Will any Democrat women here vote for McCain because of Palin?

cincybearcat

digster wrote:

I don't think it's quite that simple to say nothing will ever happen to abortion. McCain himself has set that he would appoint judges to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade, and it's probable that the next President will have the chance to appoint 2, possibly even 3, new justices to the Court. From my knowledge about the judges, there are four pretty firm "overturn" rulers sitting on the bench already (Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas). If McCain has the opportunity to have one more conservative voice on the Court, Roe V. Wade could certainly be overturned.

You know what overturning Roe v Wade does? It leaves it up to the States...which is what should have been done to begin with.

it doesn't make abortion illegal automatically. It allows the people of the state to make the determination for their state. But I can see how that might be a little scary for some.

cincybearcat

weenie wrote:

Setting aside the abortion issue, which really polarizes people's opinions, I find it incomprehensible that he even selected her. She's not qualified to be in the #2 spot and anyone who thinks otherwise is just looking at her through rose-colored Republican glasses. If something happened to McCain and she took over running the country, she would be no more than a puppet being told what to do by the Republican rank and file. Which, come to think of it, is how I feel about McCain.

NO

What makes one "qualified"?

Shouldn't being a citizen of the US be enough?

weenie

cincybearcat wrote:

What makes one "qualified"?

Shouldn't being a citizen of the US be enough?

LOL - good one.

slightofjeff

weenie wrote:

Setting aside the abortion issue, which really polarizes people's opinions, I find it incomprehensible that he even selected her. She's not qualified to be in the #2 spot and anyone who thinks otherwise is just looking at her through rose-colored Republican glasses.

Seriously?

She's as qualified for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket as Obama is for the No. 1 spot on the Democratic ticket.

If Obama *really* wants to make her experience a huge issue, he's going to be digging his own grave.

Politically speaking, she was the best choice McCain could have made out of the pool of rumored candidates. She solidifies his credentials with the Republican base, plus gives him a *chance* to steal some of those moderate women who were leaning toward Hillary.

iamica

I think that McCain's choice was a pathetic effort to try to get women to vote for him, thinking that all we want is a woman in office. I don't vote based on race or gender; I vote based on which position is more in agreement with mine. I can't support what she supports.

digster

cincybearcat wrote:

You know what overturning Roe v Wade does? It leaves it up to the States...which is what should have been done to begin with.

it doesn't make abortion illegal automatically. It allows the people of the state to make the determination for their state. But I can see how that might be a little scary for some.

Leaving it up to the states is alot different from nothing happening to it...if it is left up to the states there will be many women denied access to a medical procedure. Also, I for one am not willing to go back to an era of back-alley abortions, which is what stirred the pro-choice movement to take more significant action in the first place

TrixieCat

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Will gender sway any of the ladies here to vote republican?

I don't think there is a chance in Hell that any Democratic women will vote for McCain because of this conservative crazy-pants.

justam

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Will gender sway any of the ladies here to vote republican?

No.

More specifically:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=301446

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

Seriously?

She's as qualified for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket as Obama is for the No. 1 spot on the Democratic ticket.

If Obama *really* wants to make her experience a huge issue, he's going to be digging his own grave.

Politically speaking, she was the best choice McCain could have made out of the pool of rumored candidates. She solidifies his credentials with the Republican base, plus gives him a *chance* to steal some of those moderate women who were leaning toward Hillary.

About all she does is solidify her credentials with the Republican base (which is not going to be nearly enough to win this election). As more of her political positions come out, people are starting to realize that she is right-wing. Very very right-wing. And most people are moderates/independents. They're not going to like that.

And Obama and co. can easily criticize Palin's experience, as long as they do it carefully and keep it focused on McCain. McCain has said that Obama is unfit to be President because of his lack of experience. Fine, OK. But to be VP, who's main job is to be ready to be president at any moment, he chose someone without many credentials, even when he said the person he would choose would have "extensive credentials." What does that say about his judgment or how seriously he took the decision? Washington experience? None. Foreign policy experience? No matter how many times Cindy McCain says it, Alaska being near Russia is not going to convince anyone she has foreign policy experience. It's not a referendum on Palin, but it is on McCain. And if they wanna come back at Obama with lack of experience, let them. Everyone's heard it before, and no one who votes for Obama is going to be voting him in on the basis of his vast Washington experience. It's the McCain camp that has everything to lose here.

So, if this was such a brilliant decision, why has McCain gone down by multiple percentage points in every national poll since the VP announcement?


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

And Obama and co. can easily criticize Palin's experience, as long as they do it carefully and keep it focused on McCain. McCain has said that Obama is unfit to be President because of his lack of experience.

I, and I think most people, believe it's more important for the top of the ticket to have experience than the No. 2. In terms of sheer experience, Palin is more qualified to be president RIGHT NOW than Obama is. At least she's had some executive experience ... Obama's resume consists of, well, four years of running for president and a lot of "present" votes in the Senate.

She doesn't need foreign policy experience. That's McCain's forte.

So, if this was such a brilliant decision, why has McCain gone down by multiple percentage points in every national poll since the VP announcement?

Because the Democratic convention just ended. A better question would be why didn't Obama get much of a bump from that? He was expecting double-digits ... most sources seem to indicate he got squat, or squat plus just one or two points. Could be the Palin thing, could be something else, but the fact remains, McCain did BETTER in the past week than even his own campaign could have expected.

