A friend made the case for Hillary Rodham Clinton on foreign policy. Here, I’ll say why I think it won’t go the way that he wants.
***
Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan have come around on the Republicans’ chances this fall. (As seen on Morning Joe.) They think we just might take it, after all.
Why? In a counter-intuitive way, Iraq, ‘Nam, and Vietnam Syndrome.
I’ll explain. (As I’ve been explaining to my friends who are liberal Democrats over the last few months.)
Independent voters are not just socially liberal suburban women (Junior League Republicans, etc.). They are also tough blue collar men. They don’t like the Republicans on economics issues — they don’t care for free trade, globalization, anti-nanny statism, or any of that stuff. But they don’t like to lose — they’re proud, patriotic Americans. They are — I’m sure that you’re sick of the term, but it’s apt — Reagan Democrats.
Both major Democratic candidates have boxed themselves in — unnecessarily, as I’ve been saying again and again — on Iraq.
People don’t like the situation in Iraq. If you poll them, they say that it wasn’t worth it, we shouldn’t be there, etc., etc. That is the data my Democratic friends rely upon, when they say that Senators Clinton and Obama’s positions on Iraq — withdrawal within 60 days of inauguration — are on solid ground. But — here’s the rub — they don’t want to lose. So around 55-60% of people at the same time have consistently been willing to follow the battle plan of General Petraeus.
The Democratic nominee is going to be running on a platform with the explicit plank of retreat and withdrawal from Iraq.
This is an elemental signal to this Reagan Democrat portion of the populace — they hear the words “retreat & withdrawal”, and they get images of helicopters leaving embassy roofs in their heads.
Their response — even people like Buchanan and Scarborough, both of whom thought that Iraq was and is a pretty bad idea, and who don’t like Senator McCain very much — is, “I’m damned if that’s going to happen again on my watch.”
John McCain is the one candidate who is credible on this issue. He has the moral authority to say, “look, this is a terrible sacrifice our country is asking of its servicemen, but the consequences of retreat are far worse.” This is biographical — first, look at what he did in his time, second, his two young sons are serving.
[Mitt Romney didn't have this authority:
The other wound was entirely self-inflicted — his crack about his five strapping sons were serving their country by working for his campaign. This while one of McCain's sons is in the Marines.
Death, sheer electoral death. I'm sympathetic to Mitt, but as a Marine Corp officer's son, my response was: f*** you and the horse you rode in on, buster.
Nor, incidentally, has George W. Bush. Which might explain a few parts of our political discourse over the last few years.]
What John McCain is going to do is what he did in spring and summer 2007 — he’ll go on the Daily Show again and take on Jon Stewart mano-a-mano, he’ll paint his campaign bus and plane pitch black with the sobriquet “No Surrender” and tour the country’s legion halls and town halls, and he’ll have about fifty interviews like this one with every major media personage.
Pre-surge, this was a losing argument, as we saw in 2006. Now, however, given McCain’s political ownership of the surge…
It’ll all be “No Surrender”, “I’d rather lose a campaign than lose a war”, and “I choose to win”, and, in spite of the fact that the majority of the American people does not agree with him on the issue, he’ll have a very real chance of taking a majority of the country with him — on, as has been said before, the backs of belligerent older (or middle-aged) men who don’t like the Iraq war but are damned if the country is going to go down to dishonour and defeat on their watch. (And who also don’t like hippies — look at the comments already in on my Berkeley post.) For an example of how it’ll look, see how McCain handled New Hampshire, a rather anti-Iraq war state.
And expect to see this (imagined) exchange more than a few times.
For a primer on the type of voters who would make a McCain majority, see the final paragraphs of John DiIulio’s excellent article, “The 3.6 Percent Republicans“.
***
This will be a foreign policy election if John McCain has anything to do with it. And if it is, given the votes of people who don’t want to go through a post-Vietnam malaise again, I think he just might win it.
51 responses so far ↓
Greg // February 8, 2008 at 11:57 am
It’s a nice story, but the economy is the real story.
will // February 8, 2008 at 6:22 pm
whatever…at this point, the Conservative base of the Republican Party is not inclined to support McCain. If he doesn’t have the base - he likely has no presidency.
