Time to Shut Up, Suck It Up and Vote for McCain?

[Tabsr]

I'm personally donating $000 to Obama and $500 to the McCain campaign. More campaign money to the Republican’s once the Real election starts. After the Republican convention chooses McCain, our Company will donate the max $$$$ to his, Coleman’s and others supporting the Constitution. Only trying to keep your 2nd Amendment rights for all. You can thank me by sending .45 ammo.

Enjoy the Demo fight. Recommend cherry flavored koolaid.

[1911fan]

Cobb, I understand and read what is posted, I will continue to disagree with you,

My biggest point is at the very least with a R president, even a RINO, balanced against the D's in both houses holding a majority, we can manage a modest stalemate. If we let the D's in the White House, they will cripple the economy and crush the second AND more importantly, there are several SCOTUS positions that will most likely come up in the next term, particularly if a D wins. Stevens and Ginsburg have both expressed a desire to step down but refuse to give up their positions until a D President can reappoint for them. Souter and Kennedy are 68 and 71 respectively, and although appointed by Bush sr. they have consistently been either the swing vote or the liberal vote on tough issues.

Its a lot more than just another AWB at risk, its 25 years off fighting every inch of the way to refuse to submit to serfdom if the D's win.

[nyffman]

Ok, so this is pretty low tech, but I looked at all the Presidential elections back to 1952. First thing you notice is that we have voted for very few Republicans during that time. The only point of hope in this is that, maybe none of these previous candidates had the liberal credentials of a McCain. Maybe I will be wrong this year and Minnesota will dislike McCain less than either of the possible Democrat candidates.

1952 Eisenhower/Nixon R 55.33% 11 Electoral Votes

1956 Eisenhower/Nixon R 53.68% 11 Electoral Votes

1960 Nixon/Lodge R 49.16% 0 Electoral Votes

1964 Goldwater/Miller R 36.00% 0 Electoral Votes

1968 Nixon/Agnew R 41.46% 0 Electoral Votes

1972 Nixon/Agnew R 51.58% 10 Electoral Votes

1976 Ford/Dole R 42.02% 0 Electoral Votes

1980 Reagan/Bush R 42.56% 0 Electoral Votes

1984 Reagan/Bush R 49.54% 0 Electoral Votes

1988 Bush/Quayle R 45.90% 0 Electoral Votes

1992 Bush/Quayle R 31.85% 0 Electoral Votes

1996 Dole/Kemp R 34.96% 0 Electoral Votes

2000 Bush/Cheney R 45.50% 0 Electoral Votes

2004 Bush/Cheney R 47.61% 0 Electoral Votes

[MNCarry]

As noted by 1911fan, the next resident of the white house will probably be appointing the next two members of SCOTUS. Is there anyone here who can rationally explain who they want making these appointments?

Just explain to me how either Hill or Obama would nominate ANYONE who's previous rulings would even hint at a pro-2nd Amendment bent.

[nyffman]

As noted by 1911fan, the next resident of the white house will probably be appointing the next two members of SCOTUS. Is there anyone here who can rationally explain who they want making these appointments?

Just explain to me how either Hill or Obama would nominate ANYONE who's previous rulings would even hint at a pro-2nd Amendment bent.

Not sure exactly what you are trying to say. I made the same point about the Supreme Court here a couple weeks ago. viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2252
I have not seen any give a response yet to the fact that your vote in this state for any Republican for the office of President will most likely be in vain, considering that the last time our electoral votes went to a Repulican was 1972.

[David]

I ran (as an endorsed candidate—not a sacrificial lamb) during the 1990 and 1992 elections for State House. I've been following politics for many years, and consider it a hobby.

Regarding Minnesota's historical "Blue" status:
Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin, are seen by many as being a block of 27 electoral swing votes. Even without Pawlenty being on the ticket, I don't think Minnesota's blue status in this election is a foregone conclusion, especially if Hilary is the opponent.

From Wikipedia: "The state is now considered a swing state and has received considerable attention from campaigners in recent presidential races. Candidates view the 27 electoral college votes from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa as a block that is subject to swing toward either major party, and equal in value to Florida's 27 electoral votes.[5] This analysis by the major presidential contenders resulted in dozens of visits by candidates in the final months of both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.[6]

In the 108th and 109th congresses, Minnesota's congressional delegation was split with 4 Democratic and 4 Republican members of congress and the state's senate seats have also generally been split since the early 1990s."

