Showing 1 – 9 of 9 results.
Curated
CBS News Monthly Poll, June 2003 (ICPSR 3828)
Released/updated on: 2009-04-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-06-01--2003-06-30
This poll conducted, June 12-13, 2003, is part of a continuing series of monthly polls that solicit opinions on political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his overall job performance, his ability to do something to establish peace in the Middle East, United States involvement in Iraq, former President Bill Clinton, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Questions involving the United States involvement in Iraq addressed whether removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power was worth the human and economic costs, whether it mattered if Saddam Hussein were found, whether the Bush administration over-, under-, or accurately estimated the number of weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq, whether the Bush administration exaggerated the number of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to garner support for military action, whether the Central Intelligence Agency over-, under-, or accurately estimated the number of weapons of mass destruction present in Iraq, respondents' level of confidence that the United States would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, whether it mattered if weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, and whether Iraq was an immediate threat, a threat but did not require immediate action, or not a threat. Views were sought on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from New York. Respondents were queried on whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Senator Clinton, what they liked about her, what they disliked about her, whether their opinions of Senator Clinton were more based on their agreement with her political views or their feelings about her personal life, Senator Clinton's performance as first lady, her performance as a senator, her performance as a mother, whether Senator Clinton was a good role model for professional women, and whether she was a good role model for wives. Respondents were asked whether they would describe Senator Clinton as possessing high or average intelligence, whether they felt she had worked hard to attain her position in life, whether she exhibited more or less honesty and integrity than most people in public life, whether she cared about the needs and concerns of the respondents, whether she showed strong leadership qualities, whether they would have confidence in Senator Clinton in a crisis situation, and whether she said what she believed or what people wanted to hear. In addition, respondents were polled on whether they agreed with Senator Clinton's political views, regardless of their personal feelings toward her, whether they read or knew of her most recent book "Living History," whether they believed her statements about her reaction to the relationship between former President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, whether Senator Clinton was hiding something the public should know, whether she would run for president of the United States in 2004 or 2008, whether she should run for president of the United States in 2004 or 2008, and who would run the White House, she or former President Clinton, if she were elected president. Additional questions addressed whether respondents considered themselves part of the conservative Christian political movement, also known as the religious right, and whether respondents were registered to vote in the precincts or districts where they resided. Background variables include age, sex, ethnicity, education, political orientation, political ideology, marital status, religious orientation, household income, whether the respondent voted in the 2000 presidential election, and if so, for whom (Democrat Al Gore, Republican George W. Bush, Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, or Green Party candidate Ralph Nader).
Curated
CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #1, September 2002 (ICPSR 3704)
Released/updated on: 2009-04-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2002-09-01--2002-09-30
This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, the economy, and the campaign against terrorism. Views were elicited on the trustworthiness of the government and why respondents felt that way, whether the Bush administration had a clear plan for handling terrorism, whether the United States should attack another country (including Iraq) before it was attacked, whether the United States should attack another country (including Iraq) if the United States believed that it posed a nuclear threat, level of confidence in the United States government to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, the likelihood of another terrorist attack in the next few months, and personal concern about local acts of terrorism. Respondents were also asked about their level of confidence in the ability of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, whether the United States could claim victory over terrorism if bin Laden was not captured or killed, and whether they believed bin Laden was still alive. Additional questions sought respondents' views on how well the war on terrorism was going, and how much progress the Bush administration had made in closing terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, in eliminating threats from terrorists from other countries, placing a stable government in Afghanistan, improving the image of the United States in the Arab world, developing a comprehensive plan for protecting the United States from terrorism, and improving air travel safety. Respondents were asked how concerned they were with losing civil liberties and if they agreed or disagreed that Americans would always have to live with terrorism. Regarding the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, respondents were asked how much they blamed the CIA, the FBI, United States policies in the Middle East, and security at United States airports. Respondents were asked how safe Americans felt from terrorist attacks, how safe they felt personally, how often they thought about and talked about September 11, whether the United States has done all it could to make the country safe, and whether the United States was prepared for biological and chemical attacks. With regard to Iraq, respondents were asked whether the Bush administration had clearly explained the possible attack on Iraq, whether they approved or disapproved of the United