Condi Rice To Consider Vp Slot?

[Lounge Daddy]

I agree. However I can see McCain counting on the Christian right to simply turn up their nose and vote [i]against[/i] either Obama or Clinton--despite the odd libertarian-minded conservative (Coulter) or Christian conservative (Dobson) to refuse to vote for McCain out of protest and principal.

They have taken the conservatives, the Christians, and the libertarians that have provided the base and the grass roots moralization for granted for more than a decade. I can't see the party changing anytime soon.

[kujo]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1494339' date='Apr 7 2008, 06:20 PM']I agree. However I can see McCain counting on the Christian right to simply turn up their nose and vote [i]against[/i] either Obama or Clinton--despite the odd libertarian-minded conservative (Coulter) or Christian conservative (Dobson) to refuse to vote for McCain out of protest and principal.

They have taken the conservatives, the Christians, and the libertarians that have provided the base and the grass roots moralization for granted for more than a decade. I can't see the party changing anytime soon.[/quote]

True. I can see this happening as well. And it would undoubtedly result in Republican losses in Congress, the Senate and the White House, a new liberal powerhouse akin to the Gilded Age (i.e.-2002-2006) on the Neo-Conservative era.

Mark my words: unless McCain nominates a Huckabee-type dude/chick, he's goin' down. I respect the guy, but he ain't beating Obama without the support of the Christian Right. Even with them, he may not stand chance.

[Mercy me]

I don't necessarily agree with that assessment. Who else are the christian conservatives going to vote for? They can't vote for the dem and anyone else is throwing their votes away. McCain has never been know to care about what others think and I think that he will pick his own guy. I still can't see Dr. Rice as a strategically good option.

[Lounge Daddy]

"[url="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VTPGV80&show_article=1"]Rice [i]Again[/i] Denies VP Aspirations.[/url]"
[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) - Condoleezza Rice has plans to head West after her time as secretary of State—not plans to be vice president.

She stressed Tuesday that she has no aspirations to join John McCain as his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket this fall. McCain, an Arizona senator, has wrapped up the GOP presidential nomination.

"Senator McCain is an extraordinary American, a really outstanding leader and obviously a great patriot," Rice said at a State Department news conference with the foreign ministers of Canada and Mexico. "That said, I am going back to Stanford, back to California, west of the Mississippi. I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter."[/quote]

[Justin86]

[quote name='kujo' post='1494063' date='Apr 7 2008, 03:36 PM']Democratic turnout in these primaries has been so high that virtually-every registered Republican needs to vote for McCain in order for him to be successful.[/quote]
That only matters if the Democratic candidate(whoever that will be) actually can get all of those votes in his or her pocket. As I pointed out earlier, the voters aren't solidly backing either Hillary or Obama, they are voting based on gender or skin color. In order for any Democratic presidential candidate to win the White House, he needs to win the black and the women vote. That simply won't happen when the party has to choose between a white woman and a black man. One of their key groups is going to feel disenfranchised, and they will stay home come November. The Democrats can't win this go around.

[kujo]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1494944' date='Apr 8 2008, 02:54 PM']That only matters if the Democratic candidate(whoever that will be) actually can get all of those votes in his or her pocket. As I pointed out earlier, the voters aren't solidly backing either Hillary or Obama, they are voting based on gender or skin color. In order for any Democratic presidential candidate to win the White House, he needs to win the black and the women vote. That simply won't happen when the party has to choose between a white woman and a black man. One of their key groups is going to feel disenfranchised, and they will stay home come November. The Democrats can't win this go around.[/quote]

Dude, with all due respect, I really think that you are wrong. During the primaries, emotions are high and people are hardcore about the candidate that they are supporting. But, at the end of the day, these candidates share far too many policy positions for Democratic voters to be THAT disenfranchised. I believe this will be a seminal election because it really is about change. Not necessarily the "change" that has been chanted at rallies across the country, but the sort of change that is a bit more tangible. The next President will have to guide this country through enormous struggles, and, like it or not, a different pathway.

