Let's Talk South Carolina

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
After my last “fiasco” (I “predicted” McCain/Palin to win after the GOP convention); I’m just taking things one GOP Primary at a time.

Once the GOP nomination candidate is named; then “game on!” as far as the General Election.

Ron Paul as VP to Romney?

I don’t think EITHER man would give it a serious consideration.

Mufasa

[/quote]

What I would really like to see is Paul at least having enough delegates to being able to influence the platform.

There are several Republican bigwigs that will probably soil their panties.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
After my last “fiasco” (I “predicted” McCain/Palin to win after the GOP convention); I’m just taking things one GOP Primary at a time.

Once the GOP nomination candidate is named; then “game on!” as far as the General Election.

Ron Paul as VP to Romney?

I don’t think EITHER man would give it a serious consideration.

Mufasa

[/quote]

What I would really like to see is Paul at least having enough delegates to being able to influence the platform.

There are several Republican bigwigs that will probably soil their panties. [/quote]

Interesting.

I am REALLY ignorant on the Convention Politics.

Maybe someone can give us more insights?

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

It will be MUCH tougher for Romney in SC because SC is smack-dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Will the fact that he is a Mormon weigh greater on these voters; or the fact that he can possibly beat the President?[/quote]

Or, that they’re more likely to not buy into his being a conservative when compared to a guy like, say, Santorum? Why frame it as you did? Be honest, Mufasa, will you be questioning Democrat attacks against Romney? Will you question if they’re purely ideological attacks, or if they aren’t also tinged by the greater distrust Democrats have for Mormons? You’ve a particular fascination with Republicans and Mormonism. I just wonder it will still be a frequent concern of yours if Romney gets the nomination and is immediately set upon?
[/quote]

Sloth:

A person goes into a booth and presses that screen with all KINDS of personal history and experiences behind them. What will predominate is too individual to predict.

And you are wrong…dead wrong. I have no “fascination” with Republicans and Mormons. But (many/most?) Evangelicals and Born Again Christians consider themselves Republicans; are a POWERFUL political force…and view Mormons as not just “different”; but literally “anti-Christian”. (You have made it clear that you are Conservative. Ask an Evangelical friend; or GOOGLE “Evangelical/Mormon” and see what you get).

I view any Political Attack, regardless as to WHO it comes from and WHO is is directed against; that is one-sided, biased and in some cases are outright lies as something that doesn’t serve ANY of us well in the end.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Come on Mufasa you presented it as an either/or. A potential non-Romney vote is explained away as anti-mormonism, as you narrowly framed it. Vote for him because he is perceived as being capable of beating Obama (who according to others, we only want defeated because he’s black), or not vote for him because he’s Mormon. How about the flip-flop, tarp supporting, Romboma-care issues? The guy is a punch-line for the likes of Leno and Conan over his flip-flops (no, really, he has been). It’s not a perception invented out of whole-cloth to hide anti-mormon sentiment. He has been on both sides of a number of major issue that distinguish between conservatives and others.

I say ‘fascination’ because you do bring this up frequently. So again, will you bring with respect to Democrats in the general election, because of their greater likeliness to rule out voting for Mormons? When the attack ads start flowing, will you, or will you not, question if there isn’t some anti-Mormon sentiment in the administration, the DNC, and Democrats at large? Gallup suggests that is more to be found among Democrats, and even independents, after all.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ask an Evangelical friend…

Mufasa
[/quote]

I don’t have any! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Sloth:

What I was saying was that you nor I can “get into peoples head” and determine what set of influences, biases and/or prejudices ultimately is MOST important to their voting decision. But rest assured that for many, it is the religious beliefs of a candidate.

And I’ll make it clear for you; “we deserve what we get”; whether we are a DEM or a Republican; if we either scare away and/or vote against qualified people because of their religious beliefs.

Mufasa

[quote]ZEB wrote:
For without radio we would have virtually nothing.
[/quote]

Yes, thank god there still exist such antiquated devices to give us yet more antiquated ideas.

“…A potential non-Romney vote is explained away as anti-Mormonism…”

In the “Bible Belt”, in many cases, you BET it can…

Mufasa

Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

Good questions, Lift.

This is one reason why I started this “SC” thread prior to the NH Primaries.

To me, SC becomes an interesting bellwether of the whole Romney campaign.

