Are Democrats Risking Another 2004 because of the "Radical Islamic terrorism" issue?

Politics & Elections
1

A lot of pundits claims that 2004 was decided by “moral values” and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Problem is that one look at the exit polls from 2004 and you’ll notice 2 things:

  1. Given that exit polls have a margin of error, terrorism, the economy, and moral values were essentially tied for most cared about issue
  2. On the questions “Trust _____ to Handle Terrorism?” Kerry was said to be not trusted on terrorism by a landslide: 40%-58% and Bush the converse. Reagan beat Mondale overall 58%-40%. Kerry only lost nationally by 2.5 and Ohio by 1.9%-the results on the terror question were similar there.

Clearly, terrorism decided that election. It would be fair to say some of the things Kerry said hurt him, like “global test” at the debate, or his convention saying “any attack will be met with a swift and certain response” instead of just “we’ll prevent terrorist attacks in the first place.” People believed Bush wouldn’t have ceded American security to a UN which is often a corrupt and biased entitiy and that he’d play “offense, not defense.”

Recent data appears to be giving Republicans a talking points advantage with regard to terrorism today. Voters overall (Democrats included) believe America is at war with Radical Islam. Voters are strongly against letting Syrian refugees in, with a lot more Republicans taking their party’s view than Democrats doing the same. In most polls, voters overall nearly always support Israel over the Palestinians by 3.5:1, whereas Obama is cold towards them.

Is the Democratic Party playing with fire by trying so hard to please the MoveOn.org crowd? Or at the very least, seemingly dismissive of their fears about refugees? Is the liberal base endangering the party by forcing national figures to at the least, play lip service to their crazed view that despite the billions America spends to stop radical Islamist attacks, the hundreds of thousands of labor hours spent to do so or the constant attacks or attempts at them on all inhabited continents, that other religious extremisms are as dangerous? (Of all the religious extremism, Islamic extremism has killed more people in more places than other religious extremisms)

2

Would the Republicans be willing to dive into an ocean of blood, fear and lies, dive to the bottom in order to gain the pearl of political power? Or would they scruple, will they say unto themselves, no, no, there are things that decent human beings simply do not do, because it would be wrong.

Place your bets.

3

2004 was complicated by the release of a BinLaden tape days before the election. Prior to that Bush’s lead, such as it was, was evaporating and Kerry was picking up steam. The poll trend lines were getting ready to intersect. Then the tape came out and it was like they bounced off each other.

I often say that the predictable effect is the desired effect. Extremists in power “over there” benefit from extremists being in power over here. They’re good for each other.

So, yeah, I think that’s a problem because it opens our electoral system to manipulation from outside in a way most Americans don’t even recognize.

4

The 2004 election was decided on the basis of returning the sitting president to office. The election was held while a war was being fought and before the recession. It was the only election out of the last six in which the Republicans won the majority of the popular vote. Even so, the sitting president won by only 2.5%, an extraordinarily low number, given the absolutely enormous advantage of incumbency.

Terrorism did not decide the election. Support our troops did.

P.S. What MoveOn crowd? They weren’t a meaningful force while they were operational and they’ve been invisible for many years. You can’t live politics in the past.

5

Sorry 'luci but

a) It is not lies if you believe it and I think some of those running and voting on those grounds honestly do.

b) The question is not what is ethical or moral, but what would actually happen.

Now personally I would argue that there is room and time for real and ethical leadership to prevail in the body politic.

Yes the GOP can make some short term hay appealing to fear but over the course of months people are more attracted to those who can appeal to the best of what we are, not the worst of what we are.

How difficult will it be to remind people of exactly what Derek points out: “you voted GWBush in for a second time based on fear; how did that work out for you?”

6

Ah yes, the George Costanza defense. A classic for sure, but personally I expect a little better from my President than the Costanza doctrine, as entertaining as it may be.

7

That’s what they look like. They don’t want to attack them, they’re scared, they want to drastically decrease the defense budget to pre-World War I levels. I am an Independent, but Democrats (some Democrats) better wake up, because the GOP is running away with the Foreign Policy issue.

8

Hillary Clinton is a believable hawk and if she deems it expedient to campaign as a knowledgeable hawkish person with Sec of State experience, she will.

9

When did the leading Democratic candidate express any of those opinions? (At least you’ve stopped blaming your “friends” in Queens & Staten Island.)

10

We do? Funny. I’m a progressive and none of these statements describe me, nor do they describe any other progressives I’m familiar with.

11

Even then, Bush winning was still as possible as Kerry winning given that the incumbent party in the White House had tossup approvals (where Obama is now):

Incumbent Party (non-FDR elections) Approvals (NOT FAVORABILITY RATINGS) and Elections:

-Tossup Approvals: 1948, 1976, 2004, 2012
In each case, the incumbent President in power had job approvals between 45-49.9% on election day and oscillated near in the 5 months before election day. Approvals of incumbent Prezs occasionally hit 50%+ but never stayed consistently there.

