In June, Republicans led Democrats by 9 percentage points when voters were asked which party they trusted most to handle national security and the war on terrorism. In the new poll, voters prefer Republicans by 17 percentage points, 49% to 32%.
Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly summarizes the dilemma one way,
Note, though, that "Republicans have nearly doubled their lead when voters are asked which party they trust most to protect the nation against terrorism." The Democratic message is apparently not getting through either.They also have a nice graph from the times that highlights the rest of the poll.
Basically, I disagree with Drum's conclusion. The main Democratic anti-war message is getting through, it's just turning off voters. The Republicans on the war and on terrorism are as incompetent as ever, the only thing that's changed is that the once rabid war hawks now appear moderate thanks to the liberal anti-war movement. It will be interesting to see how this uptick in Republican support plays out with the weak-kneed three.
LATIMES, Bush and GOP Making Gains Among Voters, Ron Brownstein, September 21, 2006.
Wasington Monthly IRAQ AND TERROR, Kevin Drum, September 21, 2006.
14 comments:
I agree, the message is getting out there, its just that people dont want to be pacifist wussies. They see the tide of islamic agression expanding to our shores and around the world and want something done about it. We dont want to talk and negotiate with people who's starting point is our death.
The Democrats cant figure that out, which is why this election season is going to be another bout of post election depression for them, hopefully they will all hold firm and move to Canada or Europe like they promised the last few election cycles.Good riddence to wussy rubbish I say.
Thanks to Hugo Chavez, the Republican hopes are getting even better.
I think that the Democrats understand the potential weakness in the anti-war campaign, that is why they are really running an anti-Bush campaign. Let's face it, the President is not popular.
However, having Hugo Chavez stand before the UN and call Bush the devil will help rally some support for the President. You know the old theory, "He may be a bum, but he's our bum."
One other thing that I hope the Republicans will pounce on: yesterday, while speaking at a college in NY, Chavez continued to hammer Bush and he got a standing ovation from college professors and union members (at least that is what is being reported in the press). Not a surprise, I guess.
turfgrrl - what the f@&# does that mean?????????
"ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL. If the far left ever figures this out maybe, just maybe, they can win something."
disgruntled, I agree. But to show you how far lost the national democratic party is, it was the quintessential liberal democrat, Tip O'Neil (a true partisan in the good sense) who coined the phrase!
Of course, electing a SF liberal like Nancy Pelosi is another pretty good indication of how far the democrats have moved from the center too.
Just curious - where's rubenstein been? Last I heard he was having breakfast with GC and now he's gone missing from these posts.
Rangel knows that Chavez' remarks could help Bush and, if the Democrats don't come out and condemn such remarks, hurt the Democrats at the same time. Smart move by Rangel, but I still contend that this type of lunatic rantings against Bush will ultimately bring his numbers up slightly and that will help Republicans this November.
What is irony?
The same people who complain, "George Bush isn't running in CT-2...", are now apparently running against Hugo Chavez...
Disgrunt - think people don't care about national issues? I promise, the majority don't even know who Chavez is...
Anon. 2:37 you completely miss the point. Nobody is running against Hugo Chavez; nor does it even matter if people don't know who he is or what country he is from. The point is that Americans read in their papers or watched on the tv news that some guy from another country spoke before the UN and called Bush the devil and a number of other over the top, outrageous statements mostly over the Iraq war. In simple terms, he was attacking our President (yes bluecoat and truebluect I said "our" President) over the war, which is similar to what many Democrats have been saying. Now, before you get all crazy on me, with rare exception (Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney and maybe one or two others), the Congressional Democrats do not use the language Chavez used. However, that language is commonly used in the blogosphere, which is the medium of the left wing. I believe most Americans are angered at Chavez' comments, even many who disapprove of Bush. Thus, in conclusion, the closer Chavez' rhetoric is to that of the Democrats, the more the 2 can be linked, and that would hurt the Democrats.
Lesson over for today.
This is getting frightening. Turfgrrl said soemthing that I not only agree with but that I think is really important. (Either that, or I'm misinterpretting what she is saying).
Instead of asking, "did you want to be friends with the cool kid who could handle his own in a fight or the wussie who got pummelled", it seems like the real question is did you want to be friends with the bratty trouble maker, who started lots of fights but never fought them himself, or the brainy teachers pet who sought intelligent ways to stop the conflicts.
I know a lot of people that really looked forward to seeing the brat get slapped down.
As to all politics being local, as a Ned Lamont supporter, I have to agree on this. While some people are trying to make Ned Lamont's primary victory into some referendum on the war in Iraq, many of the people I know that voted for Ned did so because they felt that Sen. Lieberman had lost touch with the voters in Connecticut, that he was too busy being a big wig to care about his constituents, or apparently even to vote much of the time.
Anon 4:47 : I don't know where you went to school, but where I went although we certainly had our share of brainiacs, none of them ever "sought intelligent ways to stop the conflicts." They just stayed out of it.
Here is a better analogy, if I may be so bold:
There was always a bully, in the lunch room or on the playground, who picked on kids over-and-over with no end in site. The longer the bully was allowed to keep picking on kids without anyone standing up to him the worse the bully got. Now, there were different ways to deal with a bully. Some tried to hide from him and just hope he would stop; while others thought they could tell on him to a teacher. Guess what? Those methods didn't work. The only answer - the only way to stop a bully - was to stand up and fight. Bullies usually back down, but when they don't you have to be prepared to fight, or the bullying will only get worse.
the Congressional Democrats do not use the language Chavez used
Thus, in conclusion, the closer Chavez' rhetoric is to that of the Democrats, the more the 2 can be linked, and that would hurt the Democrats.
uh....ok.
It's a throw the bums out year. Period.
If you all can't see that you're as delusional as Bush, Rummy and Lieberman are about Iraq.
And Katrina didn't help.
Turfgrrl's premise that there is an anti anti-war backlash is rubbish. All you have to do is turn on CNN to know that America has screwed the pooch in the mid-East. And while there might not be any quick fixes, the country will hold Bush & Co. accountable by voting the Republicans out of power. Bank on it.
Nuclear Waste Cures Cancer
The premise of this post is ridiculous. There is no evidence, not a shred, that the "anti-war drumbeat" is "turning off voters".
If anything, the opposite is true. There is no significant movement in the macro Dem vs. Repub polling. And a steady 65% of all Americans are against the Iraq war. Anti-war candidates are doing pretty well. Look at all the trouble Lieberman is having selling icecubes to Eskimos this year.
So I just don't understand what you're trying to do with this post. Are you trying to create an "anti-anti-war" narrative? If so, you'll need a little bit more substance. The facts are not on your side.
I am so happy The Board of Selectman in The Town of Washington did the right thing and voted Unanimously against holding a Special Town Meeting to Impeach President Bush These are some more of your Lamont Activists stirring up more crap.
More of CT Keith's disciples trying to destroy the state County by County with their anti-war, anti-american bulls**t Thank God that these belligirent morons have been silenced!!!!!
Post a Comment