Democrats will show, dude. Take my word.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kujo' post='1494965' date='Apr 9 2008, 04:24 AM']Democrats will show, dude. Take my word.[/quote]
That's just the thing, they never do.

I will agree with you though that this is quite an historic election, however I think you fail to see what truly makes it so. Let's look at the issues people are talking about.

[i]Healthcare "crisis"[/i]--It's always been this bad, and likely always will. Last time I checked the uninsured numbered around 45 million or 15% of the total population, and that figure has been pretty steady over the years. As nothing has changed since the last election I doubt the Democrats are coming out to vote in droves over that.

[i]Housing "crisis"[/i]--My relatives that sell real estate tell me this is being caused by people buying mansions that they could never have afforded anyway (most of these people have owned these homes for under two years as well). The vast majority of people's mortgages are just fine, and this little issue is hardly one for the history books or one to be excited about. That has nothing to do with it.

[i]Gas prices[/i]--they're always high this time of year. By the time of the general election they'll be back down.

[i]Iraq war[/i]--This ultimately will be a non-issue as either Hillary's or Obama's strategies(which are basically the same) will appeal to no one, even those who want troop withdrawal. Both of the candidates agree to a gradual troop withdrawal, and if Iraq goes haywire they will send troops back in. In other words, they won't get us out of Iraq. They'll start to, and then we'll just go back in. There is no policy change in favor of the left here, and certainly not one to appeal to the right. There is no reason for anyone to vote here.

So what exactly is it that makes this election so historic? The answer is for the first time in history we have the serious possibility of either a white woman or a black man becoming the President of the United States. That's the only reason why people would be coming out in droves to vote here. The problem is that both are running in the same party, and that party will have to ultimately pick one over the other, and thus disenfranchise one group that they need to have in order to win. 2008 will not be the Year of the Democrats.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Justin86

[kujo]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1495598' date='Apr 9 2008, 02:59 PM']That's just the thing, they never do.

I will agree with you though that this is quite an historic election, however I think you fail to see what truly makes it so. Let's look at the issues people are talking about.

[i]Healthcare "crisis"[/i]--It's always been this bad, and likely always will. Last time I checked the uninsured numbered around 45 million or 15% of the total population, and that figure has been pretty steady over the years. As nothing has changed since the last election I doubt the Democrats are coming out to vote in droves over that.

[i]Housing "crisis"[/i]--My relatives that sell real estate tell me this is being caused by people buying mansions that they could never have afforded anyway (most of these people have owned these homes for under two years as well). The vast majority of people's mortgages are just fine, and this little issue is hardly one for the history books or one to be excited about. That has nothing to do with it.

[i]Gas prices[/i]--they're always high this time of year. By the time of the general election they'll be back down.

[i]Iraq war[/i]--This ultimately will be a non-issue as either Hillary's or Obama's strategies(which are basically the same) will appeal to no one, even those who want troop withdrawal. Both of the candidates agree to a gradual troop withdrawal, and if Iraq goes haywire they will send troops back in. In other words, they won't get us out of Iraq. They'll start to, and then we'll just go back in. There is no policy change in favor of the left here, and certainly not one to appeal to the right. There is no reason for anyone to vote here.

So what exactly is it that makes this election so historic? The answer is for the first time in history we have the serious possibility of either a white woman or a black man becoming the President of the United States. That's the only reason why people would be coming out in droves to vote here. The problem is that both are running in the same party, and that party will have to ultimately pick one over the other, and thus disenfranchise one group that they need to have in order to win. 2008 will not be the Year of the Democrats.[/quote]

You make good points. I think you underestimate people's dissatisfaction with the things you listed. The electorate thinks there will be significant changes in the healthcare system, the economy and in the strategy in Iraq. The Democrats, always champions of the underdog, will rally around which ever novelty gets nominated. That is not to say that Hillary and Obama are mere novelties, just their unique characteristic (being a white woman and a black man) will be all that is needed to envigorate the Democratic base.

