|I've said it before, and I'll say it again...|
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
Nov. 6th, 2007 @ 07:34 am
The Republicans are hardly pushing for one candidate. In fact, the wingnuts are claiming they'll support a third-party candidate if Giuliani or Romney win the primary. They could end up with a Nader situation on their hands.
While I'm a strong Obama supporter, I will gladly line up behind Clinton should she win the primary. I agree that the country could do far worse than another 4-8 years of Clinton. I would worry that the right would go for her blood with the same vitrol as they did with Bill, but she seems even more able to deflect it than her husband was.
Kerry was different... his poll numbers actually went up whenever he didn't talk. We held our noses and voted for him in the primary because we thought he would have crossover appeal. Ironically, Clinton holds more Republican-esque views than Kerry did, but Republicans hate her. With any of the three frontrunners, the Democrats will be bringing in a candidate that WE want to vote for. The Republicans are the ones holding their noses when they vote this time, seeming to have a distaste for all of their candidates.
Evangelical churches aren't going to use the pulpit to support a pro-life cross-dresser from New York or a Mormon from Massachusetts. And that's where the Republicans have a problem.
mostly agreed... but it mostly doesn't matter. The republicans have proven an amazing ability to get their base to go along with their nominated candidate... so even if they get someone that 50% of their people vote for, and we end up with hillary or obama, we end up with our vote split likely even more than theirs, as 30% of our votes go to Giuliani... we end up diluted more than they are, and they win.
I get that we only need 1 more vote than the next guy to win... but A) that's hard to do, and B) we're talking about electoral votes, which can align with the party even better than the populous can.
We're seriously at risk here unless we get people on board with the "together or nothing" concept.
I totally agree. I think that's partly why the media is blowing the whole "Democrats attacking Hillary" thing way out of proportion. They know it splits the Democratic base. Edwards didn't help much, of course. He's got little to lose and he's got his claws out.
I think that despite the rhetoric, most of the Obama and Edwards voters will line up behind Hillary in the general election.
And if anybody talks about voting for Giuliani (or not voting) in the general election, you should tell them about Rudy's advisors. They're even stronger neocons than the ones that got us into our current situation.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/us/politics/25giuliani.html?ex=1350964800&en=2b1aa6ff05a1a9df&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
From Salon.com today:
"A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan," Keller declared in his daily e-mail devotional last May. His reasoning went like this: Romney's election would serve as a giant advertisement for a competing religion, Mormonism, which Keller and others believe has falsely portrayed itself as another form of Christianity in an effort to find converts. "He would influence people to seek out the Mormon faith," Keller predicted of a Romney presidency. "They would get sucked into those lies and they would eventually die and go to hell."Read more...
Though Keller's rhetoric is extreme and his predictions are controversial, his biblical reasoning is mainstream for many of the nation's Christian evangelicals, who make up about 40 percent of the Republican Party. Large denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention have long considered Mormonism to be a cult, not a true path to salvation. National polling paints a stark picture of the problem. According to a recent Pew Center poll, 25 percent of Republicans say they are reluctant to vote for a candidate who is Mormon. Among white evangelicals who attend church weekly, 41 percent are reluctant to vote for a Mormon.
|Top of Page
||Powered by LiveJournal.com|