Rasmussen: Public More Positive About War on Terrorism
Rasmussen Reports has a breaking poll up: you can’t read an article about it yet, but you can watch a video. If you watch the video, you’ll see Scott Rasmussen explaining that 47% of the American people believe that the US and its allies are winning the war on terrorism. Furthermore, the number of Americans who believe that the terrorists are winning has fallen “to the lowest level ever.”
This is good news for President Bush and for Senator John McCain of course. If there are more Americans who believe that the US is winning the war on terrorism, and that the terrorists are losing, Republicans are more likely to win elections.
In January 2007 only 33% of Americans believed that the US was winning the war. As Scott explains in the video, “many thought that this would continue to be the primary issue that would hand the White House to the Democrats in elections 2008.”
But experts were, probably, wrong. It seems that the American people are far more positive about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism then they were a year ago. A plurality of Americans now also believe that the situation will become better in the coming six months.
If you break down the numbers you’ll see that Republican voters overwhelmingly believe that the US is winning the war on terrorism, that unaffiliated voters believe the US is winning the war by a 2 to 1 margin, and that Democratic voters are evenly split.
As Rasmussen points out, these numbers indicate that McCain and other Republicans will, finally, want to talk about national security again, while Democrats will try to avoid the subject altogether.
No matter how positive the public views the war on terrorism, the economy will take precedence in the election. The Republicans can talk all day about national security..but the reality is, people are still cashing in their 401k and spending their savings (if they have any) to heat their home and feed their children.
And walking to work 12 miles uphill both ways in the snow. Don’t forget that, Bob.
And eating dog food. Or relish and mustard sandwiches, or something like that.
Yes, we have seen a more of a positive view from the people at large on the results of the war on terror. and this will reflect well on Bush and McCain. However, to Bob’s point, about the election being more about the economy than the war, he is right. The view that I hear expressed in my circles, is that it is that it’s not just the economy in general, but more specifically the irresponsible military spending spree that created most of the debt that we will have to pay our way out of for many years to come. (Defense spending is necessary and imporant, but not at the levels and methods we have been seeing in the past 4-5 years). So for now anyway, the war appears to be "working" a little better than in the past, but at a cost of fiscally irresponsibility. I think in the end, fiscal responsibility will still win the election.
Quick, Jay_C, can you tell me what percentage of GDP the current defense budget is, and how that compares to the 45 year average that this percentage has been? We must be running at an all time high, huh?
Uh, no. It seems that at the current level, defense spending is 4% of GDP and the 45 year average is 5.5%. (Goodness…the economy must have been in shambles during many of those past years of irresponsible military spending!)
OH, but the increased spending on the war is still cutting into domestic spending, right?
Oops, wrong again.
No doubt that there’s too much waste in military/defense spending, but the War on Poverty has wasted far more tax dollars than the War on Terror.
Not sure what the history quiz was about, but thanks…
So , you agree that there is too much waste in military/defense spending. This is also the perception on the street. Wasn’t that my whole point? Yes, there are other entitlement, pork spending and other areas that you could point to as well, and I would probably agree with you on them. Not sure where we are in disagreement?
The proportion to which each is affecting our overall spending problem. If your household is saddled with debt, you don’t look first to the part of the budget that represents 4% of your income, particularly when that 4% is a vital household expense (even if it could be perhaps spent more wisely than your currently have been doing.)
You were tying the costliness of Iraq to our economic woes, and that’s nonsense. You also made a claim that doesn’t make sense given the historical context that I just provided. You said that although military spending is necessary, "not at the levels and methods we have been seeing in the past 4-5 years." I directed you to the actual numbers to show you that the levels we’ve been seeing over the past 4-5 years are still historically below average- and the spending has been much higher during many years where it did not result in an economic crisis.
Going with your household analogy if I can cut out the little costs in my hosehold budget, or don’t spend on them in the first place, I cut them out right away (that extra coffee that I buy, bring lunch to work, etc.) Those little things add up. However, I can’t cut out the bigger ticket items, like a mortgage, car payment, etc. As much as I don’t want to pay for my car . mortgage, if I want a house, and a car I have to pay for them . So as far as this country goes, I would rather see some of the good bigger budget things remain, than speding on a war I don’t agree with.
And as for the historically low sepnding numbers… Those numbers are probably true, but none the lesswe can’t afford them! No extra coffee, thanks, we’re broke..
One could appeal to peoples emotions to try to reason why we should go further into debt for a war we can’t afford, but emotions do not change the lack of money in the bank.
OK, but if you’re knee deep in debt, I assume you don’t kid yourself into thinking that everything will correct itself if you cut out trips to Starbucks.
And comparing any part of our defense budget to coffee expenditures makes no sense anyway. If we weren’t in Iraq, we’d still need to be spending at least 4% of GDP on defense, and hopefully more (but spending it more wisely and with less pork and waste.)
I’m not the one making emotional arguments here. What your position boils down to is that you disagree with the war and don’t want your tax dollars spent on it. Fine, but don’t make the false argument that:
Because even if you want to consider Iraq War spending the equivalent of frivolous household spending, you wouldn’t say that the frivolous spending is what caused the household to have debt problems if the reality was that there was a mortgage taken out to buy a mansion in the suburbs.
Correct, I don’t kid myself into thinking that everything will correct itself if you cut out trips to Starbucks, but I don’t keep going to Starbucks either.