New poll: Voters see GOP-McCain surge on national security over Obama's Democrats

Oh-oh. Did you just feel the ground shake a little -- and not only in California's earthquake zones?

With new polls showing the presidential race still essentially tied, even after all the conventions' hoopla and doo-dah, another poll that probes deeper finds voters' concerns over national security shifting -- and not in a good direction for Democrats.

The elections of 2006, which were about congressional incompetence except when it came to Republican corruption, gave the Democrats control of both houses and showed that their party had essentially tied the GOP in terms of voter respect over national security, long a Republican strong suit.

No more. As our blogging colleague Mark Silva notes, the wimp factor about Democrats has returned to shadow voters' minds. The national security gap has reopened. Democrats are regaining their reputation with voters as wimps.

Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner has just released a survey that indicates voters perceive Republicans once again as far and away better on national security issues than Democrats.

Forty nine percent of those surveyed thought....

...Republicans were better on national security while 35% thought Democrats better. When it came to combating terrorism, 48% thought Republicans superior to Democrats while 33% gave Democrats the advantage.

It shows voters once again seeing Democrats as following the polls to determine their national security stances and appearing timid to use force in the nation's defense.

This could blossom into a serious problem for the Obama-Biden ticket and down-ballot races -- or opportunity for Republicans -- by Nov. 4.

The presence of Sen. John McCain, a former POW and the only military veteran on either ticket, atop the Republican ballot could be crucial.

According to the Greenberg study's researchers:

"The national security credibility gap is returning. Old doubts about Democrats on security, after diminishing during 2006-2007, have begun to re-emerge:

"concerns that Democrats follow the polls rather than principle;

"that Democrats are indecisive and are afraid to use force;

"and that Democrats don't support the military.

"Because these weaknesses are longstanding and deeply ingrained, and because Republican weaknesses are newer and do not yet have a label associated with them, Republicans continue to win on many security issues."

The Greenberg poll, done for the think tank Third Way, echoes a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which found a large lead for Republican McCain over his Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama, with McCain holding a 10 point lead over Obama on the question: who would be better on the Iraq war, a 25 point lead on the handling of international crises and a 28 point lead on being better able to handle terrorism.

Results like these in part explain why the Republicans stressed the military and terrorism at their recently completed convention in St. Paul, Minn., a convention which, surprising to some drew a larger telervision audience than the Democratic festivities in Denver the previous week.

At this week's St. Paul events Republicans were clearly trying to run up the score on the Democrats in the national security area with only about eight weeks to go.

Silva has more on this new poll here at the Swamp.

--Andrew Malcolm

Photo credits: Associated Press

Comments

[Shirley E.]

I've been watching the campaigns and they started to sound the same "Change" is needed. But it falls down to character and integrity. I believe in family value and faith that we have a leader and visionary in the White House. Obama and Biden proudly speaks about there family values. But, what is McCain family value? He openly admitted he cheated on his first wife Carol immediately when he returned from Vietnam. Was it because she was disfigured from a bad car accident during Christmas? What does it say about a man who chooses a VP not on qualifications but looks? He proudly displays his affection to Reagan administration, but why did Nancy Reagan not throw in her support? As an American I like to know more about McCain's character.

[Julie]

I have no faith in mccains judgement on matters of national security.

Bush wanted to be a big time war president - and I see mccain in the same light - but neither has the competence or judgment for it. No thanks. I'll take the dems and diplomacy over the hair-trigger decision making by the so called maverick.

[Michael]

Why do Americans, even after 8 years of Bush, still equate a shoot-first-and-let-God-sort-'em-out international policy to toughness? Hasn't the last 8 years taught you folks that such a policy is recipe for disaster?

[scootmandubious]

I mean you no disrespect Mr. Malcolm, I know you were a pulitzer finalist and all, but sometimes I find your writing style incredibly offensive.

Not sure if this was just your cynical attempt to inspire comments, but references to " Obama's wimpy Democrats" are just plain annoying. Not sure if it is a separate headline writer, but the tone of the article is not far from that headline.

I cannot imagine that the national security advantage will maintain for the GOP once America gets reminded of McCain's horrendous pre-war judgement.And 9/11 occurred on whose watch?

As I recently blogged, the one thing the Dems have to stop doing is playing defense. With so much material to work with they need to go on the offensive. And they need to do it now.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/when-are-dems-going-to-learn-how-to.html

[philly]

Obama has a lifelong history of associations with Marxists and people who hate America.

Only an enemy of this country would want Obama as Commander In Chief.

[VJ Machiavelli]

They are the party of the "APPEASEMENT KID" theyare now under the control of the Anti-War elites and their allies the "Stupid Rich Elites" with the aide of the "MEDIA ELITES".

They sang 'ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE" at their convention. It is going to make great "VIDEOS"

While they were singing the terrorists were" BOMBING" and killing women, children, and our solders.

Every time a bomb went off they sang ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE BOMBS A CHANCE.

VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com

[AN MAN]

Saying the race is tied is a wish- list attempt to boost our assesment of the risky and weak Republican ticket. The Dems are going to win in a landslide.

[Capitalist Infidel]

It cracks me up when some people here say they don't trust McCains judgement. Are these people blinded by Obama's presence? His first fundraiser was held at Ayers house. Ayers is an admitted and unrepentant terrorist. He has slaughtered police officers and many other innocent people. As the saying goes, "what do Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common? They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon."

