Red States More In Synch With Obama On Iraq

Bumped -- Josh

John McCain likes to distinguish his own position on Iraq from Barack Obama's as "victory" versus "surrender." You see, pulling the troops out of Iraq is losing unless it's on John McCain's terms in which case it's winning. It's all very Bushian, actually and, like Bush, the American people just aren't buying it, even, it would appear, our red state brethren.

As I noted last week, the latest North Carolina Rasmussen poll showed the following surprising result:

What is the most important goal in Iraq?

Winning the war 40%
Getting troops home 54%
Not sure 7%

Today, we see a similar result coming out of Rasmussen's latest Arkansas poll:

What is the most important goal in Iraq?

Winning the war 39%
Getting troops home 52%
Not sure 9%

But while they are not buying into the whole "withdrawal = surrender" thing, luckily for John McCain, they also don't appear to be voting on Iraq. In Arkansas, for example, 63% said it is at least somewhat likely that "all combat troops will be home from Iraq" by the end of Obama's first term; only 33% said the same of John McCain, but voters there still appear likely to elect McCain by a solid margin, albeit a significantly smaller one than a month ago.

McCain 48 (57)
Obama 39 (33)

And in North Carolina, while Rasmussen has the race a virtual deadheat, McCain is still slightly up.

McCain 45
Obama 43

Most conventional wisdom has it that if Iraq becomes a more pressing issue for Americans, that will be good for McCain. Seems to me these results beg to differ and, in fact, indicate that if voters were voting on Iraq, they'd vote for Obama.



Display:


I never understood that (2.00 / 2)

If people pay closer attention to Iraq, they'll start to realize that McCain has no distinctive plan for success there.

It seems like:

1. Surge

  1. Wait until 2013
  2. ???
  3. Success!

I get the impression that he'll think that Iraqi insurgants will just be bored with fighting by then.  You know, those U.S. soldiers and mercinaries have been there for like 10 years already, they're like background noise (that occasionally points guns at them).


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST

Re: Red States More In Synch With Obama On Iraq (2.00 / 1)

Isn't this great news?  McCain's one strong issue supposedly was Iraq, right?  If people don't like his position on Iraq, what could he possibly run on?


by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST

Rep. Walter Jones=Leading indicator. (2.00 / 1)

The GOP put a lot of money and efort into a primary challenge of the anti-Iraq war Jones. A challenge Jones beat back very easily.

This suggests that N. Carolina voters are ripe for the change argument.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST

Re: Red States More In Synch With Obama On Iraq (none / 0)

Only 9 points behind in Arkansas?  That's the real news here.  McCain may have to expend serious defense in every red state except a handful.


Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.
by edparrot on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 04:34:18 PM EST

Re: Red States More In Synch With Obama On Iraq (none / 0)

I think any state with rural voters, who, because of the economy, have seen their sons and daughters go off to war (again and again), still have Iraq as a number one issue.
I can tell you about my friends in North Carolina who have a son and a nephew in Iraq, and although they're red state Republicans (voted for GWB twice), will not be voting for McCain because of his comment that bringing the troops home "wasn't that important". My friends were outraged by that statement.
They might not vote for Obama (though I'm working on that), but they're definitely not voting for McCain.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:33:01 PM EST

Re: Red States More In Synch With Obama On Iraq (none / 0)

What about the fact that the Iraqi constitution establishes Islam as the official state religion?

Shouldn't that be a legitimate campaign issue?

Why are we sending our troops to Iraq to fight and die to establish an Islamic state?

Are the Iraqis not humiliating us and making up pay tribute as the Qur'an requires?

It doesn't seem to matter which Muslim group it is. They all are. The Maliki government, the Shias, Sunnis and Al-Qaida.

And McCain wants to stay there how long? Until 2013? Another 100-years? Why is McCain so gun-ho on establishing an Islamic state? To keep us in bondage to Middle Eastern oil?

And in debt to China to pay for MIddle Eastern oil?


by Hempy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:31:46 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.