What are we going to do about this? Address it? Ignore it? I don't know?

[NNN0LHI]

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. It's a very ambiguous question since the real question

is support going unilaterally or through the UN. Even Dean supported going to war if it was through the UN and all other channels were exhausted.

[vi5]

2. Somehow I think we'll do the following:

1)Dismiss the poll as meaningless.
2)Insist that we can counter the onslaught of incorrect information that is out there by lecturing people and referring them to obscure news or information web sites which will miraculously open their eyes and cause massive epiphanies around the country.
3)Point to this as evidence that candidate X "IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT BUSH!!!"

I'm sure there are a few other even more ridiculous, head in the sand options but I can't think of them right now.

[info being]

9. Any better ideas?

We're all ears.

[vi5]

11. Yeah.....perhaps recognizing that the number may be valid...

..and that there are quite a few people out there for whom the Iraq war, pro or con, is not their be all end all issue. Recognize that there are people out there who are pro-choice who support this war. Recognize that there are gay folks and gay friendly folks who support this way. Recognize that there are people who are against big tax giveaway, or pro-healthcare, or pro civil rights, who may in fact support this war.

I'm not one of them but I know plenty who fit the bill. I even know a ton of people who didn't support the way who aren't going to use it as their be all end all issue.

[bigendian]

3. Change the question.

Are you more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who starts a war with Iraq?

[info being]

10. Exactly

"Would you support a candidate that spends 33% of your tax money killing innocent civilians in a country that poses no harm to the U.S.?"

[denverbill]

4. Rephrase the question.

How about "Are you more likely to vote for someone who supported a massive increase in the national debt or someone who supports balanced budgets?"

"Are you more likely to vote for someone who supports abortion rights or opposes them?"

"Are you more likely to support someone who favors exporting American jobs to China or someone who opposes it?"

[onebigbadwulf]

5. Are you more likely to vote for a liar or someone honest?

[kentuck]

6. The war issue probably trumps all other issues....

But if you were going to vote for the candidate that supports the war, would you vote for George W Bush or Joe Lieberman? Both suported the war. Where's the choice? I don't see a lot of advantage to a Democrat that "supported the war". I would think it would be advantageous for the Democrat to oppose the war. Otherwise, if that were the issue that determined who someone voted for, then they would just vote for Bush. Why accept a substitute?

[vi5]

8. How about a Dem who supported the war

But who was liberal on all other issues? How about the fact that there are people out there who supported the war but also support a candidate who is pro-choice, or pro-healthcare, or pro-gay rights? Would that person still vote for bush over say Kerry, or Edwards?

It may trump all other issues for you and a lot of people on this board, but not for many americans out there.

[kentuck]

14. If the "war" was their primary motivation for voting....

then they would vote for Bush over any Democrat. Of course, if they were concerned about te other issues that you mention and also were "pro-war", then Kerry and Gephardt and Edwards might get a second look. Unfortunately for them, I think the majority of Democrats were against the war. So would we nominate someone that wa pro-war, even though most of his Party was against his position? I think the strongest candidate would be one that agreed with the majority of his own Party.

[vi5]

15. That's my point...it won't be the "primary issue"...

It will be one of the issues. And to be honest with you most of my friends and family are democrats and they reluctantly supported the war. They are liberal on most all issues.

And I know plenty of independents and swing voters (most of my in-laws) who aren't scared off by socially liberals views but who want someone who is strong on national security and in their eyes that includes the Iraq war.

I know it's hard for people to fathom that the war will be one of many factors that people use to decide who to vote for, and it's hard for people to fathom that there are dems and independents would would vote for a democrat against bush but don't want that person to be anti-war.

Again, I"m not saying I'm one of them but I'm not naive enough to think that everyone out there thinks exactly like I do.

[Jacobin]

7. Give it six more months

IraqNam is going up like a roman candle.

Bank on it.

[NNN0LHI]

13. I know Iraq is going to get worse

But will this just cause more Americans to become determined that we must win at any cost exactly like the first 10 years of Vietnam did? That is my worry here. And please don't ask me what winning will look like in Iraq because I don't have a clue.

Don

[Capn Sunshine]

21. This is what folks dont see.

Human tendency is to think things remain close to what they are today.

By next summer this Iraq thing will be so toxic they will be spinning like a million spiders. I can see it now " Democrats in congress insisted that the President attack"

[Mr_Scarecrow]

12. Perhaps point out that Dean is not "anti-war"

as the media whores have painted him. Dean's not a pacifist, he just didn't support the unilateral Iraq invasion.

[kentuck]

16. Good point that needs to be made more often..

Dean supports the "war on terrorism". He supported going into Afghanistan to look for bin Laden and the terrorists that struck the WTC. He did not support the unilateral and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, which alienated most of our long-time allies around the world and was fabricated on false pretenses. They were not honest with the American people about WMDs, nuclear weapons, imminent threat, etc. In short, Dean did not support lying to the American people to promote a war against a country that we had no evidence was supporting terrorism against our country.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. Dean is shrewd enough, and his supporters are sophisticated enough

to understand that the coming months may bring opportunities for re-evaluation of complex issues that may reveal that "oppose" may be something of an overstatement.

[NNN0LHI]

18. This thread is not about Dean

Several candidates have expressed their dout of the wisdom of invading Iraq, including Clark, DK, CMB, and Sharpton. This thread is about how do we change minds? And can we do it in time?

Don

[DuctapeFatwa]

22. The majority of the voting class support the Crusade

regardless of which party they consider themselves affiliated with.

[NNN0LHI]

23. This is a sad day for America

And to think. This country began with the genocide of the Native Americans. Wonder how many were killed? I dout the numbers of "enemy" killed were kept back then either. Just like now.

Don

[markus]

19. If the war is their *only* or primary issue, them of course we're doomed

I agree with kentuk. If that's the one make-or-break isssue, then a pro-War voter is going to vote for Bush no matter what, because they share a larger common reference.

There is a tremendous difference between how a candidate's Iraq War views motivates the Democratic nomination campaign and how it impacts a general election voter.

Hell, it's not going to be easy to beat Bush with any candidate. Me, I keep thinking about the bit in the Love Him/Hate Him article about the shrinking swing vote.

Its ultimately about mobilizing our troops better Bush* et al motivate their's.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. Pretty interesting Push-poll I'd wager

they don't show the sample or the setup but I imagine the question unfolded as "If it turns out that a democracy is established in Iraq, our soldiers stop dying there daily and we discover more oil reserves than we could ever use, and Iraq sends us a new Statue of Liberty to replace the chees eating surrender monkey one,

are you more likely to vote for ....