Just saying still I would be generally wary of polls right now since a lot of them are likely designed to skew towards certain results in order to satisfy the medias narrative
Humans are pack animals and follow a leader. That works out fairly well, when they have first hand knowledge of the suitability of someone for the job. Terribly, when many rely on tv and social media to form their opinions.
It'll be interesting to see how the Finnish program to teach children how to identify propaganda goes. Finland rates as the happiest nation, one of the most democratic, and with a comprehensive welfare system. Makes the article by an important writer on the happiness divide between conservatives and liberals rather questionable, especially as it takes conservatives' self-reported mental health states at face value. Of course, liberals in the US do have looming fascism to worry about right now.
I agree that "isolationism" had shallow support in the GOP, and was more anti-Biden than based upon principle.
That said, I've always argued with friends that a small but significant minority of Republicans are actually MAGA, and the rest just give Trump a pass hoping he'll focus on tax cuts, deregulation, and limited government and hope he abandons the rest.
I think actual MAGAs might still be more isolationist than the GOP overall.
That would be a couple good poll questions:
For Republicans: Do you consider yourself MAGA?
For Democrats: Would you describe yourself as Socialist? (Democratic Socialist, Socialist, or Communist)
My prior is that both is are minority within their parties, although each party represents those in the other party as the majority. But as a loyal SIN reader, I'm interested in what the actual data reveals!
Thanks! As I thought, Progressive and Patriot are the two smallest factions. On the other hand, most (Boomer) conservatives I know would fall in the bottom quadrant (limited gov, social libertarian) and so I'd think is dominant, but the graphic shows it to be the least populated. Prior blown!
I can think of three things going on right now. First, support for Trump's immigration agenda is not falling much among Republicans, but among Democrats and independents. They are following their opinion leaders _against_ the White House. Second, Trump has recently voiced support for exceptions to his deportation policy for some farm workers, so it's possible Republicans are taking that as a signal against mass deportations too --- The Quinnipiac poll shows an increase in support among all voters for a path to citizenship, for example. Finally the old political science angle is that the following dynamic is stronger on an issue voters haven't already made up their minds on yet. Iran and immigration are different in that respect.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
Many thanks for publishing Strength in Numbers. You fill an important hole in the information ecosystem that went missing with the demise of FiveThirtyEight. So glad you're here!
As long as the Iran response is feeble--no blocking of Hormuz, no suicide bomber killing Americans, no successful Iranian bombing of anything anywhere--Trumpians are going to be all for the bombing. The test will come only if something goes wrong.
You might say that initial "intelligence" reports that the bombng had not accomplished much might temper enthusiasm among Trumpians. But is there anyone who really thought Trump would agree with that assessment? Of course he and his sycophants are going to lie about what was accomplished.
Also does anything think that anyone really knows if the bombing did "succeed"? Only time will tell.
Also significant is that we didn't lose any troops or aircraft in the mission. This was the optimum result. Imagine what public opinion would be if a plane had gone down for any reason.
Carter's trajectory would have been very different if his military effort to free the hostages hadn't resulted in a crash in the desert, and Obama's would have changed if the raid and killing of Osama Bin Laden had failed like Carter's mission had.
Isn’t an actual ground invasion of Iran more like Trump’s ICE deportations than bombing Iran in that Trump won’t be able to sway public opinion once the videos and news articles keep coming?
A ground invasion will have US casualties. Headlines about deaths. Videos of distraught parents, spouses, and kids. Flag draped coffins. Civilian deaths. It won’t seem like a quick, successful, flex of a mission that obliterates a danger.
We don’t have enough drones for a war. And the way drone warfare is playing out in Ukraine (100Ks of fpv every month) the operators have to be on the ground. Our drone bombings in the Middle East were to kill threats. Not sufficient to overthrow a regime.
If reporting is accurate that Iran has hidden the enriched Uranium than there’s a responsable chance that Trump is faced with a choice of accepting a nuclear armed Iran or invading to stop it.
Or maybe Iran is sufficiently cowed by the Israeli and US attacks plus losing Syria and Hezbollah’s defeats.
We have successfully overthrow regimes (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan) - it’s building a new government that is acceptable to their country and to us that hasn’t worked.
When assessing popular response to the use of American military forces abroad, I would urge you not to overlook the almost knee jerk response that appears in certain quarters in the USA of “supporting the boys” since at least the mid 20th Century almost regardless of the reason for it or the reported success or failure.
I am glad you are taking credit for what you are doing that is working and only hope you will do the same when it doesn't. And I would like every other pollster and pundit to do the same - otherwise, this wholeendeavor has little merit and promotes as much noise as it does signal.
Just saying still I would be generally wary of polls right now since a lot of them are likely designed to skew towards certain results in order to satisfy the medias narrative
https://jemartisby.substack.com/p/bombs-for-the-apocalypse-ted-cruz
Prof. Jemar Tisby's explanation of dispensationalism kinda covers what's going on here.
Humans are pack animals and follow a leader. That works out fairly well, when they have first hand knowledge of the suitability of someone for the job. Terribly, when many rely on tv and social media to form their opinions.