-Incumbent Victory Approvals: 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1988, 1996
In these cases, the incumbent President in the WH had approvals firmly above 50% near (5 months and fewer before) and on the election day

-Incumbent Loss Approvals: 1952, 1968, 1980, 1992, 2008
In these cases, the incumbent President’s approvals were consistently at or below 40% near and on election day. (Yes, Bush Sr.'s approvals were in Jimmy Carter land in 1992, and he was losing during the part of the race Ross Perot was gone. They were also trending down very steeply even before Perot announced. I’ve discussed this before)

-Exceptions: 1960, 2000
These elections are ones in which the incumbent Prez had approvals well above 50% but the challenging party’s nominee won. 2000 is a strange case as Gore won the popular vote, which in 53 out of 57 elections since America’s founding, corresponds to the winner of the election itself. Both contests feature candidates (Nixon and Gore) who were exceptionally bad on television.

2016 is one we don’t know where it will be yet, but Obama is doing a good job potentially moving it to the 1st or third category.

12

You’re saying this over and over again, but that doesn’t make it true. I don’t think most Americans want another war of choice.

13

A funny claim to make given that Obama had sent Congress a request for a long term plan that increased Defense spending with the predictablity year to year that the department needed. GOP leadership reluctantly agreed to some increase to the Defense department base by way of robbing it from the Overseas Contingency Operations fund … which Defense Department leadership slammed a budget gimmick (as did Durbin and Mikulski - both Democrats).

Personally I think the American public would love the right war of choice … one that was quick and painless, no sacrifices need be made, with a clear bad guy that was quickly defeated without leaving things as bad or worse in the wake, and that we did not need to pay for in either terms of lives or treasure (read: “taxes”). That we can ignore all the consequences of.

I am hoping that within a short period of time they realize what an absurd fantasy it is that massive ground operations against ISIS would be that “right war of choice.”

Am I scared of war? Of course. What sort of idiot is not? The sort of idiot I do *not *want as commander in chief.

Wars cost lives, they cost money, and they create instabilities with consequences that are hard to predict. And there are times that going all in into one is the least poor option available, as scary as they are. And there are times to respond with force but not idiocy.

14

You’re the guy who insists Apartheid South Africa was a democracy and you claim you’re a “progressive”? :dubious:

15

I don’t think what Democrats choose to call the threat is going to make much of a difference. What’s actually hurting the Democrats is a President who seems helpless in the face of the threat posed by ISIS.

16

The problem is one that no President is safely able to articulate and that is that what we call “terrorism” is actually two problems masquerading as one.

The first, which I will call capital T Terrorism is representing by a foreign country or non-state actor infiltrating personnel into a country for the express purpose of doing something as big and nasty as they can manage with the manpower and resources they have or can scrounge. (Think 9/11 or Paris.) Such people tend to be Muslim these days because that’s the folks who are playing that game.

The second, small t terrorism, is persons already on site becoming radicalized by family, “friends”, or the internet to do stupid stuff in furtherance of some political agenda. These folks can be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, left-wing, right-wing or whatever. (Think Boston Marathon, San Berdoo, Dylan Roof, the abortion clinic bombers, etc.)

So the first can be minimized by attacking the centers of activity of the foreign country or organization. Done with Al Quiada, doing with ISIS.

As for the second, how much can we realistically be expected to do? And that’s the problem, and even assuming that some sort of undefined “crackdown” on American Muslims can keep them from engaging in small t terrorism, we still got the home-grown types.

17

I think E-DUB’s observation is clear and helpful.

I personally think that sensible gun control is one of the few practical measures we can take to reduce (not eliminate) the incidence of terrorism component #2, and I wish Obama had addressed this more in his speech tonight.

Try to forget politics for one moment. I’m just talking about practical changes. I wish there were a lot of other things we could do to reduce #2, but AFAIK there just aren’t.

18

You’re missing another crucial component that no President can articulate. Saudi Arabia are Pakistan, both supposed allies are major contributors to funding extremism around the world.

19

Great point. My wife has reminded me several times that Saudi Arabia, in particular, has been “sitting on its ass” when it comes to efforts to reduce extremist terror, and specifically to countering ISIS.

20

Hillary is viewed as hawkish enough to handle whatever comes her way. A last minute attack on the US in October 2016 is going to help her more than it hurts her.

Republicans LOVE terrorism. It gives them the opportunity to talk tough and gin up the xenophobes without having to come up with any solutions. It’s a lot easier to quarterback a team from the easy chair than it is from the huddle. “Sure, I’d bomb the hell out of them!” Sounds tough. But bomb who? Where? “Make the sands glow” Oooh, scary. But that would be ISIS’s best recruiting tool ever.

Just like Mitt Romney used to run to a microphone sprouting wood every time the unemployment numbers come out, Republicans run to the cameras now and blame Obama every time an act of terror happens. It’s working for Trump as he stokes the fires of hatred and it may win him the nomination but it will not win the election for the Republicans. When you want to win an election, hope trumps fear.