Best Of
Recent comments
- Ummm, no.
The rightness or
2 weeks 15 hours ago - I recently saw the re-trial
2 weeks 16 hours ago - I am a conservative who did
2 weeks 18 hours ago - Amen.
We're called to serve
2 weeks 3 days ago - I have to disagree with your
2 weeks 6 days ago - To break up the monotony of
3 weeks 3 days ago - Although I am a conservative
3 weeks 4 days ago - Been reading your blogs,
3 weeks 6 days ago - Excellent post, Will.
3 weeks 6 days ago - Thanks for the reminder,
3 weeks 6 days ago
Friends of GWH
Subscribe
Recent blog posts
- Evangelicals and the Future of Politics: Wise Words from Joel Hunter
- Election 2008: The Day After
- The 2008 Good Will Hinton Voting Guide
- Dumb Reasons To Not Vote For Barack Obama
- The Immorality of the Housing Bailout
- Random Non-Partisan Thought of the Day
- Good: Bad on the Election and Voting
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Eric Metaxas
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Bridget Kibbey
- More On Obama and the Ayers Non-Story
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 35 guests online.
User login
About Michael Dunaway
Public Opinion, Iraq, and 2008
I realize that I am much more supportive of the War in Iraq than most on this site, as well as most political pundits. But that's not my point today. I also realize that my estimation of the public's support for the War in Iraq is much higher than that of most political pundits. In fact, as I've written before, I believe that there is very little chance that a candidate who opposes the war will be elected president. Now I've got some interesting company -- no other than George McGovern.
Regardless of your own attitude towards the war, how do you think its impact will play out electorally in 2008?
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.goodwillhinton.com/trackback/532
Comments
Michael: As you have chosen
Michael: As you have chosen to lump yourself in with him, both you and McGovern are wrong. While the winning candidate won't necessarily be the most anti-war, I can't see any circumstance in which a candidate who supported us going into Iraq and still thinks we should have gone into Iraq has any chance whatsoever of winning in '08. That applies to pretty much every Republican candidate (Ron Paul has no chance for other reasons).
Can you really envision a scenario in which a Republican could win in '08? I can't.
Ron Paul
Will, would you care to expand on the notion that Ron Paul has no chance? In an election where all of the candidates leave me underwhelmed, he has at least caused me to raise an eyebrow. I know that Paul hasn't gotten any traction in the media, and that alone can doom a presidential campaign, but I'm wondering if that is what you mean in saying that he has no chance.
*))
((*
*))
((*
Think snow.
I can.
First of all, I think that support for the war is stronger than the punditry generally believes. Second of all, victory is always a more attractive stump speech than defeat. My ranking of candidates' chances currently looks like this:
1. Romney
2. Clinton (assuming her recent dovishness is a primary ploy, otherwise she's #7)
3. Giuliani
4. (big, big gap)
5. McCain
6. Edwards
7. Obama
Michael: I think you have
Michael: I think you have very much misread the situation. Not only is it comical to think that Romney has a chance, you likewise have completely overrated McCain. I will be surprised if McCain still has a campaign in 60 days. Romney will be lucky to place third in the Republican race.
McCain shouldn't be on the list
I'm with Will on this; I'd be surprised if McCain is around for the primaries. After his support of Bush on several issues, liberals can't stand him, and conservatives have always disliked him.
As for Romney, he's a long-shot at best.
On the original topic, well, that's the big question. Will is generally right: anyone that uncritically supported the war will have tough going. Whether that translates into good odds for the most anti-war is a different question altogether.
My hunch is that the public will start to warm to a phased withdrawal approach. I could easily be wrong on that, but it'll be interesting to see.
Two lists
Look, I agree that McCain has virtually no chance; that's why I have him ahead of only two others who have even less chance, and why I inserted the "big, big gap" entry.
Now, I don't expect everyone will agree with me that Romney is the favorite, but how can you consider the strong Republican leader in Iowa and New Hampshire "a long shot at best"? Who was the last Repub that won those two and didn't get the nomination? And who was the last Republican nominee that was "a long shot at best" in the general? Some rational analysis, please.
Put a fork in McCain
Can we all agree that after losing his top two guys, McCain is done?
In fact, the McCain candidacy seems to prove Michael's thesis incorrect. McCain was the biggest supporter or the War in Iraq and he couldn't attract support or money. America is tired of this war without end.
I talked with two Hill staffers today and each, independently, told me that the rumor is McCain will drop out once Fred Thompson officially declares and throw his support behind him.
Have to disagree, and strongly.
I think that's a huge sign of the MSM's complete cluelessness about mainstream conservative voters. McCain is out because of McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Feingold, Gang of 14, and his obvious distaste for the base of his own party, which was obvious even as he was condescendingly pandering to them. All three of the other big names (Romney, Giuliani, Thompson) are strongly in favor of the war in Iraq. I have YET to talk to one Republican who cited Iraq as a reason they supported one of those three over McCain.
If anything, McCain's strong stance on Iraq helped him in this campaign. I know it's the main reason I supported him, once upon a time.
Always was, still is
There are only four legitimate candidates for the top spot - McCain, Romney, Clinton, Obama. The war is only one issue of many.
Post new comment