Poll: Millennials support sending troops to fight ISIS, wouldn't serve if US needed more soldiers

[RandySF]

Sixty percent of millennials in a Harvard University survey said they support committing ground troops to fight the Islamic State.

Sixty-two percent of millennials said they “would definitely not join” the fight if the U.S. needed more troops to battle the terrorist group.

The findings are part of the university’s Institute of Politics “Survey of Young American’s Attitudes Toward Politics and Public Service.”

The 60 percent and 62 percent results came following a survey of 435 18- to 29-year-olds conducted soon after the Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris.


http://lancasteronline.com/poll-millennials-support-sending-troops-to-fight-isis-wouldn-t/article_f3a74466-a028-11e5-b9c4-bb43dfcf1aea.html

[Renew Deal]

1. They've been trained well.

[spanone]

2. i believe we have a deficiency of humanoids willing to put their own boots on the ground

[RandySF]

4. Harvard conducted the study, but the respondents were not from there.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. That appears so.

I will self delete.

[herding cats]

5. The polling is done by Harvard, not done only on Harvard students.

Conceived by two Harvard undergraduate students during the winter of 1999, Harvard University’s Institute of Politics Survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes toward Politics
and Public Service began in 2000 as a national survey of 18-to 24- year old college undergraduates. Over the last 15
years, this research project has grown in scope and
mission, as this report now includes an analysis of 18- to 29- year olds on a broad set of longitudinal and current events issues.
The first survey of N=800 college undergraduates was completed in the Spring of 2000 and all interviews were conducted over the telephone; since that time, 24
subsequent
surveys have been released. Over this period, a number of modifications have been made to the scope and methodology in order to ensure that sampling methods most
accurately capture the view of the population of young adults in a manner that will be useful to both the Institute of Politics and the broader research and political
communities.
•
In 2001, the survey was expanded from N=800 to N=1,20
0 college students in order to capture a more robust sample of the undergraduate population.
•
In 2006, the survey expanded to N=2,400 interviews, as we began interviewing members of the 18- to 24- year-old cohort who were not currently attending a four-year
college or university. In addition, because of changing uses of technology among younger Americans, in 20
06 the survey moved from a telephone poll to a survey that
was administered online.
•
In 2009, we expanded our scope a third time to include the population of young adults aged 18 to 29. While we will continue to report on the attitudes and opinions of
U.S. college students, this change in our research subject was made to allow for better and more direct comparisons to the broader set of election and general public
opinion research tracking data, which tends to track the 18- to 29-year-old demographic group. Our fall political tracking surveys will include samples of N=2,000, while
the s
pring semester’s research will be more in-depth and include N=3,000 interviews. All of our interviews are conducted in English and Spanish. Using GfK (formerly
Knowledge Networks) as our research partner, IOP surveys use RDD and Address-Based Sampling (ABS) frames and are administered online (see Appendix).
The interviewing period for this survey of N=2,011 18- to 29- year olds was October 30 to November 9, 2015. The margin of error for the poll is +/- 2.8 percentage points at
the 95 percent confidence level. During the interviewing period, major media stories included the downing of a Russian passenger jet in the Sinai Peninsula, reports that
Senator Marco Rubio misused official credit cards, Ben Carson’s claims that the pyramids were used to store grain and he was offered a West Point scholarship, President
Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and Donald Trump hosting of Saturday Night Live. The terrorist attacks on Paris occurred four days after the interviewing was
completed.
Harvard IOP Polling Director John Della Volpe supervised the survey group of undergraduates. As always, the IOP survey group would like to thank IOP Director Maggie
Williams, Executive Director Catherine McLaughlin, Communications and Marketing Director Esten Perez
for their insight and support over the course of this and all IOP
projects.
http://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/pictures/151208_Harvard%20IOP%20Fall%202015%20Report.pdf

You may find this interesting. It's the survey they conducted regarding young American's attitudes toward public service and politics mentioned in the linked article.

http://www.iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/pictures/151208_Harvard_IOP_Fall_2015_Topline.pdf

[Dawson Leery]

7. kick

[romanic]

8. Not surprising.

This is the same generation that would give up free speech not to offend anyone, it's no surprise they wouldn't have the guts to serve and protect that right or fight for any other reason.

[Igel]

9. That's been my general experience.

My kiddos are don't mind or even like that those disadvantaged get additional help, that stuff is done to help others close the "achievement gap", etc., etc.

But as soon as help for the disadvantaged affects them, as soon as they're sidelined when they don't want to be because those on the downside of the achievement gap need additional help, many frown and express displeasure. If materials need to be supplied to the low SES kids, that's wonderful; as long as it doesn't affect what's available for them.

Note that a fair number don't actually want to help. They just don't mind others doing it. As long as it's free for them and has no cost for them. "Sure, it's a good thing, it's not bothering me." That's not support. That's indifference expressed in a non-offensive way.

Those interested in class rank sometimes go crazy if a kid struggling has an assignment excused because it might boost that kid's standing up a few notches. Help them to pass, sure; but help them to do more than be barely adequate, no. Because interfering with their class rank is a cost.

This has a dark downside because most of the teens are oblivious about where materials come from in class. It's all free stuff. When they realize it's a zero sum game, and when there are additional tutors and pull-outs for small groups of disadvantaged kids, therefore they're in classes of 30 or more or instead of having lots of supplies provided they get very little, their mood often sours. It's esp. bad in regulars classes when that realization sinks in--the advanced academic classes need high tech and additional resources because the AP/IB/dual-credit environment requires them, so funds are bled off to help them. Then remaining funds are bled off to disproportionately help the bottom 10-15%. The middle's left bereft.

This isn't a "schools need more money" post. I'm making it just to point out that when living according to your values is free, you can be much more tolerant than when living according to your values has a cost. It's only under duress that the meaning your ideals and values have to you are most clearly expressed. It's like learning--we're all brilliant and wonderful and understand it all until we have a test.

[bhikkhu]

10. I'd be more concerned if a majority of young people wanted to go to war

I'm not surprised, especially considering the much higher levels of education for that age group, compared to previous generations. How many of the Vietnam generation wanted to go to war, or how many of any generation? How many should want to go to war?.