How about Obama's judgment to attend a racist un-American church? He should be arrested for child endangerment for letting his young children hear that kind of bigoted filth.

[JoeB]

I saw the Dem convention and didn't seee much mention of the war on terror. Hardly any at all...which awas a mistake. You can make a good arguement Republicans overplay that issue, but the Dems don't see it as an issue anymore which is a risky move.

For one party to have essentially returned to a pre-9/11 mindset like the Dems have will hurt them. How much is tough to tell.

[Ed]

You left out the most important part of the study:

"The power of the Democratic message is clear. First, it beats the Republican
message soundly:

• Among both registered and likely voters, the Democratic message prevails
by a 16-point percent margin (54-38). This represents more than a double the
7-point margin by which the Democratic House candidate leads their
Republican opponent in a named3 ballot test at the start of the survey.

• Among Independents, Democrats win the head-to-head national security
debate by a staggering 29 points, even though Democrats initially trail the
GOP by 3 points among Independents in the named congressional ballot
test.

We find virtually the same result when we deploy these arguments in the
context of the presidential race, in a hypothetical debate between Obama and Sen.
McCain.

The strong preference for the Democratic narrative on national security is
particularly impressive given that Democrats lag by 14 points at the start of the
survey on the question of which party is stronger on national security.

The conclusion is clear: Democrats can do more than avoid or neutralize their current liabilities on national security; if they use the right narrative, they can win this debate, gain ground, and cut deeply into one of the only issue pillars still standing
under the Republicans.

[Ed]

The study also shows, which the blogger left out conveniently, that when the modern Democratic message on terrorism is provided to voters compared to the modern Republican message, Democrats get a 16 point ADVANTAGE over Republicans on national security. Most importantly, this doesn't change when the messages are attached to the current candidates.

It's simple. The Democrats would be more trustworthy on national security than the Republicans (two-to-one in fact) if anyone could actually hear their message, whether this is poor framing, a lack of focus in the news, or simple lack of attention by voters is up for debate but the fact provided in this study is straightforward: the Democrats are in the right with the majority of voters.

[theone]

scootmandubious - on who's watch was Osama not taken out (despite three golden opportunities) and all of the ominous signs of things to come were ignored? - hint, first name rhymes with shrill. History is the reason that dems for the last 50 years or so are seen as wimps on national security.

An Obama presidency would be a disaster waiting to happen when one considers the current threats (nuclear Iran, the resurgence of Russian aggression, North Korea, Chavez - not to mention Islamic terrorism - etc) and his stated policies.

[William]

Obama recognizes that Pakistan is a threat. McCain wants to continue playing in Iraq. With the Taliban growing in Pakistan, day by day, how long will it be before we see cult-maddened extremists armed with the most destructive weapons known to Man? Instead of seriously addressing this issue, McCain is more interested in antagonizing the Iranian government, which is the least of his non-sequiturs. The old man just doesn't get it: the threat that darkened our skies seven years ago still thrives and grows stronger, and the Republicans have been ignoring the issue altogether.

Also, the Democrats realize that America needs strong alliances and sound diplomacy to truly face the country's threats. The Republicans, however, seem to be more interested in courting Saudi oil lords by selling them our country piecemeal. The Democrats realize that America needs a strong currency and a resilient economy. In the past eight years, though, the Republicans have watched the value of our dollar drop by half, which is about the equivalent of standing idly by while half of our money burns to ashes. The Republicans did nothing.

Republicans don't get it. They're demented fools, and they are a waste of the country's time and money. America can't afford another Republican president. We need a real government, not some moron who can't do anything but pander to ignorant jarheads and religious nuts. We need a government that is adept at something other than personal antagonism and brutish name-calling. We need a government that knows what the hell it's doing.

America can't afford another Republican.

[Wyatt_Burp]

"Obama has a lifelong history of associations with Marxists and people who hate America." Yeah, suuure, he does...While you're telling yourselves that, please remind yourselves that McCain was caught peddling political influence in the Keating 5 investigation.

[kizito]

Mccain keating 7 to become the president? America wake up.

[LESLIE BAKER]

DOES EVERYONE RELISH THE IDEA OF HIGHER TAXES AND HUGE TAX LOSSES ON HOME SALES AND PURCHASES? WHY DO SOME PEOPLE SIMPLY VOTE PARTY? CAN NO ONE SEE HOW MUCH MORE MONEY WE ALL LOSE INDIVIDUALLY IF OBAMA GETS ELECTED? I AGREE WITH MC CAIN. REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY REDUCING WASTE IN SPENDING. BOGUS GRANTS AND FORIEGN AID TO COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER NICE TO SAY ABOUT US. WHY NOT JUST PIN THE PROVERBIAL OLD KICK ME SIGN ON THE BACK OF ALL AMERICANS? KICK ME.... I LOVE IT. ANYONE WITH AN OUNCE OF INTELLIGENCE WOULD WANT THESE 2 (GO AGAINST THE GRAIN) INDIVIDUALS RUNNING FOR THE OFFICE OF PRES/VP. MC CAIN AND PALIN HAVE BOTH PROVEN THEMSELVES AND THEIR WILLINGNESS NOT TO FOLLOW THE SO CALLED "FLOW" THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING EITHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN. THEY ARE UNIQUE ENOUGH TO HONESTLY WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR ALL OF US.