US regional differences and politics - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 02-06-2008, 08:59 AM

Regional differences in the US might be more interesting than I thought.

I have a friend I keep in frequent contact with in the south. Shes a mild conservative. She wanted to talk politics the other day because 'The Republicans were giving the White House to Hilary' (whom she can't stand).

Her reasoning was that McCain was going to win the Republican nomination, and McCain doesn't have conservative support, so come November they will stay home on election day, while someone like Romney could win the national election.

Now my take was just the opposite. I see McCain as having the best chance in a national election for the republicans, as he will have moderate support and the die hard conservatives would rather have him than a socialist so they might not 'like' him but they will vote for him anyways. I also see Obama as the democrats best hope in a national election as well as he has the least baggage and the press is trying to turn him into JFK.

Her issue with Obama was that he was black and that a lot of southern democrats just won't vote for a black man period. Shes a reporter so shes a bit more in touch with people, and maybe this is true. Her personal example to me was her father who is a life long "liberal", who worked for Edwards campaign, and who would never vote for Obama simply because hes black.

Now to me the interesting thing is here isn't our opinions on merit. I don't know KNOW if McCain has the best shot, I haven't done that much homework on it, I just think being a long time 'uniter' will play well for him nationally. Its interesting that we see the trends to be so different and that issues that don't seem to be issues here in my area are so big in hers. Where I am, if anything, we are SICK of hearing about Obama's race, and the concern is that someone with a strong religious background will hurt more than help this election. Her's is that race is important and that McCain won't carry the republican base.

She might be right, or at least right for her area, but its just fascinating to me that despite this being the information age, where it doesn't matter where you are on the planet if you have the right and inexpensive equipment, you can be in touch with anyone anywhere, anytime, we still have differences in attitude only a few hundred miles apart, in the same country, and loosely the same political beliefs.

So is this just us having a different opinion or have those of you who travel a lot or have friends in different parts of the country see major differences on how people view the upcoming election?

Oh and just a side note: IF you want to discuss the merits of a candidate or their lack of merit in relation to another's post, do so in another thread. I am putting a hex on anyone who tries to argue peoples opinion on the candidates is wrong or that their meat puppet is the best.

dc_dux · 02-06-2008, 09:12 AM

My only reaction is to laugh at your continuous reference to anyone with a liberal or progressive perspective or platform as a socialist or communist.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-06-2008, 09:18 AM

I see Mccain getting support regardless, no way any conservative would live to see the day when a Clinton, especially one named Hillary was back in office.

mixedmedia · 02-06-2008, 09:37 AM

Well, she's absolutely right that a lot of southern democrats will not vote for a black man. And many southern republicans would still like to lynch a black man. 'Tis fact. I've been there. I've seen this shit close-up and it ain't pretty.

I seem to have a hard time convincing people who haven't been there that old-school racism is still alive and well in vast areas of the south (esp. rural). Even among people who have been registered as Democrats for the last 50 years. It's with a reluctant satisfaction that I hear your friend has backed this observation up.

The_Jazz · 02-06-2008, 09:42 AM

I don't think Obama will have as many issues with his skin color as your friend thinks. I'm from the South and have lots of friends there. Almost all Southern Democrats younger than about 65 (or so) are all on the more liberal end of the spectrum. Let's remember that the South is pretty much solidly red (which contrasts nicely with your socialist comment) when it comes to Presidential elections. The Reagan Revolution hit (arguably) hardest in the South and turned many heritary Democrats into hardcore Repulicans. Those that are left are, for the lack of a better term, Blue Dogs, and they'll vote for Obama regardless.

That all said, he won't win many, if any Southern States unless there's universal minority turnout and most of the conservatives stay home.

ratbastid · 02-06-2008, 09:47 AM

Yeah, I don't know what part of the south the OP friend is in, or where Mixedmedia has visited, but in the part of the South I'm in, Obama is wildly popular with all races and genders. The only demographic split I'm seeing in Obama/Clinton support is age--older Democrats seem to prefer Hillary. Real change is scary, I guess, and might cause the country to break a hip...

It is interesting that there are still regional political standards, though. Why should Massachusetts be so strongly Democrat and Texas so strongly Republican, when we're all watching the same mass media? I guess I'm glad there are--it would be a shame to have the whole electorate be homogenized and texture-free.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 10:03 AM

McCain has the best change among Republicans, but he will not get one Democratic or undecided vote because he's a coot the likes of which even Grampa Simpson can't compete with. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? Jesus christ, I've got an idea! Let's elect Strom Thurmond! Or wait, even better, let's elect Rummy! But seriously, we'll end up with 2000 and 2004 all over again, with like 2 votes and a supreme court deciding things when McCain is chosen.

Romey? He'd lose so hard he'd make Dole look like Reagan. He'd get like 24% of the votes. It'd be a joke, and then the Republican party would look weak and all of the Republican voters would leave for centrist's-ville. The Dems would take the House and Senate as the GOP tried to recuperate, and they would usher in a golden age of not spending more than we have. So yeah, please let Romney run.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-06-2008, 10:12 AM

Not spending more then we have? I forecast increased spending, increased taxes.

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 10:19 AM

I'm actually surprised that what people see when they look at Obama is a black man. Well, yes, of course he's black, but spend about a minute watching him and listening to him and you can't tell me that that's what you take away from the experience. He's charismatic as all hell, a great speaker, totally lacking in the typical political viciousness we've become accustomed to seeing. If people won't vote for him because he happens to have dark skin, well, I just can't understand people like that.

What I can understand is people who say that they think OTHER people will never vote for a black person, so that the only way to get a Dem elected is to nominate a white person. I don't agree with that -- I think it sells the American people short -- but I at least understand it. We have too much unsavory history to say that that is an irrational line of reasoning.

(My issue with Obama is totally different - I think he's a Rohrschach test; people see in him what they want to, whether or not there is something there. He's a pretty conventional politician in terms of his stances - typical big-city leftish Dem. But as I said, he's charismatic as all hell and has amazing presence, so people see him as the embodiment of dreams. That smells to me a bit too much like a cult of personality. But that's just me.)

