Bobby Jindal Rising as Romneys VP Choice

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I have no problem voting for a Catholic, a Hindu, a Muslim, or any other religion...but a faction in the Republican party does.

There are factions in the republican party and there are factions in the democrat party who vote based on skin color and/or religion. (95% of black people in the USA voted for Obama ... try to tell me that isn't racist/bigotry in motion!) If Romney picks Jindal ... it will be a very 'colorful and religiously diverse' presidential race.

It's too bad that everyone doesn't vote based upon the qualifications of the candidates.
But ... there are some segments that don't.

That being said .. I think that Jindal is more qualified than Romney to be POTUS.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

And, WTF does religion have to do with who's running the country?

I know it isn't a very progressive view, but religion does matter quite a bit. #1, I think most voters want a person to have a religion of some kind, because it says something about their moral code. #2, I think most voters do NOT want that person to be fanatical in their belief. It is a tough row to hoe. You have to be just enough religious to be trustworthy, but not so much as to be scary.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Right wing protestants heads are going to explode.
They are going to have to vote for a Mormon president with an ex-hindu/Catholic VP.

I thought of that. Their choice -

Obama - 1/2 black guy whose own pastor said Obama was seeped in Islam
Biden - Catholic

Romney - Mormon
Jindal - Indian (parents from India) Ex-Hindu now Catholic

I don't know what the WASP red neck segment stuck on things like race/religion will do.
Thankfully, there aren't as many of them around as there used to be.

I'll speak on behalf of the Redneck segment and say it neither of those things is a real big problem. Personally, I don't like converts, I'd rather see a Hindu as a Hindu and not a converted Catholic, but it isn't that big of a deal, and I don't think anyone cares about the black guy being black anymore. Every major city in the country has a black mayor these days. We have black quarterbacks, black coaches, black Governors, I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed, LOL!

I don't know much about the WASP segment, but I know that most rednecks think WASPs are something you swat, and not something you are. Even if some city folk wanted to call a redneck a WASP, they would have to first explain to us what it meant, and then when they were done explaining, we would scratch our head and say, "You mean a Pilgram? I ain't no Pilgrim!"

Originally posted by Beanskinner
Romney would make a great liberal if he wasn't so pro Wall street and bomb bomb bomb Iran.

Obama is pro Wall Street and bomb bomb bomb _______ (fill in the blank).
So if that's the measuring stick, Romney is a great liberal.

Originally posted by intrepid
It's not the "right wing" that they have to attract. They've already got that vote. They need the "swing vote".

Jindal could deliver that. He's qualified. He's got good business sense. He didn't take the stimulus $$. He's usually well spoken. And .. truth be told ... even though he can be dull (which would work nice for Romney), he isn't the stereo typical old protestant fat white guy republican. That shouldn't matter. But to some it does.

Originally posted by Habit4ming
Here's the most important part, imo, of your post, FlyersFan:
"...Born of imigrants from India..."

Born on US soil (louisiana) of imigrants from India.
He can be POTUS.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
but religion does matter quite a bit.

To me it only matters if it effects your job. Sarah Palin's religion tells her that the world is 6,000 years old. She ignores science that proves otherwise. Therefore, to me that transfers over to other things and I feel she isn't bright enough to be POTUS when she refuses to see facts in front of her.

Something like that would make me disqualify a person to be POTUS based upon their religion.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

And, WTF does religion have to do with who's running the country?

It doesn't matter to me at all.

Are you denying that it matters to a faction of the Republican Party???

reply to post by FlyersFan

There are factions in the republican party and there are factions in the democrat party who vote based on skin color and/or religion. (95% of black people in the USA voted for Obama ... try to tell me that isn't racist/bigotry in motion!) If Romney picks Jindal ... it will be a very 'colorful and religiously diverse' presidential race.

Sure, there are factions in the dem party...but not as large as the religous right to where the Dems are forced to put up a black candidate to ensure a large segment of the vote.

It's no secret that Romney being a Morman is already an issue and that some may not vote for him because of it.

Blacks in general vote Democratic...there was an increase for Obama...but less than 10% I think (I'd have to check the numbers again...but I believe the Dems usually get above 85% of the black vote in general).

It will be a diverse field...but I'm not so sure that Romney will pick him. I think he is going to pick someone very vanilla like Daniels or Pawlenty.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

And, WTF does religion have to do with who's running the country?

It doesn't matter to me at all.
Are you denying that it matters to a faction of the Republican Party???

