Are 2004 and 1988 the last two times the candidate who was perceived as more hawkish won?

[darklordoftech]

?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Biden could be percieved as more hawkish than Trump in 2020 but less isolationist for sure.

[Ragnaroni]

?

Obama 2012 was unironically kinda hawkish while Trump 2020 was surprisingly dovish. I think that the old idea that Republicans = hawkish and Democrats = dovish is slowly becoming obsolete.

[darklordoftech]

?

Obama 2012 was unironically kinda hawkish while Trump 2020 was surprisingly dovish. I think that the old idea that Republicans = hawkish and Democrats = dovish is slowly becoming obsolete.

Obama definitely wasn’t perceived as more hawkish than Romney.

[Suburbia]

Yes and both Bushes won the popular vote.

[dw93]

Biden was more hawkish than Trump on Russia.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Biden was more hawkish than Trump on Russia.

Less on China , Iran or even Venezuela though.

[darklordoftech]

Yes and both Bushes won the popular vote.

Makes me think being perceived as a hawk harms a candidate’s electoral college vote more than it harms their popular vote.

[Suburbia]

Yes and both Bushes won the popular vote.

Makes me think being perceived as a hawk harms a candidate’s electoral college vote more tban it harms their popular vote.

It might, nowadays, since the wars are unpopular, but in 1988 and 2004 America was rah-rah over wars. People realize wars are a sham now, so it may hurt, depending on the candidate.

[Pericles]

1992, 1996 and 2000 were not about foreign policy at all. 2016 is incredibly weird if you're trying to define where the candidates stood on foreign policy. 2008 was the only recent election where both the more dovish candidate won and foreign policy was clearly a major, vote-changing issue.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

1992, 1996 and 2000 were not about foreign policy at all. 2016 is incredibly weird if you're trying to define where the candidates stood on foreign policy. 2008 was the only recent election where both the more dovish candidate won and foreign policy was clearly a major, vote-changing issue.

A focus on foreign policy was helping McCain, the shift to a focus on the economy is what doomed him.

[Suburbia]

1992, 1996 and 2000 were not about foreign policy at all. 2016 is incredibly weird if you're trying to define where the candidates stood on foreign policy. 2008 was the only recent election where both the more dovish candidate won and foreign policy was clearly a major, vote-changing issue.

A focus on foreign policy was helping McCain, the shift to a focus on the economy is what doomed him.

Actually foreign policy hurt McCain as well, he was a warmonger. By 2008, America was tired of the wars. Really tired. No Republican was going to win in 2008 unless John Edwards was the Democratic nominee..

McCain should have won in 2000.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

1992, 1996 and 2000 were not about foreign policy at all. 2016 is incredibly weird if you're trying to define where the candidates stood on foreign policy. 2008 was the only recent election where both the more dovish candidate won and foreign policy was clearly a major, vote-changing issue.

A focus on foreign policy was helping McCain, the shift to a focus on the economy is what doomed him.

Actually foreign policy hurt McCain as well, he was a warmonger. By 2008, America was tired of the wars. Really tired. No Republican was going to win in 2008 unless John Edwards was the Democratic nominee..

McCain should have won in 2000.

McCain differentiated himself from Bush by criticizing his administration, especially Rumsfeld, on their Iraq strategy. He was a big proponent of the surge, which by the fall of 2008 was clearly working (Obama and Hillary even admitted so in private).