David Brooks has an interesting op-ed piece in The New York Times on the division of the Democrats and the unity of the GOP going in to 2004. He believes that there will be a substantial number of Democrats who will defect over to the Bush side due to the War on Terror.
Indeed, there’s considerable evidence of this coming into play. Former NYC mayor Ed Koch has endorsed George W. Bush. Sen. Zell Miller is speaking out about why he feels the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. Other liberal hawks are looking at the current Democratic field with disgust. The anti-war sentiment among the Democrats could very well be the kiss of death for them in 2004.
The era of the 47/47 split in US politics may be drawing to a close. The events of September 11 put the Republican’s bread-and-butter issue of national defense on the forefront of American political consciousness while fragmenting the Democrats. The Democrats’ insistance that the liberation of Iraq should never have happened is an issue that instantly alienates them from over half of the electorate. In essence, they’re arguing that mass murder is OK so long as the UN allows it by doing nothing. Such an argument isn’t liberal, it’s an apologia for fascism.
The Democrats don’t want to admit it or deal with it, but there is a shift occurring in American politics as the 9/11 Democrats break away from their party. The last time this shift occurred was the race in 1980 where the Reagan Democrats gave the White House to the GOP for 12 years. If I were the Democrats I would be very worried that this realignment will have similar results.
And, out of curiosity, where does foreign policy rate on the list of voting priorities for most Americans, and especially for Democrats? My guess is that people who are more interested in voting health care issues, education, civil rights, civil liberties, the environment, reproductive rights and jobs are not going to be persuaded to vote for the guy that has yet to catch Osama bin Laden on the basis of his foreign policy.
JR, 1992 election arguments all over again except for one thing – 9/11.
The core has awoken and now the millenials, who have suffered an attack on their country, can vote.
A December Gallup survey found that terrorism is likely to be the most important issue influencing U.S. voters in the 2004 elections. Forty-eight percent describe the issue as being “extremely important” in their voting decision. – Roll Call, January 7, 2003.
Heh… Terrorism is at the bottom of my list. Terrorists are incompetent… compared to death from traffic accidents, AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, and old age, terrorism is small potatoes. I’m worried about the real threats- the ones that don’t have a human face that our monkey-minds can point fingers at…
Roll Call, January 7, 2003. Hmm, over a year ago?
How about a more recent Marist poll? November 4, 2003:
http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/pz031104.pdf
Question Wording: Thinking about the future, are you more concerned about the war on terrorism or more concerned about jobs and the economy? The poll is on page 4 of the pdf.
Results will be skewed because only two options were given (it is possible that with more options and a poll that asks what issue is MOST important the war could seem more relevant to voters than jobs and the economy, though this head-to-head comparison proves my point just fine) but it is worth noting that Republicans, Democrats and Independents polled are more concerned with domestic issues than with the war on terrorism.
“JR, 1992 election arguments all over again except for one thing – 9/11.”
That and a weaker incumbent, a more divided electorate, more funding for the opposition and a very interesting electoral split. Oh, and running on 9/11 means running vulnerable to criticism of the total lack of Osama bin Laden: most of the Democrats that would be willing to give Bush a pass on that got voted out in 2002 for acting like Republicans.
My mistake… I keep thinking it’s 2003… that should have been January 4, 2004
“running on 9/11 means running vulnerable to criticism of the total lack of Osama bin Laden”
JR, most voters in this country get that the war on terror is bigger than Osama bin Laden, especially since we caught Saddam and killed his sons. Osama is probably dead or will be soon – he had a serious kidney ailment before 9-11. And the news from Iraq keeps getting better and better.
You sound like a crank.
And Yehudit, you sound like a serious denial case.
As has been admitted by President Bush, there is not a provable link (I’ll grant Jay a “yet” here) between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Plus, you’re saying that fighting in Iraq is making us safer from terrorists, despite the fact that, prior to our invasion, our soldiers weren’t getting killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq, or by Iraqis.
But don’t let thought get in the way of your rhetoric.