The Real Election is In November

Now that the Democratic debate in South Carolina is over and the next real action isn't until Tsunami Tuesday, February 5, it's a good time to ponder what the real issue will be in November.

I sincerely doubt it will be race or gender, no matter who gets the Democratic nomination. It will be the economy -- or, if Bush decides to help the Republican candidate by ratcheting up the fear of terror and elevating the threat level, national security.

So, here's a poll below the fold. What do you think the major issue in November will be?

< Michigan to Deny Drivers Licenses to Undocumented and Lawfully Present Immigrants | Rudy Giuliani and His Culture of Revenge >


What will Matter Most in the November Election?
Race 0%
Gender 0%
The Economy 87%
National Security 0%
Immigration 0%
Iraq 9%
Other 2%

Votes: 41
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I voted "other" (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:57:01 AM EST
    for Iraq.

    the other votes (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:01:51 AM EST
    are now Iraq votes because I substituted Iraq for Other and then added Other on a separate line.

    My mistake (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:00:04 AM EST
    I'll fix the poll to add Iraq.

    Still "the economy, stupid." (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oldpro on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:43:56 AM EST
    Even with a good economy we can't afford this war.  Many more years in Iraq will bankrupt the country and only the Democrats will deal with both the war and the economy.  It's a national IQ test for the voters.

    I've been watching the SurveyUSA state polls (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MikeDitto on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:49:42 AM EST
    They all say economy first, then immigration or Iraq vie for second and third.

    But make no mistake--the ultra-right attack machine of Richard Mellon Scaife, Phyllis Schlafly, Donald Wildmon, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the usual suspects will once again leverage their church networks to try to make it all about gays and God and will unleash whatever misogynistic or racist crap they can come up with.

    Then the tier-II mudslingers (Patrick Davis, Karl Rove, etc.) will come along and do the same thing with push polls, robocalls, and mailings. Then comes the voter suppression, the strategy for which will ride a lot on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Indiana voter ID case.

    Remember, what the election's about for us is not necessarily what the election's really about. The election's about whatever influences the 10-20% who make their minds up at the polls based not on issues as much as their emotional impression of the candidates. And we won't know what that looks like for several months.

    Pathetic (4.66 / 3) (#2)
    by BigMitch on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:55:16 AM EST
    Is the war that far off the radar screen?

    What war? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:07:15 AM EST
    Unless your a military family, the occupation of Iraq has zero effect on your everyday life.

    Since it's all being paid for on borrowed money, and volunteered blood, it's easy to forget there is a war on.  And that's how "the complex" likes it.


    Thanks for reminding me that my (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:01:21 AM EST
    reality is mine alone ;)

    Sad but true Tracy..... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    No war tax, no draft, no oil rationing, no sacrifice asked of anybody except folks like you.

    All the rest of us are asked to do is go shopping.


    Not really. But when you have to choose one... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:24:33 AM EST
    I would have preferred a ranking. For me it would be the economy and Iraq.

    I'm looking forward to being so broke (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:02:15 AM EST
    we can't be at war anymore ;)

    When I was 9, I wished (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:15:23 AM EST
    for a hurricane to close the schools. This is what I got.

    I thought I wanted Ronald Reagan to win the nomination in 1980, because he was so extreme and he kept making remarks like "trees cause air pollution" that I thought he would be easy to beat.

    Be careful what you wish for.


    I don't wish for it Molly (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    truly I would much rather have some kind retirement to show for my saving effort other than long haul hope.  If it's going to happen though perhaps it could end the war as well.  You have some strong "wish" power there.  Wish for me to win a lottery ;)

    With all my heart (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    good luck!

    Well i voted economy (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:33:31 AM EST
    but Iraq might come back in, it is just that in each of the primaries everyones views are similar.  I also think there is a genral assumption(though it maybe false) the next president will get us out.

    Other. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:35:35 AM EST
    Regulating the sale of videogames.

    I wish the top issue was Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:58:38 AM EST
    But it seems, among democrats anyway, to be getting rid of republicans.  

    At any cost. Which means I think, that the cost will be too high.

    The world is very different now (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:28:44 AM EST
    we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the resounding defeat of the GOP- even put up with a few DLC Democrats- but only a few.

    It's "only a few" (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:27:42 AM EST
    that have me concerned though, Molly...

    Obama was in friendly territory in Chicago as he appeared at a forum attended by 800 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC], an influential pro-Israel lobby. He received a standing ovation from the crowd and a hug from one of the group's leaders.

    Obama said global leaders must do whatever it takes to stop Iran from enriching uranium and acquiring nuclear weapons. He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "reckless, irresponsible and inattentive" to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people.

    The Iranian "regime is a threat to all of us," Obama said.