States taking military action, whether the United States should attack soon or give the United Nations more time, whether President Bush should receive Congressional approval before taking military action, whether they thought military action would take place, whether the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was worth the potential loss of American lives, whether military action should take place if it meant substantial military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, and whether respondents would favor military action if the war lasted for several months or years. Respondents were queried as to whether they believed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq was planning to use these weapons against the United States. In regard to the September 11 terrorist attacks, respondents were asked how afraid they were of flying, whether they had flown on a commercial airline since the attacks, how likely it was that Arab Americans, Muslims, and Middle Eastern immigrants would be singled out unfairly, whether Arab Americans were more sympathetic to terrorists than other Americans, whether respondents had a good or bad image of New York City, whether they had ever visited the World Trade Center, whether they attended religious services after the attacks and whetherthey continued to do so, how likely they were to watch the news since the attacks, how much time they spent with family, and how their lives and the country had changed as a result of the terrorist attacks. In addition, respondents were asked whether they had trouble sleeping, whether they felt nervous or edgy after the attacks, whether their children expressed concern over their safety and their family's safety, how often the respondents talked to their children about September 11, whether they knew someone who was hurt in the September 11 attacks, whether they knew an Arab American, and whether an immediate family member was currently serving in United States armed forces. Finally, respondents were asked about their political party preference, whether they had financial investments, whether they had voted in the 2000 presidential election and for whom, their political views, marital status, religious preference, education, age, Hispanic descent, ethnicity, income, and whether there were additional phone lines in the home.
Curated
CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #2, February 2003 (ICPSR 3746)
Released/updated on: 2009-04-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-02-01--2003-02-28
This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President George W. Bush and his handling of the presidency, foreign policy, the economy, the situation with Iraq, and the situation with North Korea, as well as their views of the United Nations and its handling of the situation with Iraq. Those queried were asked which of the following issues should receive the most Congressional attention in the coming year: fighting the war on terror, improving the economy, dealing with Iraq, or dealing with North Korea. Respondents' familiarity with and understanding of possible United States military action against Iraq was assessed. They were asked whether the Bush administration and/or Secretary of State Colin Powell had presented adequate evidence that military action against Iraq was necessary, that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq was connected with the terrorist group Al Qaeda. Respondents were asked whether the removal of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the protection of a global source of oil, and/or the prevention of Iraqi development of weapons of mass destruction were appropriate uses of military action, whether United Nations weapons inspectors should be given additional time, whether diplomatic options had been exhausted, whether Iraq posed an immediate danger to United States interests, and whether any of these reasons would justify the potential loss of American and Iraqi lives. In the event of war, respondents were asked to predict how long the war would last, how many American soldiers would be killed, whether the war would be fought in the air or through heavy ground combat, how the war would affect the United States economy, whether the threat of terrorism against the United States would increase, and whether the United States should help pay the cost of rebuilding Iraq after the war. In addition, respondents were asked whether Iraq, North Korea, or Al Qaeda posed the greatest threat to world peace and stability. A series of question focused on North Korea's announcement that it had been developing nuclear weapons. Questions focused on whether the Bush administration had a clear plan to deal with North Korea, whether the situation required military action, could be contained with inspections, or did not pose a threat to the United States, whether the respondent expected and/or approved of military action against North Korea. Those polled were asked to assess the war on terror, including the clarity of the Bush administration's plan, the likelihood of a terrorist attack against the United States in the next few months, who was winning the war, whether government-issued warnings were useful, and whether those warnings made the respondent feel more secure or more anxious. Respondents were asked to consider how the possibility of war with Iraq had affected their travel plans, specifically whether it had made them more or less likely to fly, whether they had cancelled any trips out of concern, the method of transportation to be used during upcoming travel, whether they would consider overseas travel in the next six months, and where they would like to go on such a trip. Their views were sought on whether news coverage had been biased in favor of the war and whether the media had been too easy on the Bush administration. Other questions addressed the value of the manned space program in the United States and whether funding for the program should be increased or decreased. Additional items covered the state of the United States economy, whether Hussein was personally involved in the 2001 terrorist attack against the World Trade Center, and whether Americans who opposed a war with Iraq should be permitted to hold protest marches. Backgroundinformation on respondents includes age, gender, voter registration and participation history, political party, political orientation, marital status, religion, education, Hispanic descent, race, children in household, military service, whether respondents had traveled abroad, and household income.
