Trending Topics:

Iran deal is overwhelmingly supported by American voters — 54 to 38 percent

on 23 Comments

A new poll out today from Public Policy Polling shows Americans overwhelmingly in favor of the Iran deal, and there’s no downside for pols who support it.

Here are the numbers. By 54 percent to 38 percent, Americans are for the deal. Democrats split 75 to 17. Hear that, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer and Cory Booker?

But Republican oppose it 54 to 36.

The poll says that there are “basically no potential repercussions politically” for Congress persons who vote for the deal. The poll means, from voters. Voters want the agreement and the country to move forward, according to the survey, and just 36 percent of overall voters say they’ll be less likely down the line to vote for a member who supports the Iran agreement. (Here’s one problem with the poll: Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are merely 2 citizens, united, in this reckoning. But they actually are controlling some of the politics of the matter).

“The message is clear: voters think the Iran deal is a good one for the country, they want Congress to move it along, and if anything they’ll reward elected officials in the future who throw their support behind the agreement. It’s a winner politically.”

Poll was of 730 voters between July 23 and 24.

Polling data reveals the soft underbelly in the numbers. 35 percent of all voters strongly support the deal. But 32 percent strongly oppose it. It’s the somewhat’s who swing the numbers wildly in favor.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

23 Responses

  1. Les on July 27, 2015, 10:35 am

    Yet the NY Times owners feel free to attack J Street for supporting the Iran deal.

  2. David Doppler on July 27, 2015, 11:39 am

    The American people, especially the Liberals, aren’t so stupid as some on this blog assume. The whole point of an educated populace and free press is that the crowd gets smart, over time, and can eventually rectify even deeply established corruption. This is why the Likud pivot to a partisan right-wing strategy in the US is so fundamentally short-sided and dangerous for Israel. It ain’t going to work, those who support Israel in this effort are going to be painted with all the other unrealistic and dangerous things Netanyahu will do, and since he holds even American Jews in contempt, let alone American right-wingers, in the end he will be universally despised here.

    How long will Israel empower him to lead them to catastrophe?

    • Citizen on July 27, 2015, 3:46 pm

      How long will Americans empower Huckabee to lead the Jews to catastrophe so he & his ilk can rapture up?

    • Bandolero on July 27, 2015, 6:34 pm


      Yes, I think that is the real story:

      Democrats split 75 to 17 (pro Iran deal)

      To me it looks like Bibi and AIPAC are heading for a major trainwreck likely to result in serious permament damage to the power of the Israeli lobby.

      When Bibi, Israel and AIPAC now go against the deal as they do, they will very likely transform US support for Israel into a partisan political football. That will almost inevitably bring big discussions on long tabooed subjects regarding Israel to public attention in the US like the colonial-style law making it a duty for a US president to guarantee Israels QME. And finally Israel and AIPAC will lose big, because when the Democrats will single out Republicans on following a foreign leader and put up slogan like “When Americans made huge sacrifices fore a revolution against being a British colony, they did it not done to be subjugated by another country some time later – even if it’s a good friend like Israel. Vote American, Vote Democrat” the Republicans will have a hard time to maintain their pattern of following Bibi on whatever he does.

      I can already see the lobby crashing before my eye.

    • RoHa on July 27, 2015, 7:31 pm

      “The American people … aren’t so stupid as some on this blog assume. The whole point of an educated populace”

      You are really testing the self-restraint of the non-American commenters.

      • echinococcus on July 29, 2015, 5:09 am

        Not to mention the self-restraint of the shorter-fused among the Americans themselves.
        Now, being a little away you missed the real meat of the story. The quote was “The American people, especially the Liberals, aren’t so stupid as some on this blog assume”
        What is meant by “the Liberals” is people who sign on to all Imperial piracies but do it with a lot of pangs of conscience and handwringing. For instance, Bernie Sanders is obviously a Zionist who just hysterically defended the Gaza massacre; well, Bernie is the apple of their eye “because nobody is perfect, and even if he is a Zionist at least he is not a right-winger”. I kid you not.

      • Keith on July 29, 2015, 7:20 pm

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “What is meant by “the Liberals” is people who sign on to all Imperial piracies but do it with a lot of pangs of conscience and handwringing.”

        Quite so. Liberals may be described as the excessively loyal opposition. They decry systemic injustice while loyally supporting the system which produces the injustice they decry. Bernie Sanders fits their bill nicely. They can claim to oppose imperial policies while simultaneously supporting an imperial sanctioned candidate. Third Party candidates are out as that may be interpreted as lack of support for the system, hence, disloyal and, gosh, that wouldn’t do at all. Upscale liberals are noted for their fondness for fine whine.

