TheeBadOne
Member
Polls show schizophrenia, angst, fickleness guide voters
WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — Democratic presidential candidates have staked out just about every position possible on the Iraq war: vote for and praise the war; vote for and attack President Bush; oppose the war and attack Bush; oppose the war, attack Bush, and support a different war. The various permutations go on.
AND NO WONDER the Democrats are all over the map. So are their voters. Schizophrenia, angst, and fickleness define Democratic attitudes these days.
Take the new Franklin Pierce College poll. When 500 likely Democratic voters in the New Hampshire primary were asked if they personally supported military conflict in Iraq, a big number — 58 percent — opposed it, while just 30 percent favored it. But get this. When the poll asked, “Would you vote for a Democratic primary candidate who supported military conflict in Iraq,†half said yes, they would still consider the candidate. Just 30 percent said no.
Meantime, anti-war candidate Howard Dean got support from only half of those who said they won’t back a candidate who supported the war. Which means many anti-war votes are up for grabs. Or perhaps the war doesn’t matter?
What’s going on here? Could it be that the war is not a defining issue — or at least it’s not as a big a deal for Democratic voters as the candidates are making it out to be? If that’s the case, perhaps the candidates would be better served by immediately ditching the war and switching to economic issues likes jobs and taxes.
Not so fast. First of all, that’s not where the bulk of the news is these days. The war still commands our attention, and the candidates are just chasing the headline writers. But more to the point, consider what Franklin Pierce polling director Rich Killion said, “The defining dynamic of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary to date has been the military conflict in Iraq — its build-up, its undertaking and now the aftermath.â€
So let’s examine more.
In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, almost half — 48% — of Democrats nationwide said they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat who opposes President Bush’s economic agenda but agrees with the president on many national security issues. The rest — 41% — said they’d be more likely to vote for a Democrat who opposes most of Bush’s economic agenda AND national security agenda. So a plurality can live with the pro-Bush position on the war.
MORE LIKE FROGS
Also in the poll, Democrats were evenly split at 46% over whether they disapproved or approved of the job President Bush is doing dealing with the war on terrorism. And half of Democrats say the U.S. should have taken military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. No, these Democrats aren’t hawks, but neither are they doves. They’re more like frogs, hard to pin down.
Here’s more. According to USA Today, the Gallup poll had 56 percent of Democrats saying the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war. That’s in stark contrast to the 90 percent of Republicans who said it was.
But now consider the Zogby poll. Five hundred likely Democratic primary voters nationwide were asked which is more important: that the Democratic Party nominate a presidential candidate who voted to support the war with Iraq, or a candidate who opposed the war with Iraq on principle. And the result? Forty-two percent said it’s important the candidate supported the war, versus 37 percent who said the nominee should have opposed the war on principle.
Confusing, right?
But don’t think all the Democratic voters have completely lost their partisan minds. Two-thirds said they’d be more likely to support a Democratic candidate who supported the war instead of supporting Bush. Then again — and this question is always a fascinating peek inside the Democratic party — two-thirds also said it’s more important to nominate a candidate who stands up for what he/she believes, rather than nominate someone who can defeat Bush. So rather than be serious about winning back the White House, most Democrats just want to make a point. Maybe that is their calling.
But what exactly is the point the want to make? On the war, it sure is tough to figure out.
LIEBERMAN: CERTIFIED HAWK
One candidate is easy to understand. Of the nine Democrats running, only Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., is a certified hawk. The Manchester Union Leader asked him this week about the polls of New Hampshire voters showing most opposed the war. Lieberman responded, “You’ve really got to stand for what you believe in, or, ultimately, the voters will not have confidence in you. I feel I have a responsibility to represent the strong-on-defense tradition of the Democratic Party.†Lieberman is onto something — despite the rhetoric of most of his opponents, the polls show that that tradition remains intact among the rank-and-file.
One final set of numbers. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council released a poll this week showing Americans are split when asked if they agree or disagree with this statement: “The Democratic Party is not tough enough to take on the problem of national security and keep America safe.â€
Makes sense. The Democrats themselves need to figure that out, too.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/947009.asp?0dm=C2GLN
----------------------------------------
I thought this nicely summed up what I've been seeing on TV
WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — Democratic presidential candidates have staked out just about every position possible on the Iraq war: vote for and praise the war; vote for and attack President Bush; oppose the war and attack Bush; oppose the war, attack Bush, and support a different war. The various permutations go on.
