Lively and in-depth discussions of city news, politics, science, entertainment, the arts, and more.
Hosted by Larry Mantle
Airs Weekdays 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

Why Democrats and Republicans perceive threat of terrorism so differently




US President Barack Obama speaks during the third night of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
US President Barack Obama speaks during the third night of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

Listen to story

13:45
Download this story 6MB

At the Republican National Convention, much of the rhetoric focused on the threat of terrorism, both on and out of American soil.

According to one Washington Post research that tracked the language of the convention, “radical islamic terrorism” was one of the most echoed phrases, second only after “make America (blank) again.”

On the contrary, speakers at the Democratic National Convention made almost no mention of recent terrorist attacks. It wasn’t until the third day when President Obama touched on the subject of ISIL.

If political language translate to actual policy implementation, the talking points of the convention would mean a difference in treatment when it comes to dealing with the threat of terrorism.  

This raises the question: why Democrats and Republicans perceive threat of terrorism so differently during this election? Has this gap been consistent between the two parties since 9/11? How will this differential impact the outcome when people head to their voting booth? 

Guests:

Frank Newport, serves as Editor-in-Chief of The Gallup and author of, "Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People"

Cliff Young, President, Ipsos Public Affairs; and leads Ipsos global election and political polling risk practice.