Well, I’ll agree that the correlation is not as strong as if the question had been framed differently, but you CAN draw some conclusions. I don’t want to go too deep into the statistics, but the number of people in a population who pick something as the #1 issue is at least a secondary indicator of how strongly people feel about it at all.
But the responses in this thread indicate that this conclusion is in fact accurate. As far as I can see, the majority of respondents here so far have pretty much said that terrorism is yesterday’s news.
Yeah, it shows a 24 point spread on this issue between Democrats and Republicans, which was pretty much my guesstimate.
You’re right, and my choice of thread titles was unfortunate. But you know, it’s looking like it’s not inaccurate. Your cite shows that 74% of Republicans either think that terrorism and national security is more important or as important as the economy. In contrast, only 40% of Democrats feel the same way. And only 12% of Democrats would put security ahead of the economy, vs 36% of Republicans. In both cases the numbers are lower than I’d like.
Well, put me in with those who think terrorism is still a major issue for us.
But most people drastically overestimate the ability of the government (esp the president) to affect that economy. I do think that the overall health of the economy is extremely important. I think it it is more important than our fight against terrorism. I just don’t expect the gov’t to do much about it. If I thought, like mose people seem to do, that presidents “create jobs” and “destroy jobs”, I might rank it higher than “fighting terrorism”, too.
Consider health care. We currently have forty million people uninsured in the United States. Whether that constitutes a “crisis” is a matter of personal attitudes. Imagine yourself as a member of the uninsured. It shouldn’t be too hard to understand why an uninsured person would view the lack of health care coverage as a greater threat than terrorism. Certainly the chance of encountering a serious medical problem within the next year is greater than the chance of getting killed by terrorists. In 2001, terrorists killed about 3,000 Americans, or in other words about one out of every 100,000. In 2002, there were no major terrorist attacks against American civilians. There weren’t any in 2003 either.
Terrorism has dominated the news and the political discussion so much since 9/11 that it’s tough to keep it in perspective. 3,000 Americans killed in the period 2001-2003. Compare that to the number killed by gang-related violence. Or by domestic violence. Or by workplace accidents. Or by drunk driving. More Americans have been killed by food poisoning during the last three years than by terrorists. The duty of the government is to keep the people safe. All the people, and safe in all ways, not just terrorism. Terrorism is not the biggest issue.
All right, hold the phone here. Climb down off the cross and read your own OP again.
The question asked of persons voting for Democratic presidential candidates in a primary election was:
The lack of definition in the list makes the answers nearly meaningless. It provides no information whatosever as to what aspect of that single word “terrorism” (or for that matter, “taxes” or “the economy”) is under consideration, nor does it provide any means of examining why the issue may be considered higher or lower in importance than any other at this particular time and place. The answers say nothing whatosever about the relative importance of terrorism as a personal or general election issue, only that Democrats exit-polled during a primary election did not use it as their most important criterium for determining who to put forward as a presidential candidate.
Despite several responses explaining the faulty reasoning behind the OP’s premise, he continues to claim that this somehow proves that Democrats place no importance on the issue of terrorism, maybe concerning what policies to pursue, maybe some other aspect. Who knows?
Gotta say, this looks remarkably like the sort of stuff that december used to pull.
Sam, being a foreigner, you must be unaware that our beloved President has developed a comprehensive system that tells us when we need to be concerned about terrorism. I suspect that the poll was conducted on a “Blue” day, or perhaps a “Yellow” day. This tells us that we need not be concerned about terrorism, and are free to be concerned about other things. However, as you know, we Democrats are also good Americans, and if we were told to be afraid of terrorism via an increase to “Orange” or “Red,” we would certainly respond with appropriate levels of fear and our concern on terrorism would appropriately trump our other life worries. It is unfortunate for you that your country has not seen fit to develop such a useful tool that would inform you when you need to increase the relative strengths of your fretting about terrorism.
On a serious note, this is about the most offensive argument I have yet seen you propose. I can only wonder why you are stooping to this level. Democrats love terrorism! Democrats do not care about the attacks on our country or the loss of lives on those days! Do not dare presume to tell me how to feel or concern myself about these events or how this matter should rank relative to the rest of my life. My father died from cancer - clearly you favor cancer deaths because you have not once in this thread voiced concern about the issue. You callous, heartless person!
