|
|
US Politics
Winning the National Security Debate after Bush's 9/11 Political Defensive
Stan Greenberg, Al Quinlan, Jeremy Rosner, James CarvilleDemocracy Corps
Executive Summary
Democracy Corps with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner has conducted surveys
before and at the very end of the president’s political offensive, concluding with
his very political 9/11 television address to the country. This unprecedented
effort by the White House produced only the most modest rise in support,
concentrated among conservative Republicans. The race did not tighten; in fact,
it marginally improved with the Democrats now winning the named (not
generic) congressional ballot by 6 points. The image of the Congress and the
Republicans declined noticeably. Most importantly, Democrats continue to win
the debate on Iraq and national security, even with the president’s current
argument, and should speak out immediately and with confidence.
The structure of the race has not changed at all; indeed, the ingredients for a
change election are even stronger. While we want to emphasize our
recommendations on how to win the Iraq and security debate, it is important to
keep in mind the context.
- Just 33 percent approve of the job Congress is doing and only 37 percent
have a “warm" reaction to the “Republican Congress." There is a
deepening contempt for the Republicans, whose thermometer rating has
hit its lowest point in seven years.
- The current Bush strategy has improved the Republican position with
conservatives - and thus, increased their support with Evangelicals,
white rural, married, white high-school graduates and seniors.
- The current Bush strategy is pushing away moderates and independents. Democrats are
poised to make major gains here, as 70 percent of independents (and moderates) say the
country is on the wrong track, and 72 percent disapprove of Congress. By a two-to-one
ratio, these voters want an election focused on economic issues. On the Iraq/war-onterror
debate, they choose the Democrats 68 to 29 percent.
-
The president’s efforts - which are pushing away moderates and independents - may be
increasing the Democratic voters’ commitment to vote. On almost every measure,
Democrats are significantly more engaged: on highest level interest, 62 percent of
Democratic voters, compared to 55 percent of Republican; and greater enthusiasm this
year than usual, 56 to 45 percent.
-
Don’t forget that about as many voters want to vote on the financial pressures facing
people, including gas prices and health care, as want to vote based on security and the
war on terrorism. With growing advantages on the economy (14 points above the
Republicans), high costs and financial pressures (26-point advantage), and Social
Security (26-point advantage), Democrats’ in-district advertising will want to press this
advantage, even as Democrats stop their attempt to make this an election about the war
on terror.
All of this is in a survey conducted at the end of an unprecedented effort to shape the
election around Osama bin Laden, and in the lead up to 9/11. Republicans have slightly pushed
up Bush’s approval -- but at a price -- and without disturbing the dynamic for change. MethodologyThis memo is based on a survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps August 23-27, and September 6-
10, 2006.
Key Findings
- Bush is trying to define the election around the war on terror. Democrats have a unique
opportunity to challenge him and undermine the only tool the Republicans have in this election.
They need to move to the offensive in real time.
- Start by showing we take the threat seriously. Americans know the threat is real; as a starting point, they want to hear that Democrats know it too.
- Hit Bush for “mismanaging" the war" and leaving us “bogged down in a religious war" and undermining our efforts against the terrorists.
- Stress we need a new direction in Iraq and a better way to wage the war on terrorism.
- A faster transition with Iraqis taking responsibility. Do not get caught-up in the “cut-and-run" argument. The real issue is whether we want more of the same or a new direction in Iraq, with a faster transition of responsibility to the Iraqis, and more accountability.
- Don’t just attack; give people things you will do to accelerate change in Iraq, wage the war on terrorism better and make America safer.
- Hit the Republicans for not holding Bush accountable for the wasted money, no-bid contracts and lack of body armor.
"Don’t just attack; give people things you will do to accelerate change in Iraq, wage
the war on terrorism better and make America safer. Any mention of future ideas on
security marginalizes Republicans saying the ‘stay the course’ message. People are
desperate to hear that Democrats have important things to do."
|