Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who do you think should be Sen. John McCain's running mate should be in November?

I picked the names on the list based on who's recived the most attention as possible candidates for the VP slot.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Who do you think should be Sen. John McCain's running mate should be in November?

I picked the names on the list based on who's recived the most attention as possible candidates for the VP slot.
I would say Mitt Romney, even though Huckabee would be my preference. Romney has experience in the market, and that is what McCain is lacking in his campaign. Also, with Romney's hold on conservatives, he could help McCain with that part of the Party, albeit Huckabee would be better in that regard.

I think Huckabee would be a better balance to the ticket, but the most intense speculation seems to be reserved for Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist.

I'd say Rudy Giullani or Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I think Huckabee would be a better balance to the ticket, but the most intense speculation seems to be reserved for Govs. Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist.
Possibly, I haven't looked too much into Pawlenty and Crist. On Huckabee, the only problem I could see would that a ticket with him on it might hurt McCain's reputation with moderates and independents; who view him as overly religious.

If Huckabee was on the ticket, I would jump for joy. Unfortunately, i doubt it will happen

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'd say Rudy Giullani or Ron Paul.
Paul is a maybe, but Giulliani is out of the question (in my opinion). He really does not have as many supporters as Romney or Huckabee because he was eliminated early. Also, Giulliani caters to more moderate republicans, like McCain; and I doubt McCain would leave the more conservative ends of the party out in the cold.

I didn't mind Giullani and Paul look interesting in youtube.

But truth be told....it's all the same to me.

That's all I have to say.

I don't know if I'd be upset or happy with Ron Paul in that position.


Obviously not going to happen.

No way. Paul would never do it.

George W. Bush.

Giuliani's a covert liberal operative. I'm not sure what people actually consider him a Republican.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Possibly, I haven't looked too much into Pawlenty and Crist. On Huckabee, the only problem I could see would that a ticket with him on it might hurt McCain's reputation with moderates and independents; who view him as overly religious.

If Huckabee was on the ticket, I would jump for joy. Unfortunately, i doubt it will happen Romney's a mormon, and withdrew because he thought Americans wouldn't want a mormon as president.

Huckabee would appeal to the more Conservative voters, but I think McCain will choose Crist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know if I'd be upset or happy with Ron Paul in that position.


Obviously not going to happen.

Ironically, he ran as a Republican this election. The Libertarian Party nominated someone else as their candidate. I can't remember him for the life of me, but meh.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Paul is a maybe, but Giulliani is out of the question (in my opinion). He really does not have as many supporters as Romney or Huckabee because he was eliminated early. Also, Giulliani caters to more moderate republicans, like McCain; and I doubt McCain would leave the more conservative ends of the party out in the cold.
So? Who else is there that the conservative republicans will be voting for? They aren't voting democrat. At worst he could end up with some kind of "Ralph Nader" problem.

If Mr.Paul were to be asked to be the VP and he said yes, then he would become the biggest hypocrite in this election.

I want Huckabee. Mainly because i'm a democrat and think he'd drag their ticket down. If I wanted the republicans to win, maybe Romney.

Romney.

He has the most economic experience of anyone in the election.

Then he should be Treasury Secretary.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ironically, he ran as a Republican this election. The Libertarian Party nominated someone else as their candidate. I can't remember him for the life of me, but meh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr


Originally posted by Devil King
If Mr.Paul were to be asked to be the VP and he said yes, then he would become the biggest hypocrite in this election.

True, yet I'd still appreciate his excellent views.

Ron Paul would probably wiegh McCain's ticket down, considering how unpopular he is, and that's good, because I do not want McCain to win.
What I find quite funny is that he's even older than McCain!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Then he should be Treasury Secretary.

Or VP

Originally posted by Devil King
If Mr.Paul were to be asked to be the VP and he said yes, then he would become the biggest hypocrite in this election.

Because he opposes the war?

If Paul becomes the Veep, I'm sure him and "McSlain" could reach a compromise.

Here's an article arguing that McCain should pick Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_vp_case_for_gov_sarah_pali.html

Originally posted by King Kandy
I want Huckabee. Mainly because i'm a democrat and think he'd drag their ticket down. If I wanted the republicans to win, maybe Romney.

Yes, yes, the conservative pastor Huckabee would totally drag McCain's ticket down by bringing all his grassroots supporters who continued to vote for him over McCain in states where Huckabee got 10-12% of the vote when he wasn't EVEN RUNNING anymore would totally suck for McCain.

Add to that those pesky evangelicals in the country (100 million, at last count or 1/3 of the country) and we're talking about a real problem for McCain, youbetcha.


I hope and pray that he picks the Huck. If for nothing else than the fact that we'd get some more "Chuck Norris approved" campaign ads.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because he opposes the war?

Because he opposes the war, wants to eliminate 1/3 or more of the federal government and cut the budget while seriously re-writing the tax code.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, yes, the conservative pastor Huckabee would totally drag McCain's ticket down by bringing all his grassroots supporters who continued to vote for him over McCain in states where Huckabee got 10-12% of the vote when he wasn't EVEN RUNNING anymore would totally suck for McCain.

Add to that those pesky evangelicals in the country (100 million, at last count or 1/3 of the country) and we're talking about a real problem for McCain, youbetcha.


I hope and pray that he picks the Huck. If for nothing else than the fact that we'd get some more "Chuck Norris approved" campaign ads.
He'd since 1/3rd of the country and alienate the other 2/3rds. None of the liberal/moderate republicans will support him and no independent voters or "turncoat" democrats will. I guarantee that he will lose horribly if he chooses Huckabee.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He'd since 1/3rd of the country and alienate the other 2/3rds. None of the liberal/moderate republicans will support him and no independent voters or "turncoat" democrats will. I guarantee that he will lose horribly if he chooses Huckabee.

False.

None of those independants or moderate republicans will leave because they don't want liberal Obama. They like McCain.

McCain is actually very conservative, if you look at his voting record on marriage and abortion. He's also already said he'd appoint strict judges who won't legsilate from the bench. Huckabee adds nothing to his campaign that he doesn't already have (except reasurrance for evangelicals), so why would the independants and moderates leave?

With his position on Iraq being "full steam ahead", if a moderate or independant has already decided that they still want to vote for him, I don't see where Huckabee would change their mind to voting for the liberal lawyer from Chicago who has no experience on the world stage.

Huckabee helps that campaign, as far as I can see.

Never said they will vote Obama, no way in hell will that happen. I think many will abstain from the election entirely. Nothing about policies but Huckabee is so extreme and has made such absurd comments that will alienate anyone who isn't uber-conservative like "We need to change the constitution to be in line with the bible" and similar things. Kiss all non-fundamentalist republicans goodbye.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Here's an article arguing that McCain should pick Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_vp_case_for_gov_sarah_pali.html It could be a mistake to choose someone who so clearly highlights McCain's weaknesses; but considering an increase in apathy and antipathy from white women voters for Obama it may be a wise move.

The Sarah Palin bit in particular gave me a chuckle.
http://assets.236.com/images/photo2/2897/original/original.jpg

it may as well be lieberman since he's been swinging from mccain's cock for months now

The case for and against Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

For

Against

The Case for and Against Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

For

Against

The case For and Against Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Do Huckabee as well.

The guy who writes the blog hasn't posted one for Huckabee yet. srug

If I can find an article, I'll post it.

Well, no biggie. He's being counted out by all major news outlets, just as he was in the primary.

I think it's foolish, as he has a large group of supporters, many of whom continued to vote for him over McCain in elections when he had no chance and even after he was out of the race!

Certainly it would help to consolidate the evangelical vote and give McCain freedom to worry about keeping the independents. With Huck, he wouldn't have to do the selling to the evangelicals, they'd get the point.

It also seems to me a slight bias against that voting bloc/community that the media ignores Huckabee for VP, because the media wants him to pick anybody else so that he won't get them all and Obama will win.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well, no biggie. He's being counted out by all major news outlets, just as he was in the primary.

I think it's foolish, as he has a large group of supporters, many of whom continued to vote for him over McCain in elections when he had no chance and even after he was out of the race!

Certainly it would help to consolidate the evangelical vote and give McCain freedom to worry about keeping the independents. With Huck, he wouldn't have to do the selling to the evangelicals, they'd get the point.

It also seems to me a slight bias against that voting bloc/community that the media ignores Huckabee for VP, because the media wants him to pick anybody else so that he won't get them all and Obama will win.

Just my opinion. Or there's the fact that McCain knows he won't win over any independents or moderate Democrats with an evangelical Baptist minister Arkansan Governor. Sure, it'd help him with the rank and file Republicans, but McCain won't win on that alone.

Putting Huckabee on the ticket won't leave McCain "free" to court independents, it will drive them away.

And the liberal bias in media is a myth.

Maybe he'd lose some independents, but there are plenty of them that just plain won't vote for Obama, due to lack of experience and bad policies/voting history. (or paying attention to things like the Rev. Wright stuff, general dissatisfaction with the candidate)

So maybe those particular independents wouldn't vote for McCain, but they might stay home. (some would still support him)

On the other hand, he'd gain the full evangelical vote, and take the election like Bush did in 2004, even with movies in theatres, music videos on TV, and every known face in the world calling for votes for Kerry.

Again, just my opinion.

Huckabee would change it back to a typical conservative republican v.s. liberal democrat election...and it'd be tight, but my wager is that conservatives would win.

Romney would help out in the northeast, Michigan, and he's Mormon so that does help in the west. He's been a Governor which serves as relatively good experience compared to most Senators, and he's young.
But he's a snake, too.

When put up against Huckabee, Romney would more likely help with a swing state like Michigan and some New England states as well. And since McCain opted to raise money publicly he'll need more financial help, and that's where Romney, who is well off, would be more than happy to contribute.

Sorry about the double post. I realized my original needed a little more relevance.

Given McCain's advanced age, who he picks as a running mate is VERY important. Romney would be the best choice. I hope to hell it isn't Huckabee, the last thing we need is a religious nut in position of serious power.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
due to lack of experience and bad policies/voting history. Lack of experience is bullshit and bad voting history? I'd ask "are you serious?" but obviously you are. Infact, I think most independants like Obama (or favour him over McCain) opinion polls have Obama with a huge lead over McCain.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
On the other hand, he'd gain the full evangelical vote, and take the election like Bush did in 2004, even with movies in theatres, music videos on TV, and every known face in the world calling for votes for Kerry. Plus voting machines like the ones in Florida and Ohio and removing likely Democrat voters from the ballot.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, just my opinion.

Huckabee would change it back to a typical conservative republican v.s. liberal democrat election...and it'd be tight, but my wager is that conservatives would win. Once again, look at the opinion polls.

CBS News/NY Times -- July 7-14, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 45% -- John McCain -- 39% -- +6
Gallup Daily -- July 11-13, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 46% -- John McCain -- 43% -- +3
ABC News/Wash Post -- July 10-13, -- 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 49% -- John McCain -- 46% -- +3
Reuters/Zogby -- July 9-13, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 47% -- John McCain -- 40% -- +7
Quinnipiac -- July 8-13, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 50% -- John McCain 41% -- +9
Newsweek -- July 9-10, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 44% -- John McCain -- 41% -- +3
CNN -- June 26-29, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 50% -- John McCain -- 45% -- +5
Mclaughlin & Associates -- June 26-29, 2008 -- Barack Obama - 46% -- John McCain -- 38% -- +8
Rasmussen Reports Tracking June 26-28, 2008 Barack Obama 49% -- John McCain -- 43% -- +6
Gallup Daily -- June 25-26&28 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 46% -- John McCain -- 42% -- +4
The Times/Bloomberg Poll -- June 19-23, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 49% -- John McCain -- 37% -- +12
Newsweek -- June 18-19, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 51% -- John McCain -- 36% -- +15
Rasmussen Reports Tracking -- June 17-19, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 48% -- John McCain -- 44% -- +4
USA Today/Gallup -- June 15-19, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 50% -- John McCain -- 44% -- +6
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics -- June 17-18, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 45% -- John McCain -- 41% -- +4
Reuters/Zogby -- June 12-14, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 47% -- John McCain -- 42% -- +5
NBC News/Wall Street Journal -- June 11, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 47% -- John McCain -- 41% -- +6
Rasmussen Reports Tracking -- June 9, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 50% -- John McCain -- 44% -- +6
Gallup Daily -- June 9, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 48% John McCain -- 42% -- +6

Lombardo Consulting Group
May 26-28, 2008 -- Barack Obama -- 44% -- John McCain -- 40% -- +4

For example.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has effectively taken himself out of the running:
Jindal Says He's not Interested in No. 2 Spot with McCain (Fox News)

But washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza is skeptical:
Jindal Campaigning for Veep? (washingtonpost.com)

Every week, washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza rates the 5 most likely choices (he believes) for VP for both Obama and McCain.

