GOP loses its advantage on terrorism

August 2, 2007

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (.pdf) includes most of the predictable numbers — Bush is unpopular, Americans are uneasy about the economy, etc. — but respondents were also asked which party they trusted more to handle various policy issues.

The Dems enjoy huge, double-digit advantages on every domestic issue (environment, health care, education, gas prices, budget deficit, taxes, energy policy, and immigration). Republicans still lead on “promoting a strong military” and “dealing with homeland security.”

But when asked which party is more trustworthy on dealing with the “war on terrorism,” it was the only question on which Americans were divided right down the middle — 29% said Dems, 29% said Republicans, 20% said both, and 18% said neither.

In and of itself, that’s not particularly surprising, but the trend is noteworthy. In October 2002, the GOP enjoyed a 36-point advantage on this question. But end of 2003, it had slipped to a 26-point lead. In early 2004, it slipped a few more points, and in late 2004, a few more still. By last fall, the Republicans led Dems on the question by 10 points, and now the GOP advantage has disappeared altogether.

How long, do you suppose, will the media continue to report that Republicans still enjoy far more public trust on terrorism than Dems?

Forever, of course. Why should facts get in the way of reporting?

  • I still don’t geet how the GOP could have a lead on “promoting a strong military.” Maybe the polls have just been lagging behind the reality a bit, because I just don’t see how anyone can look at the facts and still believe that this is the case.

    The overall numbers, though, are not a good sign for the Republicans.

  • And “dealing with homeland security”…
    Is there anything less appropriate to attribute to the warrantless wiretappers than the word “Trust”???

  • Regardless of what tricks the GOP tries, they’ve always got that specter of Bin Laden peering over their shoulder. Their failure to catch him constantly reminds people that the ‘War on Terror’ has failed in one of its (allegedly) most important goals.

    Hey, I just had a thought: do you think that in 15 years time we’ll find one of the Bush twins running for President, and that she’ll invade Pakistan or Iraq in order to “finish what her father failed to finish?” Maybe trying to clean up one’s father’s messes is a Bush family trait…

  • Neglect and abuse can be virtually the same thing. Look at the bridge collapse in MN yesterday. If our infrastructure crumbles because we spend all our time and money in Iraq, the result is much the same as direct intentional harm by evil-doers, isn’t it? “Security” has a lot more dimensions to it than fighting.

  • How long, do you suppose, will the media continue to report….

    This terminology triggered a modification of Cicero’s First Catiline Oration to the Roman Senate: “How long, O Shrub, will you abuse our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us?”

    Of course the Romans notoriously fell for bread and circuses. So, apparently, do Americans.

  • Chris Matthews will continue to say it’s the Republicans because he’s a real everyman!

  • Not to beat a dead horse, but the MSM will keep on saying it as long as that’s what they’re paid to say. And now Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal, too, so it’s going to be a looooong summer. 🙁

  • Curmudgeon, @9:

    I was thinking that with the New! Improved! WSJ, this is probably the last time we would even see such unfavourable numbers published, so that we can see for ourselves the truth (or otherwise) of the official statements…

  • This is old news. The 2006 elections were a clear indication of who the people trust for “the war on terror”. Both the MSM and the Repubs can continue to flog this, but it will continue to drive more and more people to the Dems.

  • Well, until a Dem takes the white house, the basis of comparision is skewed. methinks you guys will get your chance, and time will tell.

    • Comments are closed.