Jeb Bush

[rzd2255]

wins election as Governor in 1994 and reelection in 1998.  He, not George, runs for President in 2000 and selects John McCain as his running mate.  They face Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in November.  What happens?

[Bo]

Jeb wins everything his brother won in 2000 plus IA, WI, NM, and OR. Even though to be honest, I think Jeb would have picked someone younger for his VP.

[rzd2255]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

[Del Tachi]

Bush/McCain--215
Gore/Liebermann--323

Jeb isn't able to excite social conservatives and many of them stay home or vote for Gore on economic issues, Gore wins. 

[Bo]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

[Derek]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

[Bo]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

[Derek]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

[Bo]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

Carter and Clinton won many Southern votes because they were pro-gun (or perceived that way), despite the fact that their party was pro-gun control. Dean would have done the exact same thing and succeeded. And pro-lifers would have actually stayed home if the GOP had an abortion supporter somewhere on their ticket. Clinton was never pro-life. And I honestly think many voters in the GOP would still distrust Ridge and Forbes even if they suddenly became pro-life. There are many voters who are called single-issue voters--they only care about one issue, and if no major party candidates satisfy them on that issue, they don't vote or vote third party. That would have been the case with abortion.

[Derek]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

Carter and Clinton won many Southern votes because they were pro-gun (or perceived that way), despite the fact that their party was pro-gun control. Dean would have done the exact same thing and succeeded. And pro-lifers would have actually stayed home if the GOP had an abortion supporter somewhere on their ticket. Clinton was never pro-life. And I honestly think many voters in the GOP would still distrust Ridge and Forbes even if they suddenly became pro-life. There are many voters who are called single-issue voters--they only care about one issue, and if no major party candidates satisfy them on that issue, they don't vote or vote third party. That would have been the case with abortion.

No they won those states because they're from the south which was much more democratic in the days of Carter due to the segregation issue. There were southern democrats who refused to vote Republican because that was the party of Lincoln. By the time Clinton ran you can see that the south was divided even in a democratic year. Bush had no problem with MS, AL, and SC. However, if someone like them were to run today, the only southern state that would be in play is Florida and possibly VA depending on the nature of the times.

[Bo]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

Carter and Clinton won many Southern votes because they were pro-gun (or perceived that way), despite the fact that their party was pro-gun control. Dean would have done the exact same thing and succeeded. And pro-lifers would have actually stayed home if the GOP had an abortion supporter somewhere on their ticket. Clinton was never pro-life. And I honestly think many voters in the GOP would still distrust Ridge and Forbes even if they suddenly became pro-life. There are many voters who are called single-issue voters--they only care about one issue, and if no major party candidates satisfy them on that issue, they don't vote or vote third party. That would have been the case with abortion.

No they won those states because they're from the south which was much more democratic in the days of Carter due to the segregation issue. There were southern democrats who refused to vote Republican because that was the party of Lincoln. By the time Clinton ran you can see that the south was divided even in a democratic year. Bush had no problem with MS, AL, and SC. However, if someone like them were to run today, the only southern state that would be in play is Florida and possibly VA depending on the nature of the times.

No, there would be other Southern states in play in addition to FL and VA. Obama (a black Yankee liberal who went to a racist church for 20+ years) also won NC and almost won MO. Hillary would have also won WV, MO, AR, and possibly KY and TN.

[Derek]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

Carter and Clinton won many Southern votes because they were pro-gun (or perceived that way), despite the fact that their party was pro-gun control. Dean would have done the exact same thing and succeeded. And pro-lifers would have actually stayed home if the GOP had an abortion supporter somewhere on their ticket. Clinton was never pro-life. And I honestly think many voters in the GOP would still distrust Ridge and Forbes even if they suddenly became pro-life. There are many voters who are called single-issue voters--they only care about one issue, and if no major party candidates satisfy them on that issue, they don't vote or vote third party. That would have been the case with abortion.

No they won those states because they're from the south which was much more democratic in the days of Carter due to the segregation issue. There were southern democrats who refused to vote Republican because that was the party of Lincoln. By the time Clinton ran you can see that the south was divided even in a democratic year. Bush had no problem with MS, AL, and SC. However, if someone like them were to run today, the only southern state that would be in play is Florida and possibly VA depending on the nature of the times.

No, there would be other Southern states in play in addition to FL and VA. Obama (a black Yankee liberal who went to a racist church for 20+ years) also won NC and almost won MO. Hillary would have also won WV, MO, AR, and possibly KY and TN.

