NBC/WSJ Poll: Terror Fears Reshape 2016 Landscape
The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., have vaulted terrorism and national security to become the American public's top concern, and they've helped drive President Barack Obama's job rating to 43 percent — its lowest level in more than a year, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
What's more, seven-in-10 Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction — the highest percentage here since Aug. 2014.
And 71 percent say the shootings and random acts of violence that have taken place this year -- from Charleston, S.C., Oregon and Colorado, to the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. -- are now are now a permanent part of American life.
"For most of 2015, the country's mood, and thus the presidential election, was defined by anger and the unevenness of the economic recovery," says Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. "Now that has abruptly changed to fear."
That kind focus on security and terrorism "is a very different campaign than the one we thought we'd be running," McInturff adds, referring to the 2016 presidential race.
But Democratic pollster Peter Hart cautions that this focus could be temporary, especially if there isn't another terrorist attack. "Let's wait and see the half-life of this after the next three months."
In the poll, 40 percent of Americans say that national security and terrorism is the top priority for the federal government -- up 19 points from when this question was last asked in April.
That's compared with the 23 percent who think job creation and economic growth are the top issue -- down six points from when they had been the No. 1 concern last spring.
This finding is consistent with a recent Gallup poll, which showed terrorism as the public's most important U.S. problem.
Yet there's a significant partisan divide in the NBC/WSJ survey: 58 percent of Republican primary voters say national security/terrorism is their top concern, versus just 26 percent of Democratic primary voters who say that.
And 33 percent of Democrats say their top issue was the economy/jobs, versus just 12 percent of Republicans.
When asked which one or two news events defined 2015, the top answer was the terrorist attacks in Paris (at 29 percent). That was followed by the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino (at 23 percent), the mass shooting in Charleston (22 percent), the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage across the country (19 percent) and the debates over the use of force by police (16 percent).
Obama's job-approval rating drops to its lowest point in a year
This focus on national security and terrorism comes as the NBC/WSJ poll finds President Obama's job-approval rating at 43 percent, which is down two points from late October.
Indeed, it is Obama's lowest overall standing since right before the 2014 midterm elections.
Just 37 percent approve of the president's handling of foreign policy, and only 34 percent approve of his handling of the terrorist militants known as ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
(By contrast, the overall approval rating for George W. Bush at this same point in time was 34 percent in the NBC/WSJ poll, and just 32 percent of his foreign-policy handling.)
In addition, only 20 percent of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, versus a whopping 70 percent who think it's on the wrong track.
And 73 percent say they want the next president to take a different approach from President Obama's. "This will become a high hurdle for the Democrats at some stage of the 2016 election," says Yang, the Democratic pollster.
Political pendulum swings back to security over privacy
The NBC/WSJ poll also finds 60 percent of the country thinking that military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is in the nation's interest -- essentially unchanging from past polling on the subject.
Forty-two percent say this military action should include both airstrikes and combat troops; 36 percent say it should be limited only to airstrikes; and 12 percent say military action shouldn't be taken.
And when it comes to the security-vs.-privacy debate, the NBC/WSJ poll shows that the political pendulum has swung back to the side of security.
Fifty-five percent say they're more worried that the United States won't go far enough in monitoring the activities and communications of potential terrorists, versus 40 percent who are more worried the government will go too far
That's a reversal from July 2013 - after Edward Snowden's revelations - when 56 percent said they were more concerned that the government would go too far in its surveillance.
The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Dec. 6-9 of 1,000 adults (including nearly 400 reached by cell phone), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
Another Historic First Is Possible in the 2016 Election
She's the Democratic front-runner and should she win the primaries, Hillary Clinton will be the first woman ever to be nominated for president by one of the major political parties. Americans, for the first time ever, will truly have the chance to put a woman in charge of the country.
"I may not be the youngest candidate in this race. But I will be the youngest woman president in the history of the United States. And the first grandmother as well," Clinton said in her campaign kickoff speech in June, one of many times she has highlighted her potential to make history and break what she has called the "highest, hardest glass ceiling" in America.
But beyond the former secretary of state's own words, her potential breakthrough hasn't yet emerged as a driving theme in the 2016 campaign. Clinton is a deeply-familiar figure to most Americans, seen more through her husband's presidency and her own long career in politics than gender. Barack Obama already showed Americans are willing to elect a president who is not a white man. And Clinton, if elected, would be unique only for the United States: India had its first female prime minister in 1966, Israel in 1969 and Great Britain in 1979.
At the same time, as Election Day gets closer, Clinton's gender will become a bigger factor, leading to a host of questions, including:
- Will women vote as they traditionally do, based on partisanship and other factors, or will Clinton's gender affect them? How about men?
- What would a First Man (particularly Bill Clinton, an ex-president) do on the campaign trail and in office?
- How will the Republican nominee, who is very likely to be a man, approach debating Clinton?
- Will Democrats rule out any women as Clinton's vice-president and will Republicans strongly consider picking a woman if a man is at the top of the GOP ticket?
Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984, Sarah Palin ran with John McCain 2008. But a woman at the top of the ticket is new territory, explored often in fictional television shows, but until now largely out of reach in reality and a dynamic not just about Clinton, but how Americans view gender.
And it's already beginning to play out in the campaign's undertones.
Clinton defenders have suggested that much of the negative treatment by the press and Republicans of the former secretary of state is heavily influenced by her gender, and that some of the portrayals of her are simply sexist. Clinton, her defenders argue, is not uniquely ambitious or calculating. She is a successful politician, a job that requires ambition and calculation, they argue.
But millions of women, particularly more conservative-leaning ones, will vote against Clinton, and some of them are already saying that the former secretary of state's allies are too eager to play the so-called gender card. Clinton, her critics say, is not perceived to be dishonest and untrustworthy because she is a woman, but because of her actions, like using her own e-mail account instead of a government one when secretary of state.
"She reminded us over and over and over again in that debate that she is an outsider because she would be the first woman" president, said Carly Fiorina, the Republican who is the other woman in the 2016 race, in a recent speech. "Let me start by assuring you that I will never ask for your vote or support because I'm a woman."
Fiorina was referring to the Democratic presidential debate last month, when Clinton referred to her gender when asked, "how would you not be a third term of President Obama?"
There are likely to be controversial comments about Clinton's hair and clothing, and then debates about whether that reflects sexism or the superficial coverage of politics in general. (Obama was mocked last year for wearing a tan suit as he discussed how the U.S. would take on ISIS.)
Democrats have for years accused the GOP of waging a "war on women" by opposing more liberal policies on abortion and other issues. The Republicans will be aggressively trying to stop Clinton from becoming president, but they have to avoid having that cast as a war on a very famous woman.
In 2008, during her first presidential run, Clinton largely avoided talking about her gender and making history as the first female president. Obama took the same approach back then, rarely speaking of his race directly.
But the dynamics are different now. Highlighting your personal identity is increasingly seen as a positive thing to do in political culture. Jeb Bush constantly touts his multi-ethnic family and his closeness with America's growing Latino population. In a recent GOP presidential debate, Marco Rubio proudly noted that he speaks Spanish to some Hispanic media outlets.
A political movement has emerged called "Black Lives Matter," lead by African-Americans. U.S. senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, both Democrats, have recently wrote memoirs that emphasized the role of gender in their political careers, particularly barriers it created. Obama, in his second term, has more openly talked about issues of race and racism.
And some of the issues that disproportionately affect women, like child care and parental leave after having a child, are now being talked about by politicians from both parties and of both genders. Obama held a summit at the White House on work-family balance last year, while Vice-President Biden has made reducing the number of sexual assaults on college campuses one of his signature issues.
