by Andrew Malcolm
An interesting new, but little-noticed, poll came out from the Pew Research Center this week that could have some long-term effects on the ongoing '08 presidential campaign.
It's not about voters and their genders and favorite candidate and their negative ratings. It's about the average citizen's interest in certain news stories. Public interest in news of the Iraq war has plummeted.
On Jan. 12-15, for instance, 55% of Americans said the war was the first news story that came to mind, way far ahead of some kidnapped boys in Missouri (7%) and winter weather (5%). This month, on Nov. 2-5 only 16% named the Iraq conflict as the first story, only slightly ahead of California wildfires (13%) and the presidential campaign (10%).
Speaking of the presidential campaign, the Iraq war was supposed to be a major weight around the neck of every Republican and a huge bonus for Democrats. It still is the major issue for the Democratic left and those candidates continue to talk about withdrawal while Congressional Democrats, who appear largely to have given up on forcing Pres. Bush to withdraw, still are trying various legislative strategies to show their constituency they're trying.
But for most of the country, Pew finds, the war is drawing less interest as well as less media coverage, which may well be linked. Additionally, much of the war news that does appear is much more encouraging about allied successes on the ground and diminished monthly casualties.
At this rate of melting, the Iraq war issue may well not help the Democrats much in the general electorate during the long months of the 2008 campaign. So what will take its place? The economy? (bad for Republicans) Gas prices? (the same) National security? Say, there's a terrorist attack or a thwarted one.
Americans haven't elected a sitting legislator as president in 47 years. And four of the last five elected presidents have been governors. The fifth one was a sitting vice president.
Andrew Malcolm writes for Top of the Ticket, the L.A. Times' political blog.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The war in Iraq is going better now than it was in January, so the MSM doesn't have all the negative reporting to flash on the tube; therefore it is furthur from the public's mind.
Besides didn't Pelosi and Reed put an end to the war?
Posted by: Terry | November 10, 2007 9:38 AM
Mark, curious why you think gas prices are "bad for Republicans?" Are you basing that simply on the fact that oil companies donate to Republicans much more than to Dems? Or is it because Bush is president and it's "obvious" that he enjoys watching the price at the pump rise, almost as much as he "enjoys" watching American soldiers die overseas? But perhaps more specifically, I'd like to know how high gas prices help Democrats in 2008? What are Democrats actually going to do about them, besides insult the oil companies and call names? And how do Democrats reconcile a desire to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels with a desire to make gasoline affordable? Those are mutually exclusive positions.
Posted by: JB | November 10, 2007 10:00 AM
Sorry, my post should have been addressed to Andrew Malcolm, not Mark Silva.
Posted by: JB | November 10, 2007 10:04 AM
Americans are losing interest because Iraq largely is out of the news. Absent the daily bombings, the media are reporting...nothing. The progress in Iraq, the pacification of the country, the citizen revolt against Al Quaeda, and foremost the reduced violence apparently are not news. Hence, an eerie quiet from the media. What do those reporters do all day now that they have so little negative news to report.
Posted by: Heinrich | November 10, 2007 10:16 AM
Despite the media's best efforts to hide the good news in Iraq, the fact that there is less bad news in Iraq shows it is getting better there. So, if things are going great in Iraq next year, what will the Dems run on? Socialized health care?
It could be that a year from now, the Dems get clobbered and the U.S. mainstream media goes into a whiny funk.
Posted by: John D | November 10, 2007 1:00 PM
Kuwait's News reported today a Sunni militant group killed or captured 34 Al Quida in Iraq. This will probably be the only place you'll hear of it.
MSM's motto: All the news that fits our agenda.
Posted by: whatnow | November 10, 2007 1:38 PM
"Public interest in news of the Iraq war has plummeted.
On Jan. 12-15, for instance, 55% of Americans said the war was the first news story that came to mind, way far ahead of some kidnapped boys in Missouri (7%) and winter weather (5%). This month, on Nov. 2-5 only 16% named the Iraq conflict as the first story, only slightly ahead of California wildfires (13%) and the presidential campaign (10%)."
The above poll results do NOT prove that "public interest in the war" is "diminishing". In essence, the poll respondents were asked what the media headlined as the news that week. They were NOT asked what the stories THEY were interested in.
The poll only reflects what the drive-by media is feeding the public. And since the "surge" is working, the drive-byers will do their best to hide that fact by not reporting it.
Posted by: Bruce | November 10, 2007 2:07 PM
Puleeeze Heinrich,
The New York Times did report that murders are down in Iraq by 80% and bombings are down by 70%
It was on page A-19, right after a 4 page Siemens Corp. advertisement.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | November 10, 2007 2:12 PM
The Democrat Party and the the driveby media have showed the worst images of the war every suicide bombing, burning cars, screaming Iraqi's, and decapitations by Jihadist Muslims.
Now, the General Pataeus is taking and holding dangerous areas the surge is working.
Don't worry the war stories have been replaced by daily treatises in the driveby media about global warming. The stories are not balanced because Al Gore says there is a concensus on global warming among scientists.
You can't have science if there is concensus. Ray Spencer a former NASA scientist and now professor at Alabama University says it is not man made and it isn't global warming.
The founder of the Weather Channel a meteorollogist says global warming is bunk.
But, the drivebys are too lazy to call all the weather scientists to call Algore's bluff.
So, the drivebys and the Democrats are telling little kids in the grade schools with the help of the NEA that there is a crisis called global warming.
The kids are being shown on local news being concerned about polar bears dying and the crisis of global warming.
This is orchestrated by the DNC to push for higher taxes and a push to stop oil drilling and the buying of yugos while Gore rides around in big black SUV's and flys in big lear jets.
The environ wackos like the Sierra Club are stopping the building of lakes because we might hurt the environment.
The Democrat liberals want 2 things higher taxes and more government regulations to hurt corporations ansd small businesses.
Then, they will screw up our health care system with Hil's socialized medicine and their dream will be complete. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | November 10, 2007 2:31 PM
Hey Terry, guess you forgot to actually read the rest of the Tribune today:
"2007 Deadliest for US in Afghanistan"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-afghanistan,1,6935765.story
It's already been posted that this has been the deadliest year for our military in Iraq, and we have 2 months still to come.
But in your fantasy world, things are getting better in Iraq.
Posted by: BC | November 10, 2007 5:24 PM
This is exactly what the war promoters want.
It's time for a new war to tug the patriotic heart strings.
Iraq is so early '00s.
Iran anyone?
Posted by: C.Morris | November 10, 2007 8:12 PM
BC,
I know high US troop casualities is good political news on the left, but look at the downward trend since the surge has taken full effect.
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
The fact is, if their is success in Iraq, it is not good news for the democrats as stated by South Carolina congressman Clyburn.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html
Posted by: Terry | November 11, 2007 12:44 PM