The Republicans for this week:

5. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
4. South Dakota Senator John Thune
3. Rob Portman, former Congressman from Ohio, former Director of the OMB, former U.S. Trade Representative
2. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
1. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/veepstakes_line_its_now_or_nev.html

Originally posted by Strangelove


5. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal


He wants to castrate all first-time sex offenders. I like that.

The Cases For and Against Rob Portman, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget, former U.S. Trade Representative, and former U.S. Rep. from Ohio.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He wants to castrate all first-time sex offenders. I like that. It may seem like a good idea, but it's categorically prohibited by the 8th Amendment.

I don't see how that could ever be considered a good idea, but then again, I don't have the mentality of a spoon fed *******.

What I meant was I understand how other people would think it's a good idea. I too find it both abhorrent and ignorant.

Yeah, wasn't really refering to you Strangelove, I know you wouldn't think something that dumb. Just general public.

Okay, just checking.

Originally posted by Strangelove
It may seem like a good idea, but it's categorically prohibited by the 8th Amendment.

But the problem with the 8th, is that "cruel and unusual" isn't very clear cut. Here in AZ we still have the gas chamber as a legal form of execution. So I don't see why LA, who has some of the harshest punishments in the country, can't turn child rapists into eunuchs.

I'm sure I said spoon fed assholes, not general public, but whatever.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But the problem with the 8th, is that "cruel and unusual" isn't very clear cut. Here in AZ we still have the gas chamber as a legal form of execution. So I don't see why LA, who has some of the harshest punishments in the country, can't turn child rapists into eunuchs.

You just have to love that Constitution.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But the problem with the 8th, is that "cruel and unusual" isn't very clear cut. Here in AZ we still have the gas chamber as a legal form of execution. So I don't see why LA, who has some of the harshest punishments in the country, can't turn child rapists into eunuchs. Yes well, states can technically do whatever they want, until someone sues the state or the government. State and federal courts' jurisdictions are appellate (laws can only be overturned if they are challenged). In my view, the Arizona death penalty should be struck down (hell, in my opinion, the death penalty period is wrong), but it just hasn't been challenged yet. If Gov. Jindal tries to castrate sex offenders, you can be sure it would be challeneged almost immediately.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Yes well, states can technically do whatever they want, until someone sues the state or the government. State and federal courts' jurisdictions are appellate (laws can only be overturned if they are challenged). In my view, the Arizona death penalty should be struck down (hell, in my opinion, the death penalty period is wrong), but it just hasn't been challenged yet. If Gov. Jindal tries to castrate sex offenders, you can be sure it would be challeneged almost immediately.

It would be protested by middle-aged hippies in CA who's opinion doesn't really matter, but who in LA will? Take a look at their legal system: lethal force on trespassers is legal just like TX, they have Jessica's Law, and Angola is the worst prison in the nation with an average inmate sentence of 80 years. If we were talking VT or CO, I would agree that it would be an uphill battle to get it ratified, but not in the Bayou State. And Jindal's really serious, its not just speculative coffee talk.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It would be protested by middle-aged hippies in CA who's opinion doesn't really matter, but who in LA will? Take a look at their legal system: lethal force on trespassers is legal just like TX, they have Jessica's Law, and Angola is the worst prison in the nation with an average inmate sentence of 80 years. If we were talking VT or CO, I would agree that it would be an uphill battle to get it ratified, but not in the Bayou State. And Jindal's really serious, its not just speculative coffee talk.

You mean it would be protested by "San Francisco politics"?

Originally posted by Devil King
You mean it would be protested by "San Francisco politics"?

Where that Salvadorian killed the father and two sons? Yeah.

Gruesome Newsom politics.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It would be protested by middle-aged hippies in CA who's opinion doesn't really matter, but who in LA will? You know there are liberals in every state, right? Hell, they don't even have to liberals. Anyone can look at a law where the victims get castrated and think "Hey...that's not right."

Originally posted by Strangelove
You know there are liberals in every state, right? Hell, they don't even have to liberals. Anyone can look at a law where the victims get castrated and think "Hey...that's not right."

How do out-of-state votes matter in LA issues?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How do out-of-state votes matter in LA issues?

Federal laws?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How do out-of-state votes matter in LA issues? Hardly anything. But Do you really think no one in Louisiana would object to a castration law?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Where that Salvadorian killed the father and two sons? Yeah.