So Clinton has decided to lean into her gender. During this campaign, the former secretary of state has repeatedly noted, when asked about the rise of candidates with little government experience like Donald Trump, that she is the ultimate outsider: no woman has ever run the United States government. She has made expanded child care and better family leave policies signature parts of her campaign platform. Clinton has emphasized that she considers herself a feminist and allied herself with celebrities like Lena Dunham who use the term proudly.
There is an obvious political reason for Clinton to speak about her gender: women are the key to her being elected president. Women tend to vote more for Democratic candidates, while men favor Republicans. In 2012, while men favored Mitt Romney 52 to 45 percent, Obama won women by a 11-point margin, 55 percent to 44 percent. That gender gap was the largest since the 2000 election.
My politics "are closer to Bernie Sanders," said Gina Glantz, a Democrat who was a senior adviser to the presidential campaigns of Bill Bradley (2000) and Howard Dean (2004), in a recent interview. "But I'm 72 years old, and I want there to be a woman president before I die and she is my shot."
But while Clinton's victory would be a major breakthrough and her loss a setback to those seeking a woman in the Oval Office, her campaign is not a referendum on gender in America. If Clinton loses, there will be a number of other factors at play beyond gender: the difficulty of the same party winning a third straight presidential term, President Obama's unpopularity with much of the electorate, and the complicated legacies of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
If Clinton wins, her path is not easy for other women to follow, either in politics or outside of it. Clinton is exceptionally talented, having graduated from Yale Law School, gotten elected to the U.S. Senate from a state where she had never before lived and won the job of secretary of state despite a rather limited resume on foreign affairs. She also had the benefit of starting her own political career after her husband had been elected president, giving Clinton connections and access most people will never have.
Women, because of both past discrimination and current structures in American society that benefit men, remain well behind in reaching the top of many professions, including politics. Only six of the nation's 50 governors are women, just 20 of the 100 U.S. senators.
Clinton, win or lose, is already a trailblazer. But the 2016 election is more likely to show how America feels about one woman than the state of women overall.
First Read: Ted Cruz Makes His Move in Iowa
First Read is a morning briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.
Cruz makes his move in Iowa
Just before the Thanksgiving pause in the 2016 presidential race, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Donald Trump (at 25%) and Ted Cruz (at 23%) at the top among likely Republican Iowa caucus-goers, per a brand-new Quinnipiac poll. They're followed by Ben Carson (at 18%), Marco Rubio (13%), Rand Paul (5%), and Jeb Bush (at 4%). That's a big jump for Cruz, who was at just 10% in last month's Quinnipiac Iowa poll. And it's a significant decline for Carson, who led that October Iowa poll at 28%. While it's just one poll, it does give us a good indication of where things stand in the Republican race about two months out before the Iowa and New Hampshire contests: Trump is back in front; Cruz is gaining ground; Carson is losing ground; Rubio remains in double digits; and Bush is stuck in single digits. Gobble, gobble.
Rubio's first broadcast TV ad on his father, the bartender
Meanwhile, NBC's Hallie Jackson first reported on Marco Rubio's newest TV ad -- the candidate's first early-state broadcast ad in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. (The Rubio ad we reported on yesterday was a cable buy.) And this broadcast ad is a bio spot about Rubio's father -- a bartender from Cuba. "That journey from behind that bar to this podium, that's the essence of the American Dream," Rubio says in the ad (it's from his presidential announcement last spring).
Can a 501c4 "social welfare" group benefit a single presidential candidate?
Speaking of Rubio and TV ads, NBCNews.com has a piece looking at Conservative Solutions Project, the 501c4 outside group that has aired nearly $8.5 million in TV ads before Rubio's campaign started its own ads this week. And according to campaign-finance watchdogs, these Conservative Solutions Project ads appear to be breaking the law. Why? Because a tax-exempt 501c4 "social welfare" group isn't supposed to benefit an individual presidential candidate. "I think they're breaking the law," Paul C. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center tells NBC News. Earlier this month, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, another campaign-finance watchdog, asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation into Conservative Solutions Project. "The publicly available facts indicate that Conservative Solutions Project is little more than a single-candidate 501(c)(4), with no other mission than to advance the presidential aspirations of Marco Rubio," the Campaign Legal Center said in its statement calling for an investigation.