That being said, I see the whole notion of identity politics to be poisonous and unedifying. It's not better when it's done in this country by Mike Huckabee than when it's done in Iraq by Muqtada al-Sadr.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Not spending more then we have? I forecast increased spending, increased taxes.

I'll give you a small example: $492,092,898,818. You know, the cost of the Iraq war. The war that was going on as taxes were cut.

So let's compare:
Republicans - don't tax and spend like crazy, the budget surplus becomes a deficit the likes of which the world has never seen
Democrats - do tax and spend a lot less, the budget deficit becomes a large surplus and we can afford to spend money on things like levees.

Huh, go figure.

dc_dux · 02-06-2008, 10:30 AM

McCain's surge has been working (as opposed to the other surge) because he has been able to attract Independent voters in the many states with open primaries while Romney and Huckabee split the more conservative value voters.

But at the same time, Obama has attracted far more Independent voters than McCain in those same states with open primaries.

IMO, race is still an issue among older voters (and not just in the South) and those older Democrats are more likely to be Hillary voters anyway.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will easily win the Independents and first-time voters over McCain and possibly even win several border states (Virginia, Tennessee) If Hillary wins, the Independents will be in play.

McCain is in a real bind for the general election. If he panders to the social conservative "value voters", he loses the Independents.

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 10:32 AM

Who the heck knows.

I just find the whole idea that some people will never vote for a black man no matter what to be profoundly depressing.

dc_dux · 02-06-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Who the heck knows.

I just find the whole idea that some people will never vote for a black man no matter what to be profoundly depressing.

That about sums it up.

Will the Bradley effect stlll be in play? (refers to Tom Bradley, the mayor of LA who was way ahead in polls when he ran for governor of Cali in 1982 against a political novice..but ended up losing the election - the issue: people say race is not an issue when polled or in public discussions/debates, but may act differently in the privacy of the voting booth)

We've come along way sine 1982, but who the heck knows.

Race may have been an issue in recent Senate elections in NC and TN...and some say it could explain the bad polls in NH, where Obama was way ahead in the polls, but Hillary won the primary

jewels · 02-06-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I seem to have a hard time convincing people who haven't been there that old-school racism is still alive and well in vast areas of the south (esp. rural). Even among people who have been registered as Democrats for the last 50 years. It's with a reluctant satisfaction that I hear your friend has backed this observation up.

While I do agree with you as far as racism goes, I'm finding that here, many blacks are hesitant to vote for Obama, stating "lack of experience" as their issue in discussions. I've also heard, from quite a few black co-workers, that "this country isn't ready" for a black President. They feel that Hilary's got their back and seem comfortable with her.

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 11:13 AM

I forget where I read this, but I recall reading that some blacks won't vote for Obama because they are sure he'll be assassinated. That is really horrifying.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I forget where I read this, but I recall reading that some blacks won't vote for Obama because they are sure he'll be assassinated. That is really horrifying.

I've had friends tell me something similar. I just explained that I'm sure Obama is well aware of the risks and, because he's a man of principle, he's willing to do what he can in spite of insane racists with guns. It's all the more reason to vote for him.

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 11:32 AM

Well, has he gotten stepped-up Secret Service protection?

ratbastid · 02-06-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels443

While I do agree with you as far as racism goes, I'm finding that here, many blacks are hesitant to vote for Obama, stating "lack of experience" as their issue in discussions. I've also heard, from quite a few black co-workers, that "this country isn't ready" for a black President. They feel that Hilary's got their back and seem comfortable with her.

I'm hearing entirely the opposite. Every black voter I know is over the moon about Obama, especially the women.

flstf · 02-06-2008, 11:33 AM

It's beginning to look like it will be Hillary vs. McCain in the general. Two big government tax and spend Washington insiders. Whichever one wins things won't change much.

Unless things change between now and the election I think the Democrats will win whether it's Hillary or Obama. I think Obama would be harder to beat than Hillary though. Whatever racial prejudice there is against Obama is easily trumped by the large percentage of the population that dislikes Hillary.

McCain is just too liberal for the Republican base to get too excited about and I think many will just not care enough to vote. It is possible that the dislike for Hillary could cause them to vote for the least negative but positive reinforcement usually works better.

It is interesting that Obama is doing so well in the red states where the Democrats don't usually win anyway. One would think that if there was going to be a large backlash against Obama's race that it would show up there. Also I thought I heard on the news last night that exit polls showed that Obama got the majority of white votes in California.

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 11:39 AM

flstf, I think that's a bit simplistic. I do agree that Obama is more likely to beat McCain than Hillary is. But don't underestimate McCain's ability to mend fences in his party. Also, there was some talk that Hispanics don't care for Obama, and that because McCain is not anti-immigrant he has the best chance of any Republican to peel Hispanics away from the Democrats.

There are way too many moving pieces here to come to any judgments or predictions right now, except that McCain is likely to be the Rep nominee. Remember - at this time six months ago it looked like we'd be definitely choosing between Hillary and Giuliani, and McCain was left for dead. Now Rudy is gone, McCain will be nominated, and the outcome of the Dem race is still anyone's guess, with half the states having already voted. So who knows what will happen?

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 11:44 AM

Is it regional that I think McCain is completely insane and could, if elected, make Bush into the next Clinton (Clinton wasn't bad compared to Bush could become Bush isn't bad compared to McCain)?

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 11:48 AM

Why do you think McCain is insane, will? Temperamental, unpredictable, yes - but I would never have called him insane.

The_Jazz · 02-06-2008, 11:52 AM

As an aside, McCain would be the first President ever tortured by a foreign power.

Anyone want to come over to my place to watch "The Manchurian Candidate" (old version, natch) on Election Eve?

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Why do you think McCain is insane, will? Temperamental, unpredictable, yes - but I would never have called him insane.

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." is the first thing that comes to mind. This suggests a playful nature when it comes to nuking a country which is legally developing nuclear weapons and is no threat to us. This is more than unpredictable. He is singing about going to war with an innocent country. I'll never listen to the Beach Boys the same again. Cept God Only Knows. I love that song.