It'll be interesting to see how the Finnish program to teach children how to identify propaganda goes. Finland rates as the happiest nation, one of the most democratic, and with a comprehensive welfare system. Makes the article by an important writer on the happiness divide between conservatives and liberals rather questionable, especially as it takes conservatives' self-reported mental health states at face value. Of course, liberals in the US do have looming fascism to worry about right now.
I agree that "isolationism" had shallow support in the GOP, and was more anti-Biden than based upon principle.
That said, I've always argued with friends that a small but significant minority of Republicans are actually MAGA, and the rest just give Trump a pass hoping he'll focus on tax cuts, deregulation, and limited government and hope he abandons the rest.
I think actual MAGAs might still be more isolationist than the GOP overall.
That would be a couple good poll questions:
For Republicans: Do you consider yourself MAGA?
For Democrats: Would you describe yourself as Socialist? (Democratic Socialist, Socialist, or Communist)
My prior is that both is are minority within their parties, although each party represents those in the other party as the majority. But as a loyal SIN reader, I'm interested in what the actual data reveals!
I think you’ll like the graphics in this article! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/14/opinion/fix-congress-proportional-representation.html
I don't have a Times account, so the charts aren't available to me, sadly.
Thanks! As I thought, Progressive and Patriot are the two smallest factions. On the other hand, most (Boomer) conservatives I know would fall in the bottom quadrant (limited gov, social libertarian) and so I'd think is dominant, but the graphic shows it to be the least populated. Prior blown!
I’m trying to reconcile a contradiction in this post.
You make a strong case using people's opinions about the Iran bombing that party trumps values and people follow the leader.
Then you tell a story of immigration where opinion has shifted away from the leader.
What do these cases tell you about when people follow and when they don’t?
I can think of three things going on right now. First, support for Trump's immigration agenda is not falling much among Republicans, but among Democrats and independents. They are following their opinion leaders _against_ the White House. Second, Trump has recently voiced support for exceptions to his deportation policy for some farm workers, so it's possible Republicans are taking that as a signal against mass deportations too --- The Quinnipiac poll shows an increase in support among all voters for a path to citizenship, for example. Finally the old political science angle is that the following dynamic is stronger on an issue voters haven't already made up their minds on yet. Iran and immigration are different in that respect.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
Many thanks for publishing Strength in Numbers. You fill an important hole in the information ecosystem that went missing with the demise of FiveThirtyEight. So glad you're here!
❤️
As long as the Iran response is feeble--no blocking of Hormuz, no suicide bomber killing Americans, no successful Iranian bombing of anything anywhere--Trumpians are going to be all for the bombing. The test will come only if something goes wrong.
You might say that initial "intelligence" reports that the bombng had not accomplished much might temper enthusiasm among Trumpians. But is there anyone who really thought Trump would agree with that assessment? Of course he and his sycophants are going to lie about what was accomplished.
Also does anything think that anyone really knows if the bombing did "succeed"? Only time will tell.
Also significant is that we didn't lose any troops or aircraft in the mission. This was the optimum result. Imagine what public opinion would be if a plane had gone down for any reason.
Carter's trajectory would have been very different if his military effort to free the hostages hadn't resulted in a crash in the desert, and Obama's would have changed if the raid and killing of Osama Bin Laden had failed like Carter's mission had.
Nice job! :) Congratulations! :)
Isn’t an actual ground invasion of Iran more like Trump’s ICE deportations than bombing Iran in that Trump won’t be able to sway public opinion once the videos and news articles keep coming?
A ground invasion will have US casualties. Headlines about deaths. Videos of distraught parents, spouses, and kids. Flag draped coffins. Civilian deaths. It won’t seem like a quick, successful, flex of a mission that obliterates a danger.
No one is stupid enough to allow Trump to send ground troops in to Iran, especially in this era of drone warfare.
The US has been conducting a lot of war with drones since Obama was president.
I hope you’re right.
We don’t have enough drones for a war. And the way drone warfare is playing out in Ukraine (100Ks of fpv every month) the operators have to be on the ground. Our drone bombings in the Middle East were to kill threats. Not sufficient to overthrow a regime.
If reporting is accurate that Iran has hidden the enriched Uranium than there’s a responsable chance that Trump is faced with a choice of accepting a nuclear armed Iran or invading to stop it.
Or maybe Iran is sufficiently cowed by the Israeli and US attacks plus losing Syria and Hezbollah’s defeats.
We will see over the coming weeks & months.
They had a week's notice that Trump was going to bomb Fordow, of course it was moved, if it was ever there (they have
We're not going to overthrow any regimes, we have yet to complete a "regime change" in recent history, after spending trillions of dollars.
We have successfully overthrow regimes (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan) - it’s building a new government that is acceptable to their country and to us that hasn’t worked.
Exactly - US intervention is usually a "missing-steps" plan.
1. Overthrow the government
2. (Fill in detail about how we're gonna win hearts and minds later)
3. Mission accomplished!
When assessing popular response to the use of American military forces abroad, I would urge you not to overlook the almost knee jerk response that appears in certain quarters in the USA of “supporting the boys” since at least the mid 20th Century almost regardless of the reason for it or the reported success or failure.
Very cool! Congratulations!!
I am glad you are taking credit for what you are doing that is working and only hope you will do the same when it doesn't. And I would like every other pollster and pundit to do the same - otherwise, this wholeendeavor has little merit and promotes as much noise as it does signal.