Iowa Predictions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Okay, peops. I have not posted here much in FYM. And I am a Kucinich man at heart.

But let me be honest.

I am elated about Obama's victory in Iowa and plan to support him all the way if he clears the next two hurdles.

And fuck: Huckabee is better than any Republican I have seen in my lifetime.

Frankly, Obama v Huckabee is like a breath of fresh air.

I can settle for Edwards, and I love Kucinich. But don't get me started about Hillary Clinton.
 
The Democratic party's history of racism is appalling. From supporting slavery way back when, to being an obstacle to the Acts of '64 and '65, to opposing school choice, to labeling a racist anyone who opposes affirmative action, which in itself is racist by assumping blacks are inferior and incapable of competing with whites.

All this done while constantly saying they support African-Americans.

:tsk:
 
2861U2 said:
The Democratic party's history of racism is appalling. From supporting slavery way back when, to being an obstacle to the Acts of '64 and '65,

You're appealing to history because it works for you while others are ignoring it. The point is a lot of the people who used to vote Democrat when the party was anti-black are the folks voting Republican today.

2861U2 said:
to opposing school choice, to labeling a racist anyone who opposes affirmative action, which in itself is racist by assumping blacks are inferior and incapable of competing with whites.

That is NOT what affirmative action assumes! You could argue that affirmative action assumes that whites won't hire blacks, regardless of their qualifications, unless forced to do so. It assumes the racism of whites not the incompetence of blacks. Whether THAT'S fair or true or not is another matter and open for debate.
 
besides

every Republican I know has at least one black friend*














*this became a requirement for party membership after George Allen "macaca" incident
 
Irvine511 said:
national polls right now mean NOTHING.

Rudy is leading in national polls. go figure.

and how did the 18-20 year olds vote? i'll give you a hint -- not Republican. and a majority of them support such "liberal" things like marriage equality. whites are going to continue to decline in population, and the Republicans have always hated blacks and have just done huge damage to whatever inroads Bush may have made with Latinos.

Clinton moving to the right was moving to the center. you're going to see the Republican nominee moving to the center. the election is won from the center.

ask yourself why Congress has been overwhelmingly Democratic since WW2.

Thats incorrect. Rudy lost his big leads in the national Polls weeks ago, and the latest national poll by the PEW research firm shows McCain in the lead nationally for Republicans. Its true national polls currently mean little, but their not irrelevant.

The House of Representitives has been overwhelmingly Democratic since World War II, but its been more equal in the Senate. The House of Representitives is a different ball game than the President of the United States. The majority of Americans cannot even name their Representitive. Also, conservative Democrats in the south helped keep their majority through the years, and although many of them may have been Democrats in name, many were certainly more supportive of Repuplican polices as the "Reagan Democrats" showed.

The center is important, and when it comes to Presidential Politics over the past 40 years, the Republicans have solidly held on to that center.

That 18-20 years old vote more Democratic than Republican is nothing new and they continue to disapoint democrats in every election by showing up in such poor numbers. But as they age and become better educated and experienced, many move to the right and vote more.
 
images


I guess Romney is headed for China in 2008 ?

He keeps saying he won the silver metal tonight. :shrug:
 
Anu said:
Okay, peops. I have not posted here much in FYM. And I am a Kucinich man at heart.

But let me be honest.

I am elated about Obama's victory in Iowa and plan to support him all the way if he clears the next two hurdles.

And fuck: Huckabee is better than any Republican I have seen in my lifetime.

Frankly, Obama v Huckabee is like a breath of fresh air.

I can settle for Edwards, and I love Kucinich. But don't get me started about Hillary Clinton.

Agreed all across the board. I like many of Kucinich's ideas, but I'm becoming less and less positive that he could realistically put many of them into practice. Obama vs. Huckabee would place a young, charismatic and zealous senator against a personable and experienced governor that I happen to agree with more often than many of the other candidates. I think it would be an interesting and potentially beneficial race no matter who wins.
 
anitram said:
The amount of hypocrisy about Obama's lack of experience is stunning given that Bush was a failure at everything he ever did

Amen. Double standard much?

