Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not true at all. McCain and Romney were by leaps and bounds the best of the bunch.
Yup.
I can only wonder how McCain would have done with Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman was a despised independent by the Democratic party's liberals. But he still had a lot of cred with independents and was a well known name with the non-committed.
A former Democratic VP candidate running with a Republican could have been a powerful tool in smart conservative hands, and among the Dem moderates, Lieberman still was more favorable to many than either Clinton or Obama.
If the Repubs had not been so concerned with purity, I think 2008 may have been much closer.
If that pair managed to pull off the election, it could be the Democrats now kicking and scrambling on the ground, looking for a way out of the party split, not the Republicans. Running a female VP wasn't brand new, but running a former Democrat? Now THAT's being a real true maverick!
Quitty the Moose Slayer stirred things up, but not in a good way. Maybe one of the gals who actually won a beauty contest and are now running will do better for the GOP in the future. At any rate, the beauty queens will have quite a while to establish themselves now. Maybe one will get a shot in 2020 or 2024.
Nobody would've beaten Obama in 2008. There were too many factors at play- Bush's unpopularity, continuing GOP congressional scandals, the economy, etc. McCain to his credit kept it in the realm of a Bush/Duakis victory rather than the Reagan/Mondale landslide it would've been otherwise. Lieberman on the ticket likely would've made things worse by turning off the flavor-aid drinkers Caribou Barbie appealed to.
The worst thing now coming to the light is that Obomavomit had a lot of cheating in his favor. Now with the IRS scanals, and the way they prevented a lot of conservatives from becoming a 501(c) (3) organization, this kept them from being all they could be. If those organizations would have been allowed to be established, they might have been able to get forth their message and their work, and then put a dent in the asswipe that got elected thru CHEATING. We conservatives KNEW it, back then,,, and now the chickens are coming home to roost, as we knew would happen.
Unless Obomavomit does an executive order which will allow him a 3rd term - and yes I've been ridiculed for such a thing - but NOW i wonder if those same scoffers are now thinking it "could" happen with all the other ****e that's been allowed in government with all these scandals.. but I think perhaps it wont happen.
However, if the low information voters and the cheaters get their way again, we will have another asswipe elected in government and more of the same of obomavomit will trickle its way into government AGAIN. Wish people would care enough to learn.
Maybe Obamacare will hit them so hard in the pocketbook, maybe THAT will wake them up.
and many of us probably share your views. Would I support her? I don't know but her color, sex or possible sexual orientation would have no baring on who I would support. I just don't think many people on the extreme left really understand the Republican party and how generally inclusive we really are.
If the GOP was as inclusive as you suggest than more office holders would actually hold the more inclusive positions. If you look at members of Congress and the Senate that have come out in favor of same-sex marriage, the VAST majority have been Democrats. If you look at the votes in the states that have legalized gay marriage, the votes in the legislature in those states have been largely among party lines. The Illinois GOP basically just forced the party's chairman to resign due to his support of same-sex marriage. In the 2012 Primaries, the vast majority of the GOP field wanted to amend the Constitution to write discrimination against gays into it, and the ones that didn't are often called RINO's. Its not just about this issue, but the GOP is going to have a long-term problem if candidate after candidate they throw up is hostile against gays.
If the GOP was as inclusive as you suggest than more office holders would actually hold the more inclusive positions. If you look at members of Congress and the Senate that have come out in favor of same-sex marriage, the VAST majority have been Democrats. If you look at the votes in the states that have legalized gay marriage, the votes in the legislature in those states have been largely among party lines. The Illinois GOP basically just forced the party's chairman to resign due to his support of same-sex marriage. In the 2012 Primaries, the vast majority of the GOP field wanted to amend the Constitution to write discrimination against gays into it, and the ones that didn't are often called RINO's. Its not just about this issue, but the GOP is going to have a long-term problem if candidate after candidate they throw up is hostile against gays.
1) Gay rights isn't the top issue for many people, especially people older than 30. They may support gay rights but that isn't going to be their make or break issue.
2) Supporting gay marriage hasn't been a political requirement for very long yet. It was just a couple of years ago Obama was still against it. A lot of Republicans now support civil unions and that was actually the liberal position ten years ago.
3) Hopefully the supreme court will decide this issue soon so it will no longer be the huge wedge it is now. That is how its going to be decided anyways. It doesn't matter whether we elect pro-gay marriage candidates or not, it is coming and its going to come by a court ruling.
1) Gay rights isn't the top issue for many people, especially people older than 30. They may support gay rights but that isn't going to be their make or break issue.
2) Supporting gay marriage hasn't been a political requirement for very long yet. It was just a couple of years ago Obama was still against it. A lot of Republicans now support civil unions and that was actually the liberal position ten years ago.
3) Hopefully the supreme court will decide this issue soon so it will no longer be the huge wedge it is now. That is how its going to be decided anyways. It doesn't matter whether we elect pro-gay marriage candidates or not, it is coming and its going to come by a court ruling.
1. I agree to an extent, however even to those who its not a big issue for, the vitriol some of those opposed to it spew, turns them off to the candidate completely.
2. Granted the issue of gay marriage has only helped supporters out politically recently, however my point had more to do with the rhetoric and how far those who are against it are willing to go. Simply being against same-sex marriage is one thing, actively fighting against in favoring Amendments to the U.S Constitution banning it is something entirely different.
The problem with saying X issue isn't a thing with people over Y age is with every cycle more and more people over Y age do see X issue as a litmus test for taking a politician seriously, since those formerly under Y age voters are now over Y age and increasingly make up the political mainstream.
The under 30 vote in 2008, they're going to be pushing 40 in 2016 and hitting the median voter age in 2020. That's two elections from now. Writing them off as not mattering is electoral suicide when they make up half of the electorate in a couple cycles. In fact if you subdivide further, there's a marked political difference in the under 40 vote as of last year, so really we're getting to the huge median voter shift in 2016.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