If you've been watching the Republican debates, you may also remember he said that he had never heard of any military leader that said our military effort could not be sustained in Iraq. I believe his exact words were, “I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can’t sustain our effort in Iraq, so you’re wrong”. He is positively delusional.

Bush we can blame on the presidential bubble, but is McCain in a similar bubble of misinformation? I can't imagine it could be as bad as Bush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As an aside, McCain would be the first President ever tortured by a foreign power.

Anyone want to come over to my place to watch "The Manchurian Candidate" (old version, natch) on Election Eve?

OH HELL NO! You did not just diss Denzel!

Just kidding, Ol Blue Eyes nailed it.

host · 02-06-2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Is it regional that I think McCain is completely insane and could, if elected, make Bush into the next Clinton (Clinton wasn't bad compared to Bush could become Bush isn't bad compared to McCain)?

No, I think that it's more of a matter of having a good memory, some principles, and knowing what you're talking about, by looking at the backgrounds and records of the candidates....McCain is scary, a lunatic, but it doesn't seem to matter.....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=37

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=14

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=13

Ustwo · 02-06-2008, 12:14 PM

Excellent responses so far, even if they do not fit quite what I was looking for, they are at least original thought, something the politics board is always lacking. While the number of posters here seem to have declined over the years, this has gone better than most 'non-link' threads in the past in terms of the types of responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

My only reaction is to laugh at your continuous reference to anyone with a liberal or progressive perspective or platform as a socialist or communist.

This would make an interesting thread on its own. I'm wondering if you could make a thread showing me how someone like Obama or Hilary differ from say European socialists.

dksuddeth · 02-06-2008, 12:14 PM

mccain, romney, clinton, or obama.....really irrelevant because america loses no matter which of those 4 are elected.

McCain.....will split the republican party right down the middle and next election, the more conservative half will go libertarian.

Romney, will split the republican party by a slightly less margin and next election, you'll see someone that makes reagan look like FDR running as the republican.

Obama.....will split the country in to 3 factions, those that factor candidates by race, those that only vote for something 'new' to be 'new', and those who are tired of party line voting. He will lose some democrat voters because he's not a clinton.

Clinton, will split the blue dog dems from the party who will have to decide whether they vote republican or independant.

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 12:17 PM

I believe that was a joke McCain was making. OK, you don't think it was funny. It actually wasn't. But having a different view of what can be joked about isn't insanity. Neither is disagreement about how to handle Iraq.

Will, disagreement with you isn't evidence of delusion. It's evidence of, well, disagreement. Otherwise, you're saying roughly half the country is delusional.

People need to keep perspective here.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 12:25 PM

You believe it was a joke? Because it does seem, based on the debates, that McCain is very seriously headed straight for Iran.

It'd be like me jokingly saying, "I'm going to rape Hillary Clinton, take pictures, and then sell them to the media", as I'm preparing to become an intern for Hillary I have just bought a new digital camera that I'm testing in the dark, and I've contacted Shakran about "a breaking story regarding the Democratic presidential hopefuls" via email.

Maybe in a vacuum it's a bad joke, but it's not in a vacuum. McCain is seriously considering bombing Iran.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Just fyi, Obama's LEAD speaks in volumes about similarities between regions. I have to say that I've not been this pleasantly surprised since... actually I can't remember a time I've been this pleasantly surprised.

loquitur · 02-06-2008, 12:42 PM

Don't you think it would be a mistake to tell Iran that we're taking bombing off the table? Even if it's actually off the table? It's usually a good thing to keep the other guy guessing.

Oh, and you're right about the pleasant surprise. Though I suspect I'm less surprised than you are, I'm no less pleased.

jewels · 02-06-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I'm hearing entirely the opposite. Every black voter I know is over the moon about Obama, especially the women.

I believe it. It definitely varies by age, region, background and level of education.

Willravel · 02-06-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Don't you think it would be a mistake to tell Iran that we're taking bombing off the table? Even if it's actually off the table? It's usually a good thing to keep the other guy guessing.

I would think that pushing for UN inspectors to ensure that they are legally enriching uranium to be used for energy would be the best bet right now. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and as such is legally obliged to demonstrate the evidence to experts that they are not developing nuclear weapons. Quite frankly, the US should be trying to make friends with Iran so that we can avoid being partially responsible for getting fundamentalist leadership elected there (despite Ahmadinejad being a figurehead, he does effect the public perception of the Iranian government both for the west and his own people, which is a problem because he's the Muslim version of Bush). The problem, of course, is that peace isn't profitable for military contractors. But that's for another thread.

Leave us say that "keeping the other guy guessing" is bad policy when it comes to Iran, imho.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Oh, and you're right about the pleasant surprise. Though I suspect I'm less surprised than you are, I'm no less pleased.

I'm more than pleasantly surprised, I'm pleasantly flabbergasted. Assuming Obama can take most or all of Texas (where "Hillary" is a bad word), Obama may very well be president elect before we know it.

Edit: Ah, a perfect comparison: I was as surprised to see Obama winning as I was to hear Chopin being played in a Halo commercial.

mixedmedia · 02-06-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Yeah, I don't know what part of the south the OP friend is in, or where Mixedmedia has visited, but in the part of the South I'm in, Obama is wildly popular with all races and genders. The only demographic split I'm seeing in Obama/Clinton support is age--older Democrats seem to prefer Hillary. Real change is scary, I guess, and might cause the country to break a hip...

It is interesting that there are still regional political standards, though. Why should Massachusetts be so strongly Democrat and Texas so strongly Republican, when we're all watching the same mass media? I guess I'm glad there are--it would be a shame to have the whole electorate be homogenized and texture-free.

Well, I can say as a person born in Atlanta, who has always lived in the south and currently lives in fairly homogenous Central Florida, that there are two disparate modes of 'the south' living alongside each other simultaneously. And I had no idea how potent racism still was in some areas until I actually lived in one. Therefore UsTwo's conversation with his friend fails to surprise me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels443

While I do agree with you as far as racism goes, I'm finding that here, many blacks are hesitant to vote for Obama, stating "lack of experience" as their issue in discussions. I've also heard, from quite a few black co-workers, that "this country isn't ready" for a black President. They feel that Hilary's got their back and seem comfortable with her.

Well, this is probably related to some extent to related reactionary attitudes. Not the 'lack of experience' issue, which can be easily quantified in a rational discussion, but definitely the 'country isn't ready' issue, I think, could be a reaction to living with racism.

joshbaumgartner · 02-06-2008, 02:55 PM

To address the OP, I do think it is interesting to watch which states vote for which candidate. I note with interest that 'pocket' states (those in the party's pocket) tended to vote for one candidate while 'lost' states voted for another with it generally Hillary for blue states and Huckabee/Romney for red states, while in lost states it was Obama for red states and McCain for blue states.

Part of this is that loyalists who are behind enemy lines so to speak (republicans in blue states or vice-versa) tend to be very conscious of the idea of needing to get voters to cross party lines, while those in more friendly states are more attuned to promoting ideas favored by the 'base'.

What I think is clear is that Obama has several clear advantages in the general election:

1) The Republican nominee will need to bring the RP back together behind him. The easy first step to doing that will be invoking the name 'Clinton' and Obama denies them this opportunity.

2) Obama does very well amongst independents, and I think he will do better amongst them than even McCain.

3) Obama is not reviled by any significant number of Dems the way several Republicans feel about John, and some independents feel about Hillary.

mixedmedia · 02-06-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

To address the OP, I do think it is interesting to watch which states vote for which candidate. I note with interest that 'pocket' states (those in the party's pocket) tended to vote for one candidate while 'lost' states voted for another with it generally Hillary for blue states and Huckabee/Romney for red states, while in lost states it was Obama for red states and McCain for blue states.

Part of this is that loyalists who are behind enemy lines so to speak (republicans in blue states or vice-versa) tend to be very conscious of the idea of needing to get voters to cross party lines, while those in more friendly states are more attuned to promoting ideas favored by the 'base'.

What I think is clear is that Obama has several clear advantages in the general election:

1) The Republican nominee will need to bring the RP back together behind him. The easy first step to doing that will be invoking the name 'Clinton' and Obama denies them this opportunity.

2) Obama does very well amongst independents, and I think he will do better amongst them than even McCain.

3) Obama is not reviled by any significant number of Dems the way several Republicans feel about John, and some independents feel about Hillary.

I am happy to say I agree with these observations.

Charlatan · 02-06-2008, 03:30 PM

First of all... excellent thread from the OP on down. More of this is good.

An observation on the OP... I can't really relate the the US regional differences but I can point out that Canada's regions are vastly different despite the leveling effect of the Internet and other electronic media.

Elphaba · 02-06-2008, 08:11 PM

Excellent discussion topic, ustwo. I've been following all of the Super Tuesday post-game analysis, and the regional differences in voter response are significant for both parties, and not merely anecdotal.

None of the three frontrunners of the Republican party have garnered the support of the party as a whole. Instead, each candidate attracts a specific faction of the party and there are clear regional influences. Huckabee has become the choice of the Religious Right as seen by his wins in Iowa and the Southern Bible Belt. Romney, the Wall Street Republican, has done well in the Northeast and his home state, but doesn't seem to be able to repackage himself as a true conservative in other regions. McCain, the moderate/traitor/RINO/etc, has infuriated the party insiders and yet has become the frontrunner nationally.

The Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, have also gained delegates from regional influences. However, their supporters confound easy regional explanations. Sex, race, and age appear to have significantly influenced who supports each candidate in addition to the regional influence.

I agree with ustwo that McCain is the best of three bad choices. I think the Clinton/Obama race may go so far as a brokered convention with super delegates deciding who will be our nominee. Should that happen, expect far more than a regional reaction from democratic, liberal, progressive and independent voters.

host · 02-07-2008, 01:45 AM

What those of us on the outside of "wingerdom" do not notice, or if we do, comprehend what is behind the conservative divide that the OP describes...

In dead tree conservative info sources and online conservative narrowcasts, influential voices from the evangelical political movement, folks like Council for National Policy co-founder, Paul Weyrich, are on an eight years long crusade against John McCain, but not for the reasons that I am.... note the URL's and Weyrich and his buddy Ted Sampley's influence:

http://web.archive.org/web/200012050...00/1/11/115838

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200106211...000/2/7/160116

Is McCain the Hero He Claims to Be? -- 01/04/2000McCain and Peterson, according to Sampley, begged the Vietnamese never to make their files on the ... Paul Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation.
http://www.cnsnews.com/Commentary/Ar...20000104a.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...7/ai_n14290340
MCCAIN `BRAINWASHED IN VIETNAM'
Independent, The (London), Feb 17, 2000
JOHN MCCAIN, Republican challenger for the party's White House nomination, is being labelled a KGB spy and perhaps even a brainwashed zombie controlled by Communists.

McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, has not supported moves by right-wing fringe groups to free prisoners they believe remain behind in South-East Asia and has backed a resumption of relations with Vietnam.

Though comic, the accusations will harm Mr McCain among some veterans in South Carolina, a crucial element in the state's primary.

Ted Sampley, a veteran from North Carolina who runs a newsletter, accuses Mr McCain of betraying his country while a prisoner and being a KGB spy. He also made a more bizarre accusation: "In the movie The Manchurian Candidate Laurence Harvey portrayed ... a former PoW ... of the Korean War whose brainwashing ... resulted in his enemies being able to manipulate his actions. To trigger him ... all they had to do was have him play solitaire, with the queen of diamonds being the trigger that made him theirs, body and soul." Mr Sampley went on to ask the senator: "Have the Vietnamese flipped you a queen of diamonds?"

The claim has been spread by the conservative activist Paul Weyrich, who said: "It may not always be true that where there is smoke there is fire, but many times it is true."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...4/140508.shtml
McCain Holds the Cards
Paul Weyrich
Saturday, Feb. 25, 2006

It is always difficult to handicap the next presidential election before the midterm elections. So I will not go through the litany of the half-dozen Democrats, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may contest for the nomination. The views range from "Hillary has got it in the bag" to "Hillary won't run."

Democratic Party sentiment is said to range from "ready for another Clinton Era" to "fear of another Clinton Era"; from "the Party wants a familiar face" (Hillary) to "the Party seeks a totally new face" (former Governor Mark R. Warner of Virginia).

Hillary is a polarizing figure, no doubt. In the end, however, the nomination seems almost certain to be hers if she pursues it. If she is the nominee, Republicans either are scared to death of her and don't know to how to run against her or they can't wait for the chance to take her on, pointing to the considerable political baggage she has inherited. One clearly hears both views
On the Republican side there are no fewer than thirteen candidates who think they have a chance. These include sitting and retiring governors, sitting and retiring senators and maybe even a general. The Democrats have a general, too. He is Wesley Clark, but he went nowhere in 2004.

Some of these candidates, such as Governor Michael Huckabee, of Hope, Arkansas, in fact may be running for vice president without saying so. In fact, I only recall one candidate who openly ran and campaigned for the vice presidency. He was an obscure Alaska Democratic senator who got absolutely nowhere with his effort to win the vice presidency.

While Democrats have an obvious front-runner with Hillary, Republicans have none. Florida Governor Jeb Bush would be the front-runner if he had not all but absolutely ruled out running. No senator or governor is a hot ticket right now, except for one, John S. McCain III.

McCain is consolidating his position in a way reminiscent of Richard M. Nixon in 1968. He is collecting due bills. He campaigned for all sorts of congressmen and senators in 2002 and 2004. He is letting them know that now is the time to express their gratitude.

Dick Morris, Bill Clinton's strategist, who is pushing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for president, had an on-the-air colloquy with Sean Hannity the other day that most of the audience didn't understand. Morris was telling Hannity that he knew of a certain senator who was very close to endorsing McCain. Hannity asked Morris if it was the senator he had in mind. Morris said it was. Hannity said he didn't believe it.

The colloquy was about former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. Lott, who is a values-oriented conservative, is about ready to support McCain as the one senator who can defeat Hillary in the South. He is not sure any other candidates can do so.

Some of that may be personal. Senator Lott was ousted as majority leader by Senator William H. ("Bill") Frist, M.D., R-Tenn., after the media blew way out of proportion a silly remark Lott made about Senator Strom Thurmond on the occasion of Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Senator George Allen, R-Va., also was involved in the coup, which could be why Lott finds neither Frist nor Allen viable in the South.

Whatever the reason, friends of Lott from the South say he is determined to support a candidate who can defeat Hillary in that region of the country. McCain is saleable, Lott is telling friends.

The real shocker is that McCain is close to picking up support from former Senator Daniel R. Coats, R-Ind. Coats, who took Senator James Danforth ("Dan") Quayle's place in the Senate after Quayle was elected vice president with President George Herbert Walker Bush, did not run for re-election after 10 years in that body. He subsequently became U.S. ambassador to Germany when George W. Bush was elected and more recently guided Supreme Court Justice Samuel J. Alito Jr. through the confirmation process in the Senate.

When he was in the Senate, Coats was especially close to the Religious Right. One of his longtime staffers is Timothy Goeglein, a key White House operative. Coats was thought to be supporting Senator Sam D. Brownback, R-Kan., the only overtly Religious Right candidate of the lot. That McCain may well pick up Coats is a measure of how far McCain has come.

McCain is seen as the one Republican candidate who scores well with independents and Democrats. He is a darling of the media. Instead of the usual hostility a Republican gets from the media, he is seen as someone who would play ball with the old media and thus could be elected. McCain has kept his right-to-life credentials, for the most part. He has been loyal to the president regarding the Iraq War, for the most part.

With Hillary looming large in the background and with almost any Democrat seen as capable of defeating any Republican, McCain – in typical conservative Republican circles – is seen as the savior of the GOP.

That is a long way for McCain to have come since the bitter primary with President George W. Bush in 2000. He patched things up with Bush and campaigned for him in the autumn of 2000. But it was never a happy relationship. Bush and McCain have tangled over a whole raft of issues, ranging from spending (McCain is a sort of deficit hawk) to the conduct of the Iraqi War but these disputes have been more intense behind the scenes than seen in public.

The one group McCain does not have in his camp is the social-issue conservative group. They view McCain as wanting to revert to a GOP before 1980, when Ronald W. Reagan successfully grafted social conservatives onto the other pillars of conservatism – namely, limited government, free enterprise and a strong national defense. Reagan, at the urging of the Religious Right, which had emerged politically beginning in 1977, added traditional moral values to those other pillars of conservatism.

Republicans, who composed a clearly minority party after 1930 even when they held the presidency, then began to elect senators and congressmen, governors and state legislatures, and have been electing them ever since.

McCain does not believe that the Republican Party should be advocating traditional moral values. He hopes to so co-opt mainline conservatism, while also gaining acceptance from liberals in the party – such as former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, New York Governor George E. Pataki and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman – that he can afford to lose the Religious Right. Besides, the McCain camp reasons that if Hillary is indeed the Democratic nominee, social conservatives would be so alarmed about her becoming president that they likely would vote for McCain anyway.

It is a bold strategy, yet given the fact that the values voters do not have a candidate around whom they have thus far rallied, McCain's view of the world may indeed prevail. Social conservatives presently enjoy unprecedented influence in the White House and most especially on Capitol Hill, where the leadership in both the House and the Senate is very sympathetic to them and their issues. A McCain presidency likely would change all that.

Shortly before he died in 1998 and after he left the Senate in 1986, Barry M. Goldwater, the father of modern conservatism, denounced social conservatives, saying they had no business trying, as he put it, to make the Republican Party into a church. McCain took the Goldwater seat. He is out of the same mold. Goldwater all but broke with his party, mainly over moral issues.

Perhaps at last, through John McCain, the party will be remade in Goldwater's image. It is happening and happening fast. McCain now holds all the cards.

Paul M. Weyrich is the Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080128
Conservative leader to bolt GOP if McCain is nominated
Also: America's crumbling infrastructure (Part 2) -- Peters rewarding friends, punishing dissenters?

