Poll Finds Tentative Support, Potential Risks for Obama on Libya-2/3 of Dems approve of no-fly zone

[highplainsdem]

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog at the NY Times, and a PDF file with the CNN poll he's commenting on:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/poll-finds-tentative-support-potential-risks-for-obama-on-libya/

March 21, 2011, 4:40 pm
Poll Finds Tentative Support, Potential Risks for Obama on Libya
By NATE SILVER

CNN has released a poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, that asked people for their views on President Obama’s handling of Libya. Initial reactions are more favorable for Mr. Obama than not, but the numbers are close enough that one can easily imagine some political downside for the president.

There are several different questions in the poll. For instance, when CNN asked people about the establishment of a “no-fly zone”, and provided a fairly lengthy description of it, support registered 70 percent, up significantly from last week. But support dropped to 54 percent when CNN asked a more targeted question about about airborne attacks on Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. And there was strong opposition to any use of ground troops, which president Obama has pledged not to employ.

-snip-

Now, the PDF file showing the complete CNN poll results:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/21/rel5a.pdf

Pages 8, 9 and 10 of the poll show the breakdown by political party and by liberal/moderate/conservative self-identifications.

Question 28
Some people have suggested establishing a "no-fly" zone in Libya which would be an area patrolled
by military planes from the U.S. and other countries to prevent Gadhafi from using his air force.
No U.S. ground troops would be involved but U.S. airplanes or missiles might be used to shoot down
Libyan airplanes or attack ground bases used by the Libyan air force. Do you favor or oppose the
U.S. and other countries attempting to establish a "no-fly zone" in Libya?

Favor - 70% total
Democrat - 64%
Independent - 70%
Republican - 77%
Liberal - 65%
Moderate - 69%
Conservative - 74%

Oppose - 27% total
Democrat - 32%
Independent - 26%
Republican - 20%
Liberal - 31%
Moderate - 27%
Conservative - 25%



Question 29
The military actions to create a "no-fly zone" might not be directly targeted at Gadhafi's troops
who are fighting the opposition forces in Libya. Would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other
countries using planes and missiles to directly attack Gadhafi's troops in Libya?

Favor - 54% total
Democrat - 50%
Independent - 51%
Republican - 62%
Liberal - 49%
Moderate - 49%
Conservative - 59%

Oppose - 43% total
Democrat - 46%
Independent - 46%
Republican - 35%
Liberal - 48%
Moderate - 47%
Conservative - 39%



Question 30
And would you favor or oppose the U.S. and other countries using ground troops to directly attack
Gadhafi's troops in Libya?

Favor - 28% total
Democrat - 28%
Independent - 30%
Republican - 27%
Liberal - 29%
Moderate - 28%
Conservative - 28%

Oppose - 70% total
Democrat - 70%
Independent - 69%
Republican - 72%
Liberal - 70%
Moderate - 70%
Conservative - 71%


The last question is interesting in that there's almost no difference between Democrats/liberals and Republicans/conservatives in the percentages that favor or oppose using ground troops.

With the first two questions, there'a about a 10-12% difference in whether people favor or oppose, depending on political party and liberal/conservative identification.

But compared to lots of other issues, that isn't a huge difference.

About 2/3 of Democrats and self-identified liberals approve of the no-fly zone.
About half approve of using planes and missiles to attack Gadhafi's forces.
Only 3 in 10 would approve of using ground troops. But that's 28% of Democrats. 29% of liberals. And even fewer Republicans approved of using ground troops.

It's no wonder we're seeing no many arguments here.

But it's also true that Republicans and conservatives disagree about what the US is doing in Libya.

[bluestateguy]

1. Pollsters: The Ambulance Chasers of American politics

Shameless little bean counters.

The little dorks probably spent all of their childhood playing Dungeons and Dragons, and then grew up to major in statistics in college.

[joshcryer]

2. That poll is amazing, thanks for posting it. As suspected, no ground troops...

...are supported by anyone, just as the Libyan people have asked.

[highplainsdem]

3. I'm opposed to using ground troops, too.

[joshcryer]

6. So am I, I am worried about the UK voting for troops.

I think that the revolutionaries can do it without any outside troops, but what can you say. I'm just glad they're not ours.

[highplainsdem]

4. kick

[David__77]

5. When war starts, there's always a "bounce."

Iraq was close to even, and then after the bombs started falling, seemingly opposition melted away. It's too bad, and I don't deny the validity of it. It just means that anti-war forces have to work twice as hard to patiently convince people.

[joshcryer]

7. Iraq was played as a response to 9/11.

In a year, by 2004, the support was lukewarm at best.

[David__77]

8. Absolutely. It almost brought Bush down in 2004 I believe.

I am referring only to the early months after the initiation of conflict. The US citizens like war and "victory," but don't want to pay a price for it, as with so many things. Once the insurgency got its act together so to speak, that was it for the "easy" phase. I believe that the US citizenry would also give early support to many potential wars, whether in Iran or Korea. But I believe that support would be on shaky foundations if there were any casualties or setbacks.

[highplainsdem]

9. I don't think this is a "bounce" -- if it was, you'd see more support for using ground troops.

But we'll see...

[highplainsdem]

10. kick

[highplainsdem]

11. The Ed Show's online poll tonight asked, "Do you support military action against Libya?"

It got similar results -- roughly 2/3 supported this military action.