Maybe I am just projecting onto Obama what Bill Clinton was able to accomplish, maybe I see those possibilities in him. Or I just want to.

Mike Huckabee scares me-but if he is easily beatable then bring him on :drool:


DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama's victory Thursday in critical Democratic Iowa caucuses indicate voters saw him as a candidate of change, according to entrance polls.

Garnering 38 percent, the freshman Illinois senator is the first African-American ever to win the Iowa caucuses, a key stepping stone on the path to the White House.

"On this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do," Obama told wildly cheering and chanting supporters Thursday night. "We are choosing hope over fear, we are choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America." VideoWatch Obama's victory speech »

With all of Iowa's precincts reporting Thursday night, Obama was followed by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton -- Edwards taking just under 30 percent and Clinton taking just over 29 percent.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ended the night with slightly more than 2 percent and announced he would stay in the race, but two other Democrats -- Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- announced they were dropping out. Biden finished the night with almost 1 percent and Dodd finished with less than .1 percent. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio did not win any delegates.

The finish was a blow to Clinton -- the presumptive front-runner in the months leading up to this year's campaign who had hoped a win in Iowa would be the start of an uninterrupted run to the nomination.

But due to the way Iowa splits its delegates, all three of the top finishers will leave the state having earned roughly the same amount of support at the state's Democratic convention later this year, when attendees will divide delegates for the party's national convention. PhotoSee dramatic caucus night photos »

"Just over half of Democratic caucus-goers said change was the No. 1 factor they were looking for in a candidate, and 51 percent of those voters chose Barack Obama," said CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider. "That compares to only 19 percent of 'change' caucus-goers who preferred Clinton." See more caucus analysis »

Twenty percent of Democrats said Clinton's campaign mantra -- experience -- was the most important attribute of a presidential candidate.

At Obama's caucus-night headquarters in Des Moines, the hall filled with people late Thursday in anticipation of the candidate's speech.

The supporters, many of them young, screamed "We did it!"

When vote returns appeared on big television screens, the crowd burst into spontaneous rounds of Obama's campaign chant: "Fired up -- Ready to go!"

Obama campaigned in Iowa as the true agent for change in a field of Democrats hoping to cash in on voter dissatisfaction with President Bush. See slideshow of the night's events »

He banked heavily on the support of first-time caucus participants and independents, whom pre-caucus polls suggested were responding well to a campaign that included promises to work across party lines if elected.

CNN's entrance polls suggested that message resonated. Younger caucus-goers and those who said they want change gave significant support to Obama.

Fifty-seven percent of poll respondents age 17 to 29 said they supported Obama, compared with 11 percent for Clinton and 13 percent for Edwards, according to entrance polls. Surprising analysts, female voters also selected Obama over Clinton.

David Axelrod, senior adviser to Obama, said the campaign was thrilled at the support from young voters, independents and "some disillusioned Republicans and new voters."

He said the campaign has aimed to bring in new voters and that the Democratic Party "has to start thinking about how to bring a coalition together behind a progressive agenda."

Democratic caucus turnout was much higher than four years ago. "With 93.5 percent of the precincts reporting we are seeing record turnout with 218,000 caucus attendees," said a statement from the state Democratic Party. In 2004, the turnout was about 125,000.

Edwards opened his remarks to supporters Thursday by talking about change.

"The one thing that's clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won," Edwards said.

Obama's victory came despite Clinton's support from EMILY's List, a national group that works to elect female candidates who favor abortion rights. The group contacted 60,000 Iowa women with no history of caucusing and asked them to support Clinton.

The Clinton campaign itself also contacted tens of thousands of Iowans who had never caucused. Most of them were age 50 and above. The campaign set up a "buddy" system to encourage the newcomers to attend caucuses.

Appearing in front of cheering supporters Thursday with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, at her side, Clinton refused to back down.

"I am so ready for the rest of this campaign and I am so ready to lead," she said, smiling.

