Is an anti-war candidate unelectable?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How many people here share Naso and a few other Republicans hackish views that opposing an unpopular war makes you unelectable?

[Moooooo]

In the current political climate?  See:  2006 Midterm Elections

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In the current political climate?  See:  2006 Midterm Elections

no, no. those were moderate, pro-war Democrats. Just watch their ads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSZbATkIAAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIj4hs6MAcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKgcm2aU_38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5OMBnH_wMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps9nBJHyVgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=214RM_y9oE0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEnWcsUCT44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZberufvlD4g

[Deano963]

BRTD, if you made a thread every time Naso makes some batsh**t-crazy claim like an anti-war candidate can't win the Presidency in '08 in order to mock that claim, you'd be starting a new thread every five minutes.

Oh, wait.........

[Nym90]

At this point, I think a pro-war candidate is unelectable.

[John Dibble]

Depends on the anti-war candidate. How they frame their anti-war position is certainly important, plus their stances on other issues would be relevant.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends on the anti-war candidate. How they frame their anti-war position is certainly important, plus their stances on other issues would be relevant.

Agreed.  I don't think that a candidate who states that we should never have even considered invading Iraq under any circumstances whatsoever could win, tho they might be able to win the Democratic primary.

However, one who frames their opposition based on a position such as:

1. As despicable as Saddam was, he wasn't a threat at all to the United States.
2. Saddam was a threat, but other conflicts such as Afghanistan should have been given priority and Iraq was a distraction from dealing with Al-Qaida.
3. The Iraq War was worth fighting, but the Bush administration bungled it by inept planning and execution.

can win and is likely to win in 2008.

[Sam Spade]

Depends on the anti-war candidate. How they frame their anti-war position is certainly important, plus their stances on other issues would be relevant.

This is, as usual, the correct answer. 

[Silent Hunter]

However, one who frames their opposition based on a position such as:

1. As despicable as Saddam was, he wasn't a threat at all to the United States.
2. Saddam was a threat, but other conflicts such as Afghanistan should have been given priority and Iraq was a distraction from dealing with Al-Qaida.
3. The Iraq War was worth fighting, but the Bush administration bungled it by inept planning and execution.

can win and is likely to win in 2008.

Though probably not all three at once. 3 is closest to my own view.

[Middle-aged Europe]

At this point, I think a pro-war candidate is unelectable.

^^^^

[Democratic Hawk]

However, one who frames their opposition based on a position such as:

1. As despicable as Saddam was, he wasn't a threat at all to the United States.
2. Saddam was a threat, but other conflicts such as Afghanistan should have been given priority and Iraq was a distraction from dealing with Al-Qaida.
3. The Iraq War was worth fighting, but the Bush administration bungled it by inept planning and execution.

can win and is likely to win in 2008.

Though probably not all three at once. 3 is closest to my own view.

It will come as no surprise but 3. is closest to my own view too

As to whether an anti-war candidate is unelectable? I don't know but as things stand now I'd say no

The one reservation I have on that is the fact that an anti-war Democratic Senate candidate, Ned Lamont, running in a strongly anti-war state, Connecticut, couldn't even defeat one of the most vociferous supporters of the war in Joe Lieberman. Therefore I ask would any similar national candidate fair any better on a national playing field? Possibly, given that Lamont ran for Senate as a rather lame "one trick donkey"; while most Connecticut voters evidently looked a more issues than just Iraq. Consequently, there is a great need for caution

Nevertheless, I'm gonna say it. 1972 left me scarred so, understandably, I do have concerns with the Democrats running such an anti-war candidate, especially should the situation in Iraq improve. The Democrats ran a vociferous opponent of the Vietnam War in George McGovern and unpopilar as that war was, it didn't exactly herald him into the Oval Office. But given the scale of his defeat, McGovern's platform can't have been particularly appealing at all

I, for one, would have been one 'yellow dog' who wouldn't have voted for McGovern. But supportive of the decision to go war with Saddam as I am, could I root for an anti-war Democrat come 2008? Yes, after 8 years of W, sure

As far as 2008 goes, I'm looking for a Democrat who can enhance American prestige on an international level. As of now, I'm not sure who that Democrat is

Dave

[Deano963]

However, one who frames their opposition based on a position such as:

1. As despicable as Saddam was, he wasn't a threat at all to the United States.
2. Saddam was a threat, but other conflicts such as Afghanistan should have been given priority and Iraq was a distraction from dealing with Al-Qaida.
3. The Iraq War was worth fighting, but the Bush administration bungled it by inept planning and execution.

can win and is likely to win in 2008.

Though probably not all three at once. 3 is closest to my own view.