  3. JLewisDickerson on July 27, 2015, 2:09 pm

    RE: (Here’s one problem with the poll: Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are merely 2 citizens, united, in this reckoning. But they actually are controlling some of the politics of the matter) ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: No s#it, Sherlock! ! !

    SEE: “Haim Saban”, by Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic, June 10, 2007

    [EXCERPT] If you’re interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there’s no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He [Saban] discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with ‘Haaretz’:

    “When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.” . . .

    . . . Saban was the largest overall contributor to the Democratic National Committee during the 2001-2002 cycle, when the party leadership was backing the Iraq War and Terry McAuliffe was DNC chair, and if Clinton becomes president, they’ll be back in the positions of influence they enjoyed back then. I doubt this all means that Hillary Clinton’s secretly itching for war with Iran, but it’s yet another illustration of the fact that her views on national security policy are too neoconnish for my tastes.

    SOURCE –

    • JLewisDickerson on July 27, 2015, 2:12 pm

      “A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound
      A buck or a pound
      A buck or a pound
      Is all that makes the world go around,
      That clinking clanking sound
      Can make the world go ’round…
      …Money money money money money money
      Money money money money money money…
      …Money makes the world go around,
      Of that we can be sure…”

    • JLewisDickerson on July 28, 2015, 3:17 am


      ● Pro-Israel: Money to Congress
      • SUMMARY
      • All cycles

      Dems: $70,969,618
      Repubs: $39,958,026
      Other: $1,546,917
      All Candidates: Total to All Candidates: $112,474,561
      Incumbents Only: Total to Members: $91,696,169

      Party / # of Members / Avg. Contribution / Total
      Democrats 1,468 $17,787 $27,119,594
      Republicans 973 $14,977 $15,500,766
      Independents 2 $1,181 $15,350
      TOTAL 2,443 $17,452 $42,635,710

      The US House of Representatives has 435 members and 5 non-voting delegates.
      Totals may exceed 440 due to mid-term replacements.

      Party / # of Members / Avg. Contribution / Total
      Democrats 377 $82,141 $31,227,126
      Republicans 301 $53,446 $16,379,493
      Independents 5 $102,324 $1,381,590
      TOTAL 683 $71,725 $48,988,209

      The US Senate has 100 members.
      Totals may exceed 100 due to mid-term replacements.

      The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.

      All donations took place during the -1-All election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, August 18, 2013.

      SOURCE –


  4. Citizen on July 27, 2015, 3:51 pm

    How can this be? Caroline Glick just told us, with lots of spittle & jutted chin, that she knows Americans and they overwhelmingly support Israel and are totally against the Iran Deal?

    • piotr on July 28, 2015, 1:01 am

      Sure she knows Americans. However, it was reported that fewer Republicans intermarry with Democrats than Jews with Christians. Socially, those two subsets socialize and discuss less and less. So among the numerous Americans that she knows there are very few who would have opposing view (and dared to say it to such a ferocious lady).

      • Keith on July 28, 2015, 8:14 pm

        PIOTR- “However, it was reported that fewer Republicans intermarry with Democrats than Jews with Christians. Socially, those two subsets socialize and discuss less and less.”

        This, in spite of the fact that once elected the actual policies are remarkably similar, uniquely so from a historical perspective. Perhaps it has to do with framing, how these policies are presented? Perhaps we have reached the point where words speak louder than actions, the actions being insufficiently distinct to permit appropriate differentiation, hence, an exaggerated emphasis upon the articulation of deception? Where well-crafted mythology takes the mind off depressing reality and folks can vote for business-as-usual in the guise of change? One thing for sure, both Republicans and Democrats consider Third Party candidates the enemy.

    • ziusudra on July 28, 2015, 3:30 am

      Greetings Citizen,
      Nobody can tell me, not even diehard Zios that Jews in general, in Israel or the US being educated & progressive people, even though that they, albeit, are w/o power, are pro Zio ideals for the future.
      All people are w/o power & we only get to hear Zios or Christian Zios play the power game.

  5. Keith on July 27, 2015, 4:06 pm

    Let us begin by noting that the Iranian nuclear issue is but a pretext for achieving strategic objectives. The US wants Iran controlled, whereas, Israel wants Iran destroyed. Over at CounterPunch, Ismael Hussein-Zadeh analyzes the deal from a strategic perspective with interesting conclusions. He feels that the empire more or less achieved its objectives with Iran subject to snap-back sanctions at the US discretion. Interestingly, this result was a victory for the Iranian elites who favor neoliberalism and their own wealth and power versus those who wanted to develop Iranian autonomy which would jeopardize current elite status. This, of course, has implications for Russia where there is also between the Atlanticist globalists and those favoring national autonomy. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Below is a somewhat long quote from the article followed by the link. I am going to make an exploratory attempt to italicize the quote with HTML symbols.

