#1: This election will be about the economy...unless it isn't

[bluestateguy]

That will be the leading issue in the campaign. That is what people are worried about now, and for most people they see the threat of a job loss or a home foreclosure as a bigger threat to their security than some big mean scary terrorist 10,000 miles away. The Democratic nominee will have the advantage on this issue and will control the terms of debate on this issue, but only if he or she makes it about the economy. If we try to win a testosterone contest with John McCain (who can thump their chest the hardest and threaten the most countries in the world) then we will be locked into a no-win debate: the Democratic base will be alienated, and other voters will still trust McCain to be the better cowboy in the world. This election has to be about the economy first and foremost, where McCain and Republicans are vulnerable.

Iraq will be a "B list" issue (on the table yes, but it won't be a controlling issue of the campaign). As for terrorism, that will only be an issue if there is another terrorist attack, in which case child-like American voters may come running back to Daddy McCain to protect them and keep them safe. On the other hand, if the terrorists (God forbid) strike again, then the Bush Administration's claims (which John McCain supports) that they have kept America safe will have to be abandoned.

[BlueManDude]

1. No - National Security is almost always issue #1 in presidential elections

and this one is no different. What people tell pollsters (regarding what the biggest issues are) and how they cast their vote are two different things.

[bluestateguy]

2. Really?

Was that the case in 1992, 1996 or 2000? What about in 1988? Or 1984? Or 1976? Or 1964?

[BlueManDude]

5. I said ALMOST always, and the examples you use prove my point...

1976 (Watergate, the pardon and GOP corruption), 1992 (we were perceived to be at "peace" after the fall of the Soviet Union, remember the "peace dividend") and 1996 (again we were at "peace) were elections where foreign policy/national security were not issue #1. The Democrats won all 3 because the focus was on dometstic issues.

Reagan (1980 and 1984) won by promising to stand up to the Russkies during the height of the Cold War. Bush I continued his legacy as Cold Warrior but something happened - the Soviet Union collapsed taking the issue away from the GOP and paving the way for Clinton.

Post 1964 (when a the southern re-alignmenty at the presidential level emerged) every election about national security has been won by the GOP. This election will most assuredly be about terrorism and national security.

[Nederland]

3. One year ago

Karl Rove predicted that the 2008 election would not primarily be about the Iraq war. At the time I thought he was an idiot, now I'm not sure he didn't see this coming. Despicable though he is, he does understand campaigns.

[Hawkowl]

4. No. Referendum on Racism

If Obama becomes the nominee (about 90% chance imo), this election will become a referendum on racism. Here we have someone who's political talent is akin to Tiger Wood's golf skills, or Michael Jordan's basketball skills, and America will have to decide if after centuries of racism, we are ready to take the next step in living up to our potential as a free society.

HRC has already begun to turn the race into this referendum because she can get no traction anywhere else. Their policy positions are too similar. She was losing on style and method. So she has started down this road before the rethuglicans would have inevitably started down the same road.

I've been on the fence up until two weeks ago. Now I am firmly against HRC. She is a lying bigot and will never get my vote.