Rasmussen Poll: McCain 49%,,,,,, Obama 20%

[Tigermike 3,055]

The two questions I would have to ask is what were the 20% thinking? How would an immediate pullout be winning?

Victory in Iraq: 49% say McCain will achieve, 20% say Obama

49% Say Victory in Iraq Likely if McCain Elected

Monday, May 19, 2008

If John McCain is elected President, 49% of voters say it is at least somewhat likely that the United States will win the War in Iraq. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 20% believe victory in Iraq is likely if Barack Obama is elected in November.

However, the survey also found that voters believe Obama is more likely than McCain to bring home U.S. troops from Iraq. If Obama is elected, 59% say it is at least somewhat likely that virtually all combat troops will come home from Iraq during his first term. Just 43% believe the troops are that likely to come home if McCain is elected.

Most Americans—52%--say bringing the troops home within four years is a higher priority than winning the War. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree and say winning the War is more important. Men, by a 51% to 44% margin, say it is more important to win the War. Women, by a two-to-one margin, say it is more important to get the troops home.

Those who believe that winning the War is more important have a high degree of confidence that McCain can achieve that goal--84% believe that victory is at least somewhat likely if McCain is elected.

Among those who believe that getting the troops home is the top priority, there is a bit less confidence—67% believe that if Obama is elected the troops will be home within four years.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Democrats say it is more important to get the troops home while 72% of Republicans say it is more important to win the War. Unaffiliated voters are evenly divided—47% say bringing home the troops is the top priority while 42% say victory is more important. (But don't use the term cut and run. It wouldn't be nice.)

Unaffiliated voters are also evenly divided as to the prospects for victory if McCain is elected—46% of unaffiliated voters say victory is likely while 45% say it is not. If Obama is elected, 15% of unaffiliated voters say victory is likely while 77% disagree.

Among unaffiliated voters, the expectations gap is smaller on the question of getting troops home. Fifty-four percent (54%) say it’s likely that an Obama victory in November will get the troops home within four years. Forty-two percent (42%) say that result is likely if McCain wins.

Conservatives, by a 67% to 26% margin, say victory is more important. Liberals, by an 80% to 11% margin, hold the opposite view.

Just 33% of voters under 30 consider victory the top priority. While older voters are more likely to see victory as important, a plurality or majority of every age bracket believes that getting the troops home is the more important objective.

Tracking polls by Rasmussen Reports routinely show that six-out-of-ten voters want troops home from Iraq within a year. Roughly one-out-of-four want the troops brought home immediately and one-third want the troops to remain until the mission is complete. During Election 2008, the two presidential campaigns will focus their energies on the middle group, those who want the troops to come home but aren’t calling for an immediate withdrawal. These voters represent slightly under 40% of the nation’s voters.

In the race for the White House, Obama and McCain are essentially tied at this time according to the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available for Premium Members only.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con..._mccain_elected

[Justin5 20]

Hey Republicans, please run this fall on the War.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Hey Republicans, please run this fall on the War.

Hey dimocrats, please be honest about your intentions. Just call defeat and appeasement what they are.

[Justin5 20]

Hey Republicans, please run this fall on the War.

[RunInRed 16,493]

You clearly don't know what the word appeasement means and you definitely don't understand that this is not our war to win.

As Justin said...please please please run on the war and Bush's foreign policy in the fall.

[Tiger Al 0]

Hey Republicans, please run this fall on the War.

Hey dimocrats, please be honest about your intentions. Just call defeat and appeasement what they are.

Of the "reasons" this administration gave for our needing to invade Iraq, which ones still exist today?

[Tigermike 3,055]

You clearly don't know what the word appeasement means and you definitely don't understand that this is not our war to win.

As Justin said...please please please run on the war and Bush's foreign policy in the fall.

As usual you jump out and make a personal attack. As usual you are a frigging idiot. If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

And yes I know exactly what it is. And Obama has been running on that for two years now.

[CCTAU 3,350]

It doesn't matter now why we went. Now it's either losers or winners. And we all know which side of the fence cutting and running lies on. So yes, republicans will run, in part, on the war. There are still plenty of Americans who hate a loser and hate to lose. So, dims, continue to go with a losing plan for the war on terror, and see where that gets you.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Hey Republicans, please run this fall on the War.

Hey dimocrats, please be honest about your intentions. Just call defeat and appeasement what they are.

Of the "reasons" this administration gave for our needing to invade Iraq, which ones still exist today?

That is not the point Al and you know it. We are there. So do we win or do we run? And if we run what are the consequences? We might as run from Afghanistan as well, don't you think? Get completely out of the Middle East, Europe, the far east. Just stay within our borders. But the dims don't even want us protecting our borders either do they?

[RunInRed 16,493]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

[CCTAU 3,350]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

How do you know what's happening in Afghanistan? Are we hunting down Al Quaida? Or the Taliban?