Hillary wouldn't have won a single southern state. MO isn't really in the south. NC was a fluke and is still out of reach for the democrats other than in a landslide year. Also, if not for Elizabeth Dole's ad about her opponent's faith, NC democrats would've been less motivated to go to the polls and McCain would've won. Many conservatives were turned off by that as well. Being from the south doesn't win you southern states anymore unless you're a Republican. Also, I know this sounds sexist, but there are many people who don't think a woman should be president in those states. I know she won there in the primaries, but that's only amongst democrats.

[Bo]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

Carter and Clinton won many Southern votes because they were pro-gun (or perceived that way), despite the fact that their party was pro-gun control. Dean would have done the exact same thing and succeeded. And pro-lifers would have actually stayed home if the GOP had an abortion supporter somewhere on their ticket. Clinton was never pro-life. And I honestly think many voters in the GOP would still distrust Ridge and Forbes even if they suddenly became pro-life. There are many voters who are called single-issue voters--they only care about one issue, and if no major party candidates satisfy them on that issue, they don't vote or vote third party. That would have been the case with abortion.

No they won those states because they're from the south which was much more democratic in the days of Carter due to the segregation issue. There were southern democrats who refused to vote Republican because that was the party of Lincoln. By the time Clinton ran you can see that the south was divided even in a democratic year. Bush had no problem with MS, AL, and SC. However, if someone like them were to run today, the only southern state that would be in play is Florida and possibly VA depending on the nature of the times.

No, there would be other Southern states in play in addition to FL and VA. Obama (a black Yankee liberal who went to a racist church for 20+ years) also won NC and almost won MO. Hillary would have also won WV, MO, AR, and possibly KY and TN.

Hillary wouldn't have won a single southern state. MO isn't really in the south. NC was a fluke and is still out of reach for the democrats other than in a landslide year. Also, if not for Elizabeth Dole's ad about her opponent's faith, NC democrats would've been less motivated to go to the polls and McCain would've won. Many conservatives were turned off by that as well. Being from the south doesn't win you southern states anymore unless you're a Republican. Also, I know this sounds sexist, but there are many people who don't think a woman should be president in those states. I know she won there in the primaries, but that's only amongst democrats.

MO is a Southern state. Any state that was officially a slave state right before the Civil War is a Southern state. And I'm telling you Hillary would have definitely won VA, MO, and AR, since there were many blue-collar workers in those states that were liberal on economics but not very keen on voting for a black Chicago liberal. I'm sure there would have been some sexist voters, but I think racism is more widespread than sexism in 21st century America, and if Obama managed to win some Southern states (despite attending a racist church for 20 years), then surely Hillary would have managed to win some Southern states. Not to mention that many Southern women (who would have composed about half of the Southern electorate) would have wanted to see one of their own as President and would have thus voted for Hillary.

[Derek]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

Carter and Clinton won many Southern votes because they were pro-gun (or perceived that way), despite the fact that their party was pro-gun control. Dean would have done the exact same thing and succeeded. And pro-lifers would have actually stayed home if the GOP had an abortion supporter somewhere on their ticket. Clinton was never pro-life. And I honestly think many voters in the GOP would still distrust Ridge and Forbes even if they suddenly became pro-life. There are many voters who are called single-issue voters--they only care about one issue, and if no major party candidates satisfy them on that issue, they don't vote or vote third party. That would have been the case with abortion.

No they won those states because they're from the south which was much more democratic in the days of Carter due to the segregation issue. There were southern democrats who refused to vote Republican because that was the party of Lincoln. By the time Clinton ran you can see that the south was divided even in a democratic year. Bush had no problem with MS, AL, and SC. However, if someone like them were to run today, the only southern state that would be in play is Florida and possibly VA depending on the nature of the times.

No, there would be other Southern states in play in addition to FL and VA. Obama (a black Yankee liberal who went to a racist church for 20+ years) also won NC and almost won MO. Hillary would have also won WV, MO, AR, and possibly KY and TN.

Hillary wouldn't have won a single southern state. MO isn't really in the south. NC was a fluke and is still out of reach for the democrats other than in a landslide year. Also, if not for Elizabeth Dole's ad about her opponent's faith, NC democrats would've been less motivated to go to the polls and McCain would've won. Many conservatives were turned off by that as well. Being from the south doesn't win you southern states anymore unless you're a Republican. Also, I know this sounds sexist, but there are many people who don't think a woman should be president in those states. I know she won there in the primaries, but that's only amongst democrats.