Conservative Solutions Project: We're "focused on issue education and helping the conservative movement"
Officials at Conservative Solutions Project deny that the organization is supporting Rubio's presidential candidacy. "Conservative Solutions Project, as a 501(c)(4), is not about any one specific elected official or candidate," spokesman Jeff Sadosky told NBC News. " It's focused on issue education and helping the conservative movement most effectively communicate with American families so that we win the battle of ideas and are able to enact conservative solutions to the problems they face." A spokesperson for Rubio's presidential campaign declined to comment. (Campaigns are barred from strategizing with 501c4s and super PACs.) Yet there are some clear ties between Conservative Solutions and efforts to benefit Rubio's presidential candidacy -- including 1) that Rubio is the only 2016er featured in the group's TV ads, 2) that the group shares staff with the pro-Rubio Super PAC, and 3) that at least two advertising filings with the FCC appear to show Conservative Solutions Project's advertising being on behalf of Rubio's behalf.
Anti-Defamation League: "When this kind of rhetoric goes unchecked, it fuels anti-Islamic behavior"
Be sure not to miss Benjy Sarlin's MSNBC article on Trump's anti-Muslim comments regarding his made-up claim that Muslim Americans in New Jersey cheered the falling of the World Trade Center towers. From the story: "The Anti-Defamation League, which tracks anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred, issued a statement saying it was 'dismayed and concerned by presidential candidates' incendiary anti-Muslim rhetoric.' Besides Trump's flirtation with a Muslim database, the ADL noted Cruz's call to take in only Christian Syrian refugees and Carson's use of a metaphor likening concerns over refugees to a 'rabid dog.' Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, told MSNBC he had been encouraged to see Republicans condemning Trump's comments on Muslims. But he said the trend worried him. 'When this kind of rhetoric goes unchecked it fuels anti-Islamic behavior and I don't say that in some abstract way,' Greenblatt said."
Obama and Hollande at the White House
Beyond the 2016 campaign trail, here is the biggest news of the day within the United States: President Obama meets with French President Francois Hollande to discuss the Paris terrorist attacks. The two men hold a joint news conference at 11:30 am ET.
Turkey shoots down Russian jet
And here is the biggest news of the day OUTSIDE the U.S.: "Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border after it violated Turkish airspace on Tuesday, officials said, per NBCNews.com. "The Russian aircraft was warned 10 times in five minutes before being shot down, according to the Turkish air force. It was the first time a NATO member's military has downed a Russian or Soviet military aircraft since the 1950s, according to Reuters." And so you say you want a no-fly zone in Syria…
On the trail
Hillary Clinton stumps in Colorado, making stops in Boulder and Denver… Donald Trump holds a rally in South Carolina… Rubio continues his swing through Iowa… Jeb Bush is in South Carolina… And Lindsey Graham campaigns in New Hampshire.
Happy Thanksgiving
Today is our last morning column of the week. We'll see you bright and early next Monday morning. Have a happy (and safe) Thanksgiving.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone. Check us out on Facebook and also onTwitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews
First Read: Donald Trump, The Post-Truth 2016 Candidate
First Read is a morning briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.
