Talk Elections

Will the GOP base vote for a mormon and a catholic?

Against Obama, yes. Never you worry.

Romney has been saying for the past six years that he's an outsider who can change Washington for the better....and then he chooses Paul Ryan as his running mate. That's the bigger problem.

JCL is the only one who has not moved beyond this sort of identity politics.

Will the GOP base vote for a plutocrat and a Randian?

Of course they will.

But I thought they were the party of moral values.

Yes, obviously.

And quit trying to paint the Republican base as some kind of intolerant group of voters.

Oh they do a good enough job of that themselves. There's no need to paint! :)

Ryan isn't a Randian and most people don't know who Rand is anyway.

Do you seriously believe all the bullsh**t you spew?

He's cited Rand as the reason he got into politics. The Obama people could, if they choose, do a very good job of making it very clear to people exactly who Rand was.

Sure he has, but he's also not espoused Ayn Rand's ideology in total. It doesn't make any sense to call him a Randian.

WTF?

May I remind you of your last VP candidate's antics on the campaign trail?
Her (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw4d14RGLYQ) as well as the members of the base who turned up to McCain/Palin rallies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E).

Arguably not, but he's more Randian than I (and I would hope I'm joined in this by many or most Americans) am comfortable with for a Vice-Presidential candidate.

Is it just me or does this sound exactly like the "Obama is a socialist" argument that would be rapidly eviscerated on here as a right-wing fantasy...

Not so much that he's Catholic. Is that he doesn't have the southern/country/low class vibe that the GOP desperately needs. Romney already has the grown up college Republican vote. Especially in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio he's gonna need red meat Take Back Our (White) Country crowd. Instead, he went for the best looking Ayn Rand fan in America. I've yet to see Ryan campaign, but I don't get the impression that he can get the job done.

1. If Obama had cited some prominent socialist thinker as the reason he got into politics that would be a much more sensible line of attack.
2. There's nothing inherently unreasonable about saying that Obama's policies are closer to socialism than one is comfortable with. It's the idea that he's some sort of unreconstructed Marxist-Leninist or Eurocommunist that's prima facie absurd.

Did Barack Obama call himself a socialist or claim Tommy Douglas or Aneurin Bevan as the inspirations behind the Affordable Care Act?

Even calling him a social democrat would over doing it. He's to the right of your Milibands, your Hollandes and your Thorning-Schmidts.

There are obvious problems with calling Obama a socialist, but can't you people see the obvious problems with calling Ryan a Randite? I mean, would Ayn Rand have voted for TARP? Would Rand be against abortion? How about the auto bailouts?

It just doesn't match up at all.

And as for his early political inspiration, the same argument can be made for Obama since he has plenty of questionable ties from early in his community organizer days.

Republicans will vote for whoever they're told to vote for in the end. Plus, religion can be forgotten more than race if only for the simple fact that you can't see it.

Either the "white working class" vote is more Democratic (or less Republican, alternatively) than the pundits give them credit for, or the Republicans take them completely for granted and really don't care about them.

If you'll vote for a Mormon, you'll vote for a Catholic. The bridge was already crossed. The OP is confusing though when it asks whether or not the "base" will vote for a Catholic. This is strange considering what a large segment of the base conservative Catholics are. Have you ever picked up National Review?

The more into politics a conservative evangelical is the more likely they are to be pro-Catholic, in politics or just in general. Hence for those who are even informed enough to be aware of his affiliation, it's probably a plus.

As for the nominally religious parts of the base, obviously it doesn't matter.

Who else are they gonna vote for?

This makes me sick.  I'm a catholic.  My parents are catholic.  I am a Republican, as are they.  My grandmothers an immigrant from Germany.  We DON'T CARE WHO IS NOMINATED!  At this point, we're satisfied with ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!  Who cares what religion!  And Catholics are Christians too; I don't get what the big deal is.

White working class is absolutely more Democratic than popular conception would lead one to believe. They do lean GOP, of course, but that is much more a function of being white than being working class. In any case, turnout is going to be abysmal amongst these folks, whereas the GOP needs them to come out in droves.

Agreed.  There may have been a time when they wouldn't (about 100 years ago), but since it's the Republican ticket, of course they will.

Though to be fair, the Democratic base does just as good a job of intolerance by spewing up anti-rich, anti-religious, anti-military views.

Anti-rich intolerance! Haha love it!

It is more about having a "Southern Candidate" on the ticket.  So far, Biden is the closest to a southern candidate. 

Apparently Romney thinks he can keep Virginia and Florida with Ryan. 

The country loves "southerners" and the "southern strategy" proved effective for JFk, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, CLinton, and Dubya. 

Its more important to have a "cultural Southern" on the ticket who cares about conservative Social values, than a specific religious label.  Catholic Santorum would have won the Southern states. 

Basically classism.

Anyone whining about 'anti-rich' 'bigotry' deserves, nay needs, to have their teeth kicked in.