AND NO WONDER the Democrats are all over the map. So are their voters. Schizophrenia, angst, and fickleness define Democratic attitudes these days.
Take the new Franklin Pierce College poll. When 500 likely Democratic voters in the New Hampshire primary were asked if they personally supported military conflict in Iraq, a big number — 58 percent — opposed it, while just 30 percent favored it. But get this. When the poll asked, “Would you vote for a Democratic primary candidate who supported military conflict in Iraq,†half said yes, they would still consider the candidate. Just 30 percent said no.
Meantime, anti-war candidate Howard Dean got support from only half of those who said they won’t back a candidate who supported the war. Which means many anti-war votes are up for grabs. Or perhaps the war doesn’t matter?
What’s going on here? Could it be that the war is not a defining issue — or at least it’s not as a big a deal for Democratic voters as the candidates are making it out to be? If that’s the case, perhaps the candidates would be better served by immediately ditching the war and switching to economic issues likes jobs and taxes.
Not so fast. First of all, that’s not where the bulk of the news is these days. The war still commands our attention, and the candidates are just chasing the headline writers. But more to the point, consider what Franklin Pierce polling director Rich Killion said, “The defining dynamic of the New Hampshire Democratic Primary to date has been the military conflict in Iraq — its build-up, its undertaking and now the aftermath.â€
So let’s examine more.
In a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, almost half — 48% — of Democrats nationwide said they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat who opposes President Bush’s economic agenda but agrees with the president on many national security issues. The rest — 41% — said they’d be more likely to vote for a Democrat who opposes most of Bush’s economic agenda AND national security agenda. So a plurality can live with the pro-Bush position on the war.
MORE LIKE FROGS
Also in the poll, Democrats were evenly split at 46% over whether they disapproved or approved of the job President Bush is doing dealing with the war on terrorism. And half of Democrats say the U.S. should have taken military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. No, these Democrats aren’t hawks, but neither are they doves. They’re more like frogs, hard to pin down.
Here’s more. According to USA Today, the Gallup poll had 56 percent of Democrats saying the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war. That’s in stark contrast to the 90 percent of Republicans who said it was.
But now consider the Zogby poll. Five hundred likely Democratic primary voters nationwide were asked which is more important: that the Democratic Party nominate a presidential candidate who voted to support the war with Iraq, or a candidate who opposed the war with Iraq on principle. And the result? Forty-two percent said it’s important the candidate supported the war, versus 37 percent who said the nominee should have opposed the war on principle.
Confusing, right?
But don’t think all the Democratic voters have completely lost their partisan minds. Two-thirds said they’d be more likely to support a Democratic candidate who supported the war instead of supporting Bush. Then again — and this question is always a fascinating peek inside the Democratic party — two-thirds also said it’s more important to nominate a candidate who stands up for what he/she believes, rather than nominate someone who can defeat Bush. So rather than be serious about winning back the White House, most Democrats just want to make a point. Maybe that is their calling.
But what exactly is the point the want to make? On the war, it sure is tough to figure out.
LIEBERMAN: CERTIFIED HAWK
One candidate is easy to understand. Of the nine Democrats running, only Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., is a certified hawk. The Manchester Union Leader asked him this week about the polls of New Hampshire voters showing most opposed the war. Lieberman responded, “You’ve really got to stand for what you believe in, or, ultimately, the voters will not have confidence in you. I feel I have a responsibility to represent the strong-on-defense tradition of the Democratic Party.†Lieberman is onto something — despite the rhetoric of most of his opponents, the polls show that that tradition remains intact among the rank-and-file.
One final set of numbers. The centrist Democratic Leadership Council released a poll this week showing Americans are split when asked if they agree or disagree with this statement: “The Democratic Party is not tough enough to take on the problem of national security and keep America safe.â€
Makes sense. The Democrats themselves need to figure that out, too.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/947009.asp?0dm=C2GLN
----------------------------------------
I thought this nicely summed up what I've been seeing on TV
