“Support for a military response comes from 66% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 54% of those not affiliated with either major political party. There is no gender gap on the issue as a military response is favored by 57% of men and 57% of women.”

So Republicans are somewhat more hawkish than Democrats and Independents though overall support is across the spectrum and ignores gender.

If I have to guess, which I do, the reason it is not being proposed is mulifold. First, most politicians, I think, agree that this is primarily an issue for the administration and that, tactically, it doesn’t make sense to telegraph such a move. In other words, let the administration take a shot at doing it their way, determine whether to support that approach or not, and then give it a little time to succeed or fail. More importantly, I think most politicians wish to focus on the economy and rightly conclude that while the population may support military action, it is not pressing or exigent at this time.

Rasmussen isn’t great on polling methodology, but it is better than Fox news.

So now back to your original “story” about the Republican in Texas. He sees this poll on this blog and thinks what? I want to get re-elected so I *won’t* support what 60% of the country wants?

According to the cited Rasmussen poll above, 57% of all Americans support a military strike on North Korea. Based on the demographics of the poll, it would be safe to conclude that Democrats support a military solution at or above the 40% level of the Fox survey.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Perhaps the days of liberal hawkishness are on the ebb, or, as stated in the article, perhaps its just a really bad idea to base foreign policy on polling. I know the Brookings Institute has come down in favor of diplomatic action in the form of UN sanctions and a temporary withdrawal from 6 way talks until a serious change in NKorean behavior. Moreover, based on the more granular data available to Brooking as compared to the general populace, they are convinced that the rocket launch constituted a failure. Moreover, Brookings indicates that NKorea used the last of its fissible material for the last test and current lack sufficient plutonium for a bomb and the means to produce it in short order. Moreover, NKorea does not have an adequate delivery system or the ability to adequately miniaturize its explosives such that they could be delivered in the event enough bomb grade plutonium were produced.

I agree with you that the poll is meaningless from a statistical perspective. I raise it as a discussion piece and nothing else. Indeed my hunch is that if one were to conduct a national poll with proper scientific polling methods, we would see something like 25-30% support for attacking NK. What do you think?

Restated. Assume I am a hawk and a political pragmatist. Also assume that my district is in central Texas and voted, overwhelmingly (say 80%) in support of McCain, Bush, et. al. As a pragmatist, I wish to keep my job, so I am unlikely to publically support positions that are not popular amongst my constituency. As a hawk, I am inclined to look for military solutions to international problems. Naturally, as a pragmatist, I will wish to poll my extremely conservative and hawkish constituency before coming out publically on the most pressing issues. Such an issue arises and I am inclined to support a military strike on Korea, but I am concerned that my constituency might disagree, so I conduct a blind poll with all appropriate safeguards and it comes back that 40% support military action and 60% oppose it. Now further suppose that I wish to run for the Senate next time and I will require state wide support which is less hawkish than my current constituency, so I poll the rest of the state, which is still conservative and it runs 30% in support of military action and 70% opposed. Lastly, assume that I have been told that I am a black horse candidate for the next presidency and that, if I can keep on the straight and narrow, I am likely to get some broad support, while national polls are running 15% in favor of military action and 85% opposed. In those cirucmstances, I would be an idiot to come out for military action, particularly if I can manage to sound hawkish while deferring on the military option. After all, if public opinion shifts, I’ll be the first to jump in.

So, again, the little on-line poll is essentially worthless as a statistical matter and, to the extent you can extrapolate anything from it, the only rational conclusion is that any pragmatic republican should shy away from the military option with NK, at least until they have far more information.