    While Obama wouldn't rule out force, he said the United States should engage in "aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions" to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

    AIPAC's hypocrisy is stomach-turning, to say the least. The goliath lobbying organization wants Iran to be slapped across the knuckles while the crimes of Israel continue to be ignored. And who is propping up AIPAC's hypocritical position? Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.

    As the top Democratic recipient of pro-Israel funds for the 2006 election cycle thus far, pocketing over $58,000 as of October 31 last year, Senator Clinton now has Iran in her cross-hairs.

    During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered on December 11, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, "I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israeli Defense Force] to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel's right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day ... It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel ..."

       The presidential front-runner, Hillary Clinton, is the leader of the party's hawkish wing and recently called for a surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan. John Edwards, the most "leftward" major presidential contender, just delivered a bare-knuckled speech in which he castigated the Bush administration for not being tough enough with Iran. "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table," Edwards warned.
    August 4, 2006, Ari Berman, The Nation
    AIPAC's Hold
    In early March [2006], the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its forty-seventh annual conference in Washington. AIPAC's executive director spent twenty-seven minutes reading the "roll call" of dignitaries present at the gala dinner, which included a majority of the Senate and a quarter of the House, along with dozens ...
    On July 18, the Senate unanimously approved a nonbinding resolution "condemning Hamas and Hezbollah and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense." After House majority leader John Boehner removed language from the bill urging "all sides to protect innocent civilian life and infrastructure," the House version passed by a landslide, 410 to 8.
    AIPAC not only lobbied for the resolution; it had written it. "They [Congress] were given a resolution by AIPAC," said former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who addressed the House Democratic Caucus on July 19. "They didn't prepare one."
    When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, the terms of debate are so influenced by organized Jewish groups, like AIPAC, that to be critical of Israel is to deny oneself the ability to succeed in American politics.

    And the House just passed last Thursday (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act...

    Congress Dismisses NIE, declares Iran a nuclear threat
      Thu, 01/17/2008 - 20:35 - Wire Services

      Iran poses a nuclear weapons threat to the United States and its allies, according to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 H R 4986 passed 369-46 by the US House of Representative yesterday, even though the National Intelligence Estimate concluded that that Tehran abandoned its atomic weaponry ambitions in 2003.

      Section 229 of the Act states that:

      Congress finds that Iran maintains a nuclear program in continued defiance of the international community while developing ballistic missiles of increasing sophistication and range that:
          (1) pose a threat to--
          (A) the forward-deployed forces of the United States;
          (B) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in Europe; and
          (C) other allies and friendly foreign countries in the region; and
          (2) eventually could pose a threat to the United States homeland.

      HR 4986 mandates that it is the policy of the US to "develop, test, and deploy, as soon as technologically feasible, in conjunction with allies and friendly foreign countries whenever possible, an effective defense against the threat from Iran."

      Essentially, this calls for the establishment of the controversial missile defense shield, which is threatening to reignite the cold war and start a new arms race with Russia.

      The findings of the Congress contradict the NIE released last month which concluded with "high confidence" that "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" and that "Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007".

    Hopefully, NOT what the thugs decide is most (none / 0) (#9)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:39:37 AM EST

    Why do I mention this? Cuz we got the hapless clueless team Dem getting ready to ...

    1. whomp the lying stealing fascists?


    2. whimper and snivel and pee their pants in fear over whatever the sold out media is going to accuse them of?

    While I hope for #1, I've been hoping for it since St. RayGun the criminal began his reign of terror, AND I've been living with #2.

    ( disclaimer - I don't have an ivy undergrad and, I didn't do the k-school, so all the complicated sophisticated excuses for constantly losing to lying thieves go over my simplistic head. )

    this will be my 8th Presidential.  Why do I have so little confidence in my hapless nitwits? Shouldn't I be upbeat and happy happy and exude positive energy, cuz ... Like in The Sound of Music, being upbeat and happy and positive will beat the bad guys!!!!

    Happy Happy!



    National security.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Pat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:07:57 AM EST
    I fear that the Republicans will manufacture some video or alleged threat of attack, no matter who the Dems nominate.

    well, we have known all along (none / 0) (#23)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:50:47 AM EST
    that they (repubs) will throw everything including the kitchen sink at our nominee. i have said before that i don't care what color or sex our nominee is. what i want to see is someone who will fight for us and it won't be pretty. clinton made some mistakes with legislation such as nafta and the telecom bill. but he also did some things right. i do believe that insurance might have passed in his second term, but unfortunately we had the faux drama of monica going on.

    now our numbers will be greater in congress and i believe we will have a democratic president. so it will be do or die for the dems. the pressure from the public to look after their welfare will be at an all time high.