I'm really tired of this obsession with every poll that comes out. This has turned into a daily game. And TPM should be smarter than playing this game. Every frigging day.

These are actually interesting and potentially provocative numbers here.

Team Obama needs to begin the process of getting McCain to actually define what "winning" in Iraq really means in order to get people to recognize that "100 years" wasn't just some random number that McCain pulled out of his hat. The word indefinitely needs to become part of every Obama surrogates lexicon when describing the McCain/Bush vision of Iraq. And they need to stress over and over what the strategic goals of the surge really were, and where we're currently at.

In all four, decided minorities favor starting withdrawal immediately, with the goal of completing withdrawal in 18 months.

Yeah because a hell of a lot of our military in Iraq are "minorities" though that term is out of date. I'm the minority in my state these days - as a caucasian.

People in the general public with a real stake in the matter are a tad more realistic, obviously.

These people are just sensible, is all. They are smart enough to know that we can't just withdraw unilaterally and leave the place to chaos, nor can we just stay there indefinitely propping up the Iraqi Government.

America might even be ready for a mature discussion about the realities in Iraq, and where the US goes from here....Wait a minute, am I nuts?

I've been very happy with Franken's framing of the issue as one of a choice between wasting money abroad or meeting the needs at home. If the polls are correct, I blame it once again the coward caucus. The party won a majority on the Iraq issue in 2006 and have done nothing but reinforce Republicans on the issue since. If your Democrat is voting every penny for the war every time what do you do? Maybe you just mentally surrender the issue to the right.

well this is completely akward seeing as how obama does support staying in iraq

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/mccain-versus-the-internet/

Perhaps the numbers suggest that voters, although they prefer a certain outcome in Iraq (i.e., stabilization), understand that their policy preference is secondary to electing an executive who is not a crazy, unflexibile, Bush-like imperialist on foreign policy (i.e., Obama), as opposed to an executive who is a crazy, unflexibile, Bush-like imperialist on foreign policy (i.e., McCain).

I'm not entirely sure it is a great question. There are too many differences in the question - fixed date, stability, etc. I don't think there are too many people who want to get out ASAP who would do so if the situation becomes too unstable (that would include Obama). There is the other option that we have a fixed date that can be amended should the situation become unstable. Because of this third possibility (and I'm sure there are more combinations of the variables included in the question), I wouldn't trust the responses all that much.

The big problem with the GOP's position is that they haven't defined "stability". If stability is, as McCain says, no American troops getting killed or wounded, then we'll be there forever...or at least for McCain's desired 100 years. If stability means no more car bombings or internecine fighting, than we'll be there for more than 100 years. I think that for most people - ie, those responding to these polls - "stable" means something much different than what the GOP thinks/wants it to mean. And if the GOP keeps shouting about the success of the surge, people just may start thinking Iraq is "stable", and then they'll agree with Obama's withdrawal schedule. But McCain can't agree to that because what he thinks is stable is much different than what the American people thinks of as stable. His "stability" allows us to stay there forever...because we'll never achieve it. The American people's "stability" has most of our troops home within the next 2-3 years, unless Iraq somehow explodes into a hellhole of violence again. (OK, it's still a hellhole...perhaps a reversion back to a terrible, horrible hellhole of violence would make them change their minds.)

Maybe we should celebrate the "success" of the surge and the "stability" of Iraq? Take the issue away from the GOP. If we star saying that yeah, the surge is working...in fact, it worked...and the stability in Iraq now means we can start coming home in 6-8 months, they'll be left with nothing. They'll revert to talking about how bad it still is there, how much longer we need to say. Dems will look like the optimists, the GOP will look like the naysayers. The GOP/McCain/Bush don't want to be vindicated for being "right" about the surge...they want us to stay there with significant force strength in perpetuity.

I know, I know...it's a crazy idea. And it would be very difficult for any Dem to make this shift...maybe more time than we have before November. (although Obama's trip to the Middle East might give him the opening) But what do you think.

I certainly agree that a debate on Iraq is coming - it's only about 6 years overdue.

And I also agree that Obama has to win it - and I'm not terribly worried about that - though I don't think it's as simple as saying: "we're getting out."

It has been well chronicled that "immediate withdrawl" is a phrase that even some who oppose the war are hesitant about. Considering that neither candidate is calling for immediate withdrawl, the question is misleading at best.

Also, since no one can ensure that a continued occupation will result in a situation that is more stable, this too is misleading.

Rephrase the question with, Regardless of how you intend to vote, what would you prefer the next president do about the war in Iraq? Begin a gradual withdrawl of American troops, with a fixed date to have them all out within 18 months. OR Keep troops in Iraq under the current circumstances and hope that eventually things will get better, and then permanently keep troops in Iraq with no intention of full withdrawal.

This would more closely mirror the policies being offered by the candidates, and would dramatically change the numbers of the poll.

replace the phrase with "" and the numbers will change dramatically.

I don't think many posting here give a s**t, but if this list has one of your Senators, you might want to thank them for standing up against the sham FISA bill Bush finally got.

The list of those who voted against cloture included:

Joseph Biden, DE
Barbara Boxer, CA
Sherrod Brown, OH
Maria Cantwell, WA
Chris Dodd, CT
Dick Durbin, IL
Russ Feingold, WI
Tom Harkin, IA
John Kerry, MA
Frank Lautenberg, NJ
Patrick Leahy, VT
Robert Menendez, NJ
Bernie Sanders, VT
Chuck Schumer, NY
Ron Wyden, OR

I think this issue is already framed. Stability vs premature withdrawal.

Democrats attempt at framing the 'stability' issue as McSame/Lame's '100 year war' are getting old and tired. These polls seem to support that.

On the other hand the GOP hasn't even dusted off the Cut-And-Run playbook. Surrender Monkey, Early Ejaculator and Wimpy are plays run out the Cut-and-Run formation. Nobody wants to be known as a quitter. These polls seems to support that.

So its 100 years vs Quitter

We'll see who wins.

I wholeheartedly agree with your Late Late Update.

Obama's phrase "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in" dovetails with the majority view on the Iraq war.

I have been opposed to this idiotic misadventure from the get-go and want to see us get US troops out of there as soon as possible -- but no sooner.

My choice would be to put the difficult task of redeploying out of Iraq in the capable hands of Secretary of Defense James Webb.

Get 'er done.

My choice would be to put the difficult task of redeploying out of Iraq in the capable hands of Secretary of Defense James Webb.

O my, I really like that - a lot.

On Mind of Mencia...

Carlos: Stay in Iraq, or leave immediately?

Woman: Leave right now.

C: Even if Iraq falls apart and the violence spreads to other parts of the world?

W (emphatically): OH WELL.

As much as I want the US to withdraw sooner rather than later, the mentality of that woman scares the shittake out of me.

people alwasy "want" some utopian outcome

give them hard choices, and you get a different result

ask them "do you want to stay in Iraq indefinably, or would you like to remove all combat troops in 18 months"

bet ya get different numbers

asking what people "want" is stupid

I want the whole world, and a fucking pony too, okay