Poll: Dems Beating The GOP On National Security!
Is the GOP in danger of permanently losing its onetime advangage on a core electoral issue? A new poll finds that Democrats are more trusted than Republicans to handle the generic issue of "national security" — suggesting that the Iraq War has wiped out the Republican Party's edge in this area. The new Rasmussen poll asked respondents: "Which political party do you trust more to handle national security?" Forty-six percent of respondents chose the Democrats, while only 44% picked the Republicans. This isn't a single outlier, either: Rasmussen has repeatedly put the Democrats with an advantage on the issue since the Fall elections. If other pollsters confirm Rasmussen's findings, how much longer will it take before the pundits stop reflexively spouting the "Dems = Weak, GOP = Strong" narrative?
So long as 'national security' was operationally defined as 'bombing the f*ck out of brown people who worship the wrong God', the GOP owned the issue, because people thought -- correctly -- that that was what they were likely to do.
Now that 'national security' is operationally defined as 'geting us out of that clusterf*ck in Iraq', the Democrats will own the issue -- so long as they deliver.
Patria est ubicumque est bene. Their 'homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations
March 23, 2007 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this like an office pool? I'll take 5 years, please. What will I win?
March 23, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans break the Army and put the Guard and reserve in a state that may take over ten years to recover from, and they still merit 44% of the vote? Exactly how badly does Bush need to treat the military for some people to wake up? How long does he need to ignore our borders? How many Middle Eastern countries does he need to give contracts to for port operation, airport operation, etc.?
March 23, 2007 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Having wrecked US ground combat forces; substantially if not gravely injured US standing and influence in the Middle East; lost the war on Iraq; found itself losing wars in Afghanistan and global jihadi terror, not to mention proxy wars in Lebanon and Somalia, the only questions are:
1. Why has the public taken so long to wake up?
2. What planet are the 44% on?
March 23, 2007 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Why has the public taken so long to wake up?
It hasn't been that long. Four years is actually fairly quick for a new political consensus to emerge. Often these things take a generation or more.
March 24, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is amazing, what hasn't Bush ruined in the GOP? Pretty much every strength of the GOP has been left in ruins by this bunch.
We shouldn't be too hard on the 44%. The pundits are still in the GOP=Strong, Dem=Weak. The GOP still have Fox News, Washington Times and WSJ.
Just look at all the misinformation about the attorney purge.
Imagine if we had an honest news media.
March 24, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the GOP in danger of permanently losing its onetime advangage on ... "national security"
No. It will last maximum ten more years - one Democratic president.
March 24, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism," Sen. Joseph Lieberman said in a speech last week.
What is profoundly wrong is that too many of us have lost sight of who our real enemies are.
March 24, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The overlooked factor is that the public perception is that the Republicans have slipped on Natinoal Security, and not that the Democrats have taken it from them.
This is why you still have 44%, and it's in danger of going higher once Bush is gone.
Again, this is why the emphasis on the Bushies should NOT be that they are incompetent, but that the conservative policies themselves were executed properly and are an abject failure, pretty much across the board.
Otherwise, once the Bushies are gone, our conservative compatriots will just do it all over again, claiming, as they have, that Bush failed them, not that the conservative policies have failed this nation.
March 24, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who are surprised by the number in support of Republicans are making this mistake: they think everyone perceives the Republican party and the Bush administration as one and the same thing. Beware: enough of your fellow citizens do not, enough to make the difference between Bush approval rating and this poll, and dislike of Bush's policies and execution of them does not equal support of general liberal blogosphere zeitgeist of "anyone but a Republican." There are, for instance, plenty of paleo conservatives that are very unhappy with Bush, but that does not mean they will be voting for Obama in 2008.
March 24, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 44% can be found hanging out listening to Fox and right-wing radio. The right wing echo chamber has no truck with information that is not consistent with their world view. Any divergent information is simply dismissed as "liberal bias" in the MSM.
Try hanging out in any of the righty web-sites, there are few if any debates or discussions. Commenters just jump up and down in a giant circle jerk. It is a tribal mentality and liberals and "secular-progressives" are the "other," to be feared and hated. Anyone who even considers posting a comment that questions the conservative orthodoxy is verbally stoned.
The left certainly has its own share of "group-think," but I think the phenomenon is much more pronounced on the right. I think it is a real question as to how we can communicate with this 40% of the population.
March 24, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct.
When a poll shows a large percentage of Americans are against the Iraq war, it is true that many are opposed to any war at all, but just as many want it fought differently, more agressively.
Few are satisfied with the war and the way it is being waged.
Nonetheless, don't believe that anyone who objects to Bush and the Iraq war is a pacifist. Most are in favor in winning like we did in Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin and, yes, even Hiroshima.
March 24, 2007 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not more aggressively - that is one of the major problems. Strategy and competence wins. Listening to the Generals on the ground and those with previous experience doesn't hurt either.
March 24, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kiwi-
You and Joe should realize by now that before the US attacked, there was NO Islamist extremism in secular Iraq.
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
March 24, 2007 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
This appears to be another mis-conceived effort to, in some way...any way at all...find some way to in the least to justify the Iraq war by equating some phase or tactic of WW II with 'W's folly.
There is no connection nor similarity whatsoever...I lived through those days...believe me, there is no similarity.
March 25, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broadly concur, but I suspect that there's considerable (and hitherto unequalled) opportunity to pull increased support from those voters subscribing to the realist camp. A phrase of Lang's to the effect that he didn't break from the Democratic party of his youth, it simply moved away from him resonates for me here.
March 26, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink