the remarks was widely reported. Although the sample size for the final day was small, the decline was statistically significant.” Until we know if the Trump collapse has arrived, it is too early to despair that 24 percent of GOP leaning registered voters have lost their minds. It is interesting, nevertheless, that his support comes from the most liberal faction (27 percent) of the party not the most conservative.
There are other data points that are, I think, much more revealing.
The most important is that Americans overwhelmingly don’t like how President Obama is handling Iran. Only 35 percent approve while 52 percent do not. The numbers are even worse among independents (33 percent to 56 percent). The numbers are remarkable given the bully pulpit the president has enjoyed to make his Iran deal announcement. As with so many other policies, talking more does not help him. Hillary Clinton may have her hands full explaining how she will be any different than the president.
WNU Editor: Thousands protested Wednesday night against the Iranian nuclear deal in Times Square .... Thousands Of Protesters Rally In Times Square Against Iran Nuclear Deal (CBS New York), and I predict that this is not going to go away soon. Another prediction .... this is terrible news for those Democrats who supported President Obama;'s deal with Iran .... Hillary Clinton included ... there is going to be a backlash, and doubly so if Iran is caught "cheating" before next year's US Presidential election.
3 comments:
It's not cheating if you were forced into making a deal even if you managed to get all you wanted from those forcing you. The fact that you got so much suggests those forcing you only wanted to wave a paper deal in the news and claim victory for whatever reason. "Don't trust Iran" from a protestor that has apparently not studied the history of Iran vs America.
And nobody surprize the majority of the the protesters are "Judens"
Iran was not "forced" into making a deal. If anyone was "forced" it was the US. The US was faced with a situation where sanctions were going to come apart with no possibility of re-instituting them, all funds would be unfrozen, all weapons embargos would be lifted, and Iran's path to nuclear weapons was going to be unimpeded with no possibility of even limited inspections, anywhere, at anytime.
Furthermore Iran has/has the full backing of Russia and China the world's most powerful countries. The other members of the P5+1 are EU nations whose leadership would not shed a tear if America were hurt and while not as overtly hostile towards America as Russia and China are still inherently pro-Iran at least relative to America.
In this situation, I find this shocking that Iran would have made any concessions even if only on paper. One commentator did refer to the Iranian concessions as "shocking." While correct in this regard, his reasoning for justifying these concessions he went completely off the rails when he improperly concluded that Iran was a "lightweight" in this thing with other side a "heavyweight." He essentially incorrectly assumed other nations in the negotiations are going to side with America.
Iran went into this thing with a vastly stronger hand than America had. They were not "forced" to do anything. If the Americans are caught cheating, it would be far more accurate to say it is not cheating on the American side as it would be far more accurate to say the Americans were "forced" into this.
As for Iran getting all they wanted, this may well be true, however, it also may be an article of faith to say so. When the deal was finalized, the Iranians stated this and the media eager to see an Iranian victory over America gleefully ran with this without being fully cognizant of all the details.
As for the history of Iran vs America, to which would you be referring. Would you be referring to the virulently anti-American/pro-Iranian version taught in American school history books and as presented by the news media that every American over the age of 5 is fully aware of and generally accepts or the balanced coverage that details the entire perspective of the good, the bad, and the ugly of both sides. If referring to the anti-American version, all Americans are aware of it. It'd be helpful to teach this from a more balanced perspective. If so, we might be better able to reach an accommodation. As long as the Iranians continue on the current path, it's going to be hard to reach any kind of accommodation if not impossible.
Clearly the Iranians and the Americans have good reasons to mistrust one another. Allot of things will need to be worked through. In spite of all of the one sided pro Iranian coverage Americans have been fed, it seems a large number STILL don't trust Iran. Just when I think Americans are completely boneheaded they do something to establish they are not quite as stupid as I previously thought.
Personally I'd like to see some kind of UN Tribunal convened to resolve the issues between America and Iran dating back at least to the early 1950s. Unfortunately, at this time, there is no conceivable way for America to get a fair trial and even if a fair trial could be ensured there is not a mechanism in place to ensure that Iran honors any terms of settlement.
With all of this said it is possible to that the nuclear deal could work. I think it will hinge on getting Russia, China, and other members of the P5+1 to work with us on working to ensure Iran abides by the agreement and does not work towards its stated goal of "death to America" during the time period of the agreement and after it runs its course.
Post a Comment