Honestly, I don’t know why it’s so hard to walk and chew gum at the same time. I think the strategy should be “the economy sucks because the Republicans have spent all your money on a failed war at the expense of every domestic issue you can imagine,” but what do I know.

Arianna:

The numbers couldn’t be any clearer. Seventy-seven percent of voters think that it’s time to give new people a shot at running Congress. But while Democrats continue to hold a lead when voters are asked which party they plan to support in November, Republicans are making significant gains in convincing voters they are better able to handle national security and the war on terrorism. According to a new LA Times/Bloomberg poll, voters give the GOP a whopping 17 point advantage on the “who’ll keep us safe?” question (nearly double the number who felt that way in June). At the same time, 56 percent of voters don’t believe that America is making progress in Iraq. (What’s more, Bush’s numbers on the economy have greatly improved in the last three months).

Which is why Democrats can’t take their eye off the real ball — making the case that Iraq is not, as Bush continues to claim, the centerpiece of the war on terror, and has, in fact, compromised America’s ability to combat terrorists and protect our homeland.

When asked by the New York Times/CBS which party takes the threat of terrorism more seriously, only six percent of those polled said Democrats while 22 percent gave the nod to Republicans.

Democrats need to close that chasm — and fast. If the next 7 weeks are spent with Democrats harping on the economy and Bush acting like he’s saving the world, the dream of 2006 becoming the Dem version of the GOP’s 1994 landslide will quickly morph into a November nightmare.

Repeat after me: It’s NOT the economy, stupid!

Overlord Kos:

ee, that’s why I don’t think we’re going to win back the House or Senate. Because you can always trust Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

For the record, we heard this in 2002. We heard it in 2004. I gave the argument the benefit of the doubt those years. I think I actually bought it in 2002. But apparently our vaunted leadership in DC is incapable of learning lessons.

They obsess about 1968, yet they couldn’t be bothered with the far more relevant years of 2002 and 2004. I don’t understand it.

I’ll be shocked if we wake up on election day controlling either chamber of Congress. If we do, it’ll be because enough candidates decide to give those DC consultants and staffers the middle finger and run the race they know they need to run to win.

The Agonist: (and be sure to check out the great economic graphs Bonddad has up with it.)

First - let’s go to Polling Report to get an idea for what people out there are thinking. First, Iraq/terrorism were always number 1 with “what issue concerns you most” or similar questions. However, the economy was always the second most important issue to people in the latest three polls. And the economy was the most important issue in an ABC news poll from September 5-7.

So - the economy is not the most important issue, but certainly not the least important issue either. Why is that? Well - how about we ask Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean who wrote an editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal?

“Under Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress, incomes today are $1,000 less for the typical household than during Bill Clinton’s final year in office; incomes for the typical working-age household have declined every year since the president took office. Black and Hispanic households have fared worse over the same period: Black household income has fallen every year, after rising every year (except for a one-year $60 dip) under Mr. Clinton. Incomes for Hispanic households are down $1,000, after rising more than $7,000 under Mr. Clinton.

Incomes have fallen because wages — which provide 75% of income for typical families — are stagnant for most workers. Under Mr. Bush, wages for college-educated workers increased only 1.3% between 2000 and 2005, as compared to 11.3% during Mr. Clinton’s last five years. For the nation’s lowest-paid workers, the situation is even worse, as the minimum wage is worth less now than at any time in at least 50 years.”

The Census Bureau confirms Dean’s statements in the latest statistics on national income which con cluded:

Nationally, 2005 marked the first year since 1999 in which real median household income showed an annual increase.

So - who is getting rich? How about we remind people that corporations are taking the biggest share of national income in over 40 years?

snip

OK - I admit I am really biased in favor of discussing the economy. It is — after all — all I write about. If you look at my RSS reader you’ll see a ton of financial news sources with a few wire services thrown in. And Iraq is a complete disaster. However, Bush’s economy is killing people financially. It’s really that simple. And it would be really great if someone actually addressed that issue - before the middle class goes away.

Democratic Strategist/Dionne:

In his article “No Silent Majority for Bush,” WaPo columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr. notes further:

“News over the weekend of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq is especially troublesome for Republican electoral chances. By finding that the war in Iraq has encouraged global terrorism and spawned a new generation of Islamic radicals, the report by 16 government intelligence services undercuts the administration’s central argument that the Iraq war has made the United States safer.
Nor is there any way to dismiss the assessment as partisan, left-wing or unpatriotic. That high-level government officials have offered their own criticisms of the war’s impact makes it difficult for Republicans to force the argument into a classic “he said-she said” framework in which facts can be set aside and the claims of critics dismissed as political.”

Meanwhile a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted 9/22-24, indicates that 59 percent of Americans oppose the Iraq war and 55 percent of likely voters said they would vote for a Democrat if the election were held now, compared to 42 percent for a republican.

There will be a lot more said and written about the leaked report over the next seven weeks. But it’s clear that the “soft on terrorism” label the GOP has tried to pin on Dems so frequently now has “backfire” written all over it.

CNN:

“Terrorism and the Iraq war will play very important roles in the votes of a large majority of Americans when they go to the polls for the November midterm election,” a new CNN poll shows.

On terrorism, 49% “said it would be extremely important in deciding their congressional choices in November” while the Iraq war was extremely important to 46% of those surveyed.

Asked which party in Congress would better handle specific issues, respondents backed Republicans on terrorism (47% to 41%) and backed Democrats on Iraq (47% to 42%.).

The survey found President Bush’s approval rating unchanged from last month, hovering at 40%.

You make the call. But it seems to me this is like arguing over which winning strategy will win. These numbers suggest to me they both would do fine, and it seems obvious to me that using both would be the death blow to Republicans.

Of course, I don’t have high hopes that the Democrats will realize this and employ appropriate tactics. I’m cynical like that.