    “The question is why did the Iranian ruling circles, represented by the Rouhani administration, accept such an unsavory deal?

    In the face of the brutal economic sanctions, threatening an economic collapse and potentially a popular uprising that would threaten the power and property of the ruling elites, these elites faced (and, indeed, extensively debated) two alternatives to solve Iran’s economic problems and preserve their rule: “resistance” economics vs. austerity economics.

    According to resistance economics, suggested by Ayatollah Khamenei and supported by radical segments of opposition voices to neoliberal policies of the Rouhani administration, Iran should view economic sanctions as an opportunity to become self-reliant: to utilize domestic talents and resources in order to become self-sufficient by producing as many of the consumer goods and other industrial products as possible. Indeed, by following, more or less, this philosophy of resistance economics prior to the rise of Mr. Rouhani to presidency, Iran made considerable progress in scientific research, technological know-how and manufacturing industries. Proponents of this alternative also advocate relatively strong social safety net programs to protect the financially disadvantaged segments of citizens.

    The other alternative, advocated by the Rouhani administration and its allies, calls for the adoption of supply-side, neoliberal or austerity economics. According to this doctrine, solutions to economic stagnation, poverty and under-development lie in unhindered market mechanism and unreserved integration into world capitalist system. Recessions, joblessness and economic hardship in many less-developed countries are not so much due to economic mismanagement or the nature of global capitalism as they are because of government intervention and/or exclusion from world capitalist markets.

    As most of the former leaders of the 1979 revolution have aged, their earlier revolutionary appetite for radical economic alternatives also seems to have faded. By the same token, they seem to have acquired an avid appetite for the accumulation of power and property. Accordingly, the revolutionaries-turned-oligarchs, both in and outside the Rouhani administration, have shunned “resistance” economics in favor of the U.S.-style austerity economics as remedy to Iran’s economic ills and, therefore, to the salvation of their rule. (Ismael Hossein-Zadeh)

  6. amigo on July 27, 2015, 5:28 pm

    Somebody should poll the citizens other members of the P5+1 and show the republicans that their efforts will only harm their own countrymen/women.The numbers in Russia/china/France/Britain/Germany and the balance of the EU will be far greater in favour of the deal.That should make Addled son and Saban think twice before they bet on a losing horse.But I hope they they throw their ill gotten gains down the drain.

  7. Bandolero on July 28, 2015, 4:14 am

    Here is another interesting US poll:

    Poll: Overwhelming US Majority Says Israel Should Receive No Aid Boost due to US / Iran “Deal”

    • Marnie on July 28, 2015, 8:47 am

      That’s wonderful! Now will their elected officials pay attention to their constituents desires or?

  8. wondering jew on July 29, 2015, 7:18 am

    I support the Congress not overriding Obama’s signature on the pact with Iran. It is too complicated to view such an act by Congress as adding up to anything positive. I think it is natural for those who feel protective of the lives of those who live in Israel to feel scared of Iran’s intentions and thus to wonder if a pact of a longer duration (for limits on Iranian nuke program) with less loopholes might have been negotiated had other people been in charge of the US negotiating team.

    Some here have scoffed at fears for the population of Israel. I came across two quotes of Khomeini and Rafsanjani that seem to consider such fears well placed. I hope that the thinking of the current imams in charge of Iran is more practical and less apocalyptic than these quotes (especially Khomeini’s). Still I think a discussion of these fears without these quotes is incomplete.


    we do not worship Iran, we worship allah. for patriotism is another name for paganism. i say let this land burn. i say let this land go up in smoke, provided islam emerge triumphant in the rest of the world.


    if a day comes when the world of islam is duly equipped with the arms israel has in possession application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the muslim world.

    The khomeini quote is from “Nest of spies” by amir taheri. it is disputed by historian Shaul Bakhash.

    • talknic on July 29, 2015, 11:16 am

      WIKI … “no one can find the book Taheri claimed as his source in the Library of Congress or a search of Persian works in libraries worldwide. The statement itself can’t be found in databases and published collections of Khomeini statements and speeches”

      If you want to believe and/or cite a proven liar, you’ve got a problem

      Give up dude. Nothing justifies Israel’s current stance on the M East or the Palestinians. It has been a belligerent state as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)!

    • eljay on July 29, 2015, 11:27 am

      || y.f.: Some here have scoffed at fears for the population of Israel. ||

      1. You’re really loving the word “scoff” these days.

      2. Perhaps I missed them, but the only fears I’ve seen expressed here are for Jewish Israelis and not for “the population of Israel”, 20% of which is not Jewish. (Why do people hate non-Jewish Israelis so much?!)

Leave a Reply