Ah, The Electorate

Looks like John McCain's big pocket of strength among Michigan voters was from people who don't approve of the Iraq War. Because, of course, the man who's managed to always position himself to George W. Bush's right on the whole "should we squander the nation's blood and treasure in Iraq for no reason" issue is exactly the kind of guy you want to turn to if you're disgruntled with the course things are taking. Meanwhile, part of the bad news for the country here is that I think Mitt Romney's made it clear that he'll be the candidate the voters want him to be, and if that means becoming the country's leading cheerleader for the war, then cheer he shall. McCain, meanwhile, doesn't have it in his character to be anything other than a cheerleader for the war. So the Republican Party will continue to be in denial about the realities of the situation.

Speaking of which, today in reality we learn: "Highly promising figures that the administration cited to demonstrate economic progress in Iraq last fall, when Congress was considering whether to continue financing the war, cannot be substantiated by official Iraqi budget records, the Government Accountability Office reported Tuesday."

Comments

I think this is wrong. The outcome of the Michigan primary seemed to be based on domestic issues, not Iraq. Romney's approach appealed to the main-line conservative Republican base, a group that still supports the war. McCain has stronger appeal among Independents and Dems because of his domestic policy profile, and these voters tend to be less supportive of the war. You're looking at correlation without causation.

Posted by right | January 16, 2008 9:52 AM

You don't really know why that 37% disapproves of the war though. They majority of those that disapprove might do so because we haven't nuked the place and turned it into one giant piece of glass. In which case, McCain's your guy or Rudy, I suppose, but nobody wants him.

Posted by javaphil | January 16, 2008 9:52 AM

It's easy to see why at least low-information voters would conclude this.

McCain ran against Bush in 2000, so he must be the opposite-of-Bush, right?
Bush basically is the war in Iraq, right?
So McCain is against the war, QED.

You can construct a valid argument from faulty premises.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | January 16, 2008 9:53 AM

The Bush Administration lied to Congress about Iraq? Who knew?

Posted by Joel | January 16, 2008 9:55 AM

It's easy to see why at least low-information voters would conclude this.

"Low information" strikes me as unimportant. People vote for people they like. People like McCain as they move left from "Conservative." IIRC, Jon Chait argued to MY that it's not clear McCain would have invaded Iraq. Whatever else he is, Chait isn't low information.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 16, 2008 9:57 AM

But is there some sort of causal relationship here? You are presenting this as if people are thinking to themselves, "Well, I disapprove of the war, therefore I'm going to vote for McCain." Their reasoning might go something more like this: "I disapprove of the war, but all of the Republican candidates support the war, except Ron Paul and he won't win and he eats Lucky Charms. McCain is the least bad in all other respects, so I guess McCain is my only real option." Personality trumps policy for most people in any case.

Posted by jim | January 16, 2008 9:58 AM

There probably isn't a significant percentage of the electorate that is for nuking Iraq and that would express disapproval of the Iraq War because of Bush's failure to do so. For the pro-nuke people, saying you are for the war is equivalent to saying that you are for nuking the Middle East. That's been my experience, and I've rubbed up against a lot of that sort of talk.

Posted by gerontion | January 16, 2008 9:59 AM

And where do these low information voters get the idea that McCain is the anti-Bush? Could it be ... [Church Lady voice] The Media?!?!?

Why aren't the Dems. using their Congressional majority to force Bush's hand, given that so many people are against the war now? Maybe they aren't so stupid. If the media can convince people that St. John of Lincoln S&L is a straight-talking, Bush opposing maverick, then the media will also convince people that Congress hates the troops if Congress more vigorously opposes the war?

P.S. NPR did a report this morning on the problems with Homeland Security, and they found a way to blame Congress ... how convenient they do this now, especially since you know who controls the Congress now ... hmmm ?

Posted by DAS | January 16, 2008 10:00 AM

Jim's right. The quality of McCain's hawkishness isn't a well-understood phenomenon outside of the chattering class, and is obscured by all of the jingoism on display by the other republican candidates.

Posted by gerontion | January 16, 2008 10:04 AM

I think if you read your compatriot Andrew Sullivan you can get some idea of the antiwar, pro-McCain stance. Part of it surely is that being antiwar and antitorture run together, and if you don't want to vote for the only real antiwar Republican (Paul) for some reason you can at least vote against waterboarding by choosing McCain.
Personally, I'm disappointed that more antiwar voters didn't choose Paul. But the exit polls give some indication of why. People are starting to abandon candidates that they perceive can't win. Paul, Thompson and Giuliani all got only about half of the vote from people that thought they were the best choice for change (the top three finishers got more like 90% of the vote from people that favored them).

Posted by bbartlog | January 16, 2008 10:06 AM

The first comment is correct. McCain's constituency in Michigan is Independents and moderate Republicans. That's all you're seeing here.

