VOTERS AND THE WAR….I don’t want to make too big a deal out of this, but here’s a peculiar result from yesterday’s primary. First off, the Democrats:
Voters who want to get out of Iraq fast preferred Hillary, voters who want to get out gradually are tied, and voters who want to stay in Iraq overwhelmingly preferred Obama. Huh?
And now the Republicans:
Voters who approve of the war prefer Romney by a small margin, while those who disapprove of the war prefer McCain by a landslide. Again, huh?
Granted: voters are often irrational. And the differences between Obama/Clinton and Romney/McCain on the war are fairly small. Still, Obama is the one who opposed the war from the start and has been more aggressive about calling for a withdrawal. Shouldn’t he be getting more support from the get-out-now crowd? And although Romney supports the war, McCain is the dead-endest of the dead-enders. If you don’t like the war, shouldn’t he be your least favorite candidate?
I’m not sure what explains this. On the Democratic side, Hillary has recently been taking a harder line on withdrawal, and maybe that’s showing up here. Or maybe it’s just that women are more likely to want to get out of Iraq fast and also more likely to support Hillary. Or maybe Iraq isn’t as big a voting issue as we think.
The Republican side is even odder. Why would voters who disapprove of the war overwhelmingly support McCain? Are they reacting to the fact that McCain is constantly claiming that he “disapproved” of the conduct of the war? Has McCain’s uber-hawkishness not gotten a lot of play? Or what?
Anyway, not the biggest deal in the world, and it’s only one state. But still, a bid odd.