|
Such an attack would have boosted McCain's chances by significant margins, but I am not sure that it
would at this point, after Charlie Black's unwise comments. Whenever the nation appears to be under
attack from external forces, or if stability and public security are threatened in any way, voters
have a tendency to cast ballots for the incumbent party. In this case, of course, the Republicans
would stand to benefit. The fact that McCain is seen as a hawk would help him as well, but I also
believe that even if an attack were to occur under a more dovish, Democratic president, voters would
still favour the incumbent over the challenger in times of great distress.
I remember reading an article last autumn by Charles Krauthammer, who essentially argued this point,
even though his prediction turned out to be totally wrong. Krauthammer asserted that since America
is at war and because there is still an increased risk of a terrorist attack, Americans (including
Democrats) would never vote for a neophyte like Barack Obama, but would choose the candidate who has
the most experience and who is seen as having a rough streak. Krauthammer obviously miscalculated
the Democratic primary, but the basic core of his argument was sound. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
McCain would definetly have an advantage seeing as how he is all about defending America. It would
drive home is logo and make people have faith in him. That is all it takes, gaining people's trust
and you have it in the bag. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It was a foolish thing to say, but ultimately true. The right wing of politics is seen as more
security conscious and McCain in particular is very publicly hawkish ("Why not stay in Iraq for 100
years", or words to that effect). It is likely that people will see McCain as more competent to
defend America, so if America is seen as under threat he will gain support. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
24 Jun 2008 13:31
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
