Just one in four Americans supports the Trump administration’s ongoing strikes on Iran, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sunday.
The disapproval rating was 43 percent, while 29 percent said they were not sure.
About half of respondents—including one in four Republicans—said the president was too open to using military force. The poll surveyed 1,282 US adults starting on Saturday, following news breaking of the strikes.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/more-americans-disapprove-approve-us-strikes-against-iran
I would say that if you voted for him, this is EXACTLY what you wanted.
I hope the Iranian people take this opportunity to bring about genuine change in their society.
It wasn’t that long ago that they were gunned down for peacefully protesting.
If they install anything significantly different then the USA will keep bombing them until a more cooperative dictator is in charge.
They still thank their terrorists. But good to know that are mad about it i guess
american here
i fucking hate this shithole country
I want USA to go back to the optimism and softer values like democracy and human rights 70’s style.
I know everything was not perfect, but back then we admired USA for their industry and innovation, and the moon landing was an inspiration to all, and the fact that NASA acknowledged it as an achievement of humanity.
Back then it looked like USA was a country that strived to progress, but then Reagan happened, and everything began to reverse, and when Bush was elected twice, it was evidence the American spirit that we loved was gone completely. Even Obama wanted to continue illegal intelligence, and military drone attacks into Pakistan.Obama may have seemed progressive, but in reality he wasn’t really, he was just not as big a problem as the Republicans.
Jimmy Carter was the last good president of USA. After that it’s just been varying degrees of bad.
100% agree, except one thing - George Bush didn’t win in 2000, they stole it, and there’s good evidence that there was funny business at play in 2004 as well.
More like Bush was trying to steal it and then Gore handed it to him.
Valid.
Yes, but election fraud is just another part of the problem. Not only was the fraud made, the election result was accepted despite of it. It doesn’t really change much. A president can be elected without a majority vote, and usually are when it’s republicans.
The system has been made less democratic since the 70’s instead of more. A bit of election fraud is no different than gerrymandering.
‘I want to go back to when the propaganda was better’
Yes of course, it was not all rainbows and sunshine, but there was a sentiment of progress, and mostly everything improved A LOT during the 70’s.
And Carter was all for renewable energy, and when Reagan took over, that too ended. Renewable energy = less wars to control the oil.If you are denying that Carter was better, and even the American population was better in the 70’s, we have nothing to talk about.
We suck big throbbing donkey dick
This is why Canadians aren’t reassured at all when Americans say “the people would never support a war on Canada.” Like that means anything at all. When Trump says jump, there’s no war crime America won’t commit, and all the people will do is wring their hands and post worthless sympathies on Instagram. Trump doesn’t care what you believe about your rights. Neither do the thousands of Iranians dying in your name.
We’ll find out how things work out by end of the year in Greenland. Cheeto Chimp won’t let it go without military action.
That’s because ~30% (or 1 in 4) of the population would support it.
Can’t blame you, really.
But why did Carney come out and openly support the strike on Iran?
How do Canadians feel about that? Any polling?
I’m from EU, but I’ve generally been impressed with Carney, but on this he completely misses the point IMO.
Although Iran is awful, supporting terrorism and oppressing their own population, this attack on Iran is not the way to do it.
Especially without a plan on how this is supposed to be finished! This attack is just destructive, and has no happy ending in sight.Couldn’t agree more, sadly.
Broadly unhappy with his bending the knee. There’s significant talk of anti-war protests.
People in the US are resisting, also hell no a war on Canada would never fly here.
Yes some are resisting, but not enough and the resistance is 100% ineffective.
It hasn’t stopped Trump doing anything, including ICE shooting people in the face, destroying the economy, undermining NATO, helping Russia against Ukraine.
Trump has 100% control of the executive branch, the most dangerous and powerful part of US government. And he does as he wishes, and nobody is stopping him.
Even worse 40% of the population still support him! It’s not just Trump that is the problem, it’s the majority of the American population.Lol glad you’re so confident, these chodes would follow Trump into their own genocide
They don’t think they need to answer to anyone. No cabinet members or generals doing the Sunday shows, just a couple of Trump’s social media posts. We’re pulled into war and the attitude from the executive is “what’re you going to do about it?”