The Palin thing isn't hurting him at all ... And, in the end, if all it does is shore up his base -- which was iffy on him to begin with -- then it will have been a success. All the other candidates ... Romney, Lieberman, etc ... would have meant the end of his campaign, basically. He'd have been cooked.

As it stands, according to the national average, he's within two points of Obama heading into his convention. That's probably the best position he could have hoped for.

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

I, and I think most people, believe it's more important for the top of the ticket to have experience than the No. 2. In terms of sheer experience, Palin is more qualified to be president RIGHT NOW than Obama is. At least she's had some executive experience ... Obama's resume consists of, well, four years of running for president and a lot of "present" votes in the Senate.

She doesn't need foreign policy experience. That's McCain's forte.

Well, there's quite a few things wrong with that. For one, if executive experience is the sign of readiness to be president, then you should note that the man at the top of the ticket has absolutely no executive experience, either. They can come at Obama for lack of experience all they want, and I'm sure they'll continue to do so.

And while you're going off on Republican talking points, if you want to talk about being an incompetent Senator....in the U.S Senate, Barack Obama is the Number 3 most absent senator since 2004. I'm sure you can guess who is Number 1.

Like I said, Obama's not running on experience, and obviously the polls say his message is resonating with people. McCain's primary argument is that Obama is not ready yet he picks someone who by his own standards is not ready. No one, not you or any of the talking heads on television, have adequately explained this contradiction. Don't come back at me with Obama's experience; defend your own candidate.



[/quote] Because the Democratic convention just ended. A better question would be why didn't Obama get much of a bump from that? He was expecting double-digits ... most sources seem to indicate he got squat, or squat plus just one or two points. Could be the Palin thing, could be something else, but the fact remains, McCain did BETTER in the past week than even his own campaign could have expected.

The Palin thing isn't hurting him at all ... And, in the end, if all it does is shore up his base -- which was iffy on him to begin with -- then it will have been a success. All the other candidates ... Romney, Lieberman, etc ... would have meant the end of his campaign, basically. He'd have been cooked.

As it stands, according to the national average, he's within two points of Obama heading into his convention. That's probably the best position he could have hoped for.[/quote]

The polls taken the day after Obama's speech (and done after the Palin announcement) showed that there was little to no bounce; it was an extremely smart move of McCain to schedule his VP announcement the morning after the speech. Obama's well known as a good orator, so he probably knew coverage would be positive of the speech, and threw his VP bomb right in the midst of that. Well done, and the polls showed he'd diluted the bump.

Then the weekend went by and now Obama is up by 6. Again, don't talk to me about Obama's bounce. I'm more than willing to admit that McCain's political skill erased the bounce. But what about the VP bounce, and how Palin was a game-changer? Instead of a VP bounce, Obama went up by 6 (I don't know where you're getting a 2 point average...the only national poll below a 6 point advantage to Obama is CNN). Why is there no VP bounce? Again, don't come back at me with Obama. Talk about Palin's; talk about why, even with the announcement of VP, McCain went down and Obama went up?

beachdweller

if you listen to all the interviews of government officials at the RNC, all of Hillary's undecides have moved to McCain because of Palin. They are evidently emailing certain female republican officials in groves, lol

Palin doesn't just want roe v wade overturned, she wants abortion outlawed everywhere period.

JaneNY

No way. I don't vote for someone because of their anatomy, or color; I vote for someone if I agree with their policies. If someone voted for Palin (or Hillary) simply because she was female, its an insult to her and a very superficial way to vote.

Allie

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Will gender sway any of the ladies here to vote republican?

I'm not Democrat, but no way, it wouldn't sway my vote. If I were voting
I don't like either candidate.

But I could never vote for a pro-life candidate.

blacknapkins

No way.

decides2dream

if only we were truly representative of the voting public....*sigh*

QuestionAuthority

NEVER. Her being added to McCain's ticket made my support for Obama increase with undying support.

Her being in the position of vice president and what she stands for, plus her total lack of experience terrifies me as a women, mother and American.

QuestionAuthority

slightofjeff wrote:

Palin is more qualified to be president RIGHT NOW than Obama is. At least she's had some executive experience ... Obama's resume consists of, well, four years of running for president and a lot of "present" votes in the Senate.


Sorry.. I would take legislative experience over executive experience any day. Running a town of 6500 does not take much of an effort, in fact most towns this size have a mayor that consider their job as mayor a part time job.

dawng

JaneNY wrote:

No way. I don't vote for someone because of their anatomy, or color; I vote for someone if I agree with their policies. If someone voted for Palin (or Hillary) simply because she was female, its an insult to her and a very superficial way to vote.

+1

blacknapkins

QuestionAuthority wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

Palin is more qualified to be president RIGHT NOW than Obama is. At least she's had some executive experience ... Obama's resume consists of, well, four years of running for president and a lot of "present" votes in the Senate.


Sorry.. I would take legislative experience over executive experience any day. Running a town of 6500 does not take much of an effort, in fact most towns this size have a mayor that consider their job as mayor a part time job.

True ... I live in a community of about 82,000 with a part-time mayor who is about 10,000 years old and doesn't know where he is half of the time.