McCain's VP choice?

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 10 ... LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southside
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowItAll:
    >> I strongly object to the term "pro-abortion". Pro-choice is a
    >> better term.

    I think its one of those sugar coated words even though I think it is up to the individual to abort or not abort an unborn baby.
    I think the term 'pro abortion' suggests all women should consider it! Pro Choice is definitely a better term no matter what your feelings towards the subject.

    If I were an American, the republicans would have my vote and I'd love to see Condi in there though doubt it will happen.

    Don't red ball me because I'm not pro democrate I just don't like the candidate.

  2. #12
    fm7

    After McCain's performance at the Rick Warren event, it seems unlikely he would opt for a pro-choice VP candidate.

    The other name not yet mentioned is Charlie Crist, who came out early in support of McCain in Florida and has high approval ratings.


  3. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by aussiegal:
    I think the term 'pro abortion' suggests all women should consider it! Pro Choice is definitely a better term no matter what your feelings towards the subject.

    If I were an American, the republicans would have my vote and I'd love to see Condi in there though doubt it will happen.

    Don't red ball me because I'm not pro democrate I just don't like the candidate.
    I have to agree on the pro choice statement, one could be pro choice and anti abortion at the same time. Meaning, they would never have one themselves but respect the right of someone else to have the procedure.

    As to republicans, I could never envision currently voting for a republican, the party aligns itself with the religious right, is generally in bed with big business and their tax cuts often benefits corporations or richer individuals, they don't tend to be tough on environmental issues(see former point), they pander to the hysterical about security, poor humna rights record, running up a huge deficit, no real health care plan, education plan. It really doesn't matter much who the faces are, the politics remain similar...

    I wouldn't voter for the democrats as much as against the republican. Isn't great to only have two choices? Pick the lesser evil!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southside
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    I wouldn't voter for the democrats as much as against the republican. Isn't great to only have two choices? Pick the lesser evil!
    I wonder if 2 choices is better than 1, which is the case in many parts of the world. Probably only marginally.

    Anyway, at least with Republicans you know where you stand and you know their views. Obama is a fence sitter, what good is that? How will that type of person successfully lead the country?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Fo Tan
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by gilleshk:
    I have to agree on the pro choice statement, one could be pro choice and anti abortion at the same time. Meaning, they would never have one themselves but respect the right of someone else to have the procedure.

    As to republicans, I could never envision currently voting for a republican, the party aligns itself with the religious right, is generally in bed with big business and their tax cuts often benefits corporations or richer individuals, they don't tend to be tough on environmental issues(see former point), they pander to the hysterical about security, poor humna rights record, running up a huge deficit, no real health care plan, education plan. It really doesn't matter much who the faces are, the politics remain similar...

    I wouldn't voter for the democrats as much as against the republican. Isn't great to only have two choices? Pick the lesser evil!
    Good abortion statement. However, at the risk of sidetracking the OP, the "right" should have been left to the states and not federalized.

    Your GOP point could be turned 180 degrees and apply to Democrats--aligns with unions, generally anti-business, no tax cuts, pander to the hysterical about the environment, bad with security issues, no real health care plan, no education plan, etc.... Just depends on the personal preference.

    Way right and way left are, IMHO, equally wrong.
    Problem with US politics in general is that the moderates have all been zoned out.

    I wouldn't vote for the GOP as much as against this Democrat. Or, more specifically, against the thought of a Dem pres and House and Senate. Seems whenever one party controls everything, things go really wrong. (Because it tends to go way right or way left.)

    Although either McCain or Obama is better than either Bush or Hillary.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuth:
    Your GOP point could be turned 180 degrees and apply to Democrats--aligns with unions, generally anti-business, no tax cuts, pander to the hysterical about the environment, bad with security issues, no real health care plan, no education plan, etc.... Just depends on the personal preference.

    Way right and way left are, IMHO, equally wrong.
    Problem with US politics in general is that the moderates have all been zoned out.
    That's fair enough but in general, I find that the democratic positions are closer to what I believe therefore it doesn't matter who they field...

    The last person I would trust would be a politician and although there are things I strongly disagree with in the democratic platform, there are too many things I disagree more with the GOP so unless there are drastic changes made, I could never see myself vote for them. Either abstain or vote against...

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wanchai, HK
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowItAll:
    You've not been looking at the polls have you? Gallup has him ahead of Obama.
    Of course no-one looks at the polls After all, it's well known that Obama is 'the one'. The US election is going to be close, because inevitably both candidates are looking to win over fringe voters. If I was a long time democrat voter, Obama would not be interested in appealing to my vote (and likewise McCain), as it will be considered a solid Democrat vote. Whereas if I'm a floating voter, by vote is worth an awful lot so both will try to appeal to me. So we've seen Obama's stance on Iraq change, and that McCain would be considered more centrist (pro-choice/abortion as you see fit) within his party. [That's just one example of each]

    In a two-party election system, this is not unusual. It's part of the reason Blair was successful in the UK. A mixture of charisma and the ability to convince the floating voters that a Labour government wouldn't hurt them (and couldn't possibly be worse than the preceding Conservative government). It's also why I suspect Cameron will see Brown out of office at the first opportunity... (I've deliberately ignored the LibDems who seem to be having a few issues of their own right now)

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484

    It definitely won't be Madonna !


  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Fo Tan
    Posts
    2,389

    All my spam mail stuck in my filter says it's going to be Paris Hilton.

    gilleshk--that's why I try to find a candidate blind quiz on the issues. You pick the policy you most agree with and in the end it tells you which candidate you picked the most. If you know which candidate said it, you end up being biased. Granted some you will know, but not all of them.

    KIA--problem with the polls and the polls of polls is that the guy isn't picked by popular vote. Doesn't matter if you win all the votes in a majority of states if you manage to also lose CA, TX, PA, OH, FL or some similar combination.

    jonnye--fringe or floating voters only matter in states that are close. Being a fringe voter who decides to go Dem in Texas or GOP in CA is meaningless. As is being a diehard Dem in GA or a GOP in MA.


  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wanchai, HK
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleuth:
    jonnye--fringe or floating voters only matter in states that are close. Being a fringe voter who decides to go Dem in Texas or GOP in CA is meaningless. As is being a diehard Dem in GA or a GOP in MA.
    So the states you mention above are predominantly one party or the other. As you point out, the floating voters here are pretty worthless, but so are the die-hards. I could always take my argument out a level and say it's the marginal states that are going to decide the election outcome, and in these states it's the floating voters whose votes are the most valuable.

    Either way, I still think my point stands that there is little to be gained by appealing to your core vote. You have to be careful not to alienate them whilst trying to woo the floating voters who can make the difference between victory and defeat.

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 10 ... LastLast