[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate. Hillary might get less than 50% of the vote in this circumstance, but she would win a majority of the electoral college in a landslide, something like 45-30-25 at worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Americans want the US out of Iraq. How does that resonate with what you are suggesting? Why should a pro-war candidate have an advantage over an anti-war candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the overwhelming majority of Democrats will vote for the Democrat even if the the Republican agree with them slightly more on the war issue.

Remember that most Democrats are both (a) anti-war and (b) currently supporting Hillary in the Democratic primary, where they have a number of more anti-war choices who also basically agree with them on the other fundamental issues. If Hillary was in any danger of losing support on the left for being too hawkish, should wouldn't have such a commanding lead among primary candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

She can get away with being a war-monger for the same reason that Giuliani can get away with being "socially liberal". Both sides are terrified of the other side getting into power so they'll put up with the problems of their candidate. When faced with RP vs Hill, the dems (hopefully) will realize that he beats the balls off her on the war, the patriot act (and many other issues).