HUFFPOLLSTER: Rising Approval For Obama's Handling Of ISIS

[applegrove]

HUFFPOLLSTER: Rising Approval For Obama's Handling Of ISIS

by Mark Blumenthal, Ariel Edwards-Levy, Rachel Lienesch at the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/obama-approval-isis_n_5912652.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

"SNIP..........................


SURVEY FINDS SURPRISINGLY STRONG RATING FOR OBAMA ON ISIS - Aaron Blake: "Get ready to pop the champagne, White House. For the first time since January, President Obama is polling a 50 percent approval rating on an issue: his handling of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. That is not a typo: It has been eight months since Obama last cracked half the American public on any given issue -- foreign policy or otherwise -- in Washington Post/ABC News polling. The newest WaPo-ABC poll shows 50 percent approve of Obama's handling of the Islamic State, as compared to 44 percent who disapprove. That's an improvement from August, when the question referenced only Iraq and not Syria, and 42 percent of Americans gave Obama a vote of confidence. Obama's new polling heights come as Americans overwhelmingly approve of the airstrikes he ordered in Syria." [WashPost]

Partisan gap - As Blake notes, support for airstrikes doesn't necessarily translate into approval of the president. Without Obama's name mentioned, Republicans are close to unanimous in supporting intervention in Syria, with 80 percent agreeing, but just 30 percent give Obama a positive rating.

How do other polls compare? - The Post/ABC survey is the second released this week to show Obama's rating on ISIS improving significantly. A CNN/ORC poll released Monday found Americans divided on Obama's handling of ISIS, with 45 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving -- up from 37 percent approval on the issue earlier in September, although still somewhat south of a positive rating. Other polling, released earlier this month, most found Obama's rating on ISIS in the high 30s or early 40s, similar to his overall foreign policy rating. [Pollster chart]

CNN FINDS DEMS GAINING ON GENERIC BALLOT - Jeremy Diamond: "Five weeks before the November midterm elections, voters give Democrats an edge over Republicans, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday. But the poll also indicates most of Democrats' gains are coming from the Northeast and not from the parts of the country where they're locked in tight contests that could give Republicans control of the Senate. In a generic ballot among likely voters, Democrats edged out Republicans 47 -45%, a 6-point swing from a CNN poll three weeks ago when likely voters favored the Republicans by a 4-point margin. The Democrats' advantage is within the poll's 3.5% margin of error." The CNN result helps nudge the generic ballot estimate produced by the HuffPost Pollster back to a near tie. Our tracking model is based on all public polling data but is calibrated to the results of the more reliable non-partisan surveys. [CNN, Pollster U.S. House vote chart]




..........................SNIP"

[Scootaloo]

1. Well, reducing Arabs to shredded meat IS something Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on n/t

[babylonsister]

2. Give me a break. Beneath you, or not.

So... witnessing Americans and others being beheaded is A-OK with you? We should just watch? Honestly, what should be done?

[Scootaloo]

3. Bombing isn't going to stop that, babylonsister.

It's just a knee-jerk reaction to mindless, unthinking calls of "do something! look active! Anything, I don't care what!"

I've outlined what should be done about twenty damn times on DU.

[babylonsister]

4. I imagine we should just GTFO.

But how can we ignore this?

And it's not a knee-jerk reaction. This prez is not a warmonger; he hated like all hell to do this, but had credible evidence to take the actions he has taken.

I'm not a warmonger either. At all. I wish we were talking about how we're losing our environment.

[Scootaloo]

5. Listen to the words you're using. They're purely reactionary. They're panic words

"We should just watch?" and "How can we ignore this!"

This is the sort of rhetoric I'm describing as knee-jerk. It leads to the mindsetthat we should do something, doesn't matter what, just so long as we're in motion and "doing." I'm afraid it's quite mindless - literally, that sort of rhetoric is meant to shut off people's brains and tug them into the herd of people milling around and mooing in a panic.

It is better to ignore something if your only other idea would make it worse. Unfortunately, our president - warmonger or not - is pushed and pulled by the tide of beltway pundits. Sad reality of modern America, really, since the squawker class can make or break the party's electoral future based on its associating with the president and what he does or doesn't so. So bound, he's set us on a coarse that will likely only make things worse in the region... because apparently the "only other option" is "do nothing."

Which, of course, isn't true at all. There's numerous other options from the one that's been taken. For instance, we could make efforts to bring Iraq, Iran, and Syria together to face this threat, with hte only US input being intelligence.

of course that would mean talking to Iran and Syria as if they were nations with rights and full of human beings. That's unacceptable, so we go with the bad idea instead!

We could even focus on turning those "rebels" we love so much on IS... but that would distract those rebels from focusing on toppling syria, so.. .that's no good either, so we stick with the bad idea.

We could levy sanctions against nations that are funding and arming IS - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab emirates, and jordan, for example. But oh dear, that's just not politically expedient, so we take a bad idea instead.

Shit, we could even try to open lines with this "islamic state"! After all, this administration is as gung-ho about tearing apart iraq as the last one was, and it clearly doesn't regard Syria as a legitimate state with rights or territory, so why not? it wouldn't be the first bunch of butchers we signed on with. But no, that would be unpopular, so let's just bomb some places ineffectually instead.

And of course as i said... one thing sure to unite Democrats and Republicans, is the killing of people in the middle east. Unless those people are Israelis, then we're just horrified. Everyone else is fair game though.

[babylonsister]

6. Cooperation has been asked for.

I could post links, but you can find them.

Diplomacy might just be happening. Stand by and don't be so discouraged.

And yes, my glass is half + full, but some days that's tough, because of the morons out there.