Jim // February 8, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Greg, so electing either socialist who will raise taxes inmmediately will somehow HELP the economy?
Jim // February 8, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The Conservative base is sick in the head then if they willfully let Obama or Hillary win and I will have nothing to do with such morons.
Hogarth // February 8, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Economy, economy, economy. The only thing funnier than the way the economy reportedly tanks every 4th year of a Republican administration, at least according to the press who wouldn’t know an economic indicator if it bit them on the arse but they damn sure know that they prefer a Dem administration (if only for the easy news stories their incompetent antics and craven corruption create), is how many gullible people lap it up like hungry kittens every. single. time.
Reality Check // February 8, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Maybe the economy is the story, but the question is whether the American public thinks that higher taxes and more handouts will get us back into the growth economy that Bush’s policies created.
I like McCain’s chances on many fronts, especially if Obama’s the nominee.
Marco // February 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm
On the other hand:
http://www.cagle.com/caglecards/main.asp?image=http://cagle.com/working/080207/sack.jpg
chris // February 8, 2008 at 6:35 pm
First, the thesis. I agree with the analysis with respect to those independents who will not accept any more helicopters on roofs. I disagree the who moral authority line. Military service does not provide moral authority over no military service. It can bring home the point of having made the sacrifices you are demanding. But, here in the US, we have the military under civilian control for a reason.
Second, Greg. Yeah, in times of war the economy has always been the foremost concern. Like, when…um….and, um…well, really not any time.
Ben // February 8, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Chris –
I agree with you in principle, of course. We are a liberal democracy with civilian control of the military, and an all-volunteer army.
But it just doesn’t look good when the people asking something from you are not willing to do it themselves or have their children do it. Symbolism, you know.
jimmy // February 8, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I think he can beat Hillary because I don’t think the black vote or the youth vote will turn out for her after the contentious primary… but he’ll have a hard time against Obama if he wins the nomination. ‘Vapid’ evidenly sells; and the democrat base will all turn out for him while the Republican base won’t have Evil Hillary to drive their own turnout against her / for McCain.
The key to McCain’s chance of winning is for Hillary to win the Democrat Nomination.
Mark Jaeger // February 8, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“It’s a nice story, but the economy is the real story.”
Yeah, but what happens if, say, Obama rides his magic pony into the Oval Office….and the economy THEN tanks for real?
Oh, that’s right: Prince Charming will tax-increase us all (that means YOU too, Greg) back into prosperity.
Alas, I’m sure guys like you can’t be bothered with insignificant details like that when you’re totally focused on Obama Wan Husseini descending from the clouds, patting you on the head, and cooing in your ear, “Trust in The Audacity of Change and all will be well.”
*doing his best Seinfeldian eye-roll*
TheRadicalModerate // February 8, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I don’t even think the moral authority argument has to be used. At some point, every voter is going to have to answer the following two questions:
1) Do you think that leaving Iraq before it’s stable will be a foreign policy disaster for the US?
2) Do you think that it’s possible to stabilize Iraq?
If you answer “yes” to both those questions, irrespective of whether you thought invading Iraq was brilliant or idiotic, it’ll be really hard to vote for either of the Democrats. McCain has been shouting “yes!” to both of these questions all along. That’s a big advantage.
I posted more on this here
Why John McCain May Win : American Pundit // February 8, 2008 at 7:41 pm
[...] case made by The Tiger in Somerville. Take note of this section: Independent voters are not just socially liberal suburban women (Junior [...]
Kevin // February 8, 2008 at 7:48 pm
George Bush didn’t serve? Ah, yes, 6 years in the reserves and flying 500-600 hours in a F-102 doesn’t count. A pilot in the 60’s in a very dangerous aircraft is not serving? God it must have been great to have such an influential father who was a congressman from the middle of nowhere in Texas.
The chicken hawk line is bullshit.
Ben // February 8, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It’s bullshit, but it’s rhetorically powerful bullshit.
Hankmeister // February 8, 2008 at 7:55 pm
“Retreat to defeat” … Democrat’s pathetic attempts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to enhance their standing before their barking moonbat base.