[Tiger Al 0]

Hey Republicans, please run this fall on the War.

Hey dimocrats, please be honest about your intentions. Just call defeat and appeasement what they are.

Of the "reasons" this administration gave for our needing to invade Iraq, which ones still exist today?

That is not the point Al and you know it. We are there. So do we win or do we run? And if we run what are the consequences? We might as run from Afghanistan as well, don't you think? Get completely out of the Middle East, Europe, the far east. Just stay within our borders. But the dims don't even want us protecting our borders either do they?

That's exactly the point. Sadly, this administration has been moving the goalposts for five years and some people seem to think that the reason we went there is to build a nation. For five years their military has been "training." If they're not ready now, when will they ever be? The reasons, the objectives, have been met. All of the military organizations I've ever been affiliated with would call that a win. Why don't you?

[Tigermike 3,055]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

I'm still waiting ObamaBoy. Explain to all us poor, white, bitter folks what the great hope of the leftist is really saying.

OK, get out of Iraq immediately. Surrender to AQ in Iraq & Iran & Syria. Then go to Iran with your hat in your hand and negotiate with no preconditions.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. BTW - Be sure to sing Kum by ya while you are at it.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz'mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1.

1. An act of appeasing.

2. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Tell me this. What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' Aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

[Tiger Al 0]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

I'm still waiting ObamaBoy. Explain to all us poor, white, bitter folks what the great hope of the leftist is really saying.

OK, get out of Iraq immediately. Surrender to AQ in Iraq & Iran & Syria. Then go to Iran with your hat in your hand and negotiate with no preconditions.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. BTW - Be sure to sing Kum by ya while you are at it.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz'mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1.

1. An act of appeasing.

2. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Tell me this. What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' Aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

Got rhetoric?

[Tigermike 3,055]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

I'm still waiting ObamaBoy. Explain to all us poor, white, bitter folks what the great hope of the leftist is really saying.

OK, get out of Iraq immediately. Surrender to AQ in Iraq & Iran & Syria. Then go to Iran with your hat in your hand and negotiate with no preconditions.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. BTW - Be sure to sing Kum by ya while you are at it.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz'mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1.

1. An act of appeasing.

2. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Tell me this. What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' Aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

Got rhetoric?

No an observation.

[Tiger Al 0]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

I'm still waiting ObamaBoy. Explain to all us poor, white, bitter folks what the great hope of the leftist is really saying.

OK, get out of Iraq immediately. Surrender to AQ in Iraq & Iran & Syria. Then go to Iran with your hat in your hand and negotiate with no preconditions.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. BTW - Be sure to sing Kum by ya while you are at it.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz'mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1.

1. An act of appeasing.

2. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Tell me this. What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' Aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

Got rhetoric?

No an observation.

Yes. An observation full of rhetoric and based on rhetoric.

[Tigermike 3,055]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

I'm still waiting ObamaBoy. Explain to all us poor, white, bitter folks what the great hope of the leftist is really saying.

OK, get out of Iraq immediately. Surrender to AQ in Iraq & Iran & Syria. Then go to Iran with your hat in your hand and negotiate with no preconditions.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. BTW - Be sure to sing Kum by ya while you are at it.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz'mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1.

1. An act of appeasing.

2. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Tell me this. What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' Aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

Got rhetoric?

No an observation.

Yes. An observation full of rhetoric and based on rhetoric.

I've been waiting for the revised version of Obama's plan, so why don't you provide it. Did he not say he intends to negotiate with no preconditions? I guess like his wife's political speeches, his foreign policy plans should not be looked at.

Deflection and deceit. It appears that is what you guys want. Don't look at what he says, just listen and parrot his campaign slogans.

[Tiger Al 0]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

I'm still waiting ObamaBoy. Explain to all us poor, white, bitter folks what the great hope of the leftist is really saying.

OK, get out of Iraq immediately. Surrender to AQ in Iraq & Iran & Syria. Then go to Iran with your hat in your hand and negotiate with no preconditions.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. BTW - Be sure to sing Kum by ya while you are at it.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz'mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1.

1. An act of appeasing.

2. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Tell me this. What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' Aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

Got rhetoric?

No an observation.

Yes. An observation full of rhetoric and based on rhetoric.

I've been waiting for the revised version of Obama's plan, so why don't you provide it. Did he not say he intends to negotiate with no preconditions? I guess like his wife's political speeches, his foreign policy plans should not be looked at.

Deflection and deceit. It appears that is what you guys want. Don't look at what he says, just listen and parrot his campaign slogans.

You keep harping on the "no preconditions" part and I don't see what the big deal is. Obviously, Bush's plan of cowboy non-diplomacy and public insults hasn't been working. Iran is a serious problem and it's time for serious people to move into positions of authority and let George, and his pathetic foreign policies, go clear brush in Crawford.

[Tigermike 3,055]

In Afghanistan/Pakistan we are hunting down AQ, in Iraq we are mediating a civil war. There is a tremendous difference.

