Two new polls: Heavy public opposition to U.S. strikes in Syria

posted at 6:01 pm on September 3, 2013 by Allahpundit

We’ll start with Pew. The good news for O? Majorities of both Republicans and Democrats and a near majority of independents agree with him that there’s “clear evidence” that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. (Are they right about that? Hmmmmm.) Of those who do believe the evidence is clear, support for airstrikes is even with opposition at 41 percent apiece. That’s in line with other, older polls showing that public backing for intervening in Syria soars once you introduce WMD into the equation. To the extent O can convince the public that Assad really did gas hundreds of people in Damascus, he’s got a chance at moving the needle on this.

But moving it from 29/48 opposition to majority support? Doubtful.

Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed…

Three-quarters (74%) believe that U.S. airstrikes in Syria are likely to create a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region and 61% think it would be likely to lead to a long-term U.S. military commitment there. Meanwhile, just 33% believe airstrikes are likely to be effective in discouraging the use of chemical weapons; roughly half (51%) think they are not likely to achieve this goal…

Most independents (58%) and Republicans (54%) also say that U.S. airstrikes in Syria are not likely to be effective in discouraging the use of chemical weapons. Democrats are more closely divided – nearly as many say they will not be effective (40%) in achieving this goal as say they will (46%).

There are actually more Democrats opposed to a strike than there are Republicans even though Dems are way more likely to say that Obama has “explained clearly” why the U.S. should launch airstrikes than GOPers or indies are. I wonder if that won’t prove fatal to his chances of winning the big vote in Congress. He can probably pick up 80-100 House Republican votes on hawkish lines, especially with Boehner and Cantor behind him, but that means he’ll need 120-140 Democrats to put him over the top. How likely is that now, with net support among their base running nearly at -20? And how likely is it that he’ll grab Republican fencesitters with conservatives like Tim Huelskamp framing the debate this way?

That’s a foreign-policy version of the argument border hawks have been using against immigration. If we can’t trust Obama to enforce the employer mandate required by ObamaCare, why would you trust him to enforce tough new border security measures? If you can’t trust him to protect the consulate in Benghazi and track down the bad guys who attacked it, why would you trust him on Syria? This is, supposedly, a war to defend the president’s credibility. How much more credibility can he lose before it’s not worth defending what’s left?

Meanwhile, at ABC/WaPo:

Nearly six in 10 oppose missile strikes in light of the U.S. government’s determination that Syria used chemical weapons against its own people. Democrats and Republicans alike oppose strikes by double digit margins, and there is deep opposition among every political and demographic group in the survey. Political independents are among the most clearly opposed, with 66 percent saying they are against military action.

Broad opposition in the new poll contrasts with a December Post-ABC poll that found most Americans saying they would be supportive of U.S. action if Syria used chemical weapons. At that time, 63 percent supported U.S. military involvement when it was a hypothetical situation, while 30 percent were opposed.

Note well: Even when Assad’s WMD use is explicitly mentioned, net support for intervention among both Democrats and Republicans remains underwater at -12. Between that and the steep decline in public enthusiasm since the December poll, I’m thinking Rubio was probably right: If Obama was going to act, he should have done it sooner. Rubio offers that criticism strategically, to make the point that the U.S. would have better options on the battlefield if it had been more aggressive earlier, but it’s also true politically. Click the Pew link up top and scroll down and you’ll find that the public’s paying closer attention to Syria now than it used to. Eight months of self-education about massive destruction and bad guys on all sides naturally gave Americans cold feet. Had O moved last year, he might have been able to sell this as Libya II to ill-informed skeptics. No more.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No blood for oil gas!

Joe Mama on September 3, 2013 at 6:07 PM

THEY DO NOT CARE! They WILL attack. You can bet your last dollar they are going in and in fact be very ready for boots on the ground there also.

They have not listened to anything else us “surfs” wanted why would it change… heck even half the so called GOP are all ready to vote for action .

watertown on September 3, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Just a wild guess, but methinks that Good King Barack doesn’t give a flying flip about ‘public opinion.’

locomotivebreath1901 on September 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Where the heck is the anti war people? I mean this would be a great time for massive protests because a majority of Americans would actually support them.

watertown on September 3, 2013 at 6:09 PM

This is, supposedly, a war to defend the president’s credibility. How much more credibility can he lose before it’s not worth defending what’s left?

I wasn’t aware that Jug Ears has any credibility.

GarandFan on September 3, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I thought bombing muslims created more terrorists.

