The point of Obama's speech.

[ProSense]

By characterizing the speech as one advocating war, some have dismissed it. By focusing on the message of a new diplomatic effort, others found merit in Obama's case that the U.S. has a moral obligation to act.

If you look at the CNN poll after the speech, more people came away with that impression than not. They don't object to action. They object to war.

The dynamics in Congress is also interesting. While members of Congress are lining up to oppose a limited strike, they're not eager to vote on such a plan. It also doesn't mean they wouldn't support another approach. If Congress doesn't take the opportunity to go on record, it brings the situation back to square one: the President has the authority to act.

That doesn't mean action is imminent. Time, in the short term, is on the President's side. Diplomacy will be pursued. The UN will issue its report.

Time isn't on Assad's side. Russia has to come up with a proposal that ensures Assad's compliance. The UN is not going to simply take his word for it. There has to be a mechanism to ensure compliance on his part.

Otherwise, Assad can stall for time, and the problem, another potential chemical attack, still looms. It's a given. If he's stalling for time and not serious about compliance, it's not a good sign.

The international community can still hold out the threat of force if he doesn't comply. The U.S. and Russia are leading the diplomatic effort. The international community is on board with holding Assad accountable.

The President brought Syria into focus. His goal was to make his case to Americans, and no doubt the world was watching.

Poll: 69% of Americans Viewed Obama’s Syria Speech Positively, 61% Favor His Approach

by Tommy Christopher

President Obama has been fighting an uphill battle to win support for an authorization to strike Syria in retaliation for an Aug. 21 Sarin gas attack, but a CNN/ORC poll taken following Tuesday night’s East Room address shows good news for the President’s Syria policy. In that speech, Obama made the case for the necessity of a limited strike, but also for allowing time to let a burgeoning diplomatic solution play out. CNN’s poll found that 61% of Americans favor “the approach to Syria that Barack Obama described in his speech.”

Additionally, 69% of respondents said they felt “very positive” or “somewhat positive” about the speech. If you drill down on the poll results, though, it appears that approval for the President’s approach relies heavily on the possible success of the diplomatic solution that suddenly became possible on Monday. From CNN:

The poll indicates that nearly two-thirds of those who watched the speech think that the situation in Syria is likely to be resolved through diplomatic efforts, with 35% disagreeing.

But Obama said that he’s ordered the U.S. military “to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails.”

According to the poll, those who watched the president were divided on whether Obama made a convincing case in his speech for U.S. military action in Syria, with 47% saying he did and 50% saying he didn’t.

Respondents to CNN’s poll came away from the President’s speech marginally more confident in President Obama’s “leadership on military and international issues,” with 32% saying they were “more confident,” versus 16% “less confident,” and the majority, 52%, unchanged in their opinion.

Time will tell if the combination of the President’s address, and the added wrinkle of a political solution on the table, will change public opinion that has been against the President’s policies so far, and which has made congressional support for authorizing a strike politically untenable.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/poll-69-of-americans-viewed-obamas-syria-speech-positively-61-favor-his-approach/

The poll shows that the speech didn't convince a majority Americans to support a strike, with 47 percent indicating that Obama made his case and 50 percent responding that he didn't.

The speech did have an impact in terms of the effectiveness of a strike, but a majority of Americans are still not convinced.

6. If the U.S. does launch air strikes against Syria, do you think that attack would or would not achieve significant goals for the United States?

Before the speech 30 percent stated it wouldn't (66 percent it would). After the speech, 36 percent responded it would (58 percent it wouldn't)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/09/10/top9.pdf

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. 69% of how many Americans?

If 100 Americans watch an event and 69% of them like it then it doesn't necessarily mean that the other 300+ million Americans are going to like or agree with it.

[ProSense]

3. Dismissing the poll doesn't invalidate the point. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. Dismissing my point doesn't validate the poll.

What's wrong? Was that a tough question for you to answer?

[ProSense]

6. No, but I'm sure you know how polls work.

"Dismissing my point doesn't validate the poll."

Do you think that whether or not you believe the poll changes the point of the speech?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. Did you not post the poll numbers? My query was fairly simple.

69% of how many Americans?

[ProSense]

9. "69% of how many Americans?"

Americans who watched the speech.

What percentage of Americans are opposed to limited strikes?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. You are well versed in not answering simple questions.

I'll ask the question again.

69% of how many Americans?

Americans who watched the speech.

How can you be certain that they actually watched the speech or if they were really Americans?

[ProSense]

13. You got the answer

You just don't like it and are attempting to obfuscate.

Again, you know how polls works: 69 percent of Americans who watched the speech.

If you don't like that answer, oh well!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. You gave no answer as usual; seeing how it doesn't fit in with

your narrative.

Again, you know how polls works: 69 percent of Americans who watched the speech.

That wasn't my question. My question was how many people...supposedly Americans watched the speech?

One?

Twenty?

One-hundred?


Strangely enough your non-answer reminds me of Mark Antony describing a Crocodile to Lepidus.