Every presidential candidate has some type of Southern strategy.  The only two Southerners to ever run on the Republican ticket were both Bushes.  And as for Americans loving Southerners, I disagree.  Southerners are still portrayed by the media as stupid, racist, lazy, and unsophisticated.  While this is wrong and untrue, it's sill the perception that many people have.

I doubt it's as important to have cultural Southerners on the ticket as you think. The demographics have changed in Virginia and North Carolina enough that just having the support of cultural Southerners is not adequate for the Republicans to win. Do you really think McCain didn't win cultural Southerners?

Interesting that you define 'cultural South' as inherently and exclusively white.

And why would that be may I ask?

Because the rich, by definition, enjoy enormous privileges not seen by the vast majority of people.

So basically whipping up resentment against the rich is okay, merely because they have made more money than the rest of us?

I think that was supposed to be a joke. (One in bad taste maybe, but it's Al.)

It's not OK to dislike Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian?

I was, of course, speaking metaphorically.

It is, but not because they're rich.

The point being, and also of course, that it is a position so completely and utterly absurd that if obnoxious deserved to be met with sudden violence, then that particular position would be a prime candidate. It's a vile and revolting stance to hold.

To bear no grudge against the wealthy is actually a highly virtuous stance.

To claim, as you did, that so-called 'anti-rich' 'bigotry' is a 'problem' is a despicable, craven and cretinous stance, you cretin.

Anyways, election time in the U.S always does seem to bring out new idiots. Urgh.

If the Dems are anti rich bigots, just why do so many rich people vote for them?  Self loathing I guess is the answer. There seems to be a lot of that on the Fruited Plain - if one believed that everything pounded out on a keyboard and put up on the internets were true.

This is a quite a nasty little thread isn't it?

Because many are put off by the social conservatism of the Republicans. I was more talking about the rank and file of the Democratic Party.

Not forcing your beliefs on others via the state is "anti-religious" and "offensive"?

Oh so close to half the rich people vote for Dems even though the "rank and file" of that party hates them?  Their level of self abnegation is most admirable isn't it? Given their most estimable character, it is hard to imagine why they would be so hated. They seem almost saintly actually.

Not necessarily, but the smug, patronising, superior way in which much of the Democratic base expresses its views on religion is very offensive, and makes me want to put a fist through the screen of what ever monitor I am looking at.

Not half as offensive as the bigoted crap much of the Republican base spews.

I'd say about 50-50.

I respectfully disagree, as a victim of European anti-GOP propaganda, of course.

And there's your answer.

Because they want to be the only rich ones.

You really are a piece of work Jones.  Truly a piece of work.  Crude as well. 

As hard as it may be to believe, not everyone admires the rich as much as you do. 

I would submit that there is a distinction between bearing no 'grudge' against the wealthy, which can be argued to indeed be virtuous on a personal level, and having no desire or seeing no need to account for the fact that they are wealthy and hence can by definition afford more when constructing public policy.

Bill Clinton was a classic cultural southerner and he was a member of the DLC; and many liberals didn't think Clinton was progressive enough, yet he won both his elections. 

The McCain-Palin ticket was flawed, primarily because McCain was 70 years old. 

The NYC liberal media may hate southerners, but in reality, southern voters still impact Presidential elections.  They helped GW Bush win 2 close elections against "northern liberal tickets" 

If Romney chose Pawlenty, his strategy would be to try to flip the northern-midwest blue states.  Paul Ryan is now the standin for the Pawlenty strategy - which is trying to flip Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa.  This strategy is probably Mitt's best chance. 

But it does ignore the Southern strategy, and leave Ohio, Virginia, and Florida in question. 

But now it depends on the economy, and the country's satisfaction with Obama.  If the economy slightly improves, then Obama will win re-election.  If not, then Obama will lose. 

Most southerners are tired of Obama's liberal policies, but will they decide that "northern" Romney is the better alternative??? 

Its more or less now up to Paul Ryan to convince Southerners that Romney is a trustworthy alternative to Obama's liberalism. 

Frankly, I though Portman or Thune would have been better to secure Southern swing states, and "common man" voters.

Paul Ryan is certainly not the type of Catholic that a Christian would vote against.

A Randian is supposed to appeal to Christians?

If Ryan is a "Randian" (he apparently has moved on anyway), just why does he spend so much time saying he is trying to save from fiscal collapse programs Rand would hate, such as SS and Medical subsidies? That doesn't sound "Randian" at all.  You may not agree with his way out of the fiscal box, but we are hardly on Rand's planet here.

Let's put it this way:  Who on this board would be the most anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic poster?  What's his avatar?

()

Winfield is a troll/satire poster. Everyone knows it.

Will Democrats ever vote for a Mormon president?  Probably not because they are bigots, lol. 

If he's a Mormon Democrat, then they might vote for the guy.