Flange on September 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM

There are actually more Democrats opposed to a strike than there are Republicans even though Dems are way more likely to say that Obama has “explained clearly” why the U.S. should launch airstrikes than GOPers or indies are. I wonder if that won’t prove fatal to his chances of winning the big vote in Congress.

It will have no effect. Obamacare is vastly unpopular and the GOP is supporting it, and is shutting down any serious efforts to push back against it.

They will do the same thing here. They support the Obama agenda, 100%.

Doomberg on September 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM

This is incredible. The Republicans don’t accidentally shoot themselves in the foot, they calibrate their sights, aim carefully and squeeze off the rounds. As someone earlier posted, their is only one Party in this country and it is under the direct control of Obama.

rplat on September 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Where the heck is the anti war people?

watertown on September 3, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Isn’t that always the way? Never a dancing vagina when you want one. ;0

Seriously the vast majority of the “anti-war” people during the last administration were really anti-Bush or anti-Republican. They’re cool with killing innocent Syrians if their rat-eared god tells them it is.

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 6:14 PM

oh yeah, more polls of 1,000 liberals and LIVs living in and around NOVA telling us how the country thinks

look y’all, whether planned or not this is going to be a gambit to juice spending. Looking at the leadership I’d say both parties are in on it.

TownHall websites and radio are over the top for “doing something” to save credibility. What a bunch of bullshit.

DanMan on September 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM

hillary is supporting dear leader so its all good
/

cmsinaz on September 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM

My guess is that a Senate vote would be around 56-44 against. Without making a much stronger case, and also doing it in person before the nation during a primetime address, introducing the evidence, and making the case for a moral imperative to act, as well as reassurances that al Qaeda won’t end up the big winner, Obama is going to lose this vote.

Stoic Patriot on September 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM

i won

cmsinaz on September 3, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Where the heck is the anti war people? I mean this would be a great time for massive protests because a majority of Americans would actually support them.

watertown on September 3, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Considering they are/were a construct of the Rat Party, where do you think they are?

Steve Eggleston on September 3, 2013 at 6:16 PM

FYI, rushing the country into war without explaining jack-diddly, and placing it at risk of turning over control of a country to al Qaeda, along with the implementation of Obamacare, merits a government shutdown.

Stoic Patriot on September 3, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Pew is a crooked organization. They admitted long after the fact to tilting polls and doing push polling to get the execrable McCain-Feingold written and passed.

slickwillie2001 on September 3, 2013 at 6:17 PM

get ready for the dems/lsm to blame the gop on obama’s war

cmsinaz on September 3, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Where the heck is the anti war people?

we’re sitting here watching the GOP join the dems in something that will be paid for by the few still paying taxes now and future generations that will have to for the rest of their lives.

DanMan on September 3, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Deaf and Dumb.

Bmore on September 3, 2013 at 6:18 PM

If most Americans feel as I do, that American blood and treasure are totally wasted in the ME, then it only makes sense that there’s majority opposition.

If anything, arm both sides until they’re all dead.

Charlemagne on September 3, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Polls are racist.

Polls are un-American.

Only those who bow down at the feet of Zod Obama are true Americans.

Didn’t get the memo?

coldwarrior on September 3, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Watch the other hand people!

trs on September 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM

What are the numbers when the question asked is whether or not Americans support using the US military to aid Al Qaeda in the Syrian civil war?

besser tot als rot on September 3, 2013 at 6:26 PM

That look…..

portlandon on September 3, 2013 at 6:26 PM

hillary is supporting dear leader so its all good

cmsinaz on September 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Always good to have the butcher of Benghazi on your side.

BTW- Did you see her comment to Diana Nyad?

Flying to 112 countries is a lot until you consider swimming between 2. Feels like I swim with sharks – but you actually did it! Congrats!

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 2, 2013

Nyad is 64-years-old, had just swum 110 miles in 53 hours without a shark cage and Killary made her “congrats” all about herself.

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Broad opposition in the new poll contrasts with a December Post-ABC poll that found most Americans saying they would be supportive of U.S. action if Syria used chemical weapons.

Yeah, before the rebel force became an Al Qaeda force, people supported going after the Baathist terrorists. But, Obama sat on his hands for a year. Now that it’s Baathist terrorists against Al Qaeda, there’s a lot less support for attacking the Baathists – since it means helping Al Qaeda. Go figure.

besser tot als rot on September 3, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Man, the racists are coming out of the woodwork, probably clutching their guns and Bibles too; don’t they know that blowing people to bits with cruise missiles is the new fashion with urban liberal hipsters?