Wes Vernon
January 28, 2008

...."I will not vote for him [McCain]," Weyrich told this column in an interview. "I can't." The longtime conservative icon added, "It's a case where worse would be better. If [Hillary is elected], she'll do enough damage that two years from now — just like with Bill [in 1994], we can recover politically if they don't shut us down. If we can keep talk radio and if we're not shut down in other ways, I think after two years of her that there'll be a real reaction — just like there was with Carter and there was a big one with [Bill] Clinton."

As horrifying as the thought of a Hillary presidency is to many Americans, Weyrich says, "It would be better than McCain, who would fight us on everything."....

As someone who believes that McCain is batshit crazy....what for example, is his position on making Bush's tax cuts, and elimination of inheritance tax, permanent? What is his position on waterboarding, and presidential authority to approve other torture techniques, and that Weyrich and his CNP are a threat to the constitution, I look forward to a McCain nomination, and a McCain presidency, if he can pull it off.

Since I think it is too late for the present US paper currency and sustainable continued supply, to the US, of 25 percent of world petroleum production each and every day, it follows that I think the US government, and "our way of life", in it's present form, is nearing it's end, and whoever is president when my view is not greeted with vehement denial....

(as in...your soooo wrong, "host", of course we will be permitted to import 14 million bbls per day of petroleum equivalents with borrowed money, and run a $700 billion yearly increase in national debt, as long as we want to....what are you talking about????)

UNLESS we cut militaray spending by $300 billion NOW, and immediately cut oil imports by 40 or 50 percent, I think that it won't matter who is president, and NONE of the candidates plan anything like that...if anything, they plan to advocate for the opposite.

I think it is a given that whatever party is holding office when "the party"...the ability to rack up endless annual trade and US treasury deficits ends, whatever party in the Whitehouse at that time will be unsuccessful in 4 or 5 subsequent elections.....

loquitur · 02-07-2008, 06:55 AM

Actually, host, McCain's positions on the tax cuts and waterboarding are matters of public record and have been for a while -- and are part of the reason that the loudmouth fringes of the right detest him.

The rest of your analysis collapses together a bunch of different issues that aren't necessarily related. I agree that the biggest favor we could do for ourselves and for humanity generally is figuring out an alternative non-petroleum based energy source that would enable us to tell the disagreeable regimes who fortuitously sit on the world's biggest petroleum sources to go drink their oil for all we care. The need for oil distorts all sorts of things and makes people's thinking go haywire. I'm not talking conservation or efficiency - I'm talking total transformation. Conservation or efficiency only means that the bad guys get to keep selling us petroleum for a longer period of time.

So I think we need a big hefty petroleum tax, one big enough to make alternative energy economical.

Ustwo · 02-07-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh and just a side note: IF you want to discuss the merits of a candidate or their lack of merit in relation to another's post, do so in another thread. I am putting a hex on anyone who tries to argue peoples opinion on the candidates is wrong or that their meat puppet is the best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

UNLESS we cut militaray spending by $300 billion NOW, and immediately cut oil imports by 40 or 50 percent, I think that it won't matter who is president, and NONE of the candidates plan anything like that...if anything, they plan to advocate for the opposite.

I think it is a given that whatever party is holding office when "the party"...the ability to rack up endless annual trade and US treasury deficits ends, whatever party in the Whitehouse at that time will be unsuccessful in 4 or 5 subsequent elections.....

Sexy Witch is putting a

HEX
On you.

Consider yourself Hexed and when you get sat with a 12 top of French Canadians, you will know why.

02-06-2008, 08:59 AM	#1 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	US regional differences and politics Regional differences in the US might be more interesting than I thought. I have a friend I keep in frequent contact with in the south. Shes a mild conservative. She wanted to talk politics the other day because 'The Republicans were giving the White House to Hilary' (whom she can't stand). Her reasoning was that McCain was going to win the Republican nomination, and McCain doesn't have conservative support, so come November they will stay home on election day, while someone like Romney could win the national election. Now my take was just the opposite. I see McCain as having the best chance in a national election for the republicans, as he will have moderate support and the die hard conservatives would rather have him than a socialist so they might not 'like' him but they will vote for him anyways. I also see Obama as the democrats best hope in a national election as well as he has the least baggage and the press is trying to turn him into JFK. Her issue with Obama was that he was black and that a lot of southern democrats just won't vote for a black man period. Shes a reporter so shes a bit more in touch with people, and maybe this is true. Her personal example to me was her father who is a life long "liberal", who worked for Edwards campaign, and who would never vote for Obama simply because hes black. Now to me the interesting thing is here isn't our opinions on merit. I don't know KNOW if McCain has the best shot, I haven't done that much homework on it, I just think being a long time 'uniter' will play well for him nationally. Its interesting that we see the trends to be so different and that issues that don't seem to be issues here in my area are so big in hers. Where I am, if anything, we are SICK of hearing about Obama's race, and the concern is that someone with a strong religious background will hurt more than help this election. Her's is that race is important and that McCain won't carry the republican base. She might be right, or at least right for her area, but its just fascinating to me that despite this being the information age, where it doesn't matter where you are on the planet if you have the right and inexpensive equipment, you can be in touch with anyone anywhere, anytime, we still have differences in attitude only a few hundred miles apart, in the same country, and loosely the same political beliefs. So is this just us having a different opinion or have those of you who travel a lot or have friends in different parts of the country see major differences on how people view the upcoming election? Oh and just a side note: IF you want to discuss the merits of a candidate or their lack of merit in relation to another's post, do so in another thread. I am putting a hex on anyone who tries to argue peoples opinion on the candidates is wrong or that their meat puppet is the best. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 02-06-2008 at 09:02 AM..

02-06-2008, 09:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	My only reaction is to laugh at your continuous reference to anyone with a liberal or progressive perspective or platform as a socialist or communist. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-06-2008, 09:18 AM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I see Mccain getting support regardless, no way any conservative would live to see the day when a Clinton, especially one named Hillary was back in office. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-06-2008, 09:37 AM	#4 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Well, she's absolutely right that a lot of southern democrats will not vote for a black man. And many southern republicans would still like to lynch a black man. 'Tis fact. I've been there. I've seen this shit close-up and it ain't pretty. I seem to have a hard time convincing people who haven't been there that old-school racism is still alive and well in vast areas of the south (esp. rural). Even among people who have been registered as Democrats for the last 50 years. It's with a reluctant satisfaction that I hear your friend has backed this observation up. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

02-06-2008, 09:42 AM	#5 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I don't think Obama will have as many issues with his skin color as your friend thinks. I'm from the South and have lots of friends there. Almost all Southern Democrats younger than about 65 (or so) are all on the more liberal end of the spectrum. Let's remember that the South is pretty much solidly red (which contrasts nicely with your socialist comment) when it comes to Presidential elections. The Reagan Revolution hit (arguably) hardest in the South and turned many heritary Democrats into hardcore Repulicans. Those that are left are, for the lack of a better term, Blue Dogs, and they'll vote for Obama regardless. That all said, he won't win many, if any Southern States unless there's universal minority turnout and most of the conservatives stay home. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-06-2008, 09:47 AM	#6 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Yeah, I don't know what part of the south the OP friend is in, or where Mixedmedia has visited, but in the part of the South I'm in, Obama is wildly popular with all races and genders. The only demographic split I'm seeing in Obama/Clinton support is age--older Democrats seem to prefer Hillary. Real change is scary, I guess, and might cause the country to break a hip... It is interesting that there are still regional political standards, though. Why should Massachusetts be so strongly Democrat and Texas so strongly Republican, when we're all watching the same mass media? I guess I'm glad there are--it would be a shame to have the whole electorate be homogenized and texture-free.

02-06-2008, 10:03 AM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	McCain has the best change among Republicans, but he will not get one Democratic or undecided vote because he's a coot the likes of which even Grampa Simpson can't compete with. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? Jesus christ, I've got an idea! Let's elect Strom Thurmond! Or wait, even better, let's elect Rummy! But seriously, we'll end up with 2000 and 2004 all over again, with like 2 votes and a supreme court deciding things when McCain is chosen. Romey? He'd lose so hard he'd make Dole look like Reagan. He'd get like 24% of the votes. It'd be a joke, and then the Republican party would look weak and all of the Republican voters would leave for centrist's-ville. The Dems would take the House and Senate as the GOP tried to recuperate, and they would usher in a golden age of not spending more than we have. So yeah, please let Romney run.

02-06-2008, 10:12 AM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Not spending more then we have? I forecast increased spending, increased taxes. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-06-2008, 10:19 AM	#9 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I'm actually surprised that what people see when they look at Obama is a black man. Well, yes, of course he's black, but spend about a minute watching him and listening to him and you can't tell me that that's what you take away from the experience. He's charismatic as all hell, a great speaker, totally lacking in the typical political viciousness we've become accustomed to seeing. If people won't vote for him because he happens to have dark skin, well, I just can't understand people like that. What I can understand is people who say that they think OTHER people will never vote for a black person, so that the only way to get a Dem elected is to nominate a white person. I don't agree with that -- I think it sells the American people short -- but I at least understand it. We have too much unsavory history to say that that is an irrational line of reasoning. (My issue with Obama is totally different - I think he's a Rohrschach test; people see in him what they want to, whether or not there is something there. He's a pretty conventional politician in terms of his stances - typical big-city leftish Dem. But as I said, he's charismatic as all hell and has amazing presence, so people see him as the embodiment of dreams. That smells to me a bit too much like a cult of personality. But that's just me.) That being said, I see the whole notion of identity politics to be poisonous and unedifying. It's not better when it's done in this country by Mike Huckabee than when it's done in Iraq by Muqtada al-Sadr.

02-06-2008, 10:30 AM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	McCain's surge has been working (as opposed to the other surge) because he has been able to attract Independent voters in the many states with open primaries while Romney and Huckabee split the more conservative value voters. But at the same time, Obama has attracted far more Independent voters than McCain in those same states with open primaries. IMO, race is still an issue among older voters (and not just in the South) and those older Democrats are more likely to be Hillary voters anyway. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, he will easily win the Independents and first-time voters over McCain and possibly even win several border states (Virginia, Tennessee) If Hillary wins, the Independents will be in play. McCain is in a real bind for the general election. If he panders to the social conservative "value voters", he loses the Independents. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-06-2008 at 11:02 AM..

02-06-2008, 10:32 AM	#12 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Who the heck knows. I just find the whole idea that some people will never vote for a black man no matter what to be profoundly depressing.

02-06-2008, 11:13 AM	#15 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I forget where I read this, but I recall reading that some blacks won't vote for Obama because they are sure he'll be assassinated. That is really horrifying.

02-06-2008, 11:32 AM	#17 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Well, has he gotten stepped-up Secret Service protection?

02-06-2008, 11:33 AM	#19 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	It's beginning to look like it will be Hillary vs. McCain in the general. Two big government tax and spend Washington insiders. Whichever one wins things won't change much. Unless things change between now and the election I think the Democrats will win whether it's Hillary or Obama. I think Obama would be harder to beat than Hillary though. Whatever racial prejudice there is against Obama is easily trumped by the large percentage of the population that dislikes Hillary. McCain is just too liberal for the Republican base to get too excited about and I think many will just not care enough to vote. It is possible that the dislike for Hillary could cause them to vote for the least negative but positive reinforcement usually works better. It is interesting that Obama is doing so well in the red states where the Democrats don't usually win anyway. One would think that if there was going to be a large backlash against Obama's race that it would show up there. Also I thought I heard on the news last night that exit polls showed that Obama got the majority of white votes in California.

02-06-2008, 11:39 AM	#20 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	flstf, I think that's a bit simplistic. I do agree that Obama is more likely to beat McCain than Hillary is. But don't underestimate McCain's ability to mend fences in his party. Also, there was some talk that Hispanics don't care for Obama, and that because McCain is not anti-immigrant he has the best chance of any Republican to peel Hispanics away from the Democrats. There are way too many moving pieces here to come to any judgments or predictions right now, except that McCain is likely to be the Rep nominee. Remember - at this time six months ago it looked like we'd be definitely choosing between Hillary and Giuliani, and McCain was left for dead. Now Rudy is gone, McCain will be nominated, and the outcome of the Dem race is still anyone's guess, with half the states having already voted. So who knows what will happen?