Mufasa

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

This whole idea of “Liberal Media Bias” has gone back and forth on “PWI” literally for YEARS. What eventually “turned the tide” for me was close to 3-4 pages of NOT how many news people consider them selves “liberal” or “conservative”…but most importantly which type of outlets had the greatest audience, impact and overall influence.

That really is the issue, and what is implied by this “Liberal Media Bias”.

The thread was by “DC COOPER”??? (I wish he would post on this thread or I wish somebody could remember the thread and link it). As of the beginning parts of this Century, the audience, impact and overall influence of “conservative” media is undeniable.

I remember a quote (paraphrasing) that said:

“To compare NPR’s influence to that of Rush Limbaugh (and at the time Glenn Beck) was BEYOND absurd…”

(If anyone can find the link to “DCCooper’s”? thread, that would be great).

And Zeb…hopefully I will continue to stick to what I “know”…that’s part of learning and growth. The problem with this topic is that it’s filled with more wish-bias and mythology than a Grimm’s Tale.

Mufasa [/quote]

As I’ve said you’re funny Mufasa - Radio is virtually the only place where there is a right wing edge. Thank God for Rush, Beck, Hannity and the others. For without radio we would have virtually nothing.

However, in ignoring the facts in my previous post you’ve proven my first assertion, that is, you see what you want to see. The fact is if it were not for FOX and the Wall Street Journal there would be virtually no conservative media (other than radio). But even with them we are literally surrounded by the liberal media. And I’m not just talking about news outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS and the rest. But also in the print media. How helpful is it that a magazine like People showcases the Obama family one month before the election? And what a surprise that Time’s “Person” of the year are the clowns who are part of occupy wall street? Eh…no worries right? But what about all the other liberal mags that lean or are blatently left?

Esquire, Vogue, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, OK, US, Mens Health (Obama front page two weeks before election) Harpers, Life, Vanity Fair Glamour, Cosmo, Red Book, and every other women’s magazine available. And then there are the special interest mags that appeal to African Americans, the various gay magazines etc. ALL LIBERAL!

Then there is Hollywood. Do I really have to prove to you that Hollywood swings left? Please don’t make me continue to state the obvious. Here is a list of all who gave to either party. It’s something like 8 to 1 for the democrats

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/index.php?li=h

And we all know that powerful celebrities make the kind of movies and TV shows that
influence people.

TV, Movies, Magazines and most every where else. It cannot be denied that there is a powerful liberal influence in America. In fact, so much so that we are actually having to debate over whether a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE Like Obama may get reelected. Can anyone imagine if all media were actually balanced how bad Obama would lose to Romney?

What if it were brought out in the mainstream media that Obama had attended a racist church for 20 years? Or that he hung out with terrorists in his early years?

Can you imagine the outrage if any one of the republican nominees attended a racist church? Major headlines!!!

Romney attends racist church ONCE----DESTROY HIM!!

“Zeb you’re getting all excited for nothing. Just because the total media is about 7 to 1 left doesn’t mean anything…Let’s go on pretending that it’s all fair that way we don’t have to admit that Obama has a built in advantage.”

SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE MUFASA – Unlike many on this site I’ve seen over a period of years. And I’ve seen it grow and in 2008 they didn’t even try to hide it. Fair journalism died that year! You can continue to believe what you want to beieve but I know better and so does about 75% of the population who agree with me.

Shall we waste more time on this or talk about how Romney is going to win South Carolina? I have more stuff on this so it’s up to you. I will debeat this for 50 pages if you like.[/quote]

And funny even with all this brainwashing around, there is still a large enough population that support conservative principles to make it a competitive archetype. Makes you wonder how popular the idea could become if it had the same amount of force as the liberal push.
[/quote]

Exceptionally good insight on your part!

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…A potential non-Romney vote is explained away as anti-Mormonism…”

In the “Bible Belt”, in many cases, you BET it can…

Mufasa[/quote]

That’s fine, but it is it’s own form of stereotyping. There are certainly higher (relative to some other group) incidences of other types of behavior among other social groups…You see where I’m going?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. Paul is for confused progressives and libertarians. I realize you’re simply repeating the lastest Paul e-mail blast (it was, I saw it), but Paul isn’t a conservative. I’d no more vote for Paul than Romney.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…A potential non-Romney vote is explained away as anti-Mormonism…”

In the “Bible Belt”, in many cases, you BET it can…

Mufasa[/quote]

That’s fine, but it is it’s own form of stereotyping. There are certainly higher (relative to some other group) incidences of other types of behavior among other social groups…You see where I’m going?[/quote]

That there are larger, even WORSE biases among other groups?

