Powell/Bush '08

[FromTexas]

To clarify, it seems that if 80% of the people who labeled their top concern in the election to be "moral values" voted for President Bush, they are more likely than not to be Republican. In other words, the GOP has a much higher percentage of voters who place cultural issues at the top of their list of concerns. These people will NOT EVER vote for a pro-choicer, if they are Powell or not.

You are wrong. I don't have the exact figure but I it was surveyed that approximately 40% of Republican voters lean pro-choice (it doesn't mean they approve, but that they feel its up to someone else to decide). In addition, of all Republican voters, the issue of prolife/prochoice is not the prevailing decisive issue for choosing a candidate (no matter what the press/liberals want you to believe). In fact, of values, more of those "values" deal with moral character (honesty, integrity, etc) and homosexuality.

What you miss is that abortion rights aren't disappearing (despite what you were sold by the liberal party) even though we have had the "most right" president ever in office with Republican control.

Also, it wouldn't decide an election (beyond the primary) because in the end the hardcore rightists aren't going to vote for a democrat (unless they completely sell themselves as the far right - prolife, antigay, etc... which isn't going to happen) even with a prochoice, progay Republican on the ticket.

Also, if the Republicans only took 7% of the black vote, its over for Democrats from the start.

 

[Lenny]

To clarify, it seems that if 80% of the people who labeled their top concern in the election to be "moral values" voted for President Bush, they are more likely than not to be Republican. In other words, the GOP has a much higher percentage of voters who place cultural issues at the top of their list of concerns. These people will NOT EVER vote for a pro-choicer, if they are Powell or not.

I believe the news media made a very big deal about the exit polls showing a lot of people voted based upon what they considered "moral values" because it showed why so many registerd Democrats voted for Bush over Kerry. They obviously couldn't come out and say it but that was the message many of us took from the coverage.

In Charles County registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by over 10,000 people. The numbers of registered Independents is significant but not large. If, as they tell us, nearly 70% of the electorate got out and voted, how else can you explain that Kerry beat Bush in Charles county by only 1,000 votes? It isn't because more Democrats stayed home while all the Republicans voted, I can assure you.

This was an election in which the rank-and-file, grass-roots Democrats couldn't swallow the candidate the party leadegship put forward.

 

[2ndAmendment]

US news and World Report says it may be so, though they didn't signal who top man would be. (They listed it as Bush-Powell)

That's Jeb, the so called 'smart' Bush.


It's a GREAT fit. Powell (58) as President because he is already wired into the whole power leadership/DC thing. Jeb (52) can catch a break after running Florida for two terms and learn the ropes...then be top man in 2016.

How's that for looking ahead?

I'd vote for Powell in a minute. A second.

I liked Powell before he was Secretary of State. Now he seems too much like a McCain RINO.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I think a threat from President Powell would have carried far more weight with Saddam or with anyone for that matter, than a threat from W ....

Not any more.

 

[vraiblonde]

Not any more.

Worth repeating.

 

[rraley]

I believe the news media made a very big deal about the exit polls showing a lot of people voted based upon what they considered "moral values" because it showed why so many registerd Democrats voted for Bush over Kerry. They obviously couldn't come out and say it but that was the message many of us took from the coverage.

In Charles County registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by over 10,000 people. The numbers of registered Independents is significant but not large. If, as they tell us, nearly 70% of the electorate got out and voted, how else can you explain that Kerry beat Bush in Charles county by only 1,000 votes? It isn't because more Democrats stayed home while all the Republicans voted, I can assure you.

This was an election in which the rank-and-file, grass-roots Democrats couldn't swallow the candidate the party leadegship put forward.

Comparing Charles, St. Mary's County, or Calvert County Democrats to national Democrats is quite risky. St. Mary's or Calvert, despite Democratic advantages in party registration, have not voted Democratic since 1976 in a presidential election. As for Charles, Lenny you fail to mention that Kerry's margin over Bush in 2004 was greater than Al Gore's margin over Bush in 2000.

Party registration is NOT an indication of national voting trends. Look at Oklahoma: it is 60% Democratic by registration but it has two Republican senators, a 3-1 Republican congressional delegation, and has voted Republican on the presidential level every year since 1964.

 

[Lenny]

Lenny you fail to mention that Kerry's margin over Bush in 2004 was greater than Al Gore's margin over Bush in 2000.

Typical Democratic losers' point in 2004 but irrelevant.

Party registration is NOT an indication of national voting trends. Look at Oklahoma: it is 60% Democratic by registration but it has two Republican senators, a 3-1 Republican congressional delegation, and has voted Republican on the presidential level every year since 1964.

Which is my point. The "moral values" of the candidates was more important than party affiliation.