Poll: Democrats Now Preferred On Terrorism

[ProSense]

Poll: Democrats Now Preferred On Terrorism

By Greg Sargent | bio

Deep in the guts of that big Washington Post poll today is a startling number that didn't make it into the Post's accompanying article. It reads: Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?

The answer: Democrats 46%, Republicans 38% That's right: this poll's respondents preferred Dems not just on Iraq, but on the broader war on terror. If this number accurately reflects the electorate's mood, this may represent a watershed moment at which Americans have stopped reflexively believing the GOP is better on terrorism in general. Two questions: Will future polls show the same? And how much longer will media commentators keep saying that the GOP automatically has the advangage on national security issues?

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/08/poll_dems_now_preferred_on_terrorism

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 3-6, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS. RV = registered voters.

"If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2006 were being held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your congressional district?" If other/unsure: "Would you lean toward the Democratic candidate or toward the Republican candidate?" Options rotated

Republican 39%
Democrat 52%
Neither/Other (vol.) 2%
Unsure 5%
Won't Vote (vol.) 1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006a.htm

[Jack Rabbit]

1. About time.

I never understood why Bush got high marks on the war on terror.

Most Americans got something right some time ago: Iraq and the War on Terror are separate. Ironically, this separation worked for Bush and his gang of liars and thieves, who keep calling Iraq "the central theater in the war on terror". Since American know better, they separated Iraq from the war on terror and gave Bush low marks on Iraq and high marks on the war on terror.

However, what Bush did was to divert resources from the war on terror to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, had effect ly stopped terrorists from using Iraq as a training ground in those parts of the country the government controlled and wasn't a threat to it's weakest neighbor.

So how did this keep Americans safe? It didn't and it could not have. It had nothing to do with it and couldn't have any beneficial effect. If anything, the effect has been negative, as the Taliban and al Qaida regrouped in Afghanistan and terrorists took advantage of a weak, US-installed puppet regime to open shop in Iraq.

The Republicans have staked their fortunes to Mr. Bush's failed policies. Now they will pay the price. Even some Democrats will; Right, Joe?

[Renew Deal]

2. Somebody should show this to Lieberman.

Asswipe

[Jeffersons Ghost]

3. K&R

[OzarkDem]

4. Very good news

The GOP has no issues left, except their warped values.