Politically-engaged people often forget just how little everyone else knows about politics. Many of us take it for granted that the typical person who’s vaguely aware of current events at least knows some details, for example, about the upcoming presidential race, who the candidates are, what side they’re on, etc.
But we’re reminded, on occasion, that people are frequently confused. Take the latest Gallup poll, for example. (via T. W. Farnam)
A new Gallup Panel survey finds each of the five best-known 2008 presidential candidates scoring similarly in ratings of public confidence in their ability to recommend the right thing for the war in Iraq. This suggests that despite public dissatisfaction with the war, it is not necessarily a winning issue for Democratic candidates. […]
Unless there is a major shift in Bush administration policy on the war in Iraq between now and next summer, that issue is likely to dominate the 2008 presidential campaign. But the poll finds none of the major candidates standing out from the others on this issue. Aside from Romney and Thompson, the five other candidates score between 50% and 55% on this measure of public confidence in their ability to choose the proper course of action in Iraq.
Specifically, when respondents were asked which candidates they trusted to handle the war, McCain and Giuliani tied for first (55% each), followed by Obama (54%), Clinton (51%), and Edwards (50%).
Now, the natural question is: how is this possible? How can the same people who support troop withdrawal and abhor Bush’s current policy trust candidates who oppose troop withdrawal and support Bush’s policy? I suspect it’s pretty simple: most people have no idea what these candidates think about Iraq. They probably heard something, from someone, at some time, about McCain and Giuliani being “strong” on foreign policy, so they assume they’re trustworthy on Iraq.
The Gallup question on terrorism was even more discouraging.
When respondents were asked which candidates they trusted to handle the terrorism, Giuliani was the big winner (with 69%), followed by McCain (66%), Clinton (55%), Obama (53%), and Edwards (48%).
And why does Giuliani fare so well? Because he held some press conferences six years ago, and the media has been telling people ever since what an expert he is on counter-terrorism and national security.
Of course, all of this should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s July, the year before the campaign. Public perceptions can and will change, and people can and will learn about the candidates. A voter might think Giuliani is great on Iraq, right up until he or she learns that Giuliani has no Iraq policy, avoids talking about the war, and has a fourth-grader’s understanding of the Middle East.
It’s a reminder, though, that uninformed public perceptions can last quite a while, and Democrats have a lot of work to do help change them.