Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary

[John Kilduff]

[ 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 its not the only issue. Most democrats seem to want out of the war + some kind of universal health coverage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm not following this thread closely enough (probably, in fact), but I meant why should a pro-war Rerpublican have an advantage over an anti-war Republican?

edit: and doesn't it hurt Hillary to be pro-war, considering most Americans want us OUT of Iraq?

edit: I actually suspect the Iraq issue (and desire to leave) is pretty big on the minds of most voters; I think I read some poll showing that somewhere. It may even turn out to be more pivotal than suspected at this point.