Polling Iran

We've seen in earlier polling that the public has no problem with Barack Obama's idea of high-level meetings with the leaders of "bad guy" nations. Now comes along this set of polling from Public Agenda (via David Shorr) that likewise shows specific support for a liberal approach to Iran -- diplomacy aimed at improving relations between Washington and Teheran is by far the most popular option, and it's popularity has only grown.

Lurking elsewhere in the polling, a strong 65 percent correctly say that it's not realistic to expect the government to be able to deliver cheap oil. At the same time, this poll and every other poll I've seen shows that people view the high cost of energy as a major problem in their lives. It's almost as if the public might be drawn to a serious proposal to develop alternatives to massive oil consumption.

Comments

Was the "Spring 2008" portion of this survey conducted recently enough to infer that Obama might actually be winning the Iranian debate vs. McCain and changing public opinion?

I've always agreed with the idea of talking with our enemies, if for no other reason than the more face-to-face time you have with someone the more you treat eachother like human beings.

It seems to me that Obama is clearly winning this argument, but I'm not at all sure that my opinion is based on anything more than the fact that I already agree with him.

Posted by Matt | June 5, 2008 10:53 AM

It's almost as if the public might be drawn to a serious proposal to develop alternatives to massive oil consumption.

If I asked you which two countries were the leaders in wind-derived electricity, what would you answer? Germany is #1 and the US is #2. Furthermore the US is rapidlly closing the gap, installing roughly twice as much wind power per year as Germany.

http://www.gwec.net/uploads/media/chartes08_EN_UPD_01.pdf

Here is a map of the US which shows areas of high wind, suitable for wind power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_wind_power_map.png

Notice how dark Lake Michigan is. We often hear people suggest the US build oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to get 2 or 3 years' worth of energy. Why not build wind power rigs in Lake Michigan to get a lifetime's worth?

Chicago is the third largest city in the US. Wind turbine rigs in Lake Michigan could provide a large portion of its electricity.

Of course, wind is not constant. Sometimes it doesn't blow when its' needed, or it does blow when it isn't. Some way would need to be found to store the latter to serve the former.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant

If only our next president had strong ties to the Chicago area, we might convince him to study a proposal such as this.

(Look again at the wind power map. 8 of the 10 most populous US cities--totalling roughly 21 1/3 million people--are within 100 miles of an area of high wind activity.)

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | June 5, 2008 11:25 AM

A more interesting poll...

Forty-five percent (45%) of likely voters agree with Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama that it's a good idea for the U.S. president to meet directly with the leader of Iran, but well over half (59%) think that talks should only take place after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 35% of Likely Voters oppose any such meetings with the Iranian President and 19% are undecided.

Twenty-four percent (24%) say a halt in Iran's nuclear program is not necessary for direct talks to occur; 17% are not sure.

Full Report

Based on this poll, it appears the public doesn't support Obama's promise to meet with the Iranian leadership without preconditions.

Posted by A New Fox News Fan | June 5, 2008 11:43 AM

Gee, if only there were some sort of intelligence estimate that could tell us if Iran was working on a nuclear weapon.

Posted by daveNYC | June 5, 2008 11:47 AM

"but well over half (59%) think that talks should only take place after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons."

In other words, they're ready for the talks to take place now.

Posted by Elyas | June 5, 2008 12:01 PM

"but well over half (59%) think that talks should only take place after Iran stops developing nuclear weapons."

In other words, they're ready for the talks to take place now.

Posted by Elyas | June 5, 2008 12:13 PM

Insert the word "cheap" before "alternatives" and you're completely correct Matt.

Posted by Vermando | June 5, 2008 3:34 PM

Notice that Matt didn't take part in the poll himself.

Actually telling somebody his own opinion on Iran would be totally unacceptable to him.

Someone might get the idea that he's as wrong on Iran as he was on Iraq.

And that might hurt sales of his book.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 5, 2008 6:26 PM

Unfortunately, if Bush attacks Iran in late Summer or October, everybody but the "no need to do anything" 11% (who are clearly innoculated against Matrix Reality) will rally around the Commander-in-Chief. The American people have a terrible record of forgetting how to be good Americans (i.e., skeptical of government) at the outset of a war, and being good Germans instead. They only become skeptical after it's too late, instead of when it would have done some good--when we were actually getting into the war and they could have stopped it, if they weren't letting themselves be led around by the nose.

Posted by Kevin Carson | June 6, 2008 3:41 AM

It is simply ridiculous to describe a pragmatic policy towards Iran as "...a liberal (sic) approach..."

Was that 65% who don't expect the government to deliver cheap oil in Iran? I think they pay a government-subsidized $.35 a gallon. Wait until Americans find out that if the government doesn't act to keep oil if not cheap at least within reason, the entire economy collapses. Poll them when unemployment is running over twenty percent.

Posted by robert powell | June 6, 2008 6:54 AM