Bishop on September 3, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Hmm…don’t actually SEE any protests right now….I guess when obama throws a war, it’s all good.

Stinking hypocrites, every single leftist. period.

I wish there was a hell, so leftists could rot in it.

a5minmajor on September 3, 2013 at 6:31 PM

watertown on September 3, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Exactly! What does O care about polls? He’s gotten is “America-changing” second term already. Nobody likes Obamacare either, yet it’s now such a fact of life that nobody, outside of Cruz and Paul, are even considering repealing it.

He knows he’ll be put on the pedestal with MLK no matter what he does…and will be considered a hero as long as the US lasts, which should be at least until 2021.

AUINSC on September 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

McCain plays poker, in more than one ways.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

But just yesterday the news people were telling us about how support was swelling for action in Syria because the administration was making their case for it.

oldroy on September 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Sinister eyes

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 6:35 PM

What are the numbers when the question asked is whether or not Americans support using the US military to aid Al Qaeda in the Syrian civil war?

besser tot als rot on September 3, 2013 at 6:26 PM

You obviously don’t understand how propaganda is supposed to work in this case.

oldroy on September 3, 2013 at 6:36 PM

If most Americans feel as I do, that American blood and treasure are totally wasted in the ME, then it only makes sense that there’s majority opposition.

Charlemagne on September 3, 2013 at 6:19 PM

It’s more than just a sense of waste. It’s nearly twelve years of military operations with this administration pulling the plug as quickly as possible for bragging rights about bringing the troops home or something. It’s about a lack of trust in government to value that blood and treasure. It’s about no discernible national interest in bombing Syria.

I don’t think the filthy thin-skinned rat will ever get public approval. I think he’s banking on being able to bully enough votes in Congress. Even if it means Stupaking- making promises that were never meant to be kept.

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 6:37 PM

I just emailed my betters in DC. Just say no–no to American money and to American boots piffled away in Syria.

jazzuscounty on September 3, 2013 at 6:40 PM

McCain plays poker, in more than one ways.

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Time for him to resign. Unacceptable in any way. Escort the bum out. Throw his trash out behind him.

oldroy on September 3, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Code Pinko is busy right now, they’ll call you back when a GOP’er is in the WH again.

Bishop on September 3, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Just a wild guess, but methinks that Good King Barack doesn’t give a flying flip about ‘public opinion.’

locomotivebreath1901 on September 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM

It appears Boehner and Cantor don’t either. Ruling class versus country class.

bw222 on September 3, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Code Pinko is busy right now, they’ll call you back when a GOP’er is in the WH again.

Bishop on September 3, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Code Pink Interrupts Syria Hearing, Kerry Praises Them

After witnessing a Code Pink outburst at Senate hearing on possible US military action in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry indicates he felt the same way about the Vietnam War when he testified before Congress for the first time at age 27 and that it is important to hear and respect opposing points of view on Syria.

Murphy9 on September 3, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Paging Cindy Sheehan…..

portlandon on September 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Sinister eyes

Schadenfreude on September 3, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Reminds me of Muhammed Atta.

coldwarrior on September 3, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed.
=======================

Looks like Dems are DisComBobulated sumpins!!

canopfor on September 3, 2013 at 6:49 PM

We’ve got no friends in Syria. Let them kill themselves. When they get down to one last guy, send in the SEALs and shoot him right between the eyes.

trigon on September 3, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Happy Nomad on September 3, 2013 at 6:27 PM

following obama mo…i i i i

cmsinaz on September 3, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Paging Cindy Sheehan…..

portlandon on September 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM

lol

“No Boots on the Ground”
Cindy Sheehan

Besides the fact that the US now has troops on the ground in 35 African countries; destroyed Libya for regime change; is bombing “al Qaeda” in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; AND is already arming and training “al Qaeda” in Syria, the Able Servant of Empire is chomping at the bit of more mass murder to launch a Tomahawk missile attack on Syria.

I guess “Able Servant of Empire” is her term of endearment for democrat war president Barack Obama.

Murphy9 on September 3, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Not the Code Pinko of legend, that’s for sure, just a few sad examples of a movement that once counted thousands of dog-faced, aged, harpies in its membership.

How the mighty have fallen *tears up* Oh how the mighty have…excuse me while I get a tissue.

Bishop on September 3, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Code Pinko is busy right now, they’ll call you back when a GOP’er is in the WH again.

Bishop on September 3, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Bishop:Precisely so:)

canopfor on September 3, 2013 at 6:56 PM

The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.