[freshwest]

7. Here's a link for you, BBS:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-60-minutes/

Obama covers it all. Good to get to hear, or read the transcript, his own words instead of that of the spin meisers. The video links are also there on that page. Obama has not changed his position on these things for years.

[Scootaloo]

8. when you go on live national television...

And openly declare that another sovereign nation should have no expectation that its airspace or territory will be respected, and that you are going to fund and arm terrorists to overthrow its government... One wonders exactly what kind of "cooperation" is being asked for.

[babylonsister]

10. So. We should just bow out?

What should we do? I am disturbed, confused, and don't have the facts that the Prez has.

What should we do?

[Scootaloo]

13. Relying on the assumption of secret knowledge is a fool's gambit

It was dumb when the Republicans were doing it to cover Bush's ass in Iraq, and I really don't think we should pick yup the habit.

I already mentioned several avenues we could take. We shouldn't "bow out" or abandon the situation... but we should not be the main thrust, either. At least, if the end goal is something approaching peace in the region.

Basically it would be better if we were to play "second fiddle" to the locals, than if we're in the forefront. Legitimacy is a very real thing that needs to be considered, and the US "winning" this war - if we do, and I'm really not sold that we can do so - will be seen as a foreign imposition... even if we somehow do it with less blood and oppression than Iraq or Syria would. If the "peace" is seen as a foreign imposition, then that means that "peace" is something to be opposed and struggled against. After all, the whole point of this movement is self-assertion.

[amandabeech]

11. I think that cooperation means "don't use your Russian anti-aircraft systems on us

while we bomb ISIS."

But I guess that it will be okay for Assad to use those systems on us when we're bombing Alawites and Hezbollah who are trying to keep Assad in power.

It doesn't sound like the President is likely to go to the UN over bombing Syria, either, which gives me pause.

Obama hasn't given up on getting the Arab Sunnis, the Arab Shias and the Kurds (who are mostly Sunni) to love one another and turn into Iraqis and fight for Iraq. It would be nice, but I'm concerned that our policy rests on getting them to do that.

I do not see how any of this ends. I really don't.

[Scootaloo]

14. I know how Syria ends, if Assad falls

Because I was old enough to watch the news and understand, back when the Russians finally left Afghanistan.

Assad galls, and what happens is that all those "rebel factions" turn on each other as they try to score out who's in charge. Unfortunately, the most powerful groups also happen to be the ones we consider "extremists" - in large part because they can cow other groups into signing on through intimidation tactics.

So the Syrian civil war enters a new phase. Five to ten years of these groups tearing each other up before someone - probably some wild-eyed motherfuckers - finally secures power. and with that power, all of the fun weapons that Assad probably had squirreled away. Congratulations, we've just put IS or an IS-clone on the throne of Syria.. .and all those weapons we didn't want Assad to have, plus all the weapons we were giving to the 'rebels"? Now in their hands.

How does that prolonged civil war work out for Iraq, or Lebanon, or israel, or Jordan, do you think? I imagine it'd be a hell of a mess, even if just left to itself. But of course, there would be "interventions" - maybe lead by the US, maybe not. Turkey, Israel , and the Arab League would all likely do some shit in the now-anarchy of Syria, attempting to safeguard their own borders (or in the case of Israel, Golan's colonies) and much like most civil war interventions the world over, these efforts end badly for everyone. The next US administration or two might even entertain the idea, under the argument of "fixing what the last guy broke" as a selling point or something.

But htne when that Very special Someone finally does take power, whoever it is, the world will respond like they did with Afghanistan - "Oh thank god that mess is over, sure, you're legitimate, have some money, go burn some opium fields or something will ya?" But since these are likely the worst assholes out of a very varied and choice selection of assholes, one imagines they will turn their eyes to more war.

[amandabeech]

15. If Assad falls, the fighting won't stop.

Already, the Christians living in the Bakaa Valley in Lebanon are gearing up to fight Isis, and they may come together with Hezbullah and the Alawites in Syria (if they haven't already) to fight Isis and whatever Sunnis join them, because they are afraid that Isis will kill every one of them by crucifixion.

I'm old enough to remember the Russians in Afghanistan, as well, and the civil wars that occurred after they left.

The thing about Syria is that it is on the border with Turkey, who is supposed to be our friend, and it is on the border with Israel, which is also supposed to be our friend. Jordan is also our friend, but I don't notice that anyone is caring enough about that country to really help it with the Syrian and Iraqi refugee problems that it has.

It will be much harder to ignore and Isis controlled Syria than what was going on in Afghanistan, at least for the US. And don't forget that the Russians have some interest in Syria, and the Russians have received threats that Isis is heading for Chechnya and the Caucusus.

Well, it's almost two in the am, and this is all to complicated for me at this hour.

I will say, though, that I think that our blasting Syria based on the AUMF with no Congressional vote and no UN resolution will come back to bite us. That's why more sensible countries will help in Iraq, but not Syria.

[Scootaloo]

16. Exactly

At this point, our best bet is to bite our tongue, and back Assad against IS. Really, the United States has thrown in for bigger, more grotesque assholes than Assad in our run in the middle east, and this time it would actually, truly be in the itnerests of taking on a serious problem, rahter than our usual o "support the strongman, get cheaper oil."

of course, when we remember that Syria has less oil than Denmark, maybe it's easier to see why our administration doesn't seem deeply concerned about cause and effect within that nation's borders.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. War and bankruptcy; what's not to celebrate?

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Well do be fair...

Americans ain't the sharpest tools in the shed.

These air strikes aren't going to stop ISIS.

Probably just better to not get involved in that cluster fuck.

But then of course the media would whine and complain that Obama isn't bombing the shit out of ISIS....his approval rating then goes down further and he hurts Dems for the mid terms.

This whole thing is just fucked.