The Republican advantage on this issue also cut into the Democratic party. Among Democrats, they had only a 51 point advantage among their own partisans. In contrast, the Republicans had a 61 point advantage among their own partisans on the issue of the economy.
| Party Better on Terrorism | All Voters | Republicans | Independents | Democrats | |
| Republicans Better | 45 | 85 | 39 | 7 | |
| No Difference | 27 | 13 | 35 | 36 | |
| Democrats Better | 27 | 2 | 26 | 58 | |
| Republican Advantage | 18 | 83 | 13 | -51 | |
| Party Better on Economy | All Voters | Republicans | Independents | Democrats | |
| Republicans Better | 28 | 64 | 15 | 2 | |
| No Difference | 33 | 33 | 45 | 21 | |
| Democrats Better | 39 | 3 | 40 | 78 | |
| Republican Advantage | -11 | 61 | -25 | -76 |
The advantage that this issue gave to the Republicans becomes clearer when you run a statistical model with both of these questions, along with variables party identification, ideology, sex, race, education, income, and age. Controlling for all of these factors, the probablity of a vote for Bush was 74 percent among those who thought the Republicans better on terrorism, but only 21 percent of those who gave the advantage to the Democrats. That's a 53 point jump in the Bush vote depending up which party they thought better on terrorism. On the economy, however, there was only a 29 point jump. The table also shows that if the Democrats had managed to convince voters that there was no difference between the parties on the isse of terrorism, Kerrry would have won the election 53-47.
| % Probability of Vote For Bush | Terrorism | Economy | |
| Republicans Better | 74 | 68 | |
| No Difference | 47 | 54 | |
| Democrats Better | 21 | 39 | |
| Difference | 53 | 29 |
2 comments:
"The table also shows that if the Democrats had managed to convince voters that there was no difference between the parties on the isse of terrorism, Kerrry would have won the election 53-47."
Fortunately, the American people understood the connection between forcing change in the Middle East status quo and a long-term lessening in the threat posed by that region. How are the Democrats going to convince the American people they will be equally effective in fighting terrorists when the few who take an effective stand, like Sen Lieberman, for example, are pushed to the margins of the party?
If you want to force a change in the status quo of the Mideast Iraq isn't the place. It ought to be brought to Syria and to Iran where the inhabitants are more homogenous. Iraq was never a threat. In fact it is more of one now because Muslim extremists are prevalent, while Saddam wouldn't let them compete with him. It's extremists that threaten the Us and they heretofore were not an issue in Iraq. Yes, now they are, but they are more dangerous in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Post a Comment