<p>Although I live in a state where the primary is held too late to really have an effect on who the party nominee is, I fully plan to vote for Kucinich in the primary. To make a statement if nothing else. To the poster above who said they'd vote for whoever supported universal health care, Kucinich is the only one who does (if you take universal health care to mean getting the insurance companies and their insanely high profits OUT of our healthcare).</p>
<p>That said, in the general election, I'm voting for whoever gets the Democratic nomination (I kind of hope it's Edwards since I don't think that Kucinich has a chance).</p>
<p>
[quote]
hate to admit it, but whoever said that Romney won't get elected because he's a mormon is absolutely right.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They said they would not vote for them because they are a Mormon. But either way, to say that is ridiculous really. Every candidate has that one quality that is supposed to be the reason why they aren't going to get elected. </p>
<p>Obama is black so he's done. Clinton is a woman so she's gone. Romney is mormon so he's gone. Edwards is a pretty boy so he's gone. Giuliani is too liberal for a republican so he's gone. McCain is too old so he's gone. Kucinich is way too liberal so he's gone. Mike Huckabee is a who? so he's gone. </p>
<p>The thing is that one of these people is going to win, and yet every single one has one factor that is supposed to keep them out. Saying they "can't" win because of this is just not true. Right now Giuliani is leading the republicans and he's a roman catholic italian, and Clinton and Obama lead the democrats and they are a woman and black man respectively. It's time to stop with the they can't type of attitude.</p>
<p>the thing about all the other candidates is that the exact thing that may be their downfall is also one of their strong points. Obama's black so he gets the "black vote" (i absolutely hate that term) and the vote from all the liberals who are trying to prove that the country has changed and that a black man can be president. Clinton's a female, so a lot of girls will vote her. And Romney's gonna get what? the mormon vote? they make up like 2% of the country... i'm not trying to knock him, i'm just saying that this country isn't very accepting of people who are considered "radically" different. (being mormon is considered radically different, whereas being black or a female isn't THAT much of a stretch- although it is still a stretch).</p>
<p>i mean, honestly, i have never heard anyone claim that they won't vote for Obama simply because he's black (some people probably feel this way, but i've never actually heard it articulated). in fact, many political pundits say that he may not be "black" enough, whatever the hell that means. and I've never heard people say they won't vote for Hillary simply because she's a woman (although I've heard many a person say they won't vote for her because she's a b****). but i've heard quite a few people say that they won't vote for Romney because he's mormon...</p>
<p>but, i still think he should run. you should never not do something because your chance of success is minimal. there is a small chance that romney can win, so because of that he should run. and it's not like romney's the only person who probably doesn't have a chance as president. i doubt that Obama will win, but i'm still gonna vote for him. so i encourage you to do the same if you feel strongly about Romney.</p>
<p>oh, and just as a side note, i completely agree that it's ridiculous to not vote for someone just because of their religious affiliation. i mean, we're supposed to live in a country where church and state are separate entities (although it hasn't seemed like as of late)...</p>
<p>Yeah, you make some good points but I still have a little disagreement. Obama and Clinton being black and woman, get most of the black and women votes(hypothetically, definitely more true with Obama and the black vote). However, really for every black vote that Obama gets is another vote he doesn't get just because he's black (even though it's not said out loud often, it is true). For Clinton, I have heard many men say they don't want a woman leading, even many liberal people. So for every woman vote, she is losing a man's vote. As for Mitt Romney, I know that my grandfather is supporting Romney right now because he "looks the most presidential". So while he is losing votes for being Mormon, he gains a lot because he's an attractive white male. Really, all of these "faults" balance out, and it will come down to issues and political positions rather than their race, religion, or sex. So really, being any of these things, even mormon, does not automatically disqualify you(even though I agree with you that it will be more of a challenge).</p>
<p>as i was doing some research on romney (because this thread made me realize i know nothing about him besides him being a mormon) i came across a time article that said a recent Gallup poll showed that 35% of the country won't even consider voting for Romney just because he's Mormon. the only other religion that did worse than the Church of the Latter Day Saints was Islam...</p>
<p>wow, that really is a shame that more than a third of the country won't even consider Romney's ideas or opinions simply because of his religious affiliation...</p>
<p>hmmm, the Iowa straw poll was really questionable... the republican frontrunners (McCain and Guiliani) didn't even participate, and you had to pay to vote...</p>
<p>but nevertheless, in my last post i wasn't intentionally commenting on romney's hopeless campaign. i was moreso commenting on how sad it is that in this day and age, many Americans won't even consider a person because of their religious difference (and this is probably true for Barack Obama as well)...shows us just how far we still have to go.</p>
<p>"we're supposed to live in a country where church and state are separate entities "</p>
<p>Ya, except this isn't church and state. This is personal preference...</p>
<p>If I don't like Mormonism, that's my deal. I'm not going to vote for someone if I don't like something about them. Simple as that. I don't know how you would like to disqualify a candidate...do we all have to appeal to your reasoning Huey...NO.</p>
<p>To further comment on your reasoning...being a mayor doesn't make someone eligible to run for president...neither does being a United States Senator. Federal politics are a lot different than state politics. I would rather have someone with expierence in the former than the latter.</p>
<p>"many Americans won't even consider a person because of their religious difference "</p>
<p>Holy war, paganism, polygamy, assisted suicide....to some people these aren't positive things (just naming at random, loads more out there). The best example: are you going to tell me that if some radical cleric was running for president preaching jihad against people, but was steller in all other aspects you would vote for him?</p>
<p>Get real. Religion plays a huge role in EVERYTHING. Telling me to grow up, I think it's about time you think before you write. Religion goes beyond the state, and to most people it is more important.</p>
<p>Your reasoning is idiotic. As I said, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in religion at all. That doesn't mean I have written off every candidate simply because they do not agree with my religious beliefs(or lack thereof). You are right that it's your deal to not like Mormonism, it's just bigoted that you automatically disqualify someone because of their affiliation. It's just plain idiotic. I'm not even sure if you are responding to me or someone else because you seem to address me with someone else's quotes, but that's ok. I'll answer anyway, since I agree with you that religion does play a huge role in everything. But using your logic, I should vote for no one because they all have different religious ideas than I do. I dislike EVERY religion, so I guess I just shouldn't vote because I don't agree with them on their religious ideals. You are so smart, you are right, you win. </p>
<p>And ok, so you are saying you don't Giuliani since he was in state politics?</p>
<p>Obama or hillary, whoever gets through the preliminaries. Only if I could vote.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I don't like Mormonism, that's my deal. I'm not going to vote for someone if I don't like something about them. Simple as that. I don't know how you would like to disqualify a candidate...do we all have to appeal to your reasoning Huey...NO.