"I have done this work for 35 years, it is the work of my lifetime," Clinton said. "I have been involved in making it possible for young people to have a better education and for people of all ages to have health care and that transforming work is what we desperately need in our country again."

"I think you could probably look at two things when it comes to Hillary Clinton: One is the sense that she could be very divisive in a general election campaign -- people in Iowa don't seem to want that," said CNN political analyst Gloria Borger. "And secondly, her history question, the Clinton baggage, if you will. There are a lot of voters there who are saying, 'We want to get beyond that.' "

Obama also did well among caucusers with varied issues at the top of their concerns. Thirty-four percent of voters who said their top issue was health care went for Obama, according to entrance polls; 35 percent among those who said the Iraq war was their top issue chose Obama; 36 percent among those who chose the economy chose him.

David Gergen, a former White House aide under Republican and the Clinton administrations, pointed out that Iowa was not a strong state for Clinton from the start. "The Clintons are nothing if not resilient," he said. "They will fight back. For Barack Obama, this is a personal triumph. For an African-American to go into a state that's 95 percent white and win against Mrs. Clinton is an absolutely remarkable victory."

The caucuses spelled the end for two other senators with White House aspirations. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware will abandon his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, three sources told CNN. Biden received 1 percent in the Iowa caucuses.

Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut also will drop out of the race, campaign sources told CNN Thursday. Dodd received less than 1 percent in the Iowa caucuses.
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:
The Democratic party's history of racism is appalling. From supporting slavery way back when, to being an obstacle to the Acts of '64 and '65, to opposing school choice, to labeling a racist anyone who opposes affirmative action, which in itself is racist by assumping blacks are inferior and incapable of competing with whites.

All this done while constantly saying they support African-Americans.

:tsk:



dude. know your history.

all those Democrats became REPUBLICANS after the civil rights act. it was called the "southern strategy."
 
Strongbow said:
Its true national polls currently mean little, but their not irrelevant.


they mean nothing. Clinton has a double digit lead over Obama. i think McCain is rising, no question, but he's got the south to deal with, and Giuliani has huge margins in Florida, California, and New Jersey, though i do think he's now DOA.


[q]The House of Representitives has been overwhelmingly Democratic since World War II, but its been more equal in the Senate. The House of Representitives is a different ball game than the President of the United States. The majority of Americans cannot even name their Representitive. Also, conservative Democrats in the south helped keep their majority through the years, and although many of them may have been Democrats in name, many were certainly more supportive of Repuplican polices as the "Reagan Democrats" showed.[/q]

this is lame. you might as well argue that the northeast and california is filled with Republicans -- like, say, my former representative Nancy Johnson -- were Democrats in disguise. Congress is more broadly representative of the nation as a whole, and you've completely ignored both voter identification (more Democrats than Republicans and growing) and the fact that the Republican stance on nearly all social issues are trending older and older.

[q]The center is important, and when it comes to Presidential Politics over the past 40 years, the Republicans have solidly held on to that center.[/q]

they've been able to recruit the independents in a presidential forum, but not in Congress. the presidential race is far more about the individual than the party as a whole. when people vote for congress, or even state representatives, that's when party affiliations come out and people will pull all R's or all D's across the board. whereas in a presidential election, the individual candidate matters much more than his party. hence, your term, "Reagan Democrats" -- people who voted for Reagan, yet pulled D's across the board for everything else.

[q]That 18-20 years old vote more Democratic than Republican is nothing new and they continue to disapoint democrats in every election by showing up in such poor numbers. But as they age and become better educated and experienced, many move to the right and vote more. [/q]

considering those with higher educations overwhelmingly vote Democratic, there's really no point here. young people are voting in higher numbers than ever, and they vote Democratic. it is true that as young people begin to acquire capital and their incomes increase, they get swayed by the promises of lower taxes. however, these people have NOTHING in common with cultural conservatives who vote for Republicans solely because of issues like abortion. this is the "coalition" -- fiscal conservatives and social conservatives -- that was held together by Reagan and Bush 2 and that Rove used in his 50.1% strategy that brought him two extremely narrow (and one clearly illegitimate) victories.

and now, with the rise of Huckabee, that coalition has fractured. no one on Wall Street will vote for Huck, and no evangelical will vote for McCain, whereas both might have voted for Bush in 2000 (on the basis of low taxes and christianity) and in 2004 (on the basis of war/fear and hatred of gays).

things are grim for the GOP.

again, karma's a bitch.
 