And keep in mind we've had two Republican governors during that time as well. The governor race and the U.S. senator races are all statewide, similar to the presidential election.

Regarding caucus turnout:
The dems always turn out more in caucuses. The Republican caucus is non-binding and "doesn't count," whereas the Democrat caucus is for real. The skewed turnout was normal and was no surprise.

Regarding Obama's rally:
Why is it such a big deal that he filled the Target Center? Because the media says it is? The Target Center is filled all the time by sporting events and concerts. Big deal, especially in the Twin Cities, which is much more liberal than the rural areas. It stands to reason that there are 25,000 Obama supporters (most of them 20-year-olds over at the U) in Communist Minneapolis, and I would have been surprised if he didn't fill it up.

McCain *might* do well to choose a conservative running mate. Vice presidents typically do well when they run for president, so that might be a good compromise plan for conservatives. "Suffer" through four or eight years of McCain, and then have a better shot at a "real" conservative after that. Plus, McCain might overcome some of the objections coming from the extreme Right.

My conclusion: I won't presume to advise anyone else what to do, but I'm contributing to and voting for McCain. The Supreme Court issue is important enough alone to justify it to me. There is a certain percentage that will always vote left, a certain percentage that will always vote right, and a certain percentage who will always vote independent or write-in. It's the swing voters who decide elections, and there is no message being sent in being a write-in or independent voter.

If that's your conscience, then I respect it and urge you to vote for a third-party candidate you believe in. I've done it many times. However, if it's just a protest vote, I think you're wasting your time, and you may be contributing to an imbalance on the Supreme Court, which would be way more disastrous to the Second Amendment than any president would.

It's do-or-die time.

[nyffman]

You seem to be into it more deeply than I am and I defer to your knowledge and experience. McCain has possibly positioned himself far enough to the left to appeal to the liberal mindset of MN. I think we're all together on the fact that the possibility that he would do a better job of appointing supreme court justices is a strong reason to hold your nose real tight when you go to vote.

[1911fan]

Just remember, Arne Carlson, Dave Durenberger, Rudy Boschwitz, Norm Coleman, Tim Pawlenty, all have won state wide offices, all were republicans when they won. there are others too, but these show it can be done.

[nyffman]

I wouldn't say that they are necessarily comparable, since they all won during a time of drought for presidential electoral votes from this state. Anything can happen. We're still nine months out.

[1911fan]

What it shows is that a moderate republican can win in this state. ergo, McCain can and most likely will win in this state.

[cobb]

As noted by 1911fan, the next resident of the white house will probably be appointing the next two members of SCOTUS. Is there anyone here who can rationally explain who they want making these appointments?

I don't want any of the current candidates to, they would all pick liberal robesman. In fact, wasn't McCain against President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court?

[David]

No. He was very much in favor of both Alito and Roberts, and again when Bush wanted Roberts to move up to chief justice. Of course, extreme right-wing pundits said that he only did it to not piss off the right, but that's counter to his history of bucking the trend when he wants to. With McCain, you get what you see.

[cobb]

Thanks for the info. I had it that he was against Bush's appointments.

So there are liberals that will support judges that are constitutionalist.

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

Thanks for the info. I had it that he was against Bush's appointments.

So there are liberals that will support judges that are constitutionalities.

MMEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!

[David]

Do you mean constructionist? As in, interprets the Constitution somewhat literally? I don't know if that describes McCain or not, but I do know that when Bush put Roberts up for Chief, McCain said, when asked if Roberts was the right guy for the job, "I would be happy to appoint justices like Roberts to the Supreme Court." Roberts, as we all know by now, is considered a strict constructionist by many.

I think conservatives in general are "stricter" constructionists than liberals, which makes sense when you look at their worldview.

I also don't mean to downplay any criticism of McCain's conservativism, or lack thereof. He's not as far right as a lot of other people, and no one is doubting that. That's what stands to get him elected, though, since there is no way in this political climate that a hard-line conservative is going to win. For me it boils down to having possibly up to four justices named by McCain or Hilary/Obama. That's really all I'm considering right now, and although I'm not a single-issue sort of guy, anyone who cares about gun rights ought to think hard about this.