Who will you vote for in the 2008 primary? Options

[impala454]

Hey don't shoot the messenger... just doin the right thing, passin the rumor along

[pebkac]

yeah if romney wants to behead his campaign

You say that like he hasn't done that already.

[chook]

i'd vote ron paul, but I registered democrat, so probably Hillary.

[Spectatrix]

What state are you in?

[blaarg]

Bush did

That was four years ago when the war was just starting to turn sour.
Four years later with everything we know now that we didn't know during the 2004 election and with close to a 70% opposition rate with over 60% saying we need withdrawal within the year, I think anyone running on a pro-War ticket has no chance, imho.

[impala454]

The war had been going on for nearly two years when Bush won his second election. There was still nearly the same amount of troops there, and still melodramatic Bush hating reporters posting the death count every day.

And nobody is running their race on a "pro-war" ticket. That's a terribly simplified way to put the subject. You make it sound like any candidate who doesn't say they'll bring all the troops home on inauguration day is hell bent on keeping the war going the whole time they're in office.

[pebkac]

The war had been going on for nearly two years when Bush won his second election. There was still nearly the same amount of troops there, and still melodramatic Bush hating reporters posting the death count every day.

And nobody is running their race on a "pro-war" ticket. That's a terribly simplified way to put the subject. You make it sound like any candidate who doesn't say they'll bring all the troops home on inauguration day is hell bent on keeping the war going the whole time they're in office.

Well, there's a pretty much direct relationship between support for a war and number of soldiers lost. The higher the number, the less likely people are to support a war. Thus, a candidate who takes a pro-war stance is less likely to be supported now than during the 2004 election.

Regarding candidates running on a pro-war ticket, I do partially agree with you that the situation is over-simplified. However, there are candidates that are making the argument that the war was initially justified and I do think that for the reasons mentioned above they will definitely be punished for it at the ballot box.

At any rate, I believe that the country has soured for the time being on the Republican party due to Bush (whether that's fair or not). I'm pretty sure that whoever wins the Democratic primary will likely be our next president unless:

1) They're just a terrible candidate or
2) Someone VERY charismatic wins the Republican primary

While #1 is definitely possible considering the Democratic party's history (John Kerry anyone?), the three front runners are all very good politicians and I don't see that happening. If the Republican nominee turns out to be the next Ronald Reagan, I could see #2 happening, but I don't see anyone on the Republican ticket that's capable of that.

DISCLAIMER: Although I'm a liberal, I'm not making this post to advocate the Democrats over the Republicans. That's just my analysis of the 2008 election.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Jan 24 2008, 11:49 AM

[impala454]

Again though, nobody is taking a "pro-war" stance. It's whether they want to finish the job, or just leave the place hanging and bring everyone home early. And it looks as though the war has been going well lately, as I haven't heard a peep about it on the news in a long time. Honestly, I don't think the war is the issue that makes or breaks this election.

[jwttu]

right now the economy is getting more attention than the war

[blaarg]

Again though, nobody is taking a "pro-war" stance. It's whether they want to finish the job, or just leave the place hanging and bring everyone home early. And it looks as though the war has been going well lately, as I haven't heard a peep about it on the news in a long time. Honestly, I don't think the war is the issue that makes or breaks this election.

pro-War=for the War
All Republican candidates (minus Ron Paul of course) have stated that they support (synonym=for) the War in Iraq.
I don't see this as an oversimplification. I see it as an appropriate label.

The statement of them wanting to "finish the job" is just doublespeak.

And it's sad that the War isn't the issue that makes or breaks the election because of how it effects other aspects of this country...

[Spectatrix]

Kucinich is out. CNN breaking news.

[Psykopath]

Kucinich is out. CNN breaking news.

lolz

[Spectatrix]

lolz

Kucinich is out officially. Better?

[impala454]

pro-War=for the War
All Republican candidates (minus Ron Paul of course) have stated that they support (synonym=for) the War in Iraq.
I don't see this as an oversimplification. I see it as an appropriate label.

It is oversimplification. you seem to think that bringing home all the troops immediately is the only way it will end well.

The statement of them wanting to "finish the job" is just doublespeak.

And calling a candidate "Pro-war" isn't? Sure sounds bad to me.

And it's sad that the War isn't the issue that makes or breaks the election because of how it effects other aspects of this country...

So if Hilary wins and brings the troops home, she wont fuck up my healthcare? Or tax the shit out of me so illegal mexican kids can go to school for free? I fail to see the correlation.

[2wolUTT]