This is from Rollingstone.com. It's a pretty good little read.

Iowa By the Numbers

Four statistics blew me away tonight:

1. Obama beat Hillary among women voters 35 to 30 percent.
2. Amid record Democratic turnout, as many people under 30 showed up to caucus as those over 65.
3. Sixty percent of the GOP electorate in Iowa were born-again Christians.
4. Rudy Giuliani finished with a mere 4,013 votes, in sixth place, with less than half of the support of Ron Paul.

Taking them in order:

One:
Hillary lost tonight to Barack Obama by 8 points — a margin just as wide as Mitt Romney catastrophic shortfall against Mike Huckabee.

And Obama beat her eight ways to Sunday. He edged her out among Democrats 32/31, and cleaned her clock among independents (44/17) and wayward Republicans (41/10). He beat her among people making less than $15,000 (37/30) and more than $100,000 (41/19). He beat her among health-care voters (34/30) and suburban voters (30/25).

Most astounding however, he beat her among her core supporters, women, by five points. What more can I say than — in a night of mind boggling statistics — that that’s the stat of the night.

A black man did this. In a state that’s 96 percent white. This is truly a historic night in America.

Two:
The turnout on the Democratic side was unreal. It soared from 124,000 in 2004 to 230,000 in 2008. And that’s all about the man who won.

Obama’s been drawing record crowds from San Francisco to Des Moines — but there was always the question of whether he could produce a similar effect among real live voters.

He did so in a way that no one predicted. 57 percent of the caucus goers tonight had never caucused before. Most impressive: As many people under thirty showed up as senior citizens.

That’s fucking nuts is what that is. That’s the Rock the Vote political wet dream that never ever comes true… actually coming true.
What this portends for Obama as a national candidate is something truly special. He’s not only proven that he can draw the support of independents and open-minded Republicans. He’s the one guy who can make the Democratic pie higher, bringing new, unlikely voters into the fold. If he could replicate this kind of support among young people in a general election, it’s game over.

Three:
The Religious Right has found their candidate. The evangelical vote in the Republican caucus is usually 40 percent. Tonight it was 60 percent.

I give Mike Huckabee a lot of credit. He’s run the kind of grassroots campaign that’s not supposed to be possible in this era. Outspent 15:1, his earthy, inclusive plain-spoken authenticity won hearts and minds — and his faith-based network of supporters turned out in droves, beating back the best organization money can buy.

With Romney effectively out of the way, I’m not sure anybody else can stop this guy. Certainly not in South Carolina, where, if the churched vote behaves the way they did tonight, he’ll clobber a John McCain, no matter what happens in New Hampshire.

Four:
Rudy Giluliani is done. His slot — the maverick warmonger — is going to be filled by John McCain by the time Florida comes around. He’s executing the most amazingly misguided electoral strategy I can remember. Bravo and good riddance.

Closing thoughts
Obama scored two huge victories tonight. He not only popped Clinton’s aura of inevitability, he also beat Edwards roundly enough to establish himself as the only true anti-Clinton. So not only is Clinton wounded heading into New Hampshire, but the ABC (anyone but Clinton) vote has found its standard bearer — and his name isn’t John Edwards.

Which is all to say that even if Clinton makes a miraculous recovery in the next five days, I think enough of Edwards’ vote is going to migrate to Obama that it’s not going to make a difference. New Hampshire is his to lose.

And fond goodbyes…
Part of me, here, is going to miss the grand patrician stylings of Chris Dodd, here.