Is this a veiled reference to Iraq? If Iraq is a part of the “War on Terror”, then it’s sadly ironic that more innocent civilians have died as a consequence of the US “fighting terror” than in 9/11.
Now on a day to day basis, ones chances of dying in a terror attack are much smaller than dying in an auto accident (in the US). Of course it’s still an issue, but do we need to be any more paranoid than we already are? Are you contending that the Bush admin hasn’t done enough to fight the war on terror?
Honestly, I don’t see a point in worrying unless you don’t think enough is currently being done.
Yes, in fact, all of those things are crises. Living in a country where those issues were essentially settled long ago may make you unable to grasp their seriousness to those of us who don’t. (It generally takes months to get a specialist appointment here too, in case you didn’t know, which you apparently didn’t).
But I’m sure **december ** is reading this with a wry smile, happy that someone has taken up reflexive Democrat-bashing for him (John, you may be “surprised”, but not those of us who’ve been reading this crap longer). This latest excluded-middle-with-a-dollop-of-offensiveness effort from you is entirely worthy of the man himself.
Your hysterical assertion that the nature of terrorism is somehow different now than ever before is not supported by facts or even comparative examples. Yet it is everyone who disagrees with you that has their “heads in the sand”?
El Kabong: Ooh, you played the December card! Trump!
You’re right that the answers cited in the OP are not definitive. I already conceded that, although they are indicative. But you’ll hopefully note that the assumption in the OP has been pretty much validated so far by a whole bunch of people in this thread agreeing that terrorism is not that important. Do I really have to quote messages posted just a few hours ago? My comment that it appears that 9/11 was not a wakeup call for some was not in reference to Democrats, or the primary voters, but to the responses in this thread. For example:
or,
or,
or,
or,
or,
Those are just the responses in this thread over the past couple of hours. Perhaps you’d like to tell me how I’m supposed to evaluate comments like this, if not to conclude that at least one group of people (all of the respondents other than John Mace are, I believe on the left) have pretty much lost their interest in the war on terror?
Hentor said:
What a bizarre and obnoxious characterization of what I said. I did not ONCE say that Democrats love terrorism or that they don’t care about loss of life or attacks on the country. I would like you to retract that, please.
Jesus, you guys. I didn’t intend to attack Democrats. In fact, I admitted that the thread title was unfortunate, and I said that it appears that both Democrats and Republicans were starting to fade on the war on terror. I was attempting to steer this thread into a general discussion about attention spans of EVERYONE. Republicans, Democrats, Canadians, whatever.
After 9/11, questions were raised about our ability to ‘see through’ the war on terror. Everyone agreed that this was going to take a long, long time. But people said that 9/11 was a ‘wakeup call’, that things were different, and that finally the world had recognized the danger of international terror. We were in it for the long haul.
But now, little more than 2 years after the largest domestic attack in the history of the U.S., EVERYONE seems to be forgetting. The data indicates that Democrats may be forgetting a little faster, but Republicans aren’t far behind. And I’m quite sure that the numbers are even worse in Canada. This gives me a lot of doubt that this war can be ‘won’.
So please, let’s drop the partisanship. My apologies for the thread title. I posted it that way because the only data I had seen was strictly Democrats from exit pollling of the primaries. I did not intend to be inflammatory. You can take that as an apology if you’d like, in the interest of getting this thread back on track.
I happen to think that terrorism is a big, big deal. Given the responses in this thread, I appear to be in a very small minority. Two years after 9/11, this really surprises me.
Sammy, Sammy, Sammy, remember all those jokes over the past few years, “If you believe (fill in the blank) then the terrorists have already won?” By exagerating the effect of terrorism, to raise what has really had a minimal effect on the US and some other countries and almost none on Canada and the rest of the world, to “the single most important issue in the entire world,” means that, in your case, the terrorists have already won. They don’t fight a conventional war, where he who gets there “fustest with the mostest” wins, but by committing small acts then letting the fear in the majority build up. Panic and they win. Calm down and they cannot beat you.
Sam, did you even read the question you quoted in the OP?
“Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted today?”
It does NOT ask which is the most important issue.
It asks which mattered most in deciding how they voted.
In other words, even someone who does consider terrorism the most important issue in the world today might place it last for this particular question, because they think any of their favored candidates would do equally well against terrorism.
If a giant meteor was heading towards Earth, that would be the most important issue. But unless one of the candidates is Superman, it would likely not be the most important issue in deciding who to vote for.
They are completely different questions, and your conclusions are entirely unwarranted.
Sammy, if you mean to apologize for the thread title, you may do so directly instead of this smarmy “you may take it as one” crap. If you have a better thread title to suggest (which you haven’t), then you may certainly ask a moderator to change it for you. Certainly you’re articulate enough to have understood what you said at the time you said it, though - don’t try the “it was a mere slip of the keys” approach here.
Yes, you damn well did. That type of denial is another tactic that **december ** taught you well.
Now who else suspects that the party-affiliation difference, to the extent it’s real, could reflect nothing more than Republicans being more reluctant so far to accept that Bush is lying and inept? Yes, terrorism is a major issue. The fact that there are many other major issues doesn’t make it less major, but to harp on that point exclusively is partisan-based ideologuism of a kind we’ve come to expect from you.
Do the republicans fare any better on that issue? Just this week it’s come out “that the White House received a letter with ricin in it and did not formally notify other potential victims or targets of such terrorism such as postal workers, mail handlers, or the US Congress”. (here )
Does domestic terror like this, or the Anthrax, or the cyanide bombs in Texas, not count because there are no evil foreigners involved?
Why should good citizens bother to “remove their heads from the sand” when it’s perfectly obvious that the handling of Iraq and the war on terror is largely a political ploy to get Bush and company elected next november?
Sam, you are the one attempting to stretch poll results regarding reasons for casting a primary vote into a dichotomy regarding whether people feel that terrorism is or is not important or troubling. It certainly feels as if you were attempting to cast a shadow on the concerns of Democrats vis a vis 9/11, but are now backpedaling. For instance, you open with “Democrats rank terrorism low relative to other issues.” You follow later on with “I thought 9/11 was a wake up call. I guess not.” How should we interpret these elements of your argument?
If you do not think that your OP (apart from your softly-apologized-for thread title) is partisan, you simply must re-read it, particularly where you make assertions about democrats versus republicans on the issue.
I provided the characterization of your argument that I did to point up the foolishness of the argument. You are asserting that failing to place terrorism #1 on this particular list means that terrorism “is not a big deal,” has “fallen off people’s radar,” means that people are “ignorant of the danger and cost,” that people have their “head in the sand,” that 9/11 was “not a wake up call.” This assertion is not meaningfully different than saying “Sam says that Democrats are unconcerned about terrorism. This means he thinks Democrats love terrorism.” You did not use those words, in the same way that these poll respondents did not use the words “Terrorism has fallen off my radar.”
Despite nearly everyone in the thread pointing this flawed logic out to you, you insist on continuing your line of argument, even extending it to these very posters.
How “red scarish” of you. We must all think terrorism is no big deal since we don’t agree with your interpretation of the poll.
Find a poll that asks Democrats and Republicans, “Do you believe terrorism is no big deal?” Then bring it here.
As an aside, when there is an argument by someone such as Sam that is so clearly inflammatory and so clearly devoid of logic, I really have to wonder if it is not an attempt to distract from other topics. Specifically, the sum total of the stories that are coming out recently (no WMD, Cheney-Plame, Cheney-Halliburton fraud, present Halliburton fraud, deficits through the roof, etc) make me feel that the wheels are coming off the Bush bandwagon. Then comes a non-sensical and outrageous “debate” such as this. Hmmm.
I forgot to add, Sam that your continued refusal to acknowledge the significance of cancer deaths clearly underscores that you do not care about cancer deaths. Shame. Shame on you.
I give up. Despite all my attempts to try to get this back on track, this thread has clearly gone off the rails. Now I’m being accused of claiming that Democrats love terrorism, and of attempting to distract people from the pressing issue of how horrible Bush is. I’m done with this thread.
That’s unfortunate. Perhaps a less polarizing debate would be: Where in our list of national priorities should “Fighting Terrorism” fit?
But I think it makes more sense to talk about A priorities, B priorities and C priorities. Picking the exact order is not all that useful. Reminds me of a wishy-washy boss I once had for whom everything had to be #1 Priority. We underlings used to joke about our #1 Priority #1, our #1 Priority #2, etc.