Absolutely!

But this thread is (mostly) about SC; and potentially what the candidates will face there.

Mufasa

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. Paul is for confused progressives and libertarians. I realize you’re simply repeating the lastest Paul e-mail blast (it was, I saw it), but Paul isn’t a conservative. I’d no more vote for Paul than Romney.[/quote]

Rick, if the theory of evolution is true my life is meaningless, Santorum has about as much crossover appeal as David Duke.

Maybe less.

Lol.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. Paul is for confused progressives and libertarians. I realize you’re simply repeating the lastest Paul e-mail blast (it was, I saw it), but Paul isn’t a conservative. I’d no more vote for Paul than Romney.[/quote]

Rick, if the theory of evolution is true my life is meaningless, Santorum has about as much crossover appeal as David Duke.

Maybe less. [/quote]

Well, he certainly doesn’t get the junkie, conspiracy theorist, racialist, pimp vote.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. [/quote]

Bahahahahaha! Is you crazy?!

Santorum?! Really?! SRSLY?! You want to go get dem and indie votes with Santorum?

Dude, stay out of politics. And I mean that as a compliment.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. Paul is for confused progressives and libertarians. I realize you’re simply repeating the lastest Paul e-mail blast (it was, I saw it), but Paul isn’t a conservative. I’d no more vote for Paul than Romney.[/quote]

Rick, if the theory of evolution is true my life is meaningless, Santorum has about as much crossover appeal as David Duke.

Maybe less. [/quote]

Well, he certainly doesn’t get the junkie, conspiracy theorist, racialist, pimp vote. If you see Ron, ask him if he has any tips for getting ketchup stains out of whites. I imagine with keeping those robes and hoods clean, he must have some tips.[/quote]

If Paul only attracts the potheads and the KKK he has about twice the votes than Santorum will get outside the hardcore biblebelt vote.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. Paul is for confused progressives and libertarians. I realize you’re simply repeating the lastest Paul e-mail blast (it was, I saw it), but Paul isn’t a conservative. I’d no more vote for Paul than Romney.[/quote]

Rick, if the theory of evolution is true my life is meaningless, Santorum has about as much crossover appeal as David Duke.

Maybe less. [/quote]

Well, he certainly doesn’t get the junkie, conspiracy theorist, racialist, pimp vote. If you see Ron, ask him if he has any tips for getting ketchup stains out of whites. I imagine with keeping those robes and hoods clean, he must have some tips.[/quote]

If Paul only attracts the potheads and the KKK he has about twice the votes than Santorum will get outside the hardcore biblebelt vote. [/quote]

Nah, Santorum leads Paul. If Gingrich will drop, his support is automatically for Santorum, by and large. The not-Paul vote is gigantic.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is the GOP primary going to be all about the anit-Paul versues the anti-Romney voter turnout?

People who vehemently oppose Obama should seriously consider strategy at this point.

There are obvious contenders and non contenders. The non contenders need to drop out and either get behind Paul or Romney.

Paul, I think, would be a better choice for the GOP because it would not only grow the party and thus its influence but also draw out the anti Obama dem and indie vote in the general election.[/quote]

You mean, they need to get behind Santorum. Paul is for confused progressives and libertarians. I realize you’re simply repeating the lastest Paul e-mail blast (it was, I saw it), but Paul isn’t a conservative. I’d no more vote for Paul than Romney.[/quote]

Rick, if the theory of evolution is true my life is meaningless, Santorum has about as much crossover appeal as David Duke.

Maybe less. [/quote]

Well, he certainly doesn’t get the junkie, conspiracy theorist, racialist, pimp vote. If you see Ron, ask him if he has any tips for getting ketchup stains out of whites. I imagine with keeping those robes and hoods clean, he must have some tips.[/quote]

If Paul only attracts the potheads and the KKK he has about twice the votes than Santorum will get outside the hardcore biblebelt vote. [/quote]

Nah, Santorum leads Paul. If Gingrich will drop, his support is automatically for Santorum, by and large. The not-Paul vote is gigantic.

http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html[/quote]

I seem to remember that you were the one who told me that Santorum does not have the staying power to go all the way?