As to the economy, it’s not true the economy “tanks” every fourth year of a Republican presidency. Sounds like some brain-dead neo-com (neo-communist) talking point ginned up at some kook leftist blog site like MoveOn.org or DailyKos.
Where did the economy “tank” the fourth year of Reagan? How about his eighth year? It didn’t. And in the fourth year of Bush 41 the economy was three quarters into an economic recovery before it was handed to the Clinton regime which road it for 7.25 years before its last three economic quarters slid into a relatively mild recession (exacerbated by the huge dot com bust) and then turned around in 2002 after Bush 43 was sworn in. The smartest thing Bill Clinton did was to keep his hands off the economy. I dare any liberal to cite pro-active Clinton economic policies which supposedly resulted in all those wonderful “surpluses” we keep hearing about.
And the economy didn’t “tank” in Bush 43’s fourth year either. This is Bush’s eighth year, not his “fourth year”, and what we’re seeing today is little more than normal economic cycles which occur under a free market system.
I for one don’t like either blaming or crediting Presidents for the state of the economy - unless they greenlight massive tax increases - but since Republican-haters like to blame Republicans/Bush/conservatives for economic cycles, climate cycles, and for the murder of innocent civilians by Muslim fascists in the name of the Koran/Mohammed/Islam then it’s only fair that two play this little fingerpointing game.
Zach // February 8, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I was looking at Mitt’s bio the other day on wikipedia. I noticed that his Father didn’t fight in WWII (he was a bit old at 34 in 1941). Mitt himself was deferred for three years because he was a missionary in France and then three more when a student at BYU and so never served in Vietnam. And then none of his 5 sons served.
I really think that this hurt him. One or two would be ok, but 7 for 7 is a clear pattern of aversion to military service. Even Bush and Gore had some semblence of military service. Even if one of the Romney boys was in the Coast Guard Reserve that would help. In a time of war, his family’s clear lack of military service stood in sharp contrast to McCain’s family’s distinguished service.
Toblerony // February 8, 2008 at 8:05 pm
There is no evidence that Americans want to “win” in Iraq. Even as more Americans have believed that the surge was responsible for rolling back violence in Iraq, the number of Americans who want a timetable for withdrawal hasn’t budged.
You were wrong: Americans don’t oppose the war because it was going badly. Americans don’t think we can “win” in Iraq. Americans know that the right thing for American national security is to leave Iraq.
Now, maybe McCain can bamboozle people into thinking that he really wants to leave Iraq too. After all, many anti-war people voted for him, while pro-war people tended to go for Romney. But that’s the division: if Democrats can make it clear that McCain favors killing many more Americans and wasting much more American taxpayer money for no strategic reason whatsoever, then McCain will lose. If McCain is able to portray himself, with the help of the MSM, as a war opponent, then he’ll win.
It could happen. But that doesn’t change the fact that Americans want out of Iraq and only America-haters like McCain want us to stay.
Hankmeister // February 8, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Hey Ben, I’m still waiting for people on your side of the aisle make good on your rhetoric of “world peace” and volunteer to be human shields. How many American human shields have died liberating people from tyrants and the tyranny of Islamofascism or died protecting America from another terrorist attack? Zilch, zero, nada!
Keep in mind, military service in America is strictly voluntary. When it comes to defending this country to hell with your limp-wristed “symbolism”. It’s just a convenient canard the peace-at-any-cost-niks on your side of the aisle throw up as a smoke screen for your own inaction.
The last time I checked, unlike military service, there is no age limit or physical to pass to be a human shield. If I didn’t know better I’d say the average peacenik is an anti-war racists because apparently they think Arabs just aren’t worth the effort to liberate, or at least be given a chance. And in my book, those four thousand American soldiers who have died to date in the Global War on Terror have done far more to avert World War IV (which you people said would happen if we attacked Iraq or Afghanistan!) than all the mewling naysaying and denial that liberal Democrats have engaged in as they’ve tried their damnedest to lose this war particularly since they took over Congress.
Until people on your side of the aisle begin standing up as literal human shields between the enemies of this country and my family the way our fine men and women in uniform have been doing on the frontiers of freedom these last seven years, I’ll take my chances with the U.S. military and this Commander-in-Chief … thank you very much.