Actually, it also matters to a faction of the Democrat party. If they hear that someone is a evangelical christian (or 'born again' or 'fundamentalist') ... they automatically dismiss that person for office. Ya' know ... bigotry based on religion or race isn't just a republican thing, no matter how much the democrats try to make it out to be.

OutKast Searcher .. will YOU deny that religion matters to a faction of the Democratic Party?

reply to post by FlyersFan

Born on US soil (louisiana) of imigrants from India.
He can be POTUS.

Honest question because I don't know...were his parents United States citizens when he was born on US soil?


Personally I don't think it matters, I think he is a natural born citizen based on the fact that he was born here. But there are some people that think you need the whole package, two US citizens as parents and born on US soil.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
there are factions in the dem party...but not as large as the religous right

That's the stereotype put out by dems. But unless you can show, with credible evidence, that republicans are more bigoted then democrats ... (and good luck with that) ... I gotta' say FOUL BALL on that. Sorry OutKast Searcher, but I see just as much bigotry out of segments on the left as on the right. It knows no party lines. It just presents itself differently in the two groups.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

And, WTF does religion have to do with who's running the country?

It doesn't matter to me at all.
Are you denying that it matters to a faction of the Republican Party???

Actually, it also matters to a faction of the Democrat party. If they hear that someone is a evangelical christian (or 'born again' or 'fundamentalist') ... they automatically dismiss that person for office. Ya' know ... bigotry based on religion or race isn't just a republican thing, no matter how much the democrats try to make it out to be.

OutKast Searcher .. will YOU deny that religion matters to a faction of the Democratic Party?

No, I don't deny that some think like that...I would argue that it isn't as big of a deal.

The Dems have their own issues...like if a Dem candidate wasn't pro-choice, or if a Dem candidate didn't believe in evolution...but since most politicians publicly claim they are religous, I don't think Dem voters really care what religion they say they are from.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
there are factions in the dem party...but not as large as the religous right

That's the stereotype put out by dems. But unless you can show, with credible evidence, that republicans are more bigoted then democrats ... (and good luck with that) ... I gotta' say FOUL BALL on that. Sorry OutKast Searcher, but I see just as much bigotry out of segments on the left as on the right. It knows no party lines. It just presents itself differently in the two groups.

I disagree.

The Republicans specifically has to pander to the religous right.

The Democrats don't focus that much on pandering to religous or specifically to non-religous people. I don't believe I have seen a large campaign from Dems saying they aren't religous

Ideally Mitt Romney would pick a VP candidate from the 'Rust Belt' states since everyone knows, unless something big happens, Romney will sweep the South. There is no point of choosing a Southerner to be on the ticket. Romney needs to gain ground in the Great Lakes area so aim for a popular governor/senator from that region. Mitch Daniels would not be too wise for Indiana will more than likely go for Romney anyway. The best picks would be Paul Ryan or Scott Walker, even Marco Rubio would be a wise pick to win over Florida.

If the Republicans think picking a Southern, Catholic Indian (dot, not feather) will win them any minority votes other than some Indians who only make up a small minority they are foolish. Marco Rubio would also be a foolish pick if you are wanting to appeal to a minority group. Rubio is of Cuban descent and in Florida the Cubans vote GOP anyway; add to that most Hispanics feel no affiliation towards the Hispanic demographic cohort but rather as ethnic groups. In that regard the best pick, if you want to appeal to any considerable minority block, would be to choose New Mexico governor Susana Martinez who is both Mexican and female.

reply to post by FlyersFan

Actually, it also matters to a faction of the Democrat party. If they hear that someone is a evangelical christian (or 'born again' or 'fundamentalist') ... they automatically dismiss that person for office. Ya' know

Aint that the truth.

Originally posted by Misoir
In that regard the best pick, if you want to appeal to any considerable minority block, would be to choose New Mexico governor Susana Martinez who is both Mexican and female.

That's not gonna fly with Hispanics. Gov. Susanna is viewed as a sell out to gringo special interest by all the
vatos I know. Hispanics aren't going to fall for transparent, pandering PR BS and vote for a Republican. We know what the GOP thinks of Mexicans, Hispanics and people of color ingeneral.

And I can't see the Evangelicals voting for Mitt. Mormans are a cult to them and the GOP without the religious right don't have a prayer in hell of getting the whitehouse. As the election gets nearer more baggage about Mitt will be revealed and he will be just a laughing stock.