And Joe Biden, I think I’ll miss you most of all.
-- Tim Dickinson
 
deep said:


I have very low expectations for Obama

and if he gets the Dem nomination
I expect to vote for him
...
so Obama, if you get the nom
please be like Clinton in 92
and surprise me with skills beyond my estimation.

:up: I'm right there with you.
 
coemgen said:
That’s the Rock the Vote political wet dream that never ever comes true… actually coming true.
What this portends for Obama as a national candidate is something truly special. He’s not only proven that he can draw the support of independents and open-minded Republicans. He’s the one guy who can make the Democratic pie higher, bringing new, unlikely voters into the fold. If he could replicate this kind of support among young people in a general election, it’s game over.

Rock the Vote is so 2004. The internet/youtube are much bigger factors among the younger voters now, as people like Jim Webb and Ron Paul can attest. Hillary's support among independent males is very low compared to Obama - the next few weeks will be interesting.
 
joyfulgirl said:
[q]Originally posted by deep


I have very low expectations for Obama

and if he gets the Dem nomination
I expect to vote for him
...
so Obama, if you get the nom
please be like Clinton in 92
and surprise me with skills beyond my estimation.[/q]



:up: I'm right there with you.

Actually, I'd prefer Clinton in the last six years of his presidency, when he was remarkably effective in governing from the center and pragmatic with his policies, rather than the disastrous first two years of his presidency, when he couldn't get anything done.

While I am an Obama supporter, and would probably vote for him in a Huckabee v. Obama showdown, I don't think it's necessarily racist to question his credentials. Someone pointed out here that Bush didn't have credentials to be president, but I'm not sure that anyone wants to see a replica of the Bush years. It's why I won't vote for Huckabee -- his lack of foreign policy experience is terrifying, given the world we live in.

While this election does seem to be about change rather than experience, I do think some experience would be helpful, particularly given what we face today.

However, Obama strikes me as a humble guy who would seek out true voices of wisdom, rather than ideologues with a Middle Eastern axe to grind.
 
nathan1977 said:


Actually, I'd prefer Clinton in the last six years of his presidency, when he was remarkably effective in governing from the center and pragmatic with his policies, rather than the disastrous first two years of his presidency, when he couldn't get anything done.

While I am an Obama supporter, and would probably vote for him in a Huckabee v. Obama showdown, I don't think it's necessarily racist to question his credentials. Someone pointed out here that Bush didn't have credentials to be president, but I'm not sure that anyone wants to see a replica of the Bush years. It's why I won't vote for Huckabee -- his lack of foreign policy experience is terrifying, given the world we live in.

While this election does seem to be about change rather than experience, I do think some experience would be helpful, particularly given what we face today.

However, Obama strikes me as a humble guy who would seek out true voices of wisdom, rather than ideologues with a Middle Eastern axe to grind.

I agree with everything you said, except I know there's not a snowball's chance in hell that I'd vote for Huckabee. I especially like your last paragraph about Obama.
 
The results of Iowa raise some questions that I don't think are being asked, or asked enough.

Obama took the female vote away from Clinton - is this the result of Oprah? If so, how much will she help in the future?

Romney lost big with Evangelicals. Did his Mormon faith hurt him?

:hmm:
 
What is remarkable, is here are those pinko American-hating French.....with Obama all over the Parisian papers, and complimentary stories inside. :up:

Le Monde for example.
 
nathan1977 said:


However, Obama strikes me as a humble guy who would seek out true voices of wisdom, rather than ideologues with a Middle Eastern axe to grind.

Hmm. I don't think humble people write books about themselves and run for President of the USA. I wouldn't go so far as to call any Presidential candidate humble--not even Nader. Enormous egos and a thirst for power, all of them.
 
Irvine511 said:


they mean nothing. Clinton has a double digit lead over Obama. i think McCain is rising, no question, but he's got the south to deal with, and Giuliani has huge margins in Florida, California, and New Jersey, though i do think he's now DOA.


[q]The House of Representitives has been overwhelmingly Democratic since World War II, but its been more equal in the Senate. The House of Representitives is a different ball game than the President of the United States. The majority of Americans cannot even name their Representitive. Also, conservative Democrats in the south helped keep their majority through the years, and although many of them may have been Democrats in name, many were certainly more supportive of Repuplican polices as the "Reagan Democrats" showed.[/q]

this is lame. you might as well argue that the northeast and california is filled with Republicans -- like, say, my former representative Nancy Johnson -- were Democrats in disguise. Congress is more broadly representative of the nation as a whole, and you've completely ignored both voter identification (more Democrats than Republicans and growing) and the fact that the Republican stance on nearly all social issues are trending older and older.

[q]The center is important, and when it comes to Presidential Politics over the past 40 years, the Republicans have solidly held on to that center.[/q]

they've been able to recruit the independents in a presidential forum, but not in Congress. the presidential race is far more about the individual than the party as a whole. when people vote for congress, or even state representatives, that's when party affiliations come out and people will pull all R's or all D's across the board. whereas in a presidential election, the individual candidate matters much more than his party. hence, your term, "Reagan Democrats" -- people who voted for Reagan, yet pulled D's across the board for everything else.

[q]That 18-20 years old vote more Democratic than Republican is nothing new and they continue to disapoint democrats in every election by showing up in such poor numbers. But as they age and become better educated and experienced, many move to the right and vote more. [/q]

considering those with higher educations overwhelmingly vote Democratic, there's really no point here. young people are voting in higher numbers than ever, and they vote Democratic. it is true that as young people begin to acquire capital and their incomes increase, they get swayed by the promises of lower taxes. however, these people have NOTHING in common with cultural conservatives who vote for Republicans solely because of issues like abortion. this is the "coalition" -- fiscal conservatives and social conservatives -- that was held together by Reagan and Bush 2 and that Rove used in his 50.1% strategy that brought him two extremely narrow (and one clearly illegitimate) victories.

and now, with the rise of Huckabee, that coalition has fractured. no one on Wall Street will vote for Huck, and no evangelical will vote for McCain, whereas both might have voted for Bush in 2000 (on the basis of low taxes and christianity) and in 2004 (on the basis of war/fear and hatred of gays).

things are grim for the GOP.

again, karma's a bitch.


If congress was more broadly representitive of the nation, voter turnout for mid-term elections would not be so much lower than for Presidential elections. Plus, during Presidential elections when people fill in the R or the D for congress, its in support of the person their voting for President. Thats why Bush increased the Republicans holdings in congress in 2000, 2002, and the historic increase in 2004. 2004 was the first time an incumbent president was able to increase his party's numbers in congress in half a century. That would be impossible if the political situation in the country and relevancy you give the House of Representitives in all this was true. Having the White House is key, which is has been effectively demonstrated by the impotence of the new Democratic congress and the fact that Reagan and Bush Sr. were enormously effective in pushing through their major policy objectives without having a majority in Congress.

The Republican party of the 80s, 90s, and 00's has more in common with the Democratic party of the 40s, 50s, and early 60s than the Republicans of that era. How any party tends to stand on various issues can change over time so the fact that social issues are trending more and more to the older crowd is not really relevant. John McCain is argueably more representive of the center of the country than any other candidate out there. He holds views that cross party lines which makes him very electable in a general election. Provided the Republican party base starts to recognize these things, they will cast off the issues that make them uncompetitive in capturing the center of the country thus continuing their dominance of the past 40 years or if this takes a while longer, regaining it in one or two Presidential election cycles.

I was not refering to "University Education" when talking about 18-20 years old as they move on in life, but more in a general sense. The fact is, people are across the board more liberal on everything at that age, and grow more conservative as they grow older and learn more and become more esperienced in life. The Hippies of the 60s are just as imbedded in today's society and fill the the churches like their parents did before them.

Bush's victories were both legitamite and significant when you realize that his 2004 re-election saw him gain a majority of the popular vote, the first time that had happened in a Presidential race in nearly 20 years. Just as historic was the increases in both the house and senate for Republicans, the first time and incumbent President had achieved that in half a century.