02-06-2008, 11:44 AM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Is it regional that I think McCain is completely insane and could, if elected, make Bush into the next Clinton (Clinton wasn't bad compared to Bush could become Bush isn't bad compared to McCain)?

02-06-2008, 11:48 AM	#22 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Why do you think McCain is insane, will? Temperamental, unpredictable, yes - but I would never have called him insane.

02-06-2008, 11:52 AM	#23 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	As an aside, McCain would be the first President ever tortured by a foreign power. Anyone want to come over to my place to watch "The Manchurian Candidate" (old version, natch) on Election Eve? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-06-2008, 12:14 PM	#27 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	mccain, romney, clinton, or obama.....really irrelevant because america loses no matter which of those 4 are elected. McCain.....will split the republican party right down the middle and next election, the more conservative half will go libertarian. Romney, will split the republican party by a slightly less margin and next election, you'll see someone that makes reagan look like FDR running as the republican. Obama.....will split the country in to 3 factions, those that factor candidates by race, those that only vote for something 'new' to be 'new', and those who are tired of party line voting. He will lose some democrat voters because he's not a clinton. Clinton, will split the blue dog dems from the party who will have to decide whether they vote republican or independant. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 02-06-2008 at 12:18 PM..

02-06-2008, 12:17 PM	#28 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I believe that was a joke McCain was making. OK, you don't think it was funny. It actually wasn't. But having a different view of what can be joked about isn't insanity. Neither is disagreement about how to handle Iraq. Will, disagreement with you isn't evidence of delusion. It's evidence of, well, disagreement. Otherwise, you're saying roughly half the country is delusional. People need to keep perspective here.

02-06-2008, 12:25 PM	#29 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You believe it was a joke? Because it does seem, based on the debates, that McCain is very seriously headed straight for Iran. It'd be like me jokingly saying, "I'm going to rape Hillary Clinton, take pictures, and then sell them to the media", as I'm preparing to become an intern for Hillary I have just bought a new digital camera that I'm testing in the dark, and I've contacted Shakran about "a breaking story regarding the Democratic presidential hopefuls" via email. Maybe in a vacuum it's a bad joke, but it's not in a vacuum. McCain is seriously considering bombing Iran. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html Just fyi, Obama's LEAD speaks in volumes about similarities between regions. I have to say that I've not been this pleasantly surprised since... actually I can't remember a time I've been this pleasantly surprised. Last edited by Willravel; 02-06-2008 at 12:41 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

02-06-2008, 12:42 PM	#30 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Don't you think it would be a mistake to tell Iran that we're taking bombing off the table? Even if it's actually off the table? It's usually a good thing to keep the other guy guessing. Oh, and you're right about the pleasant surprise. Though I suspect I'm less surprised than you are, I'm no less pleased. Last edited by loquitur; 02-06-2008 at 12:44 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

02-06-2008, 02:55 PM	#34 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	To address the OP, I do think it is interesting to watch which states vote for which candidate. I note with interest that 'pocket' states (those in the party's pocket) tended to vote for one candidate while 'lost' states voted for another with it generally Hillary for blue states and Huckabee/Romney for red states, while in lost states it was Obama for red states and McCain for blue states. Part of this is that loyalists who are behind enemy lines so to speak (republicans in blue states or vice-versa) tend to be very conscious of the idea of needing to get voters to cross party lines, while those in more friendly states are more attuned to promoting ideas favored by the 'base'. What I think is clear is that Obama has several clear advantages in the general election: 1) The Republican nominee will need to bring the RP back together behind him. The easy first step to doing that will be invoking the name 'Clinton' and Obama denies them this opportunity. 2) Obama does very well amongst independents, and I think he will do better amongst them than even McCain. 3) Obama is not reviled by any significant number of Dems the way several Republicans feel about John, and some independents feel about Hillary.

02-06-2008, 03:30 PM	#36 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	First of all... excellent thread from the OP on down. More of this is good. An observation on the OP... I can't really relate the the US regional differences but I can point out that Canada's regions are vastly different despite the leveling effect of the Internet and other electronic media. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-06-2008, 08:11 PM	#37 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Excellent discussion topic, ustwo. I've been following all of the Super Tuesday post-game analysis, and the regional differences in voter response are significant for both parties, and not merely anecdotal. None of the three frontrunners of the Republican party have garnered the support of the party as a whole. Instead, each candidate attracts a specific faction of the party and there are clear regional influences. Huckabee has become the choice of the Religious Right as seen by his wins in Iowa and the Southern Bible Belt. Romney, the Wall Street Republican, has done well in the Northeast and his home state, but doesn't seem to be able to repackage himself as a true conservative in other regions. McCain, the moderate/traitor/RINO/etc, has infuriated the party insiders and yet has become the frontrunner nationally. The Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, have also gained delegates from regional influences. However, their supporters confound easy regional explanations. Sex, race, and age appear to have significantly influenced who supports each candidate in addition to the regional influence. I agree with ustwo that McCain is the best of three bad choices. I think the Clinton/Obama race may go so far as a brokered convention with super delegates deciding who will be our nominee. Should that happen, expect far more than a regional reaction from democratic, liberal, progressive and independent voters. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

02-07-2008, 06:55 AM	#39 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Actually, host, McCain's positions on the tax cuts and waterboarding are matters of public record and have been for a while -- and are part of the reason that the loudmouth fringes of the right detest him. The rest of your analysis collapses together a bunch of different issues that aren't necessarily related. I agree that the biggest favor we could do for ourselves and for humanity generally is figuring out an alternative non-petroleum based energy source that would enable us to tell the disagreeable regimes who fortuitously sit on the world's biggest petroleum sources to go drink their oil for all we care. The need for oil distorts all sorts of things and makes people's thinking go haywire. I'm not talking conservation or efficiency - I'm talking total transformation. Conservation or efficiency only means that the bad guys get to keep selling us petroleum for a longer period of time. So I think we need a big hefty petroleum tax, one big enough to make alternative energy economical.