Mr. Forward // February 8, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“So around 55-60% of people at the same time have consistently been willing to follow the battle plan of General Petraeus.”
Could anyone point me to polls about Iraq. everything I google comes up US presidential primary. Would like polls from Iraq, Muslim world opinion on terrorism and US opinion on Iraq. Most of the polls I’ve seen are getting pretty long in the tooth.
quo vadis // February 8, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Here’s what the Democrats just never seem to get:
Geraldine Ferraro recalls the 1984 campaign -
(Source: http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/03/10_olsond_mondaleferraro/)
Ferraro remembered a Michigan campaign stop before union members who were telling pollsters they were going to vote for Reagan. At an appearance before 2000 autoworkers at a Chrysler plant, she says, she threw away her prepared remarks, much to the consternation of her staff, and reminded the workers that Mondale and Ferraro supported the government’s financial bail-out of their company.
“And I said, ‘So what’s the matter with you?’ And there was dead silence and I’ll never forget if I live to be 100, there was a guy in a white jumpsuit. I have no idea why he was wearing a jumpsuit and he raised his hand like this and he said, ‘We’re voting for Ronald Reagan because we’re standing tall.’”
Ben // February 8, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Toblerony — good luck winning with a “John McCain hates America” approach. :p
Hankmeister — please do read the original post again in full. (I’m the blogger here.) I think you think I’m something I’m not.
Mr. Forward — here’s a collection of polls. Currently, a narrow majority (52%-45%) thinks that the military is making progress in Iraq. (So, ok, 52%, not 55-60%.)
unbeliever // February 8, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Who cares what your Dad did? That doesn’t make you a military man. Plus, the economy is what really supports the military. If it weren’t for people who innovate, or even just drag themselves up every morning, there’d be no shit-ton of uniformed men killing “terrorists”.
I served and I still serve, but my oath was to the constitution. I didn’t join the military to obey the whims of some dude Americans happened to vote into office, who repeatedly attacks the actual constitution I’m sworn to defend.
Also, patriotism is lame. When you’re wrong you’re wrong. This country was founded on treachery. All of our forefathers were raised to believe in loyalty to God and King. They were citizens of the premier nation of the time. Yet thankfully their minds weren’t as small as those of modern Americans.
gregh // February 8, 2008 at 8:37 pm
McCain is not going to get any of the female Independent voters after the Dems point out that he dumped his wife and kids to marry his mistress.
He is not going to get any of the young 18-25 males after the Dems launch the same rumor they did four years ago, and which all the kids believed –that Republicans will restart the draft right after the election, which they’ll especially believe once they find out he thinks we might have to go into Iran.
He is not going to get anyone who wants us out now, none of them, especially with his “we’ll stay there 100 years” rhetoric.
He is not going to get anyone worried about the economy. Anyone who says something as stupid as he did about Wall Street and the sub-prime mess, when the banks and hedge funds, the buyers of the bad CDOs were the primary target of all of the fraud, and have lost 10s of billions so far, will say more stupid things. He will have no credibility with regards the economy, with an election occurring when it will be really weak.
The base returns his distain, look for about half to sit this one out from sheer disgust, as in 2006.
The group you named, yeah, maybe, unless the surge keeps working and a lot more progress is made. Then Hillary or Obama need only argue that we haven’t lost and aren’t surrendering. Its simply time for them to stand on their own feet.
Ben // February 8, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Gregh –
Maybe you’re right. It’s hard to predict how the general public will react. My best guess about how it could work is contained in this post.
Anyway, we’ll see come November.
If I close my eyes and think of stopping earmarks… maybe… » Pursuing Holiness // February 8, 2008 at 8:47 pm
[...] think it won’t matter and McCain will lose anyway, but some people think he has a shot. In any event, I don’t feel compelled to pretend that McCain is a conservative or that I [...]
bc // February 8, 2008 at 9:06 pm
You got your old guard and you got your new guard. The old guard watches network news and reads the New York times and thereby likes Hillary. The new guard never watches network news and reads the internet and watches Jon Stewart and likes Obama. Your analysis is right for a Hillary-old guard campaign but not for a new guard Obama campaign.