“It is shaped, sir, like itself, and is as broad as it hath breadth”

[ProSense]

19. Not my problem you don't know how to ask a question.

"That wasn't my question. My question was how many people...supposedly Americans watched the speech? "

You got the answer to the question you asked: "69% of how many Americans?"

The answer is: the Americans who watched the speech.

You're now asking: "how many people" watched.

I don't know exactly how many people watch, but I'm certain it's in the millions.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. “It is shaped, sir, like itself, and is as broad as it hath breadth”

[11 Bravo]

31. Holy shit, click on the damned poll! It tells you how many participants were polled.

It also tells you what the margin of error is in the results. As for how many people watched the speech, how in the Hell is ProSense supposed to know? Wait for the fucking ratings to come out. (Is this your first experience with a poll, or have you always just assumed that 300 million people had been asked for their opinions?)

[cali]

39. Daneel, I like you, but your posts in this thread are truly inane

Maybe you're just screwing with the OP, but it comes off as you not understanding how polling works.

In any case, a better tact is what someone pointed out in another thread: that that number reflects the anti military sentiment that is so pronounce in that those polled support diplomacy over war.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. take a freaking statistics class, man!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

12. Is it really that hard to say how many people participated in the poll?

69% of how many Americans?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. The President's own cabinet?

It's as good an answer as anything else you're getting out of this crew.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. first, do you understand scientific sampling and confidence intervals? just checking.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/09/10/top9.pdf

Per the above PDF which will lay out the entire methodology, 361 adults were surveyed via landline and cell phones. Margin of error is +- 5%.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. I'm sure that CNN is very scientific and thorough...just like their reporting.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

23. it was not done by CNN. It was partially paid for by CNN. The polling company is reputable

why does it bother you so much that in all likelihood well over 60% of Americans who saw Obama's speech came away with a positive impression?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. And yet 50% of them didn't believe that PBO had made a

convincing case about the need for the U.S. to take military action against Syria.


This was a poll with a small amount of people as respondents.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

27. again. I don't think you understand how polling works.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. "Gallup Reviews Methods After Failure to Predict Obama’s Win"

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-04/gallup-reviews-poll-methods-after-failure-to-predict-obama-s-win


Actually I believe that I do.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

32. notice, yours has to do with predictive polling. and though wrong...was only off by

5%. They had Romney winning by 1% and he lost by 4%. When trying to gather a representative sample to get people's opinions on an issue, the work is a lot less tricky.

So....it looks like you'll only believe polls you want to believe. Polling is by it's very nature in trying to extrapolate information about an entire population based on statistical sampling going to be an inexact science, but it does have tremendous value in taking a snapshot read on a variety of issues whether in the realm of politics, business, or other.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. Thank you, thank you for the admision that polls are "inexact." I appreciate that.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

40. wow. that is why they calculate statistically a margin of error

seriously. community colleges have pretty cheap options for statistics classes. it would be worth your while.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. because someone hates Obama....

this has been another edition of "simple answers to simple questions" we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[leftynyc]

34. I see you're displaying your ignorance

all over the freeking place today. I'll go with the others and encourage you to take a statistics class or just stay off threads where you have zero understanding of what's being discussed. You'll look less foolish that way. Or don't - some people seriously don't mind being laughed at.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. .

[leftynyc]

36. LOL - like I said

some people don't mind looking foolish - looks like I found one who knows how to post emoticons.

[lumpy]

33. It really doesn't matter does it. The BIG guys, Russia, US, Syria, etal. are going to do what is

in their best interests. We can quibble all night about polls and it isn't going to make a difference.

[cthulu2016]

2. Poll is only of people who watched the Speech

It was a good speech and I expected most who viewed it to view it favorably.

It appears they did.

These snap polls of viewers are important insofar they shape subsequent news coverage of the speech and thus have some effect on people who did not watch.

[Marr]

5. It was supposed to be advertisement for war.

It was openly billed as such; 'the president presenting his case for action in Syria'.

The ground shifted beneath their feet between the time they committed to the sales blitz, and the actual beginning of the sales blitz. Suddenly there was a new path that would not involve military action, but the threat of it still had to hang out there as an incentive.

So we got last night's schizophrenic address, simultaneously arguing 8 different contradictory things at once.

As to the poll numbers of people who watched the speech... Obama is an excellent speaker. That snap poll is more a measure of his effectiveness as a speaker and his general likeability than broad support for a specific policy.

[ProSense]

7. Yes,

"It was openly billed as such; 'the president presenting his case for action in Syria'. "

...he was going to make a case for action, and then Monday's events changed the situation. President Obama acknowledged that in his speech.

President Obama: "However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023642225

[Cha]

16. EarlG gets it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=144684

[Scurrilous]

17. ...

[ProSense]

22. Well done. Thanks. n/t

[Skraxx]

26. Everyone Gets It, Some Will Just Never Admit It Because They Want Obama to Fail

[Cha]

30. They sure are twisting themselves into knots to seem like they

don't get it. They act like they don't a damn clue.