If as you want to redefine, how is Obamas policy not appeasement?

I'm still waiting ObamaBoy. Explain to all us poor, white, bitter folks what the great hope of the leftist is really saying.

OK, get out of Iraq immediately. Surrender to AQ in Iraq & Iran & Syria. Then go to Iran with your hat in your hand and negotiate with no preconditions.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. BTW - Be sure to sing Kum by ya while you are at it.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

ap·pease·ment (ə-pēz'mənt) Pronunciation Key

n.

1.

1. An act of appeasing.

2. The condition of being appeased.

2. The policy of granting concessions to potential enemies to maintain peace.

Tell me this. What is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' Aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

Got rhetoric?

No an observation.

Yes. An observation full of rhetoric and based on rhetoric.

I've been waiting for the revised version of Obama's plan, so why don't you provide it. Did he not say he intends to negotiate with no preconditions? I guess like his wife's political speeches, his foreign policy plans should not be looked at.

Deflection and deceit. It appears that is what you guys want. Don't look at what he says, just listen and parrot his campaign slogans.

You keep harping on the "no preconditions" part and I don't see what the big deal is.

Thanks for clearing that up. And for the record there seems to be 1,000's 1,000,000's who think feel the same way.

[Tiger Al 0]

Thanks for clearing that up. And for the record there seems to be 1,000's 1,000,000's who think feel the same way.

You seem to disagree so why don't you educate me. Tell me why it's wrong to meet with a country who is a potentially serious threat and dialogue with them without any roadblocks to the negotiating table? Why would Iran agree to having their arm publicly twisted before they sit down to talk?

[arnaldoabru 11]

Don't forget, we gotta protect the billion dollars worth of contracts for all of Bush's buddies in Iraq.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Hey Republicans, please run this fall on the War.

Hey dimocrats, please be honest about your intentions. Just call defeat and appeasement what they are.

Just like Bush appeasing Lybia and N Korea.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Thanks for clearing that up. And for the record there seems to be 1,000's 1,000,000's who think feel the same way.

You seem to disagree so why don't you educate me. Tell me why it's wrong to meet with a country who is a potentially serious threat and dialogue with them without any roadblocks to the negotiating table? Why would Iran agree to having their arm publicly twisted before they sit down to talk?

Why don't you tell us what exactly is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' who aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods (Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs) hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

You still haven't provided an answer to what Obama wants to say to them. When you know, get back.

[Tiger Al 0]

Thanks for clearing that up. And for the record there seems to be 1,000's 1,000,000's who think feel the same way.

You seem to disagree so why don't you educate me. Tell me why it's wrong to meet with a country who is a potentially serious threat and dialogue with them without any roadblocks to the negotiating table? Why would Iran agree to having their arm publicly twisted before they sit down to talk?

Why don't you tell us what exactly is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' who aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods (Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs) hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

You still haven't provided an answer to what Obama wants to say to them. When you know, get back.

I have no idea what Obama, or anyone else, would or wouldn't say and it's irrelevant to this discussion in general and to the question I asked you in particular. You're asking me to tell you what someone else will say. That's foolishness. I've asked YOU why YOU think it's wrong to meet with a country who is a potentially serious threat and dialogue with them without any roadblocks to the negotiating table? You seem to feel strongly about it so it shouldn't be that hard to articulate.

[Tigermike 3,055]

Thanks for clearing that up. And for the record there seems to be 1,000's 1,000,000's who think feel the same way.

You seem to disagree so why don't you educate me. Tell me why it's wrong to meet with a country who is a potentially serious threat and dialogue with them without any roadblocks to the negotiating table? Why would Iran agree to having their arm publicly twisted before they sit down to talk?

Why don't you tell us what exactly is Obama going to say to Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs' who aim to destroy Israel and to install Sharia and for the entire world to live by their stone—age laws? Hope? Change? Let's get this straight, those peckerwoods (Ahmadinejad and The Iranian Mullahs) hope we quit and they would love the change. That could explain why they really, really want Obama to win.

You still haven't provided an answer to what Obama wants to say to them. When you know, get back.

I have no idea what Obama, or anyone else, would or wouldn't say and it's irrelevant to this discussion in general and to the question I asked you in particular. You're asking me to tell you what someone else will say. That's foolishness. I've asked YOU why YOU think it's wrong to meet with a country who is a potentially serious threat and dialogue with them without any roadblocks to the negotiating table? You seem to feel strongly about it so it shouldn't be that hard to articulate.

Obama: Please don't do bad things.

Ahmadinejad: We don't do bad things it is only the dirty Jews and the Americans who do bad things.

Obama: I agree

Ahmadinejad: Good now when we bomb Israel and lead proxy wars in Iraq and Lebanon don't say anything.

Obama: It's all those bitter white people who started this problem! It's All Bush's fault.

Ahmadinejad: We agree.