Fighting terrorism is, in my book, an A priority. Especially the part where we need to develop new techniques and tactics.
Just speaking for myself, I’m a Democrat who’s very concerned about fighting terrorism.
And that’s why I want George W. Bush out of the White House yesterday, as he keeps diverting our resources from fighting terrorism into stupid non-terrorism-fighting activities, such as screwing around in Iraq or investigating Janet Jackson’s nipple.
(Part of me is disappointed in the OP, and part of me isn’t surprised in the least…)
rjung: You aren’t supposed to be disappointed in me. That’s Mr. Svinlesha’s schtick. You’re supposed to think I’m a rabid right-wing idiot, remember?
Okay, I said I was done, but I want to go through this thread again just to clear the record.
First, the title in the OP was poorly chosen. I had just finished reading an article about responses from Democrats. I had no other data. But even in the Op I said,
I think that was fair. The response from Democrats surprised me, and I said that I felt that Republicans wouldn’t be quite so blase’ about it. But in the next sentence I said that it was entirely possible that they were, and that this was a universal thing.
In my second message, I responded to Rashak’s comment that terrorism “is little relevant to the world”. And I clarified for John that I didn’t mean to bash Democrats, and conceded once again that this could be a universal feeling. I also made a technical comment correlating the poll results he posted with the exit polling, which indicated that both populations were roughly equivalent.
Thereafter followed a couple of snarky comments from others that had no place in the thread, about me being Canadian, about how I no doubt take advantage of all kinds of government services, etc. I then responded to those charges in my third message, and to Stoid’s comment that terrorists “aren’t a pressing concern of the average person, nor should they be.” I said nothing about Democrats, and in fact attempted to generalize the discussion into the war on terror in general and the proper response to it.
’
After that, El Kabong claimed that “Despite several responses explaining the faulty reasoning behind the OP’s premise, he continues to claim that this somehow proves that Democrats place no importance on the issue of terrorism, maybe concerning what policies to pursue, maybe some other aspect. Who knows?”. Despite the fact that I NEVER claimed that, and in fact didn’t say anything else about Democrats at all.
Then Hentor the Barbarian chimed in with this jewel:
That was special. And Elvis chimed in with,
In among these messages were a bunch of messages that AGREED with claim in the OP, that terrorism isn’t that important. My next message quoted these, but I AGAIN tried to distance this from ‘Democrat Bashing’. In particular I said,
This was followed by continued attacks from Elvis and Hentor, who refused to accept an apology and kept harping on my ‘attacks’ on Democrats and playing the trusty December card. Plus of course Hentor’s bizarre and lame attempt at an analogy with cancer or something. Finally, rjung piped up with his “Disappointed, but not surprised” crap.
Folks, this is called a “pile on party”. This board is full of over-the-top claims about Republicans, Bush, etc. But when it comes to Democrats, you have to watch what you say, because if you post a message that has even a hint of partisanship in it that takes Democrats to task, the locals will go absolutely apeshit, and attack you mercillessly until you go away. I should have known better.
Hopefully, the more calm and reasonable folks reading this will go back and re-read this thread in light of this message, and draw their own conclusions about who was being reasonable and trying to have a serious discussion, and who wasn’t.
I have no idea how you got the last part from the polling report cite. As for your first conclusion, you gotta be careful. You assume an important thing: that the people who are polled in the national surveys are a nice 50-50 mix of hard-core Dems/hard-core Repubs (on the likes of caucus and primary voters since that’s the other poll data you are comparing this with). That is a BIG assumption.
Secondly, note that the poll in the Dem primaries separate the war in Iraq from national security. It is a fair separation IMO, but the political rhetoric involving national security has centered around the war in Iraq. Therefore, one could argue that Dems have indeed considered national security indirectly inasmuch as rebutting the Republican position. Equally importantly, in the national polls, the war in Iraq and national security have been oftentimes combined. That dilutes the pure “national security” numbers.
Anyway, yes, Americans across the political spectrum seem to be placing economy/jobs ahead of national security. You seem to get some pleasure in making this a partisan issue (by your repeated loose interpretations of these polls) but let’s not get sidetracked from your main point.