Discarded: Is running on the Iraq War the best chance for the GOP in '06?

already on the site

When it comes to issues, simpler = better.

Try this: 

What effect will the Iraq War have on the GOP performance in '06?
(a) Positive
(b) Negative
(c) No meaningful effect.
(d) ...

i think this is kind of boring

As it stands, this issue duplicates another proposed question we already have up, "What issue should the GOP focus on to defeat the Democrats in '06?" and I think that one covers the "best issue" for the GOP questions better by giving us choices.

JT's rewording keeps this issue in the running though.  And within the topic of the "GOP's Election Strategy", why shouldn't we use their slang (ie. War on Terror)?  It seems fitting.  We're talking in Republican terms about Republican strategies.  I have no problem with War on Terror encapsulating Iraq and national security.

My concern with JT's question is that, due to a general drop in public support, it seems potentially biased toward the "No" answer.

Also, I just thought of an alternative phrasing. I don't know if I prefer this, but it's something to think about:

Will national security be a strong issue for Republican candidates in '06?

I like Jacki's proposal here, but some of you may have noticed by now that I'm a stickler for the conditional tense. Therefore I hereby propose that the question read "Would running on..." not "Will." Because 'will' assumes that they will definitely do so.

It seems to me that everyone agreed to change this issue to Is running on the War on Terror going to be as successful for the Republicans in 2006 as it was in 2004.  I think this one needs to go back to the drawing board.  first, i am not a fan of the phrase "war on terror," which seems to be the phrase you all agree should replace Iraq War.    What exactly is the war on terror?  can it be appropriately defined?  Just because Bush likes to use the phrase does not mean the rest of us have to adopt it.  Everytime I catch myself use the phrase I regret it. I would prefer replacing it with "national security"  I would be more comfortable approving:

Will campaigning on issues of national security be successful for Republicans in 2006? 

I do not think we need the 2004 comparison. 

My other problem with the issue is that the person that originally proposed it couched it in terms of the war in Iraq. In my mind, there is a major distinction between the war on terror, national security and the war in iraq. The war in Iraq is not the same as the War on Terror.  Republicans know it and I doubt that their platforms are going to focus on Iraq!!!  My point is the issue relating to Iraq seems to be its own issue while the revision Clark proposes and the one that most people agreed on in their comments is a second issue.  Does that make sense?

I like the way JT just phrased it.  Lets see if that can be confirmed unless we get another perspective.

It seems using the War on Terror should cover all the territory. That's why we invaded Iraq, and it's why our government is ignoring the law to spy on Americans.

I like esperanto's thought on referencing the success Republicans had with this in 2004. How about, "Will emphasizing the War on Terror be as successful for Republicans in 2006 as it was in 2004?"

I think it makes sense to have an issue here to parallel the issue under the Dems' strategy, regarding what issue(s) they should focus on, once we get the kinks worked out on that. What's interesting to me about this issue, though, is that the GOP to a large extent ran on Iraq/national security/war on terror in 2004 and it paid off... it seems this question is asking, can that strategy work again? If that is what it's asking, I think the wording needs to be clarified.

Maybe...What issue gives the GOP the best chance to win in '06?

-Iraq

-govt. spying

-abortion

-economy