I will admit that I see a potential Hillary nomination as a liability. Part of Obama's appeal is to the college age and post-graduate, who, [url="http://www.gallup.com/poll/106360/Obama-Dominates-Clinton-Among-College-Graduates.aspx"]according to a new Gallup Poll prefer him over Hillary from anywhere between 13 to 34%.[/url]. Check out the results of another Gallup Poll from earlier in the month:

[img]http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/5227/080403vote1pb76eded7.gif[/img]
[img]http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9884/080403vote2q4h6k8mh0.gif[/img]

[quote]Obama's strength in a general-election matchup against McCain would be his appeal to young voters. Obama maintains a 20-point lead over McCain among 18- to 29-year-old registered voters, 57% to 37%, while McCain has nearly as large a lead among those 65 and older, 51% to 35%. The two are closely matched among the two middle age groups.

The general pattern of Democrat/Republican candidate support is the same in a Clinton-McCain contest, but Clinton's lead of 11 points over McCain among the youngest voters is only about half the lead Obama enjoys among this group. But she offsets her weaker performance among younger voters by doing better among older voters, trailing McCain by 6 points among senior citizens, compared to Obama's 16-point deficit versus McCain among older voters.

...Overall, both hypothetical general-election contests are close, with McCain holding a one percentage point advantage over both Obama and Clinton.

Source: [url="http://www.gallup.com/poll/106042/Age-Vote-More-Strongly-Related-ObamaMcCain-Matchup.aspx"]Gallup Poll[/url].[/quote]

All this to say that we won't know until November how things turn out. You could be right: the Democrats could ignore Puff Daddy's threat of "Vote or DIE" and have continue their historically-low turnouts. Or not. Maybe this will be the Democratic renaissance, their version of '96, '00, and '04. Any number of variables--another attack, a drastic increase/decrease in oil prices, another natural disaster, etc. -- could occur. There's no telling what the effects will be of an increasingly bitter and nasty Democratic primary process. Who will John McCain nominate? Will the Christians show up? All of these questions will continue to be the narrative of what has the potential to be the most historic election of the past century! We will just have to wait and see.

Edited April 9, 2008 by kujo

[Justin86]

I have so little faith in my generation to show up at the polls I prefer to think of myself ads part of the Catholic voting bloc, as I like to consider myself part of a group that actually has power.

Christians have a tendency to vote, young people don't. I fail to see any reason why this year will be any different.

[kujo]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1496643' date='Apr 10 2008, 07:18 PM']I have so little faith in my generation to show up at the polls I prefer to think of myself ads part of the Catholic voting bloc, as I like to consider myself part of a group that actually has power.

Christians have a tendency to vote, young people don't. I fail to see any reason why this year will be any different.[/quote]

Whether or not you consider yourself part of our generation's voting bloc, you are part of it. And, while you and I both vote our Catholic morals, we are always doing so as part of a growing constituency that seems primed to make an impact. Our Church, specifically under the direction of Pope John Paul the Great, recognized and encouraged the power that young people have. Rather than being jaded by our lack of participation, I think we should join hand with those we agree and disagree with in an attempt to reinvigorate our generation, for the decisions that these politicians make today and tomorrow will inevitably be paid for (both figuratively and literally) by us.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kujo' post='1496660' date='Apr 11 2008, 08:42 AM']Whether or not you consider yourself part of our generation's voting bloc, you are part of it. And, while you and I both vote our Catholic morals, we are always doing so as part of a growing constituency that seems primed to make an impact. Our Church, specifically under the direction of Pope John Paul the Great, recognized and encouraged the power that young people have. Rather than being jaded by our lack of participation, I think we should join hand with those we agree and disagree with in an attempt to reinvigorate our generation, for the decisions that these politicians make today and tomorrow will inevitably be paid for (both figuratively and literally) by us.[/quote]
From what I hear the Catholic voting bloc is one, if not the, most sought after voting bloc in Presidential elections. The Catholic vote has reflected the popular vote for the past 30 years I believe. "Youth voters" have nothing to compete with that. And how am I jaded just because I'm not interested in joining hands with "my generation" to get out the vote? After all, it's not like they're likely to vote for my guy. I'm not saying I for creating obstacles for people to vote or anything, but if someone doesn't want to vote, and they're not on my side, why should I encourage them to vote? How does that help me?