Voters Describe Ideal Nominee

Voters Describe Ideal Nominee
Democrats in Poll Want a Candidate Who Backed Iraq War

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 17, 2003; Page A09

Majorities of likely Democratic voters in three states with early primaries or caucuses say they prefer a presidential nominee who supported military action against Iraq but criticized President Bush for failing to assemble international support over a candidate who opposed military action from the beginning, according to new polls conducted by the liberal Democracy Corps

snip

Democrats surveyed in the three states also listed foreign policy and national security experience as the most important attribute they are looking for in selecting a nominee. They rated that characteristic over such other choices as experience in Congress, being a decorated combat veteran, being a Washington outsider or having a blue-collar background.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38335-2003Oct16.html

Foreign policy has been dropping steadily over the years as a concern of voters. It's remarkable that it has jumped to the top of the list for Democrats this year.

And one interesting thing about demading it as a quality is that that there are basically only two jobs in America that create the perception of foreing policy experience: president and secretary of state. Almost no Dem worth running has that experience. Senate foreign relations committee members I guess a little bit of that aura.

I agree that foreign policy should be at the top of everyone's lists of concerns. But I don't know how you'd quantify it. Bill Clinton was obviously better than Bush at it, right? How would you have known in 1991?

"Professional and moral attributes are impeccable," stated General Edwin Burba, Jr. during this time. "Strong in all areas. Best leader-thinker in the Army... a great leader who takes care of soldiers and families... He has it all and has done it better than anyone else."

http://www.clark04.com/records/

they want someone who either backed Bush's policy for lying us into Iraq, full speed ahead, or they want someone who clearly and concisely opposed Bush's forign policy of taking us into Iraq, IMHO.

Most of the folks who are in the middle don't have foreign policy as a priority and will vote for a President on another issue, IMHO.

Where'd you get that from?

…
The problem for the other Democrats, though, is that in the survey Dean dominated among voters who want a candidate who opposed the war, while those for whom the war isn't a priority splintered their support.
…
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-survey17oct17,1,7976228.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=62612

You might say Clark but who knows where he stands!

As for earlier post, the contest will eventually be between two candidates not nine and then if they disagree on the resolution this analysis can be tested.

he would have voted for a resolution for a use of force to carry to the U.N. with a requirement that the president report back to congress for another resolution authorizing war. On a resolution to go to war in Iraq, he would vote NO.

" if they disagree on the resolution this analysis can be tested "

Only if they are both members of Congress who voted one way or another. Otherwise it will all be about campaign rhetoric.

"They're not looking for a Johnny One-Note who has passed a litmus test on Iraq as the sole criterion for selecting a candidate," Greenberg said, adding that many Democrats "want someone with a more nuanced position on Iraq than simply opposition from Day One -- and that includes a fair number of Dean voters."

In all three states, likely Democratic voters said they preferred a nominee who supports the party's core values and stands up to Bush rather than one who appeals more broadly to independents. Asked whether it was more important to nominate a candidate who stands up for Democratic Party values or one who has the best chance of defeating Bush, Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic voters said electability was more important.

In South Carolina, where African American voters make up more than 40 percent of the likely primary electorate, voters narrowly favored someone who stands up for the party's core issues.

-----

Core issues like gun control and the death penalty? Favoring environmentalism over corporations like IBM?

Going all the way back to Iran-Contra. They put him on the Subcommittee as a consolation after they pulled him from the investigation - they were afraid he would impeach Reagan (and jeapordize the nation itself by doing so). Check it out for yourself.