Here's an example....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Misoir


That makes sense. Like I said previously, don't pander to the vote you already have. Seek the swing vote. I think Romney is strong with the swing vote. Who could add to that?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Beanskinner
Romney would make a great liberal if he wasn't so pro Wall street and bomb bomb bomb Iran.

Obama is pro Wall Street and bomb bomb bomb _______ (fill in the blank).
So if that's the measuring stick, Romney is a great liberal.

Originally posted by intrepid
It's not the "right wing" that they have to attract. They've already got that vote. They need the "swing vote".

Jindal could deliver that. He's qualified. He's got good business sense. He didn't take the stimulus $$. He's usually well spoken. And .. truth be told ... even though he can be dull (which would work nice for Romney), he isn't the stereo typical old protestant fat white guy republican. That shouldn't matter. But to some it does.

Originally posted by Habit4ming
Here's the most important part, imo, of your post, FlyersFan:
"...Born of imigrants from India..."

Born on US soil (louisiana) of imigrants from India.
He can be POTUS.

I thought Obama was a communist? Which would make him anti Wall Street

that is the problem the GOP has set up with messaging.

I would say Obama is not as pro wall street as one can be

he would veto a bill that deregulated all their accounting

And dirivitive practices, while Romney would sign that thing and

Love doing it. There are degrees to be had, same with Iran... It is on thing

To have covert low intensity conflict, it is another thing declaring war

And investing a Trillion dollars. The difference is Obama could have

Gone into Iran, but he didn't. Romney is a different matter, I think

To ignore degree is to ignore the important details of life. That is

Where the day light between the two exists, those two things IMO.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

No, I cannot deny that.

Just saying it shouldn't matter.
I remember the uproar in 1960...I was way too young to vote, but being Catholic....you remember things.

And, to steal for Dr King....we should be more interested in judging our politicians " by the content of their character"...
www.americanrhetoric.com...

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Misoir

 

That makes sense. Like I said previously, don't pander to the vote you already have. Seek the swing vote. I think Romney is strong with the swing vote. Who could add to that?

I think Romney is weak with the swing vote. I think he gets the die-hard Republicans, but that is it. He doesn't get any Democrats, he doesn't get any Libertarians or Constitutionalists, and he doesn't take the majority of the Independents. On top of that, I think the Republican turnout will be lackluster. I don't think he energizes the party, and I don't think people will go out of their way to vote.

I think a lot of people are turned off by the "get Obama out at all costs" campaign. I don't like Obama, but I haven't seen anything to make me think Romney will be any different. I'll be writing in Paul, or voting for Gary Johnson.

I think there are a lot more people like me. I also think there were some Blue Dog Democrats that were interested in Cain and Paul and maybe even Newt, but they won't vote for Romney, those votes go back to Obama.

reply to post by Misoir


So you believe the running mate should be based on geography? Or what is strategically beneficial for Romney?

Geography or religion? Take your pick folks. Maybe we should base it on eye-color.

reply to post by BellaSabre


Whether or not you like the fact, it remains true. Generally Presidential candidates select their running mate based upon several factors. You want a popular figure from an important swing state, or a state that with this candidate will become a swing state, which demographic group he/she will appeal to (racial/ethnic/sex/religious), and the ability to compensate for a lack the Presidential candidate has.

Let me give you an example. Mitt Romney's best choices would be a candidate from a generally blue state with elector votes exceeding 10, the ability to swing other local states, is popular, appeals to either Moderates if Romney is perceived as "far-right" or Conservatives if Romney is perceived as a "RINO", and can gather about 5% of a large demographic group by doing so. For these reasons I stated Romney should look to states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin or to New Mexico. By picking a popular governor from the "rust belt" he can appeal to this critical mass of generally blue states with the hopes of flipping at least one into his column. Paul Ryan and Scott Walker are ideal for the fact that they are generally liked in their traditionally blue state with large electoral votes. A candidate from Wisconsin could tip the state in Romney's favor and give him more appeal to other states in the region.

Susana Martinez was another candidate I selected for the fact that she is Mexican and Mexicans constitute the largest Hispanic ethnic voting bloc in America. Add to that with her on the ticket there would be appeal to those in neighboring states like Colorado and Nevada, two critical toss-up states with large electoral counts. Even if she gave Romney only an extra 5-7% among Hispanics nationwide it would be enough, in a close election, to give it to him. Factor in that New Mexico would likely fall into the Romney column. One more beneficial factor is that she is female and could appeal to the female population, even if it gave Romney a 1-2% jump in the female vote that could easily translate into an extra 2-3 million votes going to Romney.