Democrats Achieve Parity on National Security

Well, there goes the GOP’s home court advantage:

Executive Summary

A new Democracy Corps poll released by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner today shows that after 100 days in office, President Barack Obama has, at least for now effectively erased doubts that Americans have historically harbored about the Democratic Party’s vision and competence on national security.

Key Findings

For the first time in our research, Democrats are at full parity on perceptions of which party would best manage national security, while they have moved far ahead of the GOP on specific challenges such as Afghanistan, Iraq, working with our allies, and improving America’s image abroad.

Nearly two-thirds of likely voters – 64 percent – approve of the job Obama is doing on national security. That is 6 points higher than his already strong overall job approval rating (at 58 percent, the highest we have yet recorded). On other aspects of national security – from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to terrorism, to the president’s foreign diplomacy – the same is true: higher job approval ratings than on the President’s overall job approval.

Given their approval of the president’s performance on foreign affairs, voters flatly reject the claims from former Vice President Cheney and other Republicans that Obama’s policies put America at risk. By nearly a 2 to 1 margin, Americans say that President Obama is doing better, not worse, than his predecessor, George W. Bush, when it comes to national security.

This survey signals a possible generational shift in attitudes that could have broad electoral consequences, depriving Republicans of one of their last remaining advantages just when their image has dropped to an all-time low relative to the Democrats.

         

Author: KATHY KATTENBURG

Share This Post On

13 Comments

  1. Kathy,

    LOL…..Sometimes, you even convince me that you believe this crap.

  2. This is an interesting study, but I am a bit skeptical and would like to know a bit about their methods. From their website:

    “Democracy Corps was founded in 1999 by James Carville and Stanley Greenberg. The organization was born out of outrage over the impeachment of President Clinton when the leadership in Congress preferred radical partisanship to addressing the issues which really matter to American families. Following the 2000 election, Democracy Corps rededicated itself after the presidential candidate with the most votes and the most popular policy agenda did not become the President of the United States.”

    http://www.democracycorps.com/about/

    Seems to me they are a bit sour over losing the 2000 election. Would you give the same credence to a poll conducted by, say, the Heritage Foundation or Fox News?

  3. GD, thanks for the link. An interesting piece from it:

    “As for national security, I’m not sure what rates the number – he’s really not done anything concerning national security except do a little talking about the subject. And, despite claims to the contrary, SEALs taking out three rag-bag pirates who botched a highjacking was not a victory on the national security front.”

    As far as I'm concerned, if he can get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner rather than later, I'd give him a thumbs up as well.

  4. Would you give the same credence to a poll conducted by, say, the Heritage Foundation or Fox News?

    Sure if the poll's methodology was sound. Do you think it would be?

  5. As far as I'm concerned, if he can get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner rather than later, I'd give him a thumbs up as well.

    Amen to that.

  6. What do you mean Obama's done little on the national security front? Obama's committed more troops to Afghanistan, he's trying to handle the troops responsibly in Iraq- isn't he turning the troops in Iraq into more of a “training” role than a fighting role? Didn't he have Gates come up with new plans on how to best use our troops in the Middle East? He's telling Pakistan to get their act together. And even more important that fighting wars, Obama is actually talking to our our enemies (and friends) respectfully. Besides what about all those comments his opponents on here make about Obama becoming a hawk and not the dove he presented himself as during the campaign? (Which he never presented himself as a dove during the campaign anyway- it's just people believing what they want to believe and are told to believe, without really understanding Obama.)

    Just because Obama's not Bush whose idea of national security is to invade countries and continually beat his chest with more threats about invading countries doesn't mean that Obama's more thoughtful (and less warlike) approach isn't any less effective. It seems many Americans would prefer Obama's approach to that of Bush's dramatic, spotlight-seeking nuclear explosion approach (since Bush tried to get us all to think of mushroom clouds before he unnecessarily invaded Iraq).

  7. In other news a Sean Hannity polls concluded…..

    Democracy Corps? come on.

  8. SB: I'm not sure if this is a reply to me, but if so, I should clarify that I was quoting from the link that GreenDreams provided. You'll need to take your issues up with that site.

    “I guess the Republicans aren't impressed because Obama has invaded anyone in his first 100 days.”

    Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I don't think anyone here has mentioned the Repubs for or against anything. Please see my last comment:

    “As far as I'm concerned, if he can get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner rather than later, I'd give him a thumbs up as well.”

  9. Oh stop trying to slam the poll. Gallup/USA Today found the same thing. But if you want to believe all is rosy for the GOP, fine with me. Keep calling the same old plays and expecting different results.

  10. jchem, “I'm not sure if this is a reply to me, but if so, I should clarify that I was quoting from the link that GreenDreams provided. You'll need to take your issues up with that site.”

    Yup. I was responding to the comment from the other site, as were you. Not sure why you thought I was responding to you- If I want to respond to someone directly I usually start my comment off with their name (just like you do). I suppose I might have “replied” to your comment- but that was more to pick it up… But I understand sometimes it's not clear who is responding to whom on here and so I apologize for any confusion. My comment was directed at the quote you had from the link provided by GreenDreams- he links to some pretty interesting stuff.

    My comment about the Republicans not being impressed with Obama on national security was meant as a jab to those who believe national security is all about war, and nothing about diplomacy, or oil independence, or engaging enemies, etc. the first thing many people think of when they hear “national security” is physical, military power and anything other than physical power is not worthwhile when it comes to protecting our country. That comment wasn't directed to you at all- you have a much clearer understanding of the world than those who think national security is only about military might.

  11. The poll results don't surprise me… The country did vote Obama in by a comfortable margin. Of course if there is a terrorist strike here Obama will never hear the end of it…. And I know the Republicans will never rally around him like the Democrats (and pretty much everyone) did around Bush after 9/11.

  12. SB, sorry for the confusion. Sometimes when the threads pick up and get lengthy its hard to tell who is replying to who. At any rate, I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to “national security” and how folks tend to view it. Thanks for clearing it up!

Submit a Comment