- Bill Clinton

roflmmfao

donabernathy on September 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Results for syria

https://twitter.com/search?q=syria

canopfor on September 3, 2013 at 6:59 PM

NO NO NO

TX-96 on September 3, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Since #Obama still refuses to tell us the whole truth about #Benghazi, why do GOP leaders trust Obama to be truthful about #Syria? #TCOT

Been saying that for a week. Welcome to the party. The louder they yell the more sure I am the evidence is false.

Trident remarks aren’t necessary to support facts.

dogsoldier on September 3, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Trident should read “Strident.”

dogsoldier on September 3, 2013 at 7:04 PM

***** Remember ***,

during the 2008 Prez Election,Biden was picked, to shore up
Obama’s lack of Foreign Policy,and,…

……..****** Failure/Cat 0 Strophic it is *********************!!

canopfor on September 3, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Live coverage: Syria unrest

Obama wins backing for Syria strike from key figures in Congress
WASHINGTON/BEIRUT | Tue Sep 3, 2013 6:36pm EDT
***********************************************

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130903?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

canopfor on September 3, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Didn’t Obama use polls about gun control to push his message. Why not in this case?/

CW on September 3, 2013 at 7:10 PM

The Drudge poll should have been quoted!

91.4 against, 8.6% in favor, 618,408 voting.

timmytee on September 3, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Hueslkamp — exactly.

That’s a foreign-policy version of the argument border hawks have been using against immigration. If we can’t trust Obama to enforce the employer mandate required by ObamaCare, why would you trust him to enforce tough new border security measures? If you can’t trust him to protect the consulate in Benghazi and track down the bad guys who attacked it, why would you trust him on Syria?

Again…exactly…

This why Boehner’s quick willingness to go along surprises me somewhat…he’s done nothing that should make Boehner think that he should be trusted. If the only argument for Boehner is U.S. creditiblity, then Boehner needs to think again….

EastofEden on September 3, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Question:

What targets would you support striking in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons in Syria?

1. The night cleaning crew at a Syrian weapons plant, or

2. The man who is ultimately responsible for the attack, Bashir Assad?

Ask the real question if you want a real answer. Otherwise its just an academic exercise.

BobMbx on September 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

This is, supposedly, a war to defend the president’s credibility.

LOL. Yeah … this was the funniest of the stupid reasons given for this. Barky has never had any credibility with anyone about anything. He’s a turd and everyone knows it – even his brain-dead fanbois. They just love forcing a turd on us.

Rubio offers that criticism strategically, …

Who cares what that treasonous little worm has to say about anything? He’s a traitor and a POS. He should be standing trial along with his butt buddy, Barky. But, we could airdrop both of them into Damascus and call it even.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 3, 2013 at 8:13 PM

BREAKING:

Tweets All / No replies

The Associated Press ‏@AP 2m

BREAKING: New Syria resolution in Senate puts 90-day limit on US military action.

===================

https://twitter.com/AP

canopfor on September 3, 2013 at 8:32 PM

canopfor on September 3, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Two new polls: Heavy public opposition to U.S. strikes in Syria

I’m curious if the constant drumbeating against Bush’s Iraq invasion had any effect with this poll’s results.

Kingfisher on September 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Oh goody, the Thulsa Doom picture of barky.

D-fusit on September 3, 2013 at 8:59 PM

They will do the same thing here. They support the Obama agenda, 100%.

Doomberg on September 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM


To paraphrase a sign that used to hang in Chuck Colson’s White House office:

“When you have the GOPe by the ba||s, their hearts and minds will follow.”

Is there anyone; be they liberal, conservative or somewhere in between; that does NOT understand the SCOAMF has used the NSA and other intelligence agencies to get the dirt on anyone in Congress who might oppose him?

PolAgnostic on September 3, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Face facts – we have a one party system. Bohner is a butt boy for Obama. McCain is an old fool. Obama’s strings are pulled by Saudi Arabia. They probably paid for his education. No wonder he bowed to their king. The Saudi’s were behind 9/11. We will never be energy independent because the House of Saud is calling the shots.

alanstern on September 3, 2013 at 9:21 PM

anyone that thinks our government cares about the will of the people anymore is nuts.

unseen on September 4, 2013 at 3:46 AM

It’s funny how chemical weapons are clearly referred to as WMDs now. During the Bush years, the Left refused to acknowledge that chemical weapons were part of the WMD universe. Oh, and we found lots of chemical weapons in Iraq.

Bigurn on September 5, 2013 at 3:40 AM