Curated
Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in the United States, China, India, Australia, and South Korea, 2006 (ICPSR 4650)
Released/updated on: 2008-07-18
Geographic coverage: South Korea, United States, China (Peoples Republic), Australia, Global, India
Time period: 2006-01-01--2006-12-31
The Chicago Council undertakes a large-scale public opinion study every two years that compares American and international public opinion on a wide range of important international issues. A significant part of each biennial survey is additionally dedicated to examining a timely theme. The theme of the 2006 survey was, "The Rise of China and India."
This data collection presents a unique comparison of international attitudes on how the emergence of China and India as economic dynamos and claimants to great power status will affect the global economy, international security, and politics. Moreover, this study sought to assess American public opinion (Part 1, Public Opinion Survey, United States) on a variety of challenges facing the United States today including international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, conflict in the Middle East, the rising economic and political power of Asia, economic competition from abroad, and threats to energy supplies and the environment. This data collection also provides an understanding of how the Chinese (Part 2, Public Opinion Survey, China) and Indian (Part 3, Public Opinion Survey, India) publics view their nations' international challenges and opportunities and their respective roles as emerging great powers. Parallel surveys were also conducted in Australia (Part 4, Public Opinion Survey, Australia) in conjunction with the Lowy Institute for International Policy, and in South Korea (Part 5, Public Opinion Survey, South Korea) in conjunction with the East Asia Institute.
Demographic variables include race, age, gender, religious affiliation, highest level of education, and political identification.
Curated
ABC News/Washington Post Colin Powell Speech to the United Nations Poll, February 2003 (ICPSR 3775)
Released/updated on: 2003-07-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-02-01--2003-02-28
This special topic poll, conducted February 5, 2003, was undertaken to assess public opinion on Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations about Iraq earlier that day. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way President George W. Bush was handling the situation with Iraq and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whether they supported or opposed United States military action against Iraq even without United Nations support, and whether the Bush administration had presented enough evidence to show why military action was necessary. Those polled were asked to assess their familiarity with Powell's address to the United Nations, whether Powell made a convincing case for going to war, and whether the evidence presented proved, or merely suggested, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Views were sought on whether the United States had presented strong evidence showing that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, was trying to develop nuclear weapons, had provided direct support to the al Qaeda terrorist group, and had not cooperated with United Nations weapons inspectors. Respondents were asked how much longer the Bush administration should give United Nations weapons inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction, and whether it was more important for the United States to move quickly against Iraq or wait to gain international support. Background information on respondents includes gender and political party.
Curated
ABC News/Washington Post War Poll #2, April 2003 (ICPSR 3784)
Released/updated on: 2003-07-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-04-01--2003-04-30
This special topic poll, conducted April 9, 2003, was undertaken to assess public opinion on the war against Iraq. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way President George W. Bush was handling the presidency as well as the way things were going in the United States. Respondents' opinions were elicited about whether they supported the United States going to war with Iraq, whether that support would change if the United States found chemical and/or biological weapons in Iraq, whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had to be killed/captured for the war to be considered a success, and whether the people of Iraq were on the side of the United States or Hussein. Those queried were asked to assess how the war was going, whether the number of United States military casualties had been acceptable, and whether everything had been done to avoid civilian casualties. Respondents were asked whether they were surprised at how quickly the United States military took control of Baghdad, and whether they considered the war with Iraq basically over. A series of questions addressed post-war Iraq. Topics covered whether the United States or the United Nations should be in charge until a new government was established, whether a large number of soldiers should remain in Iraq to maintain peace, whether the war would leave the United States in a stronger or weaker position in the world, and how the war would affect stability in the Middle East. Views were sought on the likelihood that the United States would become bogged down in a drawn-out war with Iraq, whether the war would cause long-term damage to United States relations with France, Germany, and Russia, and whether the United States would be too quick to use military force to resolve disputes in the future. Lastly, respondents were asked whether the United States had done the right thing by going to war with Iraq. Background information on respondents includes gender and political party.