Gruesome Newsom politics.

Would it help to know that my cousin went to school and was the best-of-friends with Mr. Newsom? My mother still refers to him as an anti-christ. I might add that she speaks poorly of Nancy Pelosi, despite her knowing not one damed thing about her.

But yes, where well-meaning illegal immigrants are not hunted down and deported. I'm not opposed to legal immigration; I just think that the whole-sale conclusion drawn against them is absurd. They can't all be murderers or leeches.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Hardly anything. But Do you really think no one in Louisiana would object to a castration law?

Of course there will be some dissenters, especially in a liberal hive like 'Nawlins'. But I'm pretty confident that Louisiana's legislature will rubberstamp it. I don't see many people raising their voice to defend a child rapist, definitely not the lawmakers in that state.

Originally posted by Devil King
Would it help to know that my cousin went to school and was the best-of-friends with Mr. Newsom? My mother still refers to him as an anti-christ. I might add that she speaks poorly of Nancy Pelosi, despite her knowing not one damed thing about her.

But yes, where well-meaning illegal immigrants are not hunted down and deported. I'm not opposed to legal immigration; I just think that the whole-sale conclusion drawn against them is absurd. They can't all be murderers or leeches.

That's all true, but Newsom should still resign.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

That's all true, but Newsom should still resign.

I take it you won't be voting for him when he runs for the Oval...

I don't think he ever will. And if he does, he'll be a joke candidate like Perot or Nader.

Originally posted by Robtard
I take it you won't be voting for him when he runs for the Oval... He's actually supposedly interested in running for Governor of California, from what I heard. Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course there will be some dissenters, especially in a liberal hive like 'Nawlins'. But I'm pretty confident that Louisiana's legislature will rubberstamp it. I don't see many people raising their voice to defend a child rapist, definitely not the lawmakers in that state. Doesn't mean the courts will agree.

Chris Cillizza of washingtonpost.com's Veepstakes "Line"

5. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
4. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
3. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman (Independent)
2. Former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge
1. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/friday_veepstakes_line_crunch.html?hpid=topnews

I think Tim would be the best, if not him, he'll probably run for pres in 4 years.

Mark Halperin of Time Magazine lists the "Head and Heart" picks for McCain.

Head - Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA)
Heart - Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), Tom Ridge (PA)
Head/Heart - Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)

http://thepage.time.com/halperin%E2%80%99s-take-mccain-and-obama-look-for-running-mates/

Bah. I still say he should go with Huckabee.

Traditionalists outnumber secular progressives 3 to 1.

If properly motivated to vote they'll hand McCain the election.

He should pick the Huck.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Bah. I still say he should go with Huckabee.

Traditionalists outnumber secular progressives 3 to 1.

If properly motivated to vote they'll hand McCain the election.

He should pick the Huck. Why don't you just wait 4 years and then vote for Huck?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Bah. I still say he should go with Huckabee.

Traditionalists outnumber secular progressives 3 to 1.

If properly motivated to vote they'll hand McCain the election.

He should pick the Huck. In the United States, elections are won in the center. Huckabee is a slap in the face to the center.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Bah. I still say he should go with Huckabee.

Traditionalists outnumber secular progressives 3 to 1.

If properly motivated to vote they'll hand McCain the election.

He should pick the Huck.

Your sig explains it all...

I thought Huckabee made it clear that he doesn't want to. I still say he should pick Jindal.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Why don't you just wait 4 years and then vote for Huck?

I'll probably have to. Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your sig explains it all... Thanks. Originally posted by Strangelove
In the United States, elections are won in the center. Huckabee is a slap in the face to the center. Right, because Bush won 2004 with the first absolute majority of the popular vote in 16 years because he appealed to the center.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Right, because Bush won 2004 with the first absolute majority of the popular vote in 16 years because he appealed to the center. No, he won because the center was stupid.

Originally posted by Strangelove
No, he won because the center was stupid. That was pretty funny.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Right, because Bush won 2004 with the first absolute majority of the popular vote in 16 years because he appealed to the center.