Mr. Forward // February 8, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Thank you. That’s exactly what I was looking for.
Rich // February 8, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Zach:
Actually 34 in 1941 was a bit old but within a short time it was not they were taking older. My dad was 24 in 1941 but had had polio in 1921 and they made him him come down and prove he was crippled. His uncle who was late 30’s around 40 was taken and served in Germany.
At that time if you were home you had better have a serious problem that was common knowledge or you were scorned.
So it seems to be a family thing.
Dave // February 8, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Just saw an Obama commercial here in Maine. The spot was wall-to-wall hippies. Scary and pathetic. Wait ’til middle America gets a load of that. If he’s the nominee, McCain should breeze.
Melvin Shore // February 8, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I can’t wait for the tv comercial:
Harry Reid saying “the war is over, we lost”
Cut to coelition forces marching thru the streets of Bagdad with crowds cheering and waving american flags.
Admiral Tact // February 8, 2008 at 10:12 pm
How could you not quote Patton anywhere in this piece?: “America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser”
Ed Nutter // February 8, 2008 at 11:59 pm
The two leftie attacks I hear most directed at WOT supporters are: “Have you ever served in the military?” and “Would you send your kids to serve in Iraq?”
Somehow, I don’t think we’ll hear those canards directed at McCain.
Vadept // February 9, 2008 at 6:27 am
I think in most American minds, we’ve already won the war. The Surge gave us victory in Iraq, and Afghanistan was won a long time ago. So we’re done, and you can bring the troops home if you want.
I do think we have a chance at winning, but I think it comes down to a meltdown on the left. If Hilary gets elected, a combination of her dirty-trick fighting style, her association with Bill, the fact that many on the right hate her, will all combine to bring out republican voters and keep democrat voters at home, handing a victory to McCain. If Obama runs, charismatic, representing “change” and without much republicans can attack on, I think you’ll see Obama as president. At this point those are our real options: Obama or McCain, and which ends up president is really up to the Democrats (really, up to Hilary, I think).
I don’t think this election is about the war, and I don’t think this election is about the economy. I think its about the republican congress the public threw out, and the democrat congress that they hate even more. I think it’s about Obama’s vaunted “change.” I think AMerica wants to usher in a new era, and whatever party takes over, it’ll mostly be new faces.
Kathy // February 9, 2008 at 9:02 am
I used to think that, generally, conservatives were more common sense, logical thinkers than liberals. I thought they tended to analyze the long-term effects of policy.
I no longer think that. I believe that the liberal ticket for this election will include both Clinton and Obama…and if the conservative base does not unite behind McCain, we WILL suffer some pretty catastrophic consequences in the judiciary, in the economic sector and, most definitely in the social camp where the culture of death mentality will prevail.
Liberals that I am acquainted with are tickled pink (pun intended) with this anti-McCain rhetoric.
orwell46 // February 9, 2008 at 9:38 am
Usage. You misused “sobriquet”–it means nickname. Joe for Joseph, that sort of thing.
layne aka: herman // February 9, 2008 at 11:21 am
Here is my thot/prediction regarding the current candidates– although my prediction is more gut and observation based:
http://papaherman.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/i-predict/
It will be interesting to see how all of this works out, and why.
My hope at this point is that people will find the candidate that most closely represents their points of view and then votes –Enough of the sheeple ‘football game’ mentality where people vote for a candidate because they think that person will win and they want to be able to say that their candidate won.
John // February 9, 2008 at 11:33 am
McCain is highly unstable, I don’t even think the diehard neocons trust him. Which is why they’ll put Hillary in the office.
-John
http://www.patrioticactivist.com
Perry Robinson // February 9, 2008 at 11:45 am
Weeks ago, no one was talking about the economy. Then the media needed something else to whip Bush with, so they discovered the housing market. Anyone with half a brain could have told you it was going to pop. its funny, when the ecnomy goes well, bush gets no credit, but when it tanks, oh well he has to take all of the responsibility.
As a social conservative and fiscal moderate I am not crazy about McCain, but I’d rather have a moderate republican than two quasi Marxists in office.
