Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2014, 04:08:27 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2008 Elections
| | |-+  Last time an anti-war candidate won a Presidential race in wartime?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Last time an anti-war candidate won a Presidential race in wartime?  (Read 13820 times)
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12328
United States


View Profile
« on: August 10, 2007, 02:23:23 am »
Ignore

I can't think of when it was the last time that an anti-war candidate won a Presidential election during wartime? Nixon wasn't anti-war in '68....Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....Bush wasn't anti-war in '04....
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14464


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2007, 02:29:07 am »
Ignore

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........
Logged

Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12328
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2007, 02:29:42 am »
Ignore

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14464


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2007, 02:42:28 am »
Ignore

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.
Logged

DanielX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5165
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

P
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2007, 02:43:44 am »
Ignore

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

1864! Wink
Logged

Yankee Capitalist Scum!
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12328
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2007, 02:47:12 am »
Ignore

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?
Logged
Smash255
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14464


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2007, 03:05:26 am »
Ignore

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?

Neither Korea in 1952, nor Vietnam in 1968 were as unpopular as Iraq is now.  Neither Stvenston or Humphrey were exactly anti-war candidates either.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2007, 03:17:13 am »
Ignore

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?

In 1952, Eisenhower promised to end (and did get a cease-fire in) the Korean War.

In 1968, Humphrey's main problem in his campaign was that America was still in Vietnam, and he received a massive boost to his campaign when President Johnson announced a bombing halt and a possible peace deal.

If you're going to try to bolster your position, these are not exactly the best example to pick.  In 1952, the Democratic candidate was severely dragged down by an unpopular war started by a Democratic president.  In 1968, the Democratic candidate was severely dragged down by an unpopular war started by a Democratic president.  If we're going to assume that history will repeat itself, then fill in the blanks: "In 2008, the ________ candidate will be severely dragged down by an unpopular war started by a ________ president."

Would you like to try again?
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32328


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2007, 03:20:47 am »
Ignore

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.
Logged
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12328
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2007, 03:34:16 am »
Ignore

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.

I'm talking about the Cold War...by the way....which side were you on during the Cold War??
Logged
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2007, 03:39:14 am »
Ignore

I thank Mike Naso for his acknowledgement that I made a good point and that he found himself unable to adequately rebut my statement.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58775
India


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2007, 04:23:21 am »
Ignore

Typical Naso Hackery.   And the last time a pro-war candidate won when 2/3 of the country wanted out of the war was........

Thanks for sliding the question!

Interesting coming from someone who never answers anyone else's question.  Regardless you seemed to be using this as a way to suggest the GOP will win in 08 because an anti-war candidate hasn't won during a war while completely ignoring the fact no pro-war candidate has ever won during a war as unpopular as this one.

Generally the questions, you ignore are legit, this is just retarded.

HAHA...I love how you use an opinion as an answer. "A war as unpopular as this one" ... I doubt this is as unpopular as Vietnam or Korea and by the way...a pro-war candidate (Eisenhower and Nixon) both won during those unpopular wars.

So, would you like to try again, pal?

Neither Korea in 1952, nor Vietnam in 1968 were as unpopular as Iraq is now.  Neither Stvenston or Humphrey were exactly anti-war candidates either.
Nixon was kind of anti war in 1968.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12328
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2007, 06:37:13 am »
Ignore

Nixon was kind of anti war in 1968.

Not really. Infact, Governors Romney, Rockefeller and Reagan ran against Nixon in 1968 for the GOP nomination as the anti-war Republicans. Nixon was not anti-war.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16806


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2007, 06:53:08 am »
Ignore

Nixon was kind of anti war in 1968.

Not really. Infact, Governors Romney, Rockefeller and Reagan ran against Nixon in 1968 for the GOP nomination as the anti-war Republicans. Nixon was not anti-war.

He wasn't anti-war in his heart-of-hearts, but nor is Hillary Clinton. He did, however, campaign strongly against the war during his presidential campaign. Humphrey's promise to Johnson not to campaign against the war would have made 1968 a landslide had Johnson not recanted in the last few months.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1401


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2007, 08:46:08 am »
Ignore

I would say Nixon in 1968, as he ran on getting us out of Vietnam. If anyone wants to argue that, fine, it doesn't change the reality of 39 years ago though.

