Which candidate should be the Republican nominee?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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?

Erm...welcome to politics

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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?

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Erm...welcome to politics

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."

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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?

[barbino]

Originally Posted by Benzgirl

Write in candidate: None Ofthe Above.

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

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by barbino

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

Ditto

[VandalSquirrel]

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

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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 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! .....

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

And you can see how THAT worked out . . .

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.)

[DrPhil]

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

[AnchorAlum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

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.