The one reservation I have on that is the fact that an anti-war Democratic Senate candidate, Ned Lamont, running in a strongly anti-war state, Connecticut, couldn't even defeat one of the most vociferous supporters of the war in Joe Lieberman. Therefore I ask would any similar national candidate fair any better on a national playing field?

LOL! Dave, think about that for just a minute and you'll realize why that concern makes no sense.

Lamont was running against ANOTHER DEMOCRAT, and a three-term incumbent Democrat for that matter who was supported by both the Dem political establishment in Connecticut and by the majority of REPUBLICANS in CT. The two Democrats in the race split the lion's share of the vote. The Republican candidate in the race took 10% of the vote.

Now ask yourself these questions:

1) - Are there going to be TWO Democrats running against eachother in the 2008 Presidential General Election, thus splitting the vote b/c the one Dem who is pro-war manages to get enough Democrats to believe the lie that he wants the war to end? Ummmm........No.

2) Will whoever the Republican Presidential candidate is garner only 10% of the vote, b/c more than half of Republican voters decide to support the pro-war Dem candidate instead of the Republican in the race? LOL......No.

Republicans in CT are very liberal on social issues compared to most other Republicans in the country, Dave, therefore they could vote for Joe Lieberman. The same could not be said for Republican voters anyhwere in the South or West.

In summary, trying to draw parrallels between the 2006 Senate Election in CT and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election is ridiculous. There are a million holes in that argument.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - as long as the person shows that he's/she's pro-troops.

[YRABNNRM]

No - as long as the person shows that he's/she's pro-troops.

There are people running that are anti-troops?

[ShadowRocket]

I don't think it would hurt the candidate in question one bit. It would probably be an advantage.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - as long as the person shows that he's/she's pro-troops.

There are people running that are anti-troops?

No.  I'm just saying that in general.

[Deano963]

No - as long as the person shows that he's/she's pro-troops.

There are people running that are anti-troops?

Of course - you haven't heard?

Jon Stewart profiled this most elusive of politicians not too long ago on The Daily Show.

I believe his name was DumbF**k McDosen'tExist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No - as long as the person shows that he's/she's pro-troops.

There are people running that are anti-troops?

Giuliani is anti-troops. He blamed the missing HMX explosives on them.

[Democratic Hawk]

Now ask yourself these questions:

1) - Are there going to be TWO Democrats running against eachother in the 2008 Presidential General Election, thus splitting the vote b/c the one Dem who is pro-war manages to get enough Democrats to believe the lie that he wants the war to end? Ummmm........No.

No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Point taken . Several pro-war Republicans were defeated by anti-war Democrats in GOP-leaning states, so, it follows that an anti-war Democratic presidential can win a presidential election in 2008 if nothing changes as far as Iraq is concerned. That said, a couple of Democrats, namely Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana, won narrowly thanks to the faults and failings of the Republican incumbents George Allen and Conrad Burns; while economic issues and stem-cell research carried much salience in Ohio and Missouri, respectively. The one Republican who perhaps should have held his seat was the liberal Lincoln Chafee, but no matter how instep he was with Rhode Island, it was just too tough an environment for him to win against Sheldon Whitehouse

Most voters come November 2008 will look at who's running and decide who they support on the basis of a very wide range of issues. Iraq wasn't as salient an issue in 2004 as it was in 2006 mid-terms. As far as 2008 goes we'll just have to wait and see what happens with regards to Iraq. Does the situation improve or deteriorate? Will American troops have, at the very least, started to withdraw or not?

Nevertheless, no Democratic nominee, should bank on Iraq, should it go from bad to worse, as being some gold-pathed road leading straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Dave

[Deano963]

Nevertheless, no Democratic nominee, should bank on Iraq, should it go from bad to worse, as being some gold-pathed road leading straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

I never argued otherwise.

I simply said that being an anti-Iraq War Presidential candidate in 2008 will be in a much better position than a pro-Iraq War candidate. Obviously other issues come into play.

[Democratic Hawk]

Nevertheless, no Democratic nominee, should bank on Iraq, should it go from bad to worse, as being some gold-pathed road leading straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

I never argued otherwise.

Never said you did . It's just one of my recurring talking points

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Highly likely, assuming things in Iraq a) don't change or b) deteriorate further

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed they shall

BTW, always bear in mind that as far as I go my natural affinity is with the Democratic Party not the Republican Party, even if I do disagree with many Democrats on Iraq

Dave

[Smash255]

At this point, I think a pro-war candidate is unelectable.

^^^^^^^

Any other Democrat feel the need to throw the ^^^^^ symbol on the majority of nym's posts???

[DownWithTheLeft]

Depends on the anti-war candidate. How they frame their anti-war position is certainly important, plus their stances on other issues would be relevant.

^^^^^^^^^^^

Hits the nail on the head.  While Iraq should be a dominating issue in 2008, it will not be the only issue.