Quote
Nixon promised peace with honor, and, though never claiming to be able to win the war, Nixon did say that "new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific". He did not explain in detail his plans to end the war in Vietnam, causing Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey to allege that he must have had some "secret plan." Nixon didn't invent the phrase, but because he did not disavow the term, it soon became part of the campaign. In his memoirs, Nixon wrote that he actually had no such plan.

Once in office, he proposed the Nixon Doctrine, a strategy of replacing American troops with the Vietnamese troops, also called "Vietnamization". In July 1969, he visited South Vietnam, and met with President Nguyen Van Thieu and with U.S. military commanders. American involvement in the war declined steadily until all American troops were gone in 1973.

Quote
The Nixon Doctrine was put forth in a press conference in Guam on July 25, 1969 by Richard Nixon. He stated that the United States henceforth expected its allies to take care of their own military defense. The Doctrine argued for the pursuit of peace through a partnership with American allies.

In Nixon's own words (Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam November 3, 1969):

First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.

You could make an argument for Warren Harding in 1920, who ran anti-League of Nations and all our interventionism Wilson had us in with World War I. So that's "anti-war" of a sort.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2007, 08:58:01 am by StateBoiler »Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9742
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2007, 10:10:48 am »
Ignore

Eisenhower promised to end the Korean War in 1952.
Nixon promised "Peace with Honor" in 1968.
Bush was pro-war in 2004, but so was his opponent.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2007, 12:40:21 pm »
Ignore

And now, with his arguments hopelessly crushed, Mike Naso will never be seen again in this topic, tacitly admitting defeat. Tongue
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12328
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2007, 12:54:35 pm »
Ignore

And now, with his arguments hopelessly crushed, Mike Naso will never be seen again in this topic, tacitly admitting defeat. Tongue

I'm sorry, are you an American?

In all seriousness, my point stands. The 2008 Democrats are staunchly anti-war...especially Obama and Edwards...and so is the base. If the race is between pro-choice pro-war Hillary and pro-choice pro-war Giuliani...it will be interesting.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9742
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2007, 01:01:45 pm »
Ignore

And now, with his arguments hopelessly crushed, Mike Naso will never be seen again in this topic, tacitly admitting defeat. Tongue

I'm sorry, are you an American?

In all seriousness, my point stands. The 2008 Democrats are staunchly anti-war...especially Obama and Edwards...and so is the base. If the race is between pro-choice pro-war Hillary and pro-choice pro-war Giuliani...it will be interesting.

Your point doesn't stand. I've aleady proven that the anti-war candidate won in 52 and 68, and the main reason they didn't win in 2004 is because none of the anti-war candidates (Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and Nader) were endorsed by a major party. However, it is worth pointing out that only Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul are genuinely anti-war. The rest are only pretending to be for political reasons.
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28743
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2007, 01:13:19 pm »
Ignore

Wilson - 1916 - "He kept us out of war."

FDR - 1940 - "I tell you again and again and again I will not send your sons into a foreign war."
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
riceowl
riceowl315
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3247


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2007, 01:14:56 pm »
Ignore

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.

I'm talking about the Cold War...by the way....which side were you on during the Cold War??

hahahaha....so Carter was pro-war too then?  Kennedy?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9742
Latvia


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2007, 01:16:16 pm »
Ignore

Reagan wasn't anti-war in '84.....

Which war was this? Unless are you counting the situation where Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists killed 243 Marines? I have a cousin who was in the Marines there, and he still hates Reagan for how he handled that.

I'm talking about the Cold War...by the way....which side were you on during the Cold War??

Ummmmm, the Cold War wasn't an actual war.
Logged

incredibly specific types of post-punk music
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 72750
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2007, 01:28:15 pm »
Ignore

Of course not, it's just typical Naso hackery logic.
Logged




01/05/2004-01/10/2014
Jeff from NC
Full Member
***
Posts: 180


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2007, 01:33:46 pm »
Ignore

In 2004 someone said: "The taller candidate has always won."  In 2000, it was "The winner of the popular vote has almost always won the electoral college."  In 1996, it was "No democrat since WW2 has won a second full term."  In 1988, they said "No sitting vice-president has won the White House since Martin van Buren."

History is a tricky temptress.  Trite historical analogies don't fly when it comes to today's politics.
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10794
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2007, 03:22:41 pm »
Ignore

I'm sorry, are you an American?

LOL

Gabu owns Naso so Naso resorts to the "OMG U RNT AMERCAN SO YOUR OPINION DONT MATTR@!!!" argument.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines