I don't understand what he would add to Mitt's ticket, either. I think Mitt has to go with eiher a fundie nut or play the identity card (woman, Latino, etc.).

I think Nixon and Reagan were so well known on their own (for good or bad) by the time that they won that you can't compare them to Christie.

By "the gay thing" do you mean when he said he believed people were born gay? I really don't think that's a major issue to electability, and certainly not one that will be remedied by serving as VP candidate under Romney, given his history.

Past that, Christie is anti-gay marriage (but pro-civil union), so he still walks the GOP platform.

Yea, because that worked out sooo well for the last guy who ran against Obama...

:rolleyes:

Never mind.

Write in candidate: None Ofthe Above.

He is viable candidate, in fact if he was running for the Presidential nom I think he would be in the top three right now but that doesn't necessarily mean he'd cinch it. While Repubs love the guy you have to take into consideration that Christie is a relative unknown to middle America. So then why didn't he run? If you look at what he's been doing the past couple of months it's obvious he's prepping for some kind of "something" and since he's not running for the nomination what is it? Maybe a cabinet position or some other type of appointment in a Romney/Republican White House.

McCain didn't fail by picking a woman, he failed by picking THAT woman.

This sort of moves toward my point. Nixon as California (Sen?) and Reagan as Gov had national introductions, even in defeat, which aided the electorate's "comfortability" with them. I think that had to help their subsequent successes.

I'd never heard of Christie before his election as NJ governor and his media flirtation with running for president.

Regardless, I don't think a woman will get him into the White House any more than a man would. The argument that you yourself make here is one based on intelligence, not gender.

Besides, I hate the idea of someone choosing a running-mate based on gender, race, religion, etc. Whatever happened to choosing someone, not because of their ability to (by default) get the "woman vote" or the "black vote", but rather based on their qualifications?

#missingthegoodoldays

Erm...welcome to politics ;)

I think he's prepping to run in 2016, and assuming none of the shitbox GOP contenders will beat Obama in this go-round - leaving his post as Governor after a year and some odd months would have been pretty rough. The VP slot gives him an "out" to that ("called to higher office"), but I'm not sure it's a good one.

In fact, it's my opinion that the GOP really sort of discouraged some of the best candidates from entering the arena seriously, so that they could spend some more time developing a coherent modern platform (or, y'know, undercutting Democrats - same thing really) and allowing the economy to bottom, then eventually taking credit for the reversal.

Haha.. Well of course there are (dare I say many) instances where politicians choose to align themselves with a person on the opposite end of the spectrum in order to win, but I think lately, it's moved farther away from policy that appeals to a particular race or gender, and moved more toward being based on what God gave the politician that matches up with what he gave particular American citizens.

In other words, (it seems to me) it used to be that a politician would align with another because that other person was, for example, pro-choice, so they might gain a few more votes from women. Now it's more along the lines of, "Well, I should pick her because she has a vagina, and therefore, all of the other people who have vaginas will vote for me."

How far back is "it used to be"? Because, like, Geraldine Ferraro existed, and she's literally the only other one, right? So basically this is "Palin sucks" which is fine but is it really indicative of a larger trend?

I so agree with this. There is no one I like, and for the first time, I am totally apathetic about voting.

Ditto

There were quite a few articles today and yesterday about Mormons and candidates who are Mormon (Romney & Huntsman), and a study by the Pew Research Center on Mormons showed that those who are LDS favor Romney over Huntsman.

Part of the survey asked about discrimination, and what really caught my attention is that those surveyed believe Mormons face more discrimination than Black Americans, but less than Gays/Lesbians and Muslims. The rough number from the responses is that Black Americans are discriminated against a third less than Mormons. I realize that is the opinion and perception of those Mormons surveyed, but REALLY? Pew did another study in 2009 that listed Mormons as 86% White; and when compared to the general population (not Black American) are more likely to attend college and be middle income ($50,000 to $100,000). This would be quite the survey to start a conversation about White/Heterosexual/Christian privilege in the United States.

2009 Study:
http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mo...in-the-US.aspx

Infographic for 2011:
http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mo...fographic.aspx

Page with full report and information:
http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mo...n-america.aspx

I don't only mean women.. but it was Obama with race.. and now Romney with religion... it just seems to be more evident in the last few elections.

And I believe the reason why McCain chose a woman as a running-mate is because Hillary Clinton was pulling in a lot of votes from, well.. women. When she was out of the picture, he probably figured he could pick up additional votes, at least among the female Independents.

I don't believe that strategy is as apparent in this election.

But hey, Romney can just pick someone who's on the opposite end of the religious spectrum from him, and he's sure to win! .....

OK, fair enough - I just don't think this is a new phenomenon. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was something that happened in the 1800s, if we extend it out to "using VP to moderate a position or bolster appeal to a voting bloc."

Unfortunately, I think it's an endemic evil to a democratic system. In fact, it's probably rational behavior for anybody who wants to be elected.

Not the 1800s, but I'd say JFK's pick of LBJ fits this description.

And you can see how THAT worked out . . .

Oh, I'm not arguing that balancing of a ticket never occurred in the past. At the very least, geography played a big role in this practice back in the 1800s, as you mentioned.

I just think that with the increase in diversity among candidates (which is definitely a good thing!), this balancing act becomes increasingly more evident and black-and-white (i.e. A woman will get me the woman vote, an African-American will get me the African-American vote, etc.)

I think this was poor (pun intended) wording on his part. I know what he was trying to say. He was trying to express the notion that it is middle America that has the real problems because they do not have the wealthfare that the wealthy have nor do they have the social welfare resources that the poor have.

Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-the-very-poor

He's in need of coaching on saying things artfully that cannot be taken out of context by some media types. I think anyone with at least a HS diploma should be able to figure that out if they are shown the entire clip.

There's an old maxim in politics..."if you're explaining, you're losing."

Is Mitt Romney a mean, non-caring guy? Probably not. But this guy has a penchant for making trouble for himself when he gets off his scripted talking points.

President Obama's team will use this (just as Romney's team will use the President's gaffes against him) because it fits into the “Ritchie Rich,” narrative/story arc they want to present to voters about Romney. Remember MR’s October editorial board interview (I don't remember the newspaper) urging the foreclosure situation to “bottom out” and then be corrected? He was speaking as an executive, a captain of industry deciding how best to restore and then benefit from market forces. The problem is he’s running for President, not CEO.

People struggling to hold on to the single largest asset they will likely every have – their house—don’t want to hear a multi-millionaire talk about wanting the forecloseure market to “bottom out.” Romney's ability to empathize, and come across as a regular guy isn't all that apparent.

It'll be interesting to watch this play out.

Rick Santorum.. on women in combat. Women don't have the same physical capabilities that men do and the emotions of men in dealing with women in combat, not focusing on mission because they have to protect the women? He also opposes gays serving in the military.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/pol...-in-combat.cnn

Did anybody hear PJ O'Rourke on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me last week? (I think it was last week; it may have been two weeks ago.) His quip was that the GOP varsity team all got food poisoning in the GOP cafeteria, and that's why the junior varsity team was running in the primaries and caucuses.

Those arguments have been raised for a long time, and there might be something to the second, but that happens already in most units, just because of the bonds that are formed. And as for the first, just eliminate the double standards that currently exist and have all soldiers meet the same physical standards male or female. It is likely that less females will be able to meet those standards, but even a lot of men can't meet military combat standards. Also I thought that Israel allowed women to serve in combat. I seem to remember seeing a interview with an Israeli tanker who was a woman.

The whole "emotions" argument is bs. There women who are as emotionally tough as men. As a physician, I've seen women handle emotional situations in trauma that the most macho man can't. Blood and gore and death dont turn all women into crying messes...and all men can't handle it either. I won't go into any detail on the things I've seen and done in my time in surgery and radiology at LSU, but it would make your hair curl.

I only watched about half the video, but it seemed like he was talking more about the men involved. And considering men are conditioned to protect women, I can kind of see his point.

I think discriminating against women bc men can't make the adjustment is bad policy. They'll do it when they are made to do it...just like they were made to accept black soldiers and gay soldiers serving side by side with them. The answer is never to cave to these insecurities. Times change and so do behaviors. They'll stop opening doors for the female soldiers as soon as the enemy starts shooting at them. The group philosophy is already to leave no soldier behind.

And they've made women furious for a long time. There has been talk of reversing it recently.

Thank you! He says in this video that he's against gays in the military too, so it isn't just women.

**Still mad the ERA never passed**

So if his only problem is with the men, then having combat jobs restricted to women only should solve the problems, right?

That is golden.

LOL

Santorum blalantly lies to scare people into voting for him:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rache...20567#46520567

In his argument against healthcare reforms he argues that the reforms are scary and evil and he drags the Dutch into the argument stating that the Dutch kill their elderly because euthanasia is legalised there.

He claims 10% of all Dutch people are euthanised (false: less than 0,5% of all deaths)

Half of these people are euthanised against their will (false: none are, two doctors, a psychologist and the family are involved, and the person needs to be clear-headed, and in true dispair with hopeless suffering due to sickness as their only prospect).

He goes on to state that the elderly refuse to go to the hospital in the Netherlands because they're afraid to be euthanised.

(yes, I realise MSBNC leans more to the left so the coverage might be biased, but he still said it, regardless of commentary)

This is absolutely ridiculous.
The worst part? When I was back in the US a while back, a fellow student was genuinely surprised to learn that I still have grandparents, as she was absolutely convinced the Dutch have their elderly killed when they get old and sick.
Though she may be one of few who actually believes this, just the thought of someone selling these lies as cold hard fact running for president, makes me shudder.

I cannot wait for this primary on Tuesday to be done in Michigan! The robo-calls are ridiculous and so are the ads. Santorum keeps sticking his foot in his mouth over and over and over. He blasted Obama for encouraging more people to go to college, saying he is a snob for pushing college and that colleges just indoctrinate students because all the professors are liberal. This, from a guy with numerous advanced degrees!

Really? Most of the Members of Congress hold law degrees. And I would love to see a so called liberal professor at a place like BYU.

Meh...just buzzing thru...thought some of you would get a kick outta this

Santorum calls Obama "a snob' for wanting Americans to go to college...note who is clapping around the 46 sec mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkjbJ...ature=youtu.be

And who did this Penn State Alum nominate for an award in 2002?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepol...psus-sandusky/

and the crazy train continues....y'all have a nice day.

Nope, majority of the Senate only 57/100. The house has 168/435.

And the head of the Utah County Democratic Party (Utah County contains Provo) is a professor in the Political Science Department at BYU. (at least as of 2009)