- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
- U.S. chemical sites vulnerable despite millions spent on security: Congress
- Driverless cars to hit the British streets by 2015
- GOP presses to scrap IRS commissioner position — but put in panel
- New bill would make sure women in military can get free birth control
- Trafficking bust reveals worries over missing kids; minors as young as 11 found
- Catholic League slams Obama: ‘Do Christian lives mean so little to you?’
- National laboratory cancels ‘Southern Accent Reduction’ classes after outcry
- U.S. woman with Ebola is stable, improving, son says
‘Survivors’ voting their grief
Question of the Day
“Angry Survivors” could be a new demographic for political strategists to consider, harboring a subtle dynamic that could influence the presidential election.
Many who lost a loved one, family, friend or even an acquaintance in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or in the Iraq War still have visceral rage or a need for revenge, and such residual emotions sway political leanings, new research suggests.
Survivors are “significantly” less likely to approve of President Bush’s performance than people without these connections, said Scott Sigmund Gartner, a political science professor from the University of California at Davis.
According to a study released Friday, the sentiment affects all comers, “repeating among Republicans as well as Democrats, conservatives as well as liberals, and across all races, ages, education levels and incomes,” the study said.
“The notion of blaming one’s leader for the death of a family or community member from a terrorist attack or war might seem odd at first,” Mr. Gartner said, “but a personal tie to a victim converts abstract, distant costs of international violence into a vivid, personal and profoundly emotional experience, one that has clear, strong and consistent political implications.”
This pattern could play a role in the presidential election, Mr. Gartner said.
“Once it was believed that people who were affected in this way by 9/11 or the war in Iraq were a small section of society. But this pattern has more impact than people thought,” he added.
The study noted that more than one-third of Americans were deeply and personally affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. About 60 percent know someone serving in Iraq, almost a third knew someone who had been killed, and 11 percent had “close personal ties” with that casualty.
Mr. Gartner’s previous research has found political fallout from these numbers. He released findings earlier this year revealing that members of Congress whose districts faced a disproportionate number of casualties in the weeks before the 2006 midterm elections were “punished at the polls.”
The potential affect on the fall election seems complicated. Does Sen. John McCain’s military service help or harm his appeal among these “survivor” voters?
“Since those who are veterans or know someone serving are more likely to know someone harmed by war, I think that a candidate’s military service likely mitigates the negative effect of a casualty,” Mr. Gartner said. “That is, those who are most likely to see military service as a positive aspect are also those most likely to know someone injured or killed. As a result, military service by a candidate linked to the war (i.e., McCain) probably decreases the negative effect.”
His new research is based on analyses of several large surveys conducted by Gallup and the Field Poll, which asked respondents about their personal ties to Sept. 11 and the Iraq War, along with their party affiliation, political outlook and support for the president.
His study was published by the American Sociological Review, an academic journal.
About the Author
- Ron Paul giving away a Colt AR-15 in the name of 'freedom'
- John Bolton endorses Scott Brown, the newest 'national security candidate'
- Inside the Beltway: Immigration rage festers on all sides
- Alaska's language challenge: translating tax forms into Siberian Yupik (at $50 an hour)
- Third time the charm? Americans wish certain presidents had stayed beyond two terms
Latest Blog Entries
- A startling 20 percent of Democratic lawmakers already endorse Hillary Clinton for president
- Hey food police: calling obesity a 'disease' is actually a health risk
- Cheese and an 'enhanced experience': White House goes showbiz on the State of the Union address
- Cruz calls it a 'circus': the State of the Union spectacle begins
- Half of American fans say God and 'supernatural' forces are in play during sports events
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama mum on where illegal immigrant children are sheltered
- National laboratory cancels 'Southern Accent Reduction' classes after outcry
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world