Would the Democrats change their position on the war if public opinion was in favor of the war?

Question

A lot of Democrats have said that the surge is working but most haven't changed their position on the war. However, candidates like Sen. Clinton, Sen Edwards or Gov. Richardson basically disapprove of the war because of their political agenda.

So would candidates like these people change their position on the war if most of the general public supported the war?

Answer 1

Hopefully, I think you're forgetting that that is what our politicians ARE SUPPOSED TO DO! They work for US. They are our voice in government. We elect them, and they are supposed to work towards the common goals of our society. If our collective society does not want this war, their job is to figure out how to get us out of it. The democratic take over was about exactly that - collectively we DON'T want to be in Iraq. We changed control form repubs to dems so they would then change direction on the war. If they WEREN'T trying to do that, they wouldn't be doing the job we sent them to do. Vice versa would hold true as well. If the MAJORITY of america agrees we should (or shouldn't as the case may be) enter or exit a war, our government is in place to REPRESENT THE PEOPLE.

Answer 2

Public opinion includes Democrats, Republicans and others. So if the opinion was different, obviously there would have to be some Democrats who changed their position. Just because the surge is working doesn't mean we are winning nor does it mean anyone should, all of a sudden, approve the war. That war in Iraq was for bogus reasons. We were lied to. For that alone people are against it. Win, lose or draw it doesn't matter. The war was wrong, is wrong and will be wrong in the future. Afghanistan is a different story. Why? Because that is where Bin Laden is hiding. Remember him? He is the one who is taking credit for the 9/11 incidents. He is the one who we should have concentrated our efforts on. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and he hated the Al Qaeda as well as Bin Laden. Perhaps it is because the Bush and Bin Laden families have been friends and business partners for decades. Anyway the war in Iraq was the wrong war for the wrong reason and that is why people are opposed to it. That isn't likely to change.

Answer 3

Without a doubt the Democrats have always shown they will either try to purposefully change public opinion or change and go with it. They are the most wishy washy group out there. That allows them to be flexible and change their story. If confronted about it, they merely say the person asking was wrong. Not like the media is going to take them to task on it. Heck just recently, a strong dem opponent of the war was on TV. He was asked about the progress of the war since he arrived here back from a trip to Iraq. He told them it was going good and we were now winning. However, once he got home I am sure he got lots of phone calls from he dem friends. Cuase the next day later is was claiming he was not understood and he was only talking of a small part of the war, and that much of the war was wrong, and failing. Hey, way to stab those service men and women in the back senator. I want to say it was sen reed. But I can't remember. The fact is politics for most is boring,...and I get it. The most politics the average joe gets is from the local news. And they are flat out not good at reporting the facts. Ever seen a news commercial saying one of their investigations turned up some deadly everyday household item. And then to tune in at 10pm to find out what it is....LOL Reporters basically are free to find ways to make the news. So they are certainly not going to focus on the boring positives that come out of any of this. Instead they would rather stick there cameras in the faces of some liberal high school or colleges kids who skipped school to have a protest. Can we get another picture of them holding there signs and marching in a circle. Maybe burn a flag or two. That would outrage people and get them to watch. Anyway, the limited info people get is not necessarily bias, it's just not accurate or balanced to reflect all sides. So joe public tries to make an informed decision without all the facts. History will probably look back on the war as a positive thing. However, hindsight is 20/20.

Answer 4

If the general public supported the war then the war would actually have a cause and wouldn't be getting this much attention. Other issues would then become bigger and the candidates would focus onthat because everybody would be happy with the way the war is going.

Unfortunatly the war is in bad shape. Saying the surge brought us from 2007 violence levels to 2006 is not 'working.' It is just a temporary fix until we can get Hillary or Obama in office to fix the matter.

Answer 5

Hillary will say whatever it takes to get elected.
Obama I believe would keep up his anti-war rants
Edwards will say whatever it takes to make a buck

I don't know about Richardson.

If things do go well in Iraq and keep improving the polls will change.

Those who look like they were against the troops will be toast.

I know that is not what the anti-war people want to hear and sorry about that.

Smearing the troops may win a primary but wind up losing the election.

Just ask Lieberman.

Answer 6

Some certainly would. And some will change their position as the situation changes.

I was opposed to the war in Iraq at the beginning, when Hillary Clinton prominently supported it. We attacked Iraq, in my opinion, solely to ensure the President's re-election (and possibly to finish a family feud his father began with his longterm client Saddam Hussein).

On the other hand, while ending the war is clearly desirable, I am not convinced that an immediate withdrawal would be the best way. As Colin Powell reportedly told President Bush: "You break it, you own it."

The most foolish position is one that attempts to apply principles applicable to the question of starting a war to the situation after you're stuck in one.

Answer 7

It's not a matter of would they. They already have in most instances. Look up WMD quotes and see what many of the leading Democrats have said about what should be done about Saddam Hussein.

That's not to say peole aren't allowed to change their positions. But like you there are many I question on the motives for their position change. But if you look at many you will equate the changes happen to when the direction of political winds shifts.

Answer 8

The Democrats do a better job of representing the peoples will and if some dems voted for the occupation of Iraq and now don`t that means the will of the people changed. That is their job, bring the will of the people to Washington unlike most Republicans who think there is a father figure that knows best.

Answer 9

Seemed like they were on board when the troops were first deployed. Let the record show that statistically, most congressmen who have voted to go to war in the past were reelected.

Answer 10

Clinton would go with the flow, but I don't think Richardson would. Obama has always been against the war, so his opinion definitely would not change.