Jump to content
Rex Kickass

The Republican Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 07:07 PM)
He used the same tactic as McConnell. They said they have Washington influence, therefore they can get the most earmarks for their state. No joke, both ran on a 'I can deliver the pork' platform and it helped both.

 

Murtha wasn't really in that much jeopardy of losing (not enough rednecks were offended to equal a loss IMO), but his arguments of his ability to secure federal money cemented a landslide win.

landslide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know though, if you look at that map Balta posted, there's a little indication that Murtha was onto something. Now as far as calling it out publicly... that was just pretty dumb and it made me cringe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 08:06 PM)
landslide?

 

yea it ended up being 58%-42% in favor or Murtha.

 

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 08:14 PM)
You know though, if you look at that map Balta posted, there's a little indication that Murtha was onto something. Now as far as calling it out publicly... that was just pretty dumb and it made me cringe.

 

well that goes to the assumption that if you voted McCain and not for Bush you're a racist. Ok so if someone voted Bush and voted Obama they're a sexist cause obviously they didn't vote for McCain because a female was on the ticket.

 

 

both are suspicious, and honestly this whole 'only racists vote mccain' thing and 'anyone who criticizes Palin is sexist' is really getting stale. i've had about enough of it to last at least another 4 years. then it starts over again i guess. which sucks.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 09:25 PM)
well that goes to the assumption that if you voted McCain and not for Bush you're a racist. Ok so if you voted Bush and voted Obama you're then an sexist cause obviously they didn't vote for McCain because a female was on the ticket?

 

 

both are suspicious, and honestly this whole 'only racists vote mccain' thing and 'anyone who criticizes Palin is sexist' are both garbage. i've had about enough of it to last at least another 4 years. then it starts over again i guess. which sucks.

No... it shows people who otherwise voted Dem in '04 and voted Republican in this election. All the places where that happened in large numbers were concentrated in the same places. Seriously I can't think of any other reason to explain that trend, it's not saying that a vote for McCain is a vote for racism, that's kind of an absurd conclusion to draw, it only illustrates the obvious. It didn't really affect the election though b/c they were all in red states except WV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 08:33 PM)
No... it shows people who otherwise voted Dem in '04 and voted Republican in this election. All the places where that happened in large numbers were concentrated in the same places. Seriously I can't think of any other reason to explain that trend

 

there's more variables in the equation than race. Palin has a strong appeal to that type of blue collar, rural vote. They see her as one of them, they like the fact she does the same stuff as them like hunting, and she has a similar world view as them. Obama's fairly insulting comments about them also didn't help. If it's McCain and Guiliani running, and Obama doesn't make the infamous 'gun toating bible clinchers' comment, I bet Obama gets those usual Democrat voters.

 

edit: i will concede that there are some racists left in this country that wouldn't vote Obama, no matter what. I just don't think these voting shifts can be attributed mainly to that.

Edited by mr_genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a fair point, but I also think the type you're talking about are already Republicans. That demographic is out west too, and what I'm noticing is that there is no major difference in those states from '04 like there is in the south and the Appalacians (less population obviously but percentages would still be the same). Plus across the country the independents and conservative Dems started getting scared off her, I just don't see it as being a local trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be because of race, I will concede this, as I don't really know the mindset of racist voters. I don't even know any blatant racists; if I do, they keep that information away from me.

 

But I do remember Kerry and his goofy hunting photos and stuff which is the type of pandering that some people demand. Obama refused to do that stuff, which I don't blame him for, as I wouldn't want to be running around trying to shoot ducks making a fool out of myself on national tv as to win over a few votes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 08:20 PM)
yea it ended up being 58%-42% in favor or Murtha.

Sorry, was looking at Minn. numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is, Murtha could have only spoken in burps on the campaign trail and won. He's sort of woven into the fabric of his district that he's been there so long, and there aren't many "good" candidates that are going to work in the effort of taking Murtha out.

 

Murtha said stuff that could have made him lose. But in a year like this one, with an overarching democratic lean, you have to run an exceptional candidate against him, and Murtha's candidate wasn't exceptional. If he was, we'd know his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:02 PM)
http://joinrudy2012.com/

 

No. No. No. No. No. No. A thousand No's.

 

Bobby Jindal is the clubhouse leader for 2012 IMO. I'd be surprised if Rudy makes another relevant national run for public office again (although it's debateable if his run this time even turned out to be relevant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 04:04 PM)
Bobby Jindal is the clubhouse leader for 2012 IMO. I'd be surprised if Rudy makes another relevant national run for public office again (although it's debateable if his run this time even turned out to be relevant).

It was relevant in the sense that his campaign will be used in political science classes for years to come as an example of "the absolute worst possible strategy to run a presidential campaign"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say Mike Huckabee would be the guy to look out for in 2012. I want to see Jindal at work before I crown him the "The next..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:08 PM)
I would say Mike Huckabee would be the guy to look out for in 2012. I want to see Jindal at work before I crown him the "The next..."

 

Yeah I would have him in 2nd right now in terms of 2012, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it's Huckabee either. I just think the minority factor will help Jindal (who knew we'd reach a day where that would be the case in this country?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:04 PM)
Bobby Jindal is the clubhouse leader for 2012 IMO. I'd be surprised if Rudy makes another relevant national run for public office again (although it's debateable if his run this time even turned out to be relevant).

I agree with Jindal. But he might be a little too far right for people to stomach. Especially if Obama does well in his first 2-3 years.

 

IMO, it all really depends on how the GOP civil war ends. Civil war might be a little too drastic, but you get my point. i see a split between Social and Fiscal conservatives with some in the middle.

Edited by Athomeboy_2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 04:11 PM)
I agree with Jindal. But he might be a little too far right for people to stomach. Especially if Obama does well in his first 2-3 years.

Socially, maybe. That's kind of what did him in in this election. But he seemed to be a rising star in the GOP, and regardless of his policies he is really a reasonable, moderate guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:14 PM)
Socially, maybe. That's kind of what did him in in this election. But he seemed to be a rising star in the GOP, and regardless of his policies he is really a reasonable, moderate guy.

 

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:11 PM)
I agree with Jindal. But he might be a little too far right for people to stomach. Especially if Obama does well in his first 2-3 years.

 

IMO, it all really depends on how the GOP civil war ends. Civil war might be a little too drastic, but you get my point. i see a split between Social and Fiscal conservatives with some in the middle.

 

Can't really argue with any of this. But lostfan's point is the main reason I think it's Jindal. He's WAY to the right socially, but he's quite reasonable and relatively moderate otherwise. Seems like the perfect guy to bring the party together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, it's also possible that someone else could step forwards and become a leader. I'll give you an example. 8 years ago, the President-Elect could not get in to the Democratic National Convention. He had to watch from outside at a viewing station. Things can change awfully fast in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 04:33 PM)
For what it's worth, it's also possible that someone else could step forwards and become a leader. I'll give you an example. 8 years ago, the President-Elect could not get in to the Democratic National Convention. He had to watch from outside at a viewing station. Things can change awfully fast in politics.

 

Let's take it another step. Two years ago, Survey USA did a poll on a hypothetical match up between McCain and Obama. Their projection? McCain - 510, Obama - 28.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 03:32 PM)
Can't really argue with any of this. But lostfan's point is the main reason I think it's Jindal. He's WAY to the right socially, but he's quite reasonable and relatively moderate otherwise. Seems like the perfect guy to bring the party together.

Policy-wise, that sounds like the opposite of what the GOP needs. I mean, that's what they have already been pedaling, and what we saw from most of their primary field.

 

What they need is someone more moderate socially, and more conservative fiscally and intergovernmentally.

 

Now of course, as we saw this election, the discussion is not entirely about policy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it's worth, it's also possible that someone else could step forwards and become a leader. I'll give you an example. 8 years ago, the President-Elect could not get in to the Democratic National Convention. He had to watch from outside at a viewing station. Things can change awfully fast in politics.

And his one speech 4 years ago pretty much gave him the opportunity to run for president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×