[/quote]
yeah i think that about sums it up. If i'm going to vote, I would probably vote someone who could best represent me. usually that includes my religion as well (though long as the candidate's not extreme with their religion, it wouldn't matter)</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's just bigoted that you automatically disqualify someone because of their affiliation. It's just plain idiotic
[/quote]
well that's just your opinion. To some people, religions plays a huge deal in all aspect of their lives. he never said he wouldn't vote for anybody who had different religion from them, just religions he personally didn't prefer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but using your logic, I should vote for no one because they all have different religious ideas than I do. I dislike EVERY religion, so I guess I just shouldn't vote because I don't agree with them on their religious ideals. You are so smart, you are right, you win.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again that would be your choice, your opinion as well. If you feel like you want to do this, who the hell would stop you?? if religion plays a huge role in blink's life so be it, why is this bothering you? if it doesn't make a difference to you then fine, there's no reason to argue over it.</p>
<p>first of all I am voting democrat. no question.
as far as canidates considering I work for obama so I think I have decided. :)
Though if Clinton wins I will still vote for her but would perfer Edwards. Clinton's biggest issue is how polarizing she is. I talk to hundreds of voters a day (ah phone banking...) and people normally LOVE her or HATE her. It's rare that I talk to someone in between. I may be baised but Obama is one of the few canidates that can really pull from both sides. I work with people who were Republicans all their lives until Obama. It is really interesting. Forget about policy for a second, all this partisan bickering is hindering the rebuilding of a country we should have never been in the first place. I think Clinton in the White House would only make the division worse. Just my opinion.
And my two cents on Guliani and experience
We really should be talking to New Yorkers about how they feel about him. Despite the fact that he is going to get killed becuase of his personal life in the general election ( not that I think that that means anything about his politics but if he wins the nomiantion it is all coming out...), the a lot of people in New York are not satisfied with how he handled his publice office (now talk to the people fo chicago about obama... sorry again Im hooked). I live in California, but my best friend goes to school with Guliani's duaghter. Even she supports Obama (she joined a pro-Obama facebook group and the press freaked out.) Anyway, I have heard enough stories to be concerned about his charecter. Though he is socially liberal, which is a start.
One final plug:
If anyone would like to volunteer for the Obama campaign or even intern for him email me at <a href="mailto:hec2008@aol.com">hec2008@aol.com</a> i should be able to contact the right people for you. They don't discriminte on age. I just turned 18. It has been an incredible job.
happy voting!</p>
<p>The thing about the women and black vote is that while obama could gain a black vote in the primary he probably wont lose a vote for being black because democrats aren't usually bigoted in that way...not to stereotype conservatives but it would usually be them not voting for a person cuz he's black. same for Clinton. The actual election would be different tho...but that most likely won't matter for Obama since Clinton is leading by so much.</p>
<p>I like Obama and Clinton both, but I hope Obama gets the nom because I'm scared the Dems will lose if Clinton gets it because people are so divided on her. It's like someone said, they usually either LOVE or HATE her. And we really really reeeeeeally don't need any more Republicans, or else I'm moving to Europe.</p>
<p>Huey: would you vote for John Kerry? He claims he is a Catholic, though most Catholics would doubt that stance. </p>
<p>My sons who will vote in the next election like:</p>
<p>Duncan Hunter, Duncan Hunter, Ed Rendell (D-PA governor), Ron Paul, Joe Lieberman.</p>
<p>Personally, I would never vote for anyone who advocated "Free" health care for all. Firstly, no health care is free. And constitutionally, I can find no place where it says our nice federal government should pay for my tonsillectomy.</p>
<p>Since I already said I am for Obama(atleast I think I did), I don't automatically disqualify someone because of their religious affiliation(Obama is Christian, I am an atheist). If I see that their religious views start affecting things that I support(like gay marriage and abortion since those are the most common) then I probably won't support them. If they are the type of candidate like Sam Brownback, who really would like to make the United States a truly Christian country, then no I won't vote for them because a candidate like that would try and put their religious ideas on everyone. There's a huge difference between believing in religion and then forcing your religion on everyone else through laws(something that I will never support).</p>
<p>And personally I feel that "free" healthcare is one of the most important issues that is clearly needed. No doubt it's not free, but it clearly works in other countries and people are not all broke. We already have socialized a lot of things in this country(schools, fire department, police department, etc) so why not something that is very important like healthcare? It's something that will prevent many uneeded deaths, and is not wasted tax dolars in my opinion.</p>
<p>I think being a mayor, an EXECUTIVE position, is probably the most similar job to U.S. President on the municipal level. As Giuliani said himself, he is the only candidate in the GOP that has prior executive experience with the exception of Mitt Romney, who was governor of Massachussets. In my opinion, Giuliani is more than well-qualified to serve as our nation's chief executive.</p>