Handicap Super TuesdayFollow

You're supposed to answer the question, but here we are, two wacky rebels.

Huckabee is just the most charismatic and yet heinous character I can imagine, so I thought you'd worship at his altar. Romney, then?

You didn't read the last 2 or 3 times we had a discussion about Huckabee and I said that he's not really a Conservative, but is a religious Liberal? The only twinkling of defense I've given him is that I think he gets far more bad rap for not being fiscally conservative enough. IMO, his fiscal policies are fine, it's his social ones that I'm worried about.

In the larger picture, he'll drive away moderate voters. In fact, you heard it here first: If the Republican ticket ends up McCain/Huckabee, one of the key opposing arguments by Dem politicos will be to observe that McCain is old the therefore we'd be a single heartbeat away from having a religious right guy in the oval office (along with diatribes about how he'd make abortion illegal nationwide as though the President actually has the power to do that, and force us all to pray to Jesus in our schools, etc...). Mark my words, that'll pop up if that situation happens.


I actually voted for Romney in the primary, not out of any particularly greater like for him then McCain. I happen to think he's a bit more representative of real conservative values (not the made up ones we hear so much about). He's got a good economic background, and has shown that he can succeed in an executive role. Also, with the exception of the whole "OMG! He's pro-choice" (which obviously isn't a big deal to me as a pro-choice conservative), he doesn't have any particular "dings" against him.

McCain will be a harder sell to the hardliners then he will be to moderate voters. Which is a picklement all by itself. I actually think he has the best chance to win of any likely Republican candidate at this point. Honestly though, either one of those two would be an acceptable Republican president IMO. McCains willingness to overly compromise (and uncertainty as to the degree to which that may or may not spill over to an executive role) was basically the tipping factor for me. It's not a huge deal either way. Either one of them would be far far far preferred over any of the Dem candidates in my mind (duh!).

In related news, Obama has been making fairly significant inroads with the Latino voting community. I think he'll do just fine in sunny California when the time comes.

Edited, Feb 6th 2008 8:17pm by Jophiel

If the Republican ticket ends up McCain/Huckabee

Zero chance.


I actually voted for Romney in the primary, not out of any particularly greater like for him then McCain.

Obviously. He's your ideal candidate, no actual positions on anything, He can never be wrong!

Obama is the "worst" candidate the Dems have for taking California and McCain is the "best" candidate the Reps have.


No. Well, yes on McCain, because he's the *only* candidate the GOP has. No, however, on Obama, and it's not close at all.

Only a mentally crippled rasicst would assume that Latinos who voted for Clinton are suddenly going to vote for McCain instead of Obama in a general election. White guys in San Diego, sure. but who cares, their votes have been meaningless for decades now.

Being a conservative should always be about knowing when and where different levels of the government should or should not act.

You mean arbitrarily in ways that make wealthy white heterosexual men more money by denying anyone else very opportunity or liberty wherever possible? That sounds about right.

Wait. As opposed to your wild-*** guesses? I mean, at least that guy has a paying gig making wild guesses. You're still strictly amateur.

You've failed to make any case though that the "worst" Democrat would lose in CA against the "best" Republican. You can keep saying "It might happen!" but that's not real convincing.

The people voting in the general election are not going to be the same exact people (and only those people) who voted in the primary. It's not that the exact same Latino voters who voted for Clinton in the primary would decide to vote for McCain instead of Obama. There are voters who only vote in general elections.

No, you're missing the point. Democratic voters who voted in the primary are close to ambivalent about who wins. Democrats who didn't vote COULDN'T CARE LESS if it's Obama or Clinton, they'd vote for EITHER. Get it? Me and and Nexa, Joph and Flea et all are to the wild extreme end of the activist wing of the Democratic party. Obama kills Clinton with "independent" primary voters, he has the broader appeal. He's less polarizing to the whack job wing of your party than Hillary. There is absolutely nothing about him that makes him less electable in a general election unless you think his race is the primary consideration.

Now, while that might keep you from voting for someone, and many of your ilk, it's not going to be enough to motivate the snake handlers to come out and vote for a guy who they largely despise. They'll sit on their hand or, even possibly (oh please please please please) find a semi- viable snake oil merchant to represent them outside the party. Hillary, on the other hand, might be enough to get them to vote and to give money.

The one where you pretend it's about helping the poor, and feeding the hungry, and reveal that what it really is all about for you is taking away people's freedom to be themselves and succeed (or fail) by their own merits and replacing it with a state that tells everyone what they can do and how much they can have.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't pretend anything. Let me be clear:

The wealthy in this country have become so OVERWHELMINGLY through the virtue of who's ****** they fell out of. Not because of merit.

Those people have an obligation to redistribute this wealth they have not earned to those who haven't shared in the same opportunity.

Every human being on the planet deserves a basic level of support, including food, shelter, health care, education, infrastructure, electricity, quiet enjoyment, etc. REGARDLESS of their income level, social status, "contribution" to the larger society or what have you. You know, the same level of services we provide to prisoners.

The aggregate wealth of this nation is sufficient to provide a standard of living to all of it's citizens that vastly out paces the suffering hand to mouth existence of most of the middle class now. It's not ok or just or defensible in any way that one child should instantly inherit 100000 times the wealth at birth that another child will earn in a lifetime.

I'm a Socialist. I've not pretended to be something else, ever. I'm also pragmatic, and haven't ever pretended that a candidate who actually represents my views will ever be viable. So I vote for those most closely aligned with them.

It's not ******* rocket science.

Your argument is that Latinos who voted for Clinton will flip parties if Obama gets the nomination. Which is different from my statement regarding S. Carolina & Georgia.

Wait a god damn minute. Are you trying to imply that McCain doesn't turn out massive brown hordes of adoring vatos?

There's a bloc on both sides who do exactly that. There's a reason why people are being surprised by the large turnouts this primary season -- usually, folks just don't bother. Even life-long Democratcic/Republican voters.