Curated
ABC News/Washington Post War Poll #3, April 2003 (ICPSR 3785)
Released/updated on: 2003-07-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2003-04-01--2003-04-30
This special topic poll, conducted April 16, 2003, was undertaken to assess public opinion on the war against Iraq. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way President George W. Bush was handling the presidency, whether they supported or opposed the war, and whether the United States was doing enough to restore civil order in Iraq. Opinions were sought on the importance of the United States capturing or killing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, finding biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, restoring civil order in Baghdad and elsewhere, providing humanitarian aid, rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq, and helping establish a new government in Iraq. Those polled were asked whether the United States or the United Nations should take the lead in awarding contracts to companies for rebuilding the infrastructure, helping maintain civil order until a new government is established, and helping establish a new government in Iraq. Views were sought on whether the war with Iraq was considered part of the war against terrorism, whether the war would increase the risk of further terrorism in the United States, and the chances that the United States would become bogged down in a drawn-out peace keeping operation in Iraq. A series of questions addressed Syria and North Korea, nations accused of developing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorists by the Bush administration. Topics covered the possible use of diplomatic/economic pressure, military force, and going to war to remove their governments from power. Background information on respondents includes age, gender, and political party.
Curated
ABC News/Washington Post Anthrax Poll #2, October 2001 (ICPSR 3320)
Released/updated on: 2002-02-22
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2001-10-01--2001-10-31
This special topic poll, conducted October 24, 2001, was undertaken to assess respondents' reactions to and feelings about the recent anthrax attacks involving letters contaminated with anthrax bacteria being distributed through the mail. Respondents were asked to describe their reaction to the anthrax threat, and their concern that a close relative, friend, or they themselves would contract anthrax. Those queried were asked if they thought that the mail they received at home was safe, if they were satisfied with the way the government was handling the anthrax situation, whether the anthrax situation was an isolated incident or the first of a continuing series of cases, how confident they were in the government's ability to respond to a large-scale biological or chemical attack on the United States, whether the government was as prepared as it reasonably could have been to deal with a biological attack like the anthrax situation, and if the United States was doing all that it reasonably could to prevent further biological attacks. In addition, respondents were asked if they approved of the way the Office of Homeland Security was handling its job, and whether the news media was exaggerating the danger in the anthrax situation. Respondents were asked if, since September 11th, anyone in their household had bought a supply of antibiotics in case of biological attack, spoken with a doctor about anthrax or some other biological attack, started to exercise caution in opening mail, gathered information about what to do in case of an anthrax or other biological attack, started avoiding crowded places such as shopping malls because of the chance of terrorism, or tried to reduce the amount of mail they handled by asking people to send e-mail instead. With respect to exercising caution with the mail, respondents were asked whether someone in their household was currently looking over mail more carefully than usual, throwing away unfamiliar mail without opening it, wearing gloves or a mask when handling mail, washing their hands after handling the mail, or doing anything else with the mail to take precautions. Background information on respondents includes gender and political party.
Curated
ABC News/Washington Post Anthrax Poll, October 2001 (ICPSR 3300)
Released/updated on: 2001-10-31
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2001-10-01--2001-10-31
This special topic poll, conducted October 15, 2001, was undertaken to assess respondents' reactions to and feelings about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC, the United States' war on terrorism, and the recent letters contaminated with anthrax bacteria being distributed through the mail. Respondents were asked how they viewed President George W. Bush and his handling of the United States' campaign against terrorism, whether they believed that the United States government was doing all it could to prevent further terrorist attacks against America, and whether they were concerned about the possibility that there would be more major terrorist attacks in the United States. A series of questions focusing on the anthrax attacks queried respondents on whether they were concerned that they or someone close to them would be a victim of an anthrax attack, how confident they were in the ability of the United States government to respond effectively to a large-scale biological or chemical attack in the United States, and how accurate they thought news media reports on the anthrax situation were. In addition, respondents were asked whether they had purchased or intended to purchase a supply of antibiotics in case of a biological attack, and, if they had purchased antibiotics, what brand they bought. Those queried were asked to assess their level of concern that the United States war on terrorism would grow into a broader war between the United States and its allies and the Arab and Muslim world, and whether the United States was doing all it reasonably could to avoid civilian casualties as a result of the military action in Afghanistan. Background information on respondents includes gender and political party.