Donald Trump — the post-truth 2016 candidate
We've been around the political block long enough to know that almost all presidential candidates exaggerate, dissemble, take statements out of context and, yes, lie. But from the start of Donald Trump's presidential campaign (remember Mexican rapists?), he has taken this to a level we haven't seen before in American politics. Consider just these two examples from the weekend. First, Trump said on Saturday in Alabama: "I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering." In fact, as the New York Times writes, "No news reports exist of people cheering in the streets, and both police officials and the mayor of Jersey City have said that it did not happen. An Internet rumor about people cheering in the streets, which said it was in Paterson, not Jersey City, has been denied numerous times by city and police officials." But when ABC pressed Trump on his statement, he stood his ground. "It did happen. I saw it... It was on television. I saw it." Second, Trump retweeted a graphic claiming -- falsely -- that African Americans are responsible for the killing of most blacks and whites in America. "That is not true, the Washington Post notes. "According to data from the FBI, most whites are killed by whites, as most blacks are killed by blacks. There's an obvious reason for that: Most people are killed by someone they know."
And it's on the explosive subjects of religion and race
It's hard to disagree with the assessment of our colleague Benjy Sarlin: "Let's not sugarcoat what's going on. The GOP frontrunner is spreading hateful falsehoods about blacks and Muslims."
Trump's controversial week
By the way, don't miss NBC's Ali Vitali on what was Donald Trump's controversial week last week. "It began last Monday on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe,' when Trump reignited a discussion about closing mosques... Then, Thursday, Trump spoke with Yahoo News on the issue of tracking Muslims through databases. 'We're going to have to do things that we never did before,' he said... In Iowa later that night, Trump touched off a further firestorm when pressed by NBC News on whether there should be a database system to track Muslims in the United States. 'I would certainly implement that. Absolutely,' Trump he said in a televised exchange... He also restated a claim — long disputed — that Arab Americans in New Jersey had cheered while watching the twin towers fall on 9/11."
George W. Bush on Islam vs. the 2016 GOP field
Yesterday, "Meet the Press" ran a fascinating comparison between the rhetoric we've heard from the 2016 GOP field after the Paris terrorist attacks with George W. Bush's after 9/11. The examples:
Donald Trump: "I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering."
George W. Bush: "The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."
Marco Rubio: That would be like saying we weren't at war with Nazis because we were afraid to offend some Germans who may have been members of the Nazi party but weren't violent themselves… This is a clash of civilizations."
George W. Bush: "When it comes to the common rights and needs of men and women there is no clash of civilizations.
Ben Carson: "If there's a rabid dog running around your neighborhood, you're probably not going to assume something good about that dog."
George W. Bush: "We respect the faith, and we welcome people of all faiths in America. And we're not going to let the war on terror or terrorists cause us to change our values."
Rubio's first TV ad seizes on the Paris terrorist attacks
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio's campaign is up with its first TV ad -- the campaign says it's a major nationwide cable buy -- that doubles down on the candidate's "clash of civilizations" line from last week. "This is a civilizational struggle between the values of freedom and liberty, and radical Islamic terror," Rubio says into the camera. "What happened in Paris could happen here. There is no middle ground: These aren't disgruntled or disempowered people. These are radical terrorists who want to kill us, because we let women drive because we let girls go to school."
Wall Street -- the image problem Hillary Clinton "cannot seem to shake"
Turning to the Democratic presidential race, the Sunday New York Times explored Hillary Clinton's ties to Wall Street. "Mrs. Clinton's windfalls from Wall Street banks and other financial services firms — $3 million in paid speeches and $17 million in campaign contributions over the years — have become a major vulnerability in states with early nomination contests. Some party officials who remain undecided in the 2016 presidential race see her as overly cozy with big banks and other special interests. At a time when liberals are ascendant in the party, many Democrats believe her merely having "represented Wall Street as a senator from New York," as Mrs. Clinton reminded viewers in an October debate, is bad enough. It is an image problem that she cannot seem to shake."