I wouldn't say things are grim for the GOP in 2008, but they have a big uphill battle to win the Presidency and their not going to win back congress this year. Its hard for any party that has held the White House for two consecutive terms to win another term in the White House and its only happened once since World War II. If the Democrats do win the White House in 2008, it would be better if Hillary Clinton won as she is much closer to the center than Obama and less likely to cause a backlash from middle America as her Husband did in his first two years in office and I might add, the last time that the Democrats held both houses and the White House. The fact that the Republicans hold on all three for 6 years while the Democrats were only able to hold onto it for 2 years just goes to show that this country at the center still has a lot in common with the Republican party and Democrats need to remember that.
 
coemgen said:
The results of Iowa raise some questions that I don't think are being asked, or asked enough.

Obama took the female vote away from Clinton - is this the result of Oprah? If so, how much will she help in the future?

Romney lost big with Evangelicals. Did his Mormon faith hurt him?

:hmm:


As silly as it sounds, Oprah has a huge influence on Midwestern housewives. If she can convince them to make a book a best-seller, she probably can convince them, at least somewhat, to support a presidential candidate. It's understandable. I'm a fan of Oprah. She's intelligent, charismatic, and well-versed on what's going on in the world. I would certainly never do something as serious as picking a presidential candidate based on her influence, but for the majority of Americans who aren't too concerned with political issues, she can be a major player.

The majority of Evangelicals from my experience view Mormonism as some weird, scary cult that believes the wrong thing about Jesus. I can't say that as a Christian, I agree with Mormon theology, but I could easily support a Mormon candidate as long as I agreed with his or her policies and he or she did not try to use their religion to govern. Most Evangelicals seem to be incapable of actually voting for a candidate for a reason other than religion unfortunately, so no, I'm not surprised that Evangelicals didn't turn out for Romney.
 
coemgen said:
The results of Iowa raise some questions that I don't think are being asked, or asked enough.

Obama took the female vote away from Clinton - is this the result of Oprah? If so, how much will she help in the future?

Romney lost big with Evangelicals. Did his Mormon faith hurt him?

:hmm:

Sad that they have to be asked though, no?

I for one don't give a flip what Oprah thinks (and I like her most of the time) and I wasn't aware of Romney's spiritual statues (ok, so maybe I'm out of touch, but I guess I never bothered to wonder in what faith each candidate was raised).
 
Liesje said:
I wasn't aware of Romney's spiritual statues (ok, so maybe I'm out of touch, but I guess I never bothered to wonder in what faith each candidate was raised).



but Republicans have been arguing since 2000 that someone's religion matters, that it is a reason to vote for or against someone.

so, yay karma.
 
Irvine511 said:


but Republicans have been arguing since 2000 that someone's religion matters, that it is a reason to vote for or against someone.


NO IT ISN'T!! :banghead:

What religion someone is is not important to me. What is important is their positions on things like abortion, gay marriage or the death penalty, which often stem from principles found in the Bible.
 
2861U2 said:


What is important is their positions on things like abortion, gay marriage or the death penalty, which often stem from principles found in the Bible.

Why is their position on gay marriage important? WHY?!! This is what I don't get about Republicans...

And the death penalty? How does a pro death penalty(which is what most Reps are) stem from a principle in the Bible?

I really think Republicans are given a different Bible than everyone else...
 
2861U2 said:


NO IT ISN'T!! :banghead:

What religion someone is is not important to me. What is important is their positions on things like abortion, gay marriage or the death penalty, which often stem from principles found in the Bible.

Yeah, but to many Christians who live by the Bible they're not going to vote for someone who lives by the Bible and some other book that contradicts the Bible. I honestly think it contributed to some of Romney's results in Iowa.
 
Irvine511 said:




but Republicans have been arguing since 2000 that someone's religion matters, that it is a reason to vote for or against someone.

so, yay karma.

haha, true that! I guess I am voting against voting for or against someone based on religion, if that makes sense...
 
Back
Top Bottom