dircha
11-20-2007, 11:34 PM
I was reading through the recent Iowa and New Hampshire CBS telephone poll of likely primary voters and found the responses to question 78 to be somewhat distressing.
Which comes closer to your view? 1. In the long run, the U.S. will be safer from
terrorism if it confronts the countries and groups that promote terrorism in the Middle
East. OR 2.In the long run, the US will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of other
countries' affairs in the Middle East?
And here is my attempt at formatting the results; I think these tags will force monospace font:
Confronts countries (IA D:19%, R:79%) (NH D:25%, R:61%)
Stays out of affairs (IA D:69%, R:16%) (NH D:66%, R:34%)
Don't know/No answer (IA D:11%, R:6%) (NH D:9%, R:5%)
What that says is 79% of likely Iowa Republican Caucus voters and 61% of likely New Hampshire Republican Primary voters believe that the United States will be safer from terrorism if it confronts countries "that promote terrorism in the Middle East" than if we "stay out of other countries' affairs in the Middle East".
This tells me that the majority voters either are not hearing Congressman Paul's message on non-intervention, or they are rejecting it. Congressman Paul's basic contention is that we will be safer if we stay out of the affairs of countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
But the good news is that 16% in Iowa and 34% in New Hampshire agree with Dr. Paul and believe that we will be safer if we stay out of these countries' affairs.
If we can figure out how to get our message to that 16% and 34% respectively, with a 5-way race we can pull this off, this could be a big win for us. Because as we know, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who will keep us out of Iran and who has expressed this policy of staying out of the affairs of these nations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf
Which comes closer to your view? 1. In the long run, the U.S. will be safer from
terrorism if it confronts the countries and groups that promote terrorism in the Middle
East. OR 2.In the long run, the US will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of other
countries' affairs in the Middle East?
And here is my attempt at formatting the results; I think these tags will force monospace font:
Confronts countries (IA D:19%, R:79%) (NH D:25%, R:61%)
Stays out of affairs (IA D:69%, R:16%) (NH D:66%, R:34%)
Don't know/No answer (IA D:11%, R:6%) (NH D:9%, R:5%)
What that says is 79% of likely Iowa Republican Caucus voters and 61% of likely New Hampshire Republican Primary voters believe that the United States will be safer from terrorism if it confronts countries "that promote terrorism in the Middle East" than if we "stay out of other countries' affairs in the Middle East".
This tells me that the majority voters either are not hearing Congressman Paul's message on non-intervention, or they are rejecting it. Congressman Paul's basic contention is that we will be safer if we stay out of the affairs of countries like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
But the good news is that 16% in Iowa and 34% in New Hampshire agree with Dr. Paul and believe that we will be safer if we stay out of these countries' affairs.
If we can figure out how to get our message to that 16% and 34% respectively, with a 5-way race we can pull this off, this could be a big win for us. Because as we know, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who will keep us out of Iran and who has expressed this policy of staying out of the affairs of these nations.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf