Does a pro war Dem nominee ensure a Republican victory?

[Bushknew]

While ABB might be enough for hardcore politicos, I believe that ONLY an anti war Democratic nominee can inspire Swing voters and the Democratic base to come out and vote against Bush.

A pro war Dem will equal a low democratic turn out and will not offer enough of a reason for swing voters to vote for someone different.

What do you think?

[wyldwolf]

1. Well, looks like Kucinich or Sharpton in '04.

[ShaneGR]

2. People will vote their pocketbook

At least most will.

[Bushknew]

3. The war is liked to their pocketbook

[benddem]

4. Another couple of days with this no. of casualties

And Bush will be toast:dem: :dem:

[GOPBasher]

5. I couldn't answer

It's too long till the election to know that yet. It depends on how things turn out. As of now, it looks like an anti-war dem would have the best chance.

[RichM]

6. You make some good points but this is not the way to frame the issue.

Whether or not a Dem can win depends on more than just his/her stance on the war. It is conceivable, I suppose, that an incredibly charismatic pro-war Dem (a hypothetical one - since such a creature is not in the current field) could win. It is very conceivable that all the current antiwar Dems could lose. The relationship is not direct & one-to-one.

IMO, the Democratic Party is very close to irrelevance & political death. It has much more to worry about than just winning an election (even if that election is going to be a very important historical event). The party is now involved in a struggle to re-define its soul, which it lost a long time ago. Meanwhile, it is also flailing around desperately in an attempt to come to grips with next year's election.

FWIW, I would advise it to handle the war issue by being resolutely and 100% opposed to the war. Partly, this is because, as you say, "A pro war Dem will equal a low democratic turn out." I believe the Dems should be dedicated, in fact, to bringing the troops home, & to explaining to the public what a criminal enterprise the whole thing is, & has been from the start. But this would be just one element in re-defining the party's soul. If they get this part wrong, they'd be wise to start scouting the market for a tasteful "RIP" sign.

[Bushknew]

16. The party is now involved in a struggle to re-define its soul.

While I agree with you that many issues will come into play into everyoneÕs decision,
war is the elephant in the room that will trump everything else, IMHO.

We need contrast in 2004, people all ready think the two parties are too much alike.

A pro war Dem nominee will not be compelling enough to mobilize the swing and Democratic base.

[CMT]

7. I voted either one could win in 2004, but

I honestly think it would be easier for a anti-war Democrat to win. Pro-War democrat will have to justify why they voted for the damn thing to begin with, while an anti-war democrat can say they were right from the beginning.

[Skip Intro]

8. I think an anti-war Dem Ticket would be stronger

If we have an anti-war nom, we'll have to have an anti-war running mate, imho. You couldn't have a Pres nom. Kucinich speaking out against the war and his running mate Kerry speaking out for it. Anti-war ticket.

And it would be easier for the anti-war ticket to get pro-war voters than it would be for a pro-war ticket to get anti-war voters. The momentum, sadly (sad that people are dying), is with the anti-war perspective, and the anti-war side is just getting stronger.

So that leaves us with Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, CMB, and maybe Clark as the anti-war candidates. And the most electable among them? I dunno.

Also, the term anti-war - does it mean against the initial action, or the continuing action, now that the warparty has already wasted so much - lives, money, world stature - to put us where we are?

Does anti-war = anti-occupation?

Does po-war mean pro invasion or pro-occupaton?

Whatever we are now in tho, and they hate it when you call it a quagmire, its bad and getting worse, and its bringing bush down. Hard to see any of our guys not beating him next Nov. I think Kucinich/CMB would win.

[Kahuna]

9. Won't matter. People just want to know that our guy...

will be a strong CIC.

[Skip Intro]

10. And honest, with a clear message and a clear plan

All we need is a viable alternative to the bush regime - someone who'll speak the truth to the people.

[kentuck]

11. A pro-war candidate would be seen as agreeing with Bush on the war...

and would, more or less, negate that as an issue for Democrats. But it would strengthen Bush's claim as a wartime leader. So, in my opinion, an anti-war candidate would be a better candidate simply for that reason. Of course, it would not matter if the war were not politicized, but Bush and Rove planned on using the war as an issue months ago...Either you are with them or you are against them..they made it perfectly clear.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Many dems support the war just not the Bush administration...

The Bush administration completely betrayed the dems who supported the war by not going to the UN first. Many dems (including myself) are pissed at the Bush adminisration and therefore I think a pro-war candidate such as Kerry or Gephardt can still unite the party. Remember, every one of those nine candidates is still significantly against Bush in one way or another. They are all liberals (with the exception of maybe lieberman) and all have agendas significantly different than Bush's.

[Bombtrack]

13. only half of dem voters and a third of independants are anti-war

your logic has non value whatsoever. It only follows the liberal-litmus test put out BY the anti-war democrats.

[quaker bill]

14. I believe the Iraqi's want to have a role in this.

I am convinced that the resistance will continue and likely grow with time. I think that to the extent that this resistance feels that it can have a role in our political process it will attempt to do so.

I fear for the lives of our troops, for they will likely be the pawns in this political chess match.

This war was never going to be won. Look at Israel. Fourty years of brutal military occupation and their war is still not won. Why on earth did we choose the same model?

I was convinced before the war began that the resistance to our occupation of Iraq would fill as many US body bags as necessary to get us to fold up shop and go home. I have no doubts about this now.

The anti-war position will grow in popularity, just like it did in Vietnam, it is only a matter of time. Unfortunately, because of the IWR vote and the Bush* misadministration, that time is now measured in dead American soldiers.

Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.

A pro-war candidate will have little chance of winning, fortunately the most pro-war candidate is Bush*.

[mandyky]

15. A total anti-war candidate could not win

after 9-11. There is a difference between anti-Iraq war, due to lack of proof, as opposed to, say, attacking Afghanistan because of the Al Qaeda training camps located there. We also gave the Taliban a chance to turn over AQ's before we attacked. On the other hand the entire Iraq invasion was bogus and we did not take time to plan or to really try diplomatic measures, even though the UN inspectors were in there.

[Bushknew]

17. Iraq was not responsible for 911 and I think É

The masses understand that this war was unnecessary. Which is why we need a
anti-Iraq war candidate.

I agree with your statement.

"On the other hand the entire Iraq invasion was bogus and we did not take time to plan or to really try diplomatic measures, even though the UN inspectors were in there."

[Bushknew]

18. Moday morning kick

[janekat]

19. I have to vote "not sure." Who knows what's going to happen...

n/t

[janekat]

20. I'm sure that Rove will arrange it so the war will NOT be an issue by then

They'll either pull out of Iraq "just in time" or they'll start talking about Syria (the next country on the hit list) or there will be a terrorist attack of some sort.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. It's actually our only chance

Kerry, Clark, and Edwards are our best chances.

Oh and "pro-war" is a misnomer but I understand what you mean.

[Cocoa]

25. I'd include Gephardt and Lieberman

Gep is my first choice, and Lieberman is my last choice, but their stands on the war are very similar and I think their standing by their positions is attractive in the general election. There is something very real to the saying about politics stopping at the water's edge.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. They have a better chance then Dean, that's for sure.

The national security issue is being ignored by Dean supporters for the most part. There is no way Dean can win as I have said below.

[Bushknew]

27. Yes, I mean voted to go to war in Iraq

not necessarily pro war per se.

[Cocoa]

22. a pro-war dem takes away Bush's best issue

even though the war is going badly, I think people still think people support the concept of the war.

I think that the position of supporting Bush's authority to attack Iraq, but criticizing Bush's decisions since then, makes sense, despite the dishonest analysis by a lot of whores that this position is inconsistent.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

23. You are 100% correct

and Dean's many irresponsible statements this past year completely disqualify him. ("The U.S will not always be the strongest nation in the world miltarily")

[edward]

30. How is that irresponsible?

Would that not mean that the U.S. should not invade sovereign nations first and ask questions later?
Even Bush admits that he lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, why should the Democrats give him cover?

[Bushknew]

28. I totally disagree

I think more and more people view Iraq as an unnecessary war, and by this time next year
It will be undeniable, and the Dems who supported it will be seen as not having vision or leadership.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

29. Dems supporting IWR

do not automatically make them supporters of unilateral agressive military invasion. And Kerry has a lot of vision as he has demonstrated.

[Pez]

31. that's true if bush isn't allowed to outline the "reasons" for this war

and with $800k in his piggy bank i don't think he'll have much trouble getting his message out.

the underlying issue is national security and the war on terror... bush will scare the curlers out of peoples' hair on the threat of terrorists.

this won't continue to simply be for or against war in the general election. it will turn into who is more qualified in regards to international policy and foreign relations. this is the ONLY time pukes favor "innocent until proven guilty"-- while BUSH INC. has obviously mishandled the situation through inaction and inappropriate measures since the moment he took office, dems will have to prove why they would be the better. the argument won't be left as we shape it in the general.

[DrFunkenstein]

24. What Does Pro-War Mean?

I think only Lieberman and maybe Edwards were actually pro-invasion, Gephardt wanted the issue off the table in 2002 (so he cut off lengthy negotiations of Biden-Lugar), and Kerry, Dean, and Clark were pro-disarmament (preferably under Biden-Lugar).

Kucinich, Braun, and Sharton were the only ones that felt passive containment was sufficient.

You can argue over the effects of the Congressional vote, but that doesn't make anyone necessarily pro-war. You may feel that the vote negates someone's personal vision, but that doesn't change their personal vision. I think Kerry's plans were the right ones every step of the way, even though I disagreed with his vote (although I understand the rationale).

I think that any of the candidates can win as long as they make the American people feel more secure under the new commander-in-chief and chief diplomat of the nation.