52% of likely Republican Iowa caucus goers support cutting and running
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 12:01:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  52% of likely Republican Iowa caucus goers support cutting and running
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 52% of likely Republican Iowa caucus goers support cutting and running  (Read 2486 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,569


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 06, 2007, 04:49:14 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad they're too stupid to support someone against the war.


Rudy Giuliani 25% - Pro-escalation
John McCain 20% - Pro-escalation
Fred Thompson 11% - Pro-escalation
Mitt Romney 8% - Pro-escalation
Newt Gingrich 6% - Pro-escalation
Tommy Thompson 3% - ?
Sam Brownback 3% - Against the escalation, but also against a timetable
Chuck Hagel 2% - Actually pro-timetable
Tom Tancredo 2% - Against escalation, voted against timetable
Mike Huckabee 2% - Pro-escalation
Jim Gilmore 1% - ?
Ron Paul 1% - Against the war
Duncan Hunter 1% - Pro-escalation
Undecided 15% - Probably anti-war, and should switch parties.

http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_040407.htm
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2007, 04:58:58 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2007, 05:18:35 PM »

Everyone, including all candidates, want to get "out" of Iraq.  It's simply a matter of timing and tactics to accomplish this.  That is where the differences occur. 

None of the Republican candidates, nor the Democratic candidates, are pro-war.  Those favoring escalation believe this will accomplish the end game more quickly.

I personally do not believe that escalation in the number of troops will work, however, the Democrats have not proposed any winning formula either.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2007, 05:40:50 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2007, 06:50:28 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad they're too stupid to support someone against the war.

Hmm...I wonder why these multi issue voters still don't feel comfortable enough voting democrat...

Perhaps they don't like being insulted. I dunno...just a guess.
Logged
NHPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2007, 07:31:46 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

The voters of CT were, I guess.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2007, 08:49:27 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

No,  but I know that among other issues besides Iraq were the Republicans's abondoning their limited government philosophy.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,443


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2007, 11:55:44 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

No,  but I know that among other issues besides Iraq were the Republicans's abondoning their limited government philosophy.

well they are limited in a sense, limited to millionaires and big corporations
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2007, 12:27:51 AM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2007, 03:15:36 AM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.

I, and probably most political experts, strongly disagree that the 2006 election results are irrelevant when discussing the 2008 presidential race.  However I will offer some more evidence for you in the form of presidential results.  Please see the election results of 1968 and tell me that Vietnam wasn't the number one issue when voters elected Nixon over the sitting VP.  The war is and will continue to be the most important issue in 2008.  If this poll is taken as an accurate portrayal of Republican sentiment in Iowa then I would expect Brownback and Hagel to begin rising quickly once people figure out who they are.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2007, 05:08:44 AM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.

I would say that the bigger thing to note is that these are Republicans, and Republicans were certainly not responsible for the Democrats' victory in 2006.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2007, 12:16:32 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.

I would say that the bigger thing to note is that these are Republicans, and Republicans were certainly not responsible for the Democrats' victory in 2006.

Well, Republican voters were not responsible for the Democrats' victory in 2006. The jury is still out on the Republican politicians.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,569


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2007, 02:06:45 PM »

Everyone, including all candidates, want to get "out" of Iraq.  It's simply a matter of timing and tactics to accomplish this.  That is where the differences occur. 

52% of Iowa Republicans want out in the next 6 months. It's pretty clear that the top 5 candidates (and most of the others) that they support don't favor that.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2007, 05:05:22 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.

I would say that the bigger thing to note is that these are Republicans, and Republicans were certainly not responsible for the Democrats' victory in 2006.

Well, Republican voters were not responsible for the Democrats' victory in 2006. The jury is still out on the Republican politicians.

My point was that Republican voters are not voting purely because they want the soldiers out of Iraq.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,767


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2007, 06:27:41 AM »

As Gabu implied, but maybe didn't say bluntly enough, is that those Republican voters who oppose the Iraq war and care about the issue probably switched already. Let's keep in mind that something like 46% of the American electorate still voted Republican in 2006, despite everything, and that Republican primary voters are most likely exclusively in this group.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2007, 11:32:22 AM »

Everyone, including all candidates, want to get "out" of Iraq.  It's simply a matter of timing and tactics to accomplish this.  That is where the differences occur. 

52% of Iowa Republicans want out in the next 6 months. It's pretty clear that the top 5 candidates (and most of the others) that they support don't favor that.

"Oh look at me!  I'm JFern and I found a soundbite that I can beat to death.  WOOHOO!"
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2007, 03:12:49 AM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.
Anyways, if the 2006 election results had been solely due to "the war" - ie, if everybody had voted their position on the war in 2006 - the Reps would have done a hell of a lot worse.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2007, 11:33:54 AM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.
Anyways, if the 2006 election results had been solely due to "the war" - ie, if everybody had voted their position on the war in 2006 - the Reps would have done a hell of a lot worse.

Yeah, in fact, not one of the 6 Senate seats the GOP lost to Dems had anything to do with Iraq:
PA-Santorum was way too right-wing
OH-Their economy was in the hole
RI-GOP unpopularity was the straw that broke the camel's back
MO-Stem Cells
MT-Abramoff scandal
VA-Macaca

Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2007, 02:10:17 PM »

Did it ever occur to you that people often don't vote based on "the war"?

Were you asleep in November?

This is a thread concerning "Presidential candidates" not "legislative candidates".  Results in 2006 therefore are quite irrelevant to jfern's specific point and my pointed response.
Anyways, if the 2006 election results had been solely due to "the war" - ie, if everybody had voted their position on the war in 2006 - the Reps would have done a hell of a lot worse.

Yeah, in fact, not one of the 6 Senate seats the GOP lost to Dems had anything to do with Iraq:
PA-Santorum was way too right-wing
OH-Their economy was in the hole
RI-GOP unpopularity was the straw that broke the camel's back
MO-Stem Cells
MT-Abramoff scandal
VA-Macaca
That of course is nonsense.
You could turn it into a sensible argument by saying that Santorum and DeWine would have lost even without the war (although I'm not *certain* that that's accurate for DeWine - it's likely though), that a stronger Rep incumbent could have held on in Pennsylvania, and that the last three wouldn't have lost just on account of the War if there weren't any other, personal, reasons to vote against them (though again, the argument is pretty weak as far as Talent goes).
But of course, none of the last three, very probably none of the last four would have been sunk by his personal woes alone if there were no Iraq War.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2007, 02:17:41 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad they're too stupid to support someone against the war.

Please stop being such an asshole.  You really need a thread for your own ego to say "look at me, I'm superior, I know how to tell people what's good for them".  Granted that kind of mentality gets the best of us, but you're one of the few that gets off on it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.235 seconds with 14 queries.