MO is a Southern state. Any state that was officially a slave state right before the Civil War is a Southern state. And I'm telling you Hillary would have definitely won VA, MO, and AR, since there were many blue-collar workers in those states that were liberal on economics but not very keen on voting for a black Chicago liberal. I'm sure there would have been some sexist voters, but I think racism is more widespread than sexism in 21st century America, and if Obama managed to win some Southern states (despite attending a racist church for 20 years), then surely Hillary would have managed to win some Southern states. Not to mention that many Southern women (who would have composed about half of the Southern electorate) would have wanted to see one of their own as President and would have thus voted for Hillary.

If racism was more spread than sexism, then how did Obama beat Hillary in the primaries? All blue collar states are liberal on economics or at least most of them so I'm not sure what's so special about those states. AR has moved to be about as conservative as Texas is these days and Hillary would have been looked at as the carpetbagger she was. Arkansas wasn't good enough for her so she abandoned ship and headed for New York. I can see the ads right now. Southern conservative women tend to view a woman's place is the kitchen just as much as men do.

[Bo]

Say Jeb picks Tom Ridge or stuns everyone by tapping Steve Forbes

If Jeb picks Tom Ridge, he probably loses since Tom Ridge supports abortion and that will alienate a large part of the GOP base. Forbes could also make Jeb lose since he was previously pro-abortion and many conservatives would have remembered that. I think McCain would be a better VP pick than either Ridge or Forbes, but I think the ideal VP pick would be a young, pro-life conservative.

http://

You obviously know nothing about the Republican party which is too bad because knowing your enemy is everything in politics. The abortion issue ends up going out the window for pro-lifers if the GOP candidate is pro-choice and the next issue is GUNS which is why Gore lost to Bush in the first place. Plus that's a pretty moderate ticket and between the impeachment trial and 9/11 we saw the country moving towards the middle. The fact of the matter is that other than Gore, the other 3 would make good presidents.

If either the GOP Presidential or VP candidate is pro-abortion, then you can bet a lot of GOP voters would have stayed home. Many pro-life Republicans were threatening to stay home if Giulaini was nominated. There are a lot of voters that typically vote GOP that would never vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Never. The GOP voters that would care about guns would still vote GOP, but there are a lot of GOP voters that only care about abortion (single-issue voters) and those voters would have stayed home if Jeb Bush picked either Ridge or Forbes to be his VP. And you keep contradicting yourself--you said Dean would have lost to Bush in 2000 due to his position on abortion (despite the fact that he is pro-gun rights), yet you say Gore lost due to his position on gun control. And yes, I still think Jeb loses if he picks either Ridge or Forbes as his VP due to their positions on abortion.

Yes Gore lost because he is AGAINST GUNS. Dean would have been seen as AGAINST GUNS because of the party he is in. You really think being pro-guns is good enough or that social issues alone can win the south? The only thing that wins there is having an R next to your name. Obama in VA was a result of Bush's popularity in a moderately conservative state that borders the northeast anyway. Threatening to stay home and actually doing it are 2 different things. By threatening, the GOP changes to pro-life. I believe Reagan changed on the issue. Actually there's only one candidate I've ever seen in any race with a consistent position on abortion and that was George W. Bush to be honest. Clinton and Gore used to be pro-life and and pro-guns but then said by being in office they saw the needs to take the opposite stance. Those who are pro-life also tend to be strong on defense and support tax cuts because of how ideological people get. Parties retain their votes at some point along the line.

Carter and Clinton won many Southern votes because they were pro-gun (or perceived that way), despite the fact that their party was pro-gun control. Dean would have done the exact same thing and succeeded. And pro-lifers would have actually stayed home if the GOP had an abortion supporter somewhere on their ticket. Clinton was never pro-life. And I honestly think many voters in the GOP would still distrust Ridge and Forbes even if they suddenly became pro-life. There are many voters who are called single-issue voters--they only care about one issue, and if no major party candidates satisfy them on that issue, they don't vote or vote third party. That would have been the case with abortion.

No they won those states because they're from the south which was much more democratic in the days of Carter due to the segregation issue. There were southern democrats who refused to vote Republican because that was the party of Lincoln. By the time Clinton ran you can see that the south was divided even in a democratic year. Bush had no problem with MS, AL, and SC. However, if someone like them were to run today, the only southern state that would be in play is Florida and possibly VA depending on the nature of the times.