Edwards beats Vitter in LA GOV race
Finally, after their rough defeat in Kentucky's gubernatorial contest earlier this month, Democrats won the race for Louisiana's governor's mansion on Saturday. The lesson: David Vitter was a worse candidate than Matt Bevin. "State Rep. John Bel Edwards, a relatively unknown Democrat from a rural Amite, will be the state's next governor after toppling Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., in one of the biggest political upsets in the state's history," the New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote. "No state in the Deep South has had a Democratic governor since Kathleen Blanco left office eight years ago. A Democrat hasn't even come within spitting distance of statewide office in Louisiana since 2008, when former U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu won reelection." Two consequences from Edwards' win: One, Vitter says he won't run for Senate seat in 2016, meaning there will be an open-seat contest. Two, Edwards says he'll expand Medicaid in the state under the federal health-care law.
On the trail
Hillary Clinton campaigns in Reno, NV… Donald Trump holds a rally in Columbus, OH at 7:00 pm ET… Ben Carson also stumps in Nevada… Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina are in Iowa… John Kasich campaigns in Michigan… Bernie Sanders rallies in Atlanta, GA… And Martin O'Malley spends his day in New Hampshire.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails. Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone. Check us out on Facebook and also onTwitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @carrienbcnews
NERDSCREEN: America's Arab Population in Blue and Red
The 2016 debate around Syrian refugees dominated politics this past week with Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, taking sharply different positions. Democratic politicians have largely signaled they are open to taking in refugees while Republicans have talked about blocking them, stressing security concerns about the would-be newcomers.
When you look at the numbers that may not be a surprise. Of the many fault lines that define the blue-red divide in American politics, diversity is one of the most prominent. Simply put, Democratic communities tend be far more diverse than Republican ones.
There is a long list of reasons for that, from the urban nature of Democratic communities to geographic self-selection that leads the members of each party to cluster around different kinds of people and places.
And a look at the spread of people whom the U.S. Census defines as "Arab" shows how that diversity divide is likely playing a role in this latest debate. (The Census does not ask Americans about their religious affiliation so getting a good sense of the Muslim population is difficult.)
There are roughly 1.75 million Americans whose ethnic heritage is defined as Arab and the overwhelming majority of them, some 1.34 million, live in counties that voted for President Barrack Obama in 2012. That's 77% of the total. The remaining 23% live in counties that voted for Mitt Romney.
But in a sense that gross accounting misses how deep the divide actually is.
There are 37 counties in the United States where the Arab population is 10,000 or more and 34 of them went for Barrack Obama 2012. As you might expect those 37 counties are all part of the nation's biggest metro areas - Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Miami, with the biggest population in Wayne County, home of Detroit.
The metro Detroit area has been drawing large Arab populations for decades now. And earlier this month, the city of Hamtramck, which sits entirely within Detroit city limits, voted in a majority Muslim City Council.
On the other end of the data, according to Census, there are 926 counties that have no residents whose ethnicity is defined as Arab. The overwhelming majority of those counties, 819 of them, went with Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race.
And partisan differences on the refugee question existed before the terrorist attacks in Paris last week.
The September NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked whether the United States should take in more than the 10,000 refugees Mr. Obama was calling for, less than that number or none at all? Among Democrats 68% said the U.S should take in that amount or more. Among Republicans 56% said the U.S. should take in fewer or none at all.
The point here is not that Republican-leaning communities are opposed to Arab populations in the United States or that Democratic-leaning ones favor such populations. The point, rather, is that Democrats and Republicans really do live in different worlds in this debate.
Many Democratic communities, particularly the most populous ones, have seen growing Middle Eastern populations for years. They have had time to grow used to seeing different faces and churches amongst them. There are still tensions in those places, but the populations are not something new.
For many Republican communities the populations being discussed in Syrian refugee crisis and indeed throughout the Middle East are more truly "foreign" to them. Those places simply have less experience with the populations in question, which may make them more likely to be concerned about those groups coming to the United States.
That's one big reason why the stances and words around the Syrian refugee look so different depending on whether the politician is talking to Red or Blue America.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment-- or suggestions, particularly of topics and places you'd like to see covered