Yes, when it’s described generously. Then that same group of voters turns around and says Congress should reject it.
But when they just hear about “the deal” they oppose it more than 2-1. Which tells me that the President has been tuned out. He’s sellling the deal and no one is listening.
You’re picking and choosing. The polling varies wildly depending on how the question is asked. Your last two sentences are just more wishful thinking.
Can’t get much more direct than “What do you think of the deal?” When the deal has to be explained in generous terms, that’s not going to get an accurate read of public opinion. It does give you an accurate read of public opinion IF the President successfully sells the deal as CNN explained it in the question. Judging by what pollsters who don’t explain the deal get, he obviously has not accomplished that.
For a great communicator(supposedly), the Republicans consistently destroy him in the messaging wars.
Impossible to say. But it’s probably worth noting that a great deal of Iran’s dissidents and pro-democracy activists support the deal - presumably in the hope that it’ll lead to precisely the kind of outcome you envision.
You say “generous” terms – that’s your own judgment. The fact that opinion varies so wildly means that the public isn’t paying that much attention.
Except of course when they run against him.
THey may not be able to shoot the sheriff, but they got most of his deputies.
Probably bad timing for such a reference, not that it makes sense anyway.
You have to admit though that selling his policies has not been one of his strengths.
I’m pretty sure I’ve admitted that frequently. He has too, I think.
Latest polling on the ACA has me optimistic that they’ll turn around with time.
Here’s NPR on the bass-ackwards way Congress will (probably) let the Iran nuclear deal go through. Political courage has always been a rare commodity: How The Iran Vote Is Engineered To Pass : It's All Politics : NPR
Do you watch the Simpsons? If so, do you recall the focus group on Itchy and Scratchy where researchers asked kids if they wanted the cartoon to deal with real life situations - and the kids all said yes. Then the researchers asked if the kids wanted the cartoon to deal in far-out fantasy situations, and the kids all cheered.
That’s what’s happening here. I think the polls show that this is a complex topic that the public in general doesn’t have a good handle on. Just look at all the undecided numbers in each of those polls - anywhere from a fifth to two-fifths are frequently unsure of their position.
The only thing these polls show - whether they show the agreement is popular or unpopular - is that the data are too conflicted to draw any conclusions. Why you think they prove the Administration has failed in some respect is just the same ol’ adaher bias you show in most of your posts.
And let me go one further - and I don’t mean this at all as an insult - I’m not really sure if you understand the deal. For example, I’ve asked you if you understand breakout a few times, and you haven’t responded. If one doesn’t understand breakout, it’s pretty much impossible to understand the substance of the deal.
Obama now has 34 Senators committed to not overriding his veto. The deal is safe.
Who is the latest?
It’s also bullshit. We’ve turned the Constitution on its head that we now need a 2/3rds vote to stop a deal rather than to approve one. Is there any reason this can’t be also done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
This process was approved by Congress. It’s entirely Constitutional.
Just checked – it’s Barbara Mikulski. Game over for the anti-deal folks.
The process was approved by the Congress led by your party. Little your side can do now but say “Damn! We lost by the rules that we wrote!”
None I can think of.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. Therefore, like all other trade deals, Congress must pass a law in accordance with its role in holding all legislative authority under the Constitution.
The TPP, NAFTA, GATT, and anything else you can name that’s a trade deal are all legislative matters. They are not treaties under US law, nor are they executive agreements. None of them can be implemented as such.
I just wanted to thank the GOP for putting up such a robust defense of the filibuster in the past so that Dems can simply quote something Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell said years ago to support the filibuster-proof majority Obama has on yet another foreign policy accomplishment. Thanks GOP! 