No, there would be other Southern states in play in addition to FL and VA. Obama (a black Yankee liberal who went to a racist church for 20+ years) also won NC and almost won MO. Hillary would have also won WV, MO, AR, and possibly KY and TN.

Hillary wouldn't have won a single southern state. MO isn't really in the south. NC was a fluke and is still out of reach for the democrats other than in a landslide year. Also, if not for Elizabeth Dole's ad about her opponent's faith, NC democrats would've been less motivated to go to the polls and McCain would've won. Many conservatives were turned off by that as well. Being from the south doesn't win you southern states anymore unless you're a Republican. Also, I know this sounds sexist, but there are many people who don't think a woman should be president in those states. I know she won there in the primaries, but that's only amongst democrats.

MO is a Southern state. Any state that was officially a slave state right before the Civil War is a Southern state. And I'm telling you Hillary would have definitely won VA, MO, and AR, since there were many blue-collar workers in those states that were liberal on economics but not very keen on voting for a black Chicago liberal. I'm sure there would have been some sexist voters, but I think racism is more widespread than sexism in 21st century America, and if Obama managed to win some Southern states (despite attending a racist church for 20 years), then surely Hillary would have managed to win some Southern states. Not to mention that many Southern women (who would have composed about half of the Southern electorate) would have wanted to see one of their own as President and would have thus voted for Hillary.

If racism was more spread than sexism, then how did Obama beat Hillary in the primaries? All blue collar states are liberal on economics or at least most of them so I'm not sure what's so special about those states. AR has moved to be about as conservative as Texas is these days and Hillary would have been looked at as the carpetbagger she was. Arkansas wasn't good enough for her so she abandoned ship and headed for New York. I can see the ads right now. Southern conservative women tend to view a woman's place is the kitchen just as much as men do.

lol. Most people who voted against Obama were not racist and most people who voted against Hillary were not sexist. Obama won because many people wanted change and hope, which Obama best epitomized out of all the candidates. Also, many voters were tired of having the Bush-Clinton families run this country for so long and wanted someone new to lead this country. No, not all blue-collar states are liberal on economics. But a lot of people in some Southern states are liberal on economics (but socially conservative) and would be willing to vote for certain kinds of Democrats. Hillary could have appealed to those voters much better than Obama did because she isn't black and because her husband was the Governor of a Southern state. The reason McCain did better in Arkansas than in Texas in 2008 was because Obama was the nominee, and many people in Arkansas don't like black Northern liberals. Arkansas would have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee because people there still have fond memories of Bill's Governorship and Presidency. And I seriously doubt most Southern women view their place as being in the kitchen. Most Southern women nowadays also have careers, and many of them would be very willing to vote for Hillary just to see a woman President. And if attending a racist church for 20+ years didn't hurt Obama (like many conservatives said it would), then I seriously doubt anything in Hillary's past or anything Hillary did would have hurt her election chances.

[Derek]

You basically added onto what I just said and didn't dispute any of my statements. Change will be at the top of people's list in 2012 too when Obama loses.

[Bo]

You basically added onto what I just said and didn't dispute any of my statements. Change will be at the top of people's list in 2012 too when Obama loses.

I reputed your claim that sexism is more widespread than racism and that Hillary wouldn't have won any Southern states in 2008.

[Derek]

You basically added onto what I just said and didn't dispute any of my statements. Change will be at the top of people's list in 2012 too when Obama loses.

I reputed your claim that sexism is more widespread than racism and that Hillary wouldn't have won any Southern states in 2008.

I really don't think racism or sexism are going to stop anyone from being elected, but I think sexism is natural whereas racism is not.

[Bo]

You basically added onto what I just said and didn't dispute any of my statements. Change will be at the top of people's list in 2012 too when Obama loses.

I reputed your claim that sexism is more widespread than racism and that Hillary wouldn't have won any Southern states in 2008.

I really don't think racism or sexism are going to stop anyone from being elected, but I think sexism is natural whereas racism is not.

I disagree with the last part.

[Derek]

You basically added onto what I just said and didn't dispute any of my statements. Change will be at the top of people's list in 2012 too when Obama loses.

I reputed your claim that sexism is more widespread than racism and that Hillary wouldn't have won any Southern states in 2008.

You think racism is natural? There's evidence of that in the clash of civilizations.

I really don't think racism or sexism are going to stop anyone from being elected, but I think sexism is natural whereas racism is not.

I disagree with the last part.