[bigtree]

25. blah, blah, blah, war

. . . and a cynical embrace of a dubious Russian/Syrian proposal that they, themselves provided as much cynicism toward its prospects for success as anyone else.

The administration was forced into waiting for the votes. Now they've presented this dubious diplomacy as reassurance to recalcitrant legislators that their 'diplomacy' has really been 'exhausted' as they claimed earlier at the UN.

Presenting this one dubious proposal as the end-all to diplomatic efforts is a slippery and dishonest tactic. The initiative is doomed to failure on its face, and it will be presented as the end of diplomacy with Syria; a specious assertion. It will be the end-all to their own efforts, not diplomacy, itself; and, they will attack Syria as the President has insisted all along he has the authority to do, anyway, without pre-approval by Congress.

[ProSense]

28. Question:

"blah, blah, blah, war . . . and a cynical embrace of a dubious Russian/Syrian proposal that they, themselves provided as much cynicism toward its prospects for success as anyone else."

...Is it war if it's done "as part of a UN security council coalition with consent"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023647296#post1

"The administration was forced into waiting for the votes. Now they've presented this dubious diplomacy as reassurance to recalcitrant legislators that their 'diplomacy' has really been 'exhausted' as they claimed earlier at the UN. "

The vote in Congress has nothing to do with the Kerry-Russia proposal, and the diplomatic effort.

Putin says he, Obama discussed control over Syrian chemical arms
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023640131

[bigtree]

37. depends on what's 'done'

. . . What the administration has described is the U.S. acting alone. That's little more than provocation.

"The vote in Congress has nothing to do with the Kerry-Russia proposal, and the diplomatic effort."

You're correct in that. The vote in Congress is almost completely disassociated from whatever 'diplomacy' is involved in the Russian offer - except, perhaps, that opportunistic lull while they work to whip up the votes they don't yet have.

They're putting their threat of military force before their diplomacy. Why should anyone have confidence that they actually respect the diplomatic process more than they favor war?

[ProSense]

42. The point was specific to military action, but

"They're putting their threat of military force before their diplomacy. Why should anyone have confidence that they actually respect the diplomatic process more than they favor war? "

...the entire process depends on Assad doing the right thing.

[RC]

41. What seems to be missing from all this, is that Syria is a Russian block country.

What does any one think would happen, if Syria, under otherwise, the same circumstances, but was friendly to us, like say Turkey. And Russia decided to bomb them to stop whatever. Would we just let them do it? I'm thinking not.
Why would anyone think we would let Russia get away with bombing one of our friendly countries? Yet we were within days of bombing one of theirs.
The stupidity of even planing such a thing, ranks right up there with running Palin and McCain for President. Oops, never mind. I think I see the problem and it is pervasive in our government.
There never was any real justification for any strikes, surgical or otherwise, without first getting cooperation with Russia.

[ProSense]

44. Russia can object

"What does any one think would happen, if Syria, under otherwise, the same circumstances, but was friendly to us, like say Turkey. And Russia decided to bomb them to stop whatever. Would we just let them do it? I'm thinking not.
Why would anyone think we would let Russia get away with bombing one of our friendly countries? Yet we were within days of bombing one of theirs. "

...to the threat of forces, but the goal of accountability remains. Russia has been part of the diplomatic process so they support accountability.

Russia has to do its part to get Assad to comply, and that includes supporting a UN resolution.

Putin says he, Obama discussed control over Syrian chemical arms
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023640131

[RC]

45. As usual you missed the point.

What would happen if Russia did some bombing in one of our friendly countries in the Meddle Middle East?

[ProSense]

49. If the leader launched a chemical attack?

Why would you think anyone would find that acceptable?

[RC]

51. Not in evidence. The question is. "What would happen if Russia bombed a US friendly country, like we

were planing to do with a Russian block country?" How would we react?

[RetroLounge]

46. 89% of those polled were dressed like cherleaders

and wore knee pads.



RL

[Carolina]

47. No, the ridiculousness of Obama's speech

The 5 Most Ludicrous War Claims in Obama’s Syria Speech by Matthew Rothschild

Read 1 through 4 at the link but the 5th is the grand winner!

5. “For nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world’s a better place because we have borne them.”

Was the U.S. an anchor of global security and an enforcer of international agreements when it overthrew the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953, or the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954?

Is the world a better place because the U.S. helped overthrow Salvador Allende’s democratically elected government in Chile almost exactly 40 years ago?

Is the world a better place because the United States killed 3 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and because we dropped 20 million gallons of napalm (waging our own version of chemical warfare) on those countries?

Is the world a better place because the United States supported brutal governments in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s, which killed tens of thousands of their own people?

Is the world a better place because George Bush waged an illegal war against Iraq and killed between 100,000 and a million civilians?

And what international agreements was the United States enforcing when it tortured people after 9/11?©

2013 The Progressive

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/11-1

[ProSense]

48. I've seen that nonsense. n/t

[Carolina]

50. Well aren't you special

to have seen it. Of course, your reply is to be expected... you think you're the only one with sense