Bill Swerski Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I think that this is correct... especially if McCain or Huckabee end up as the Republican candidate. Neither of those two can win the General Election. I think that McCain can. He gets a ton of support from moderates. Not sure about Huckabee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 LOL...I said that wrong...Carter HAD...meaning when Carter won his first Presidential election he had the support of religious people. Obviously when he ran against Reagan...he lost their support, but that is not what propelled Reagan to victory. well, yeah, in one election, he swept the south and got a big majority of evangelical voters. in the next election, he lost both. the swing was pretty dramatic. of course, there were a lot of factors leading to carter's defeat, but the huge swing of southern protestants from his side to the other is absolutely key, any way you slice it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I think that McCain can. He gets a ton of support from moderates. Not sure about Huckabee. The conservative Republican base will never turn out for McCain IMHO. He could run and make some waves as an Independent, but he just doesn't inspire the right with his message. McCain would get the anti-black vote if it were between him and Obama, but I don't think that's enough to pull off a victory these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 The conservative Republican base will never turn out for McCain IMHO. well, that depends partly on what kind of "conservative" you're talking about, and especially on what those "conservatives" decide is the #1 issue for them. if they decide it's foreign policy and national defense, you bet they'll turn out. if they decide it's abortion, evolution, and sending all the brown people back, then maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) The conservative Republican base will never turn out for McCain IMHO. He could run and make some waves as an Independent, but he just doesn't inspire the right with his message. McCain would get the anti-black vote if it were between him and Obama, but I don't think that's enough to pull off a victory these days. McCain does have some serious (and well-deserved) problems with the conservative base. Ultimately, though, I think that people are going to more or less vote down party lines this time. There's a lot at stake right now (possible Dem control of both Congress and the White House, all three Dem front-runners pushing socialized healthcare) and I don't believe Jim Dobson's rhetoric about staying home on election day if a social quasi-liberal like Guiliani were nominated. Especially after freaking Pat Robertson officially endorsed him. Edited January 7, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 caught a quick sound bite on Huckabee. He is for a flat tax. This will never fly amd once this gets out he is finished. That is why Pat Robinson endorsed Rudy. Pat had a face to face with Rudy and Rudy assured him that he would appoint judges that the Christian base would support. Pat felt that Rudy was the most qualified to run country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 caught a quick sound bite on Huckabee. He is for a flat tax. This will never fly amd once this gets out he is finished. That is why Pat Robinson endorsed Rudy. Pat had a face to face with Rudy and Rudy assured him that he would appoint judges that the Christian base would support. Pat felt that Rudy was the most qualified to run country. Well, that's all I needed to hear to make up my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 caught a quick sound bite on Huckabee. He is for a flat tax. This will never fly amd once this gets out he is finished. That is why Pat Robinson endorsed Rudy. Pat had a face to face with Rudy and Rudy assured him that he would appoint judges that the Christian base would support. Pat felt that Rudy was the most qualified to cowtow to his merry band of assorted freaks and nutjobs. Fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 McCain does have some serious (and well-deserved) problems with the conservative base. Ultimately, though, I think that people are going to more or less vote down party lines this time. There's a lot at stake right now (possible Dem control of both Congress and the White House, all three Dem front-runners pushing socialized healthcare) and I don't believe Jim Dobson's rhetoric about staying home on election day if a social quasi-liberal like Guiliani were nominated. Especially after freaking Pat Robertson officially endorsed him. I can't see the Dems keeping the house this time around. Since they've gotten it they've been so lame there's nothing for them to run on. This is esecially true if the Dems somehow find a candidate who can win the darn thing. Divided govt is usually best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Fixed. This is why threads get locked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Divided govt is usually best. wurd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Fixed. for truth and accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 This is why threads get locked. Nah. If I had called you a freak or nutjob then maybe. I was just making social commentary though. That is still allowed. And before you get all defensive, Pat Robertson and his followers are most decidely a fringe element. They certainly don't represent the mainstream Republica or Democratic platforms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Pat Robertson and his followers are most decidely a fringe element. They certainly don't represent the mainstream Republica or Democratic platforms. jebuss i hope not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 well, yeah, in one election, he swept the south and got a big majority of evangelical voters. in the next election, he lost both. the swing was pretty dramatic. of course, there were a lot of factors leading to carter's defeat, but the huge swing of southern protestants from his side to the other is absolutely key, any way you slice it. Spot on. But the conjecture that Bill espoused that Reagan was pro-life so that is why the evangelicals went with Reagan is not entirely believable in the south. Carter, like we both pointed out, had the evangelical support. But his lack of vision as a President cost not only himself, but cost the party lost member forever in regards to southern politics. IOW, Reagan had a clear vision and could sell it. And that vision is still what drives conservatives in the south to the polls....the notion that somehow Reagan's principles are still being practiced within the republican party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Divided govt is usually best. True dat. Especially if you have a pres willing to work with the opposition to get things done and vice versa. However, if you get a partisan in either office you end up with nothing.......come to think of it, six years of total Republican control brought the same result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 (edited) Spot on. But the conjecture that Bill espoused that Reagan was pro-life so that is why the evangelicals went with Reagan is not entirely believable in the south. No, but it was a tremendous part of his appeal in the South. Even more so when he ran against the liberal Mondale/Ferraro ticket. What isn't believable is that Democrats north of the Mason-Dixon line who wanted lower taxes were the ONLY reason that Reagan was elected. Carter, like we both pointed out, had the evangelical support. But his lack of vision as a President cost not only himself, but cost the party lost member forever in regards to southern politics. It's much more likely that support for Dems in the South decreased because their Presidential candidates after Carter ran on (mostly) socially-liberal platforms and were not particularly religious (or at least not outwardly so). Carter embarrassed the Dems for sure, but he didn't condemn them to 12 years of Reagan/Bush/Quayle and 12 additional years of a Republican-controlled Congress. IOW, Reagan had a clear vision and could sell it. I agree here. And like Clinton, Reagan was incredibly charismatic and likable, which helps tremendously. And that vision is still what drives conservatives in the south to the polls....the notion that somehow Reagan's principles are still being practiced within the republican party. Agreed here as well. If you listen to the GOP debates, almost all of them invoke Reagan like he was some sort of saint. Edited January 8, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 However, if you get a partisan in either office you end up with nothing.......come to think of it, six years of total Republican control brought the same result. uh, we got a whole lot more than nothing in those six years--unfortunately most of it was in the wrong direction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 uh, we got a whole lot more than nothing in those six years--unfortunately most of it was in the wrong direction wurd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.