And I wouldn’t think that the Dems have it in the basket. Its not over till its over. The last two presidential cycles should have taught them that. The longer they take to get front runner, the worse it will be. Not to mention if there is a blood bath at the DNC and the super dels kick in to trump Obama, you can kiss the African-American vote goodbye. I think the Democratic phrase was “They stole the election.”
asodesune // February 9, 2008 at 12:00 pm
What does the president have to do with the economy? He issues no funds nor can he. Our economy is in the hands of people on The Street, mainly, and all the little people who buy and sell each day. It is in the hands of people who buy stuff each day from stores that in the long run, or short run, buy and sell of The Street. The president can influence the economy here and there, but he, or she maybe, can do nothing directly. Let’s lay off the president relative to the economy and look at reality–the Market, the free market and how it manages our economy.
wordsseldomsaid // February 9, 2008 at 12:50 pm
it will not matter how long it takes the dem’s to get a frontrunner…that will not have any play on the election in nov….
and of course the president has some control on the economy…
and iraq…is a losing issue….and it will eventually hurt any who support it…
Ronnie Ann // February 9, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I voted for Reagan in 1980 and therefore guess I am one of those Reagan democrats you mention. There is no way I would EVER votef or McCain for President or any other Republican at this time. We are in serious trouble and more of the same won’t get us out. I’m not just looking for change - I’m looking for someone willing to admit the emperor has no clothes and soon we won’t either!
By the way…appreciate your well-written and thoughtful post, even if I disagree.
americalives // February 9, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I think Reagan Dems will come out for McCain. The very definition of a Reagan Dem is one who goes against conventional wisdom. And indeed that is McCain. I recently wrote about how i think the conservative backlash will actually help MAC. Check that article out @
AmericaLives.wordpress.com
asqfish // February 9, 2008 at 1:41 pm
There are no winners and no losers in a war, just desolate destruction and the vultures take all!
grantman // February 9, 2008 at 4:27 pm
the candidate that can distance themselves the farthest from this fiasco of a war will win.
grantman
links for 2008-02-10 « Commonplace Book // February 9, 2008 at 8:25 pm
[...] Why I think John McCain just may win this fall’s election. « The Tiger in Somerville (tags: john_mccain election2008 politics) [...]
Ohg Rea Tone // February 10, 2008 at 12:33 pm
McCain had a chance - but it is sad to see an old warrior compromise his principles in the interest of ambition.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/09/john-mccain-waffles-on-issues/
Uncle Sam // February 14, 2008 at 10:34 am
I believe that John McCain will defeat Barack Obama for the presidency in part because of John’s character and Obama’s inexperience. Level heads will prevail when the reality of global terrorism rears its ugly head.
Jesse // March 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm
there is nothing to win in iraq.
i need 85 billion they said….. 3-5 trillion and 1.5 million lives later.
all that “growth” is a sad overstatement and we are seeing the ill effects of our monetary policy now because of the false capital that was “created” out of thin air.
ron paul is right. we can’t afford not to come home. more taxes and higher inflation is going to hurt.
you can bet each candidate will continue to spend spend spend.
no candidate on stage is going to help the people right now. it’s obvious by almost all of the comments on this page.
so good luck. thanx for voting for someone who “can win”
Anne // June 4, 2008 at 8:28 am
I completely agree with you. I am a 40-year old woman, independent voter. I see your point of view on this and I believe that there is a whole segment of society (proud t0ugh blue collar men) with quiet resolve and survival mentality who will be the voice in November we aren’t hearing right now.
Billyboi // June 7, 2008 at 8:23 am
I believe McCain will win, someone responded about Hillary, actually I believe Obama has been stood up by Republicans, notice how he won mostly Republican states… I believe McCain will win, Obama is the weakest link, Hillary could have raised a fight with McCain, but Obama LOL… no chance against McCain, I give Obama Illinois, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, NY, NJ, Vermont, Maine, California, NC, Washington and Massachusetts along with Connecticut and RI… NH will go to McCain and so will Ohio and Florida… Pennsylvania, I believe he will win there too… Indiana as well, and we know the south east and the west will mostly be Republican… it will be exciting to watch this go down, but McCain will win… Oh yeah Diebold machines are set too I’m sure… and yes rigging happens NH was proof!
Say hello to President McCain.