Posted on 05/15/2008 1:13:57 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
“Are you seriously suggesting that a significant # of such people are likely to switch to Obama?”
I happen to be a voter that would normally vote for the Republican candidate. I find that I cannot do so this year. This is not to say that I am voting for Obama, I am not. But it is just no longer (at least for me) good enough to be slightly less disgusting than the other side in order to secure my vote. I do agree that many that are grumbling now, will eventually vote for McCain. I also believe that many that are on the fence now could go either way. Do you think that if the Republicans had nominated a trustworthy solidly conservative candidate, anyone would be in that position?
Okay, so, the demographic you have in mind - for which you think McCain/someone would choose to "run on Iraq" - consists of: People who would normally vote for the (R) but are turned off this time and might not. A few points:
1. If you think this demographic is a huge demographic, I think you're wrong. (It's very appealing to think that whatever demographic you belong to is secretly HUGE and that the candidate had better make YOU happy because of HOW MANY people agree with you, but that wishful thinking doesn't make it so.)
2. 'Turned-off' is fundamentally a less serious problem than switchers. A switch means a 2-vote swing, a 'turn-off' means only the 1-vote. Even if McCain were worried primarily about securing (R) votes, wouldn't he focus on the potential switchers (in the center) rather than the potential turned-off?
3. In many (if not most of) these cases, these people are just all talk - grumbling and threatening now because they wish to voice & try to leverage their discontent, but when November comes around, and the prospect of a (D) Presidency really hits them, in the privacy of the voting booth they'll do their thing.
4. I don't understand why such a person would be called "the base". What you're describing hails from the far-right of the party.
5. The idea that McCain "has to secure" the far right by "running on Iraq", which a majority of the country is displeased with, in order to win a general election for Presidency strikes me as politically tone-deaf & mathematically illiterate. A majority of the country is in favor of Social Security, but the far-right would like to see it privatized; by your logic this means McCain should "run on" privatizing Social Security as well. Does that work?
6. If indeed McCain or anyone else does have the attitude that they "need to secure" the far-right by "running on Iraq", I think they are doomed.
All of this only illustrates what I already said from the start: the notion that (R)'s are trying to, or even can, "run on Iraq" makes no sense. If anything, they need to, and in most cases are going to, run on anything but Iraq, and hope the voters don't blame them for Iraq. I really don't know how you could have been paying attention to the political scene the past 2-3 years and sincerely believe otherwise.
Do you think that if the Republicans had nominated a trustworthy solidly conservative candidate, anyone would be in that position?
No, but neither do I believe that the problem of potentially-turned-off far right is fundamentally somehow the key hurdle an (R) Presidential candidate faces in a general election for the Presidency. The numbers just don't add up for that logic. And for such a person to "run on Iraq" will only lose him more votes (in the center) than he gains (on the far right). Again, it makes no sense, and again, if someone really is planning on doing this, I believe they are doomed.
Why do you automatically label anyone that is a conservative against McCain as “far right?” Is it not possible for a “middle right” person to despise him for the same reasons?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.