Somewhere between your position and Strangelove's position has to be the truth. Either you're right and the evangelicals turned out in massive numbers and won Bush the presidency or Strangelove is most on target with the notion that the the entire center was duped into being scared and thinking Bush was going to pull a Batman and save us single-handedly. If we were talking about 2000 elections, I might say you were right, but for 2004 elections, I would say he was right. Either way, I'd love to see some numbers. Some difinitive, unbiased numbers. Not numbers that come from some reigious website that wants to continue to pat istelf on the back while not realizing they're stirred up every decade or so to mobilize during an election, while at the same time never, ever getting a single damned thing they want; like homosexuals in jail, abortion illegalized, mandatory attenance every week at some southern baptist sunday school class or every child in Jesus camp for the summer and all other religions banned in the United States or no black people on television. And now that they've served their short-term purpose, the Republicans seem to be doing everything they can to sweep the fundies under the rug. Shouldn't that tell you that the majority of the country is in the center and are tired of hearing what they want and how the rest of us should act?


What worked in both of Mr. Bush's elections was that his team was able to get so many people in this country to feel ashamed of their progess in the 90's by turning it into some pact with the devil and guilting us over Bill Clinton getting a blowjob.

Search google video for "The power of nightmares", it basically explains how Republicans (and war time democrats like Roosevelt and Johnson) win elections.

Originally posted by Devil King
And now that they've served their short-term purpose, the Republicans seem to be doing everything they can to sweep the fundies under the rug.

indeed

it seems when it comes to religion and politics, words speak much louder than actions

after campaigning in churches as Jesus in a 3 piece, politicians rarely ever behave as a Christian in office. Its actually really sad that such a large portion of the population is duped.

Then again, Terry Schiavo...

Originally posted by Devil King
Somewhere between your position and Strangelove's position has to be the truth. Either you're right and the evangelicals turned out in massive numbers and won Bush the presidency or Strangelove is most on target with the notion that the the entire center was duped into being scared and thinking Bush was going to pull a Batman and save us single-handedly. If we were talking about 2000 elections, I might say you were right, but for 2004 elections, I would say he was right. Either way, I'd love to see some numbers. Some difinitive, unbiased numbers.What worked in both of Mr. Bush's elections was that his team was able to get so many people in this country to feel ashamed of their progess in the 90's by turning it into some pact with the devil and guilting us over Bill Clinton getting a blowjob.

Washington post said that Bush won 79% of the 26.5 mil evangelical voters and 52% of the 31 mil catholic vote.

Or roughly 35 mil votes. Trying to find how much of the center he won and I'll post that.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html

Interesting to note: Many polls put the number of evangelicals in USA at 100 mil (about 1/3 of the population) but only 26.5 mil of them voted in 2004. (or identified themselves as such in the polling)

Imagine if they could all be mobilized...they would be the single largest voting bloc.

States like West Virginia, Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa and Missouri would've probably been won if it weren't for the evangelical vote.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Trying to find how much of the center he won and I'll post that.

Imagine if they could all be mobilized...they would be the single largest voting bloc.

I look forward to your overall numbers post, as that's what I'm actually addressing.

I don't have to imagine them all being mobilized. I saw it in the 2000 elections. You're free to argue that wasn't the numbers represented in your figures, but there's no doubt in my mind or in my experience that the 2000 elections were decided by involving non-taxed, non-federal or state institutions like churches.

And in case anyone was wondering, I thought that the "forum" tonight was an absolute mockery of the process. This wasn't a "forum" for discussion. It was a presidential debate presented to us like a fireside chat. Obama twisted in the wind for an hour while John McCain was given the chance to work out his very careful and catered responses. What's more, for the first time I am concerned about Mr. Obama being the nominee over Mrs. Clinton. I understand he was addressing an audience for which his responses would have to be tailored, but Mrs. Clinton would have squashed the idea of this kind of setting before it got off the ground.

I think we should rule out Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPGnJmbDq08&feature=related

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Washington post said that Bush won 79% of the 26.5 mil evangelical voters and 52% of the 31 mil catholic vote.

Or roughly 35 mil votes. Trying to find how much of the center he won and I'll post that.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html

Interesting to note: Many polls put the number of evangelicals in USA at 100 mil (about 1/3 of the population) but only 26.5 mil of them voted in 2004. (or identified themselves as such in the polling)

Imagine if they could all be mobilized...they would be the single largest voting bloc.
And not all evangelicals would vote Republican considering how exceedingly ambiguous the term is, so it wouldn't be a voters "block".

Closing this thread, please take all talks to this thread -- http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t490006.html