And from the opposition party leadership? “Tsk tsk, but ask us nicely next time”
1,282 polled out of 350 million… This tells us nothing.
Only if they asked the same grama every 20 minutes. Or a bunch of people in jail. Or only the kids going to college. Otherwise if it was random, then it’s statistical significant after at least 9 callers.
counterpoint: it tells us something.
Aye, that IPSOS are shite.
They polled 0.00037509% of the population and then make authoritative claims about the entire nation’s sentiments.
They normally poll more people than this in the UK, a country with 5 times less people than the USA. So why so few people for a USA poll?
Do you not know how statistics work? You can make a pretty good estimate of a population with a relatively small sample size. That’s why polls work.
Like, the only issue is finding out if your poll is biased or not. This is pretty bog standard statistical analysis.
But, as an example, imagine you had infinite coins. How many heads do you think you have to flip on randomly selected coins to make a relatively good guess on the chance of flipping heads? Because my guess is that you wouldn’t say infinite. You could probably get a good guess with 100. Flipping more coins just makes your guess more accurate, but it will be pretty close to the answer.
Basically, proportion of population is just going to affect the confidence interval, and that is basically within 2.7% points for the 43% say bad and 2.5% for the 71% who do not approve.
That’s… Accurate enough.
Aye but there’s only so much you can water down your sampling before it’s ridiculous.
1,282 people is less than the amount normally polled in a country 5 times smaller.
If they only polled 10 people would you be arguing the same or would that be deemed a ridiculously small sample size?
Also bear in mind that they’ve claimed to have weighted the data for 8 categories, some of which have multiple variations within them. And they’ve managed to do all of this with such a small sample size? Utter shite.
I’m not saying I’m opposed to the idea of Americans being against the war, what I’m saying is it’s disingenuous to make authoritative claims, like the headline makes, on such a small sample of data.
Okay, clearly you don’t understand. Let’s review.
If I flip 100 of my infinite coin, how accurate will my estimated mean be in comparison to my true mean?
Let’s assume we flip 50 heads, so we reasonably assume there is 50% chance to flip heads. Well, our 95% confidence interval (the usual one used) says that there is about a 9.8% range our true heads mean could be in. That means, 5% of the time, our actual heads flipping percent is outside that 40.2 - 59.8% range.
Now, here’s the biasing that we factor in: we’re gonna assume that our flipping chance is a standard deviation model, and that our actual mean will fall into this pattern. We assume, more or less, that people’s opinions fall into this model, too, and that isn’t relatively weird for polling data to assume, even if it isn’t completely representative of the true population.
If you flip, say, 1000 coins instead and got 50%, how much does that range shrink? I mean, it doesn’t shrink by a factor of 10, but by a factor of √10. This shrinks us by ~3.16, so the range becomes 46.9 - 53.1%. That is a lot smaller, but not, ya know, 10 times smaller.
The point is that having 5 times less participants would only widen the gap the true participants by about 2.2x… So instead of 2.7% interval, you would have like +/-1.25%. That’s, again, not going to shift the likely guess by much.
Because that’s just how random sampling works. You have a chance to be outside that confidence interval, but it’s just not very likely. Because increasing the confidence percent is ALSO a square root ratio. At 99% confidence, the range becomes 3.57%.
So, yes, surveying 1200 people, assuming random sampling, is pretty representative of the US. Your goal is to find the biases that shift the data away from representing the true mean, not to question how sampling works because math is not on your side. Sampling works, period.
And using weighted data for categories? Again, since all of the data was transformed in the same way, I don’t see the problem, unless you have a problem with transformations in general. This is a higher level concept in statistical analysis, but this is probably just averaging out 8 questions into a 0-100% scale, which isn’t particularly obscure or unique in sampling. If anything, this should shift the data closer to 50%, so any deviations away from 50% would be notable.
Simply put, your problem with the sampling method? Doesn’t exist.
You don’t understand how statistics works.