Posted by Steve | January 16, 2008 11:34 AM

As a Michigan resident, I can tell you that in the days prior to the primary McCain was blanketing the airwaves with a "straight talk" aid in which he claimed, among other things, to have stood up to Rumsfeld about the plan for the war. That could sound a lot like "I opposed the war" to either (1) low-information voters or (2) voters who are ok with the idea of the war but think it's been botched.

Posted by vlad | January 16, 2008 11:44 AM

I think javaphil makes a good point. Those of us entirely opposed to the war, because of our obvious bias, could very easily be misreading these "feeling about the Iraq war" polls. While I'd like to believe that dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war automatically translates to a desire to see it ended now, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a significant percentage express dissatisfaction because the war has not been conducted aggressively enough.

Let's not forget that the dolchstosslegende of our defeat in Vietnam has seen renewed interest of late. I'm certain that the kind of person who would support a dangerous lunatic like John McCain would also be willing to believe that George Bush is a wussie.

Posted by Toady | January 16, 2008 12:07 PM

At least some of the antiwar sentiment is from individuals who think that the war was justified but that the administration screwed it up so badly that it is currently unwinable.

Posted by SLC | January 16, 2008 12:09 PM

Gerontin - I think javaphil made a comically hyperbolic version of a real point.

For me, the takeaway lesson of Vietnam was "get serious or get out." A voter who prefers the "get serious" option and thinks we haven't yet will tell a pollster he disapproves of the way the Iraq war is going, and wll vote for McSurge.

Posted by Ralph PHelan | January 16, 2008 12:12 PM

The above is a badly written poll question (not that that's unusual) that fails to distinguish between "disapprove because I want out" and "disapprove because I want it fought more aggressively."

If you're the latter, how would you answer this poll? On the one hand, you genuinely disapprove of the way it's being handled, but on the other hand you know that if you answer "disapprove " your answer is likely to be misinterpreted as "against the war." What to do? If it were me I'd probably just hang up on the pollster in frustration.

So these results tell us nothing.
This post should be retitled "Ah, Pollsters."

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 16, 2008 12:23 PM

For me, the takeaway lesson of Vietnam was 'get serious or get out.'

Eight years with combat troops on the ground wasn't serious? 495,000 troops (1968 peak) wasn't serious? Dropping more bombs than we did in World War II wasn't serious?

Posted by croatoan | January 16, 2008 12:52 PM

I could get into details (e.g. the bombs were dropped on the wrong places, like *not* on downtown Hanoi) but it would be rather off topic to refight that war here. Suffice it to say that I did sincerely draw that conclusion, and I am not alone (where do you think the "Powell Doctrine" came from?), and what's on topic is that the poll above is meaningless because it didn't have a box for people like me to check.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 16, 2008 1:01 PM

Most republicans against the iraq war are probably not mad enough to make it their top voting priority and stop voting for non-Ron Paul republicans. All the non-Ron Paul republicans could just seen as an amorphous pro-iraq war group. This probably just takes that issue off of the table in their calculations of which guy to support in the primaries.

Posted by pjgoober | January 16, 2008 3:39 PM

Here is a link to the exit poll.

On the issues:

13% said illegal immigration was paramount - McCain loses to Romney 18 to 39.

17% said the war in Iraq: McCain beats Romney 41-31.

55% cited the economy, stupid - McCain lost here by 29-42.

11% went with terrorism, and McCain tied Romney with 31 each.

Sliced a different way, 60% said issues were more important - McCain lost this group 23-38.

But the 40% who went with character backed McCain 41-37.

Yet a third look - folks who don't like Bush do like McCain - 53% had a positive view of BushCo and McCain lost this group by 24-45.

But 47% don't care for Bush, and here McCain won by 37-28.

All in all, I agree that this "approve of the war" question is absurdly vague - does it mean approve/disapprove of the initial decision to invade, the mismanaged occupation, the latest surge, or what?

Personally I think it would be very easy to disapprove of Bush's handling of the war yet support a more aggressive/more competent effort as advocated by McCain, who wanted more troops years ago, so these exit polls don't prompt an "Ahh, our befuddled electorate" reaction from me.

Posted by Tom Maguire | January 16, 2008 4:51 PM

H.L. Mencken once said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. A few months ago O'Hanlon & Pollack were portraying themselves as former "fierce critics" of the Iraq War who were now recanting their opposition and supporting the "surge". The MSM mostly parroted their story. A simple Google search would have shown that O'Hanlon and Pollack were in fact long-time supporters of the war, and even original supporters of the surge idea. So it should come as no surprise that many are confused about McCain and the War.

Posted by Bob Weber | January 16, 2008 5:23 PM