Since the country continues to appear evenly divided along partisan lines, most current polls reveal little that is surprising, or interesting. Bush and Kerry see-sawing up and down one or two points apart? Ho hum. Richard Clarke?
The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 60% of Democrats believe that Clarke is just telling the truth. Only 13% of Republicans hold that view. Those unaffiliated with either major party are evenly divided on this point.
Boring. So, what else is new? Well, here’s something Rasmussen found that strikes me as really dramatic. Looking out over the next four years, he asked in a telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters on March 29-30, who “will be more aggressive leading the War on Terror…?” Sit down before you read the following answer:
Republicans, by a 88% to 6% margin believe Bush will be more aggressive leading the War on Terror. Democrats, by a 53% to 29% margin, believe Kerry will be more aggressive.
Now I confess; I do wonder about the 6% of Republicans who think Kerry would be more militarily aggressive. Could it be that Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chafee make up 6% of the Republican Party? I didn’t think so. But the real shocker, of course, is that a by margin of 53% to 29% Democrats think Kerry would be more aggressive.
This seems like partisanship veering off into self-delusion. I could understand Democrats believing that Kerry would be better at fighting the war on terrorism, but “more aggressive”?
I wonder if they would have said the same thing about Howard Dean.
“I wonder if they would have said the same thing about Howard Dean”
Or Gus Hall, for that matter.
On another course entirely, I’m surprised there has been no post here on the Paul Hornung imbroglio. How dare he insinuate that blacks can’t compete academically. When we already have racial preferences to insinuate that.
Part of this is of course just pure partisanship – the Great Leader is good in all things – he’s the best musician, the top scientist, etc. – that’s a part of human nature. There’s an unwillingness to concede any rhetorical ground, to admit that Bush is better at anything, just as I’m sure some Bush partisans would not concede that Kerry would be better at getting along with France than Bush.
But what’s interesting is the asymmetry – a lot more Republicans feel good about their candidate on this key issue than do Democrats about their candidate. That’s going to have an influence on things like turnout. There are a lot of Democrats that hate Bush, but how many are there that REALLY, REALLY love Kerry?
John, you misread the data. The shocking part is that 30% of Kerry’s base sees him as weaker on terror, perhaps the most important issue of the day. Any candidate that chips away at 30% of someone’s base is well on their way to winning. Partisanship is always present. You ask someone a question like that and they will pick the guy they like for other reasons or out of party historical loyalty and then justify the decision reasoning backwards. Republicans often do the same thing; this is why so many political polls are paradoxical and contradictory as party control over office changes. I’d like to see how the independents felt on this issue.
Chetly, I don’t think I misread the data; I’m just more struck by the 53% of the Dems who say Kerry would be more aggressive in the war on terror. The equivalent would be if the Repubs had said Bush would try harder to kiss up to the French. By the way, I suspect that the 29% of the Dems who think Kerry would be less aggressive also think that is a Good Thing. I doubt that most of that group has been chipped away at all.
I think this is a case of skew based on perceived peer pressure. A substantial chunk of Democrats know that an “aggressive” approach to the War on Terror is broadly popular. Rhetorical question: who wouldn’t be for an aggressive approach against the perpetrators of 9/11?
At this point, it simply becomes a vote of confidence in your own party’s candidate. It’s not so much that those Democrats actually believe that Kerry would be “more aggressive”–they just hope that other people believe it, because they see that belief as “good.” It’s also incorrect, but apparantly that fact is easy to ignore.
On the other hand, perhaps a substantial chunk of those Democrats agree with the party line that Iraq is a “distraction” from the War on Terror. Kerry would, in theory, sideline Iraq in favor of al Qaeda, and therefore logically be “more aggressive” than Bush.