Talk Elections

He's going to be at Philadelphia Republican City Committee's Annual Clambake today. It's the one big event that all the major city and statewide candidates attend each year. I believe Bush showed up in 2000 (I didn't start going until 2004). I know Chris Matthews attended it that year. McCain actually showed up at Cannstatter's (the German-American club about five minutes up the street from me where the event is always held) in 2004 a week before the election for a rally.

I'm sure I'll be able to squeeze the answer out of him. Oh, I'll also tell him you said hello, BRTD.  ;)

http://www.northeasttimes.com/2008/0821/campaign.html (http://www.northeasttimes.com/2008/0821/campaign.html)

"Well, totally off the record, Phil, I've been chosen."

It'll happen.  ;)

"Only if you promise not to tell Uncle Tony."

Exciting!

"Meet me in the backroom at 6:27pm tonight...and I'll show you what Veeps are made of."

LOL


Well, we know Pawlenty has that rock star appeal. Smartass.  :P

I meant exciting for you and was being quite sincere.

Well, thank you.  ;)

Ugh. It looks like it's going to rain and the clambake is an outdoor event.  :(   They set up a real gigantic tent but it won't be the same. Lower turnout means Pawlenty might decide to skip the event.  :(

Next time tell me, I'll get a date and buy tickets.

ugh.  phil is going to be ball washing.  :)

Never forget, fellow Minnesotans

()

So Pawlenty showed up surprisingly close to the time we were expecting. My friend and I were two of the first people to greet him as he got out of his van. My friend is close to one of the photographers from one of our local newspapers so she told him to get next to him. She and a photographer snapped a few pictures that may very well be in the next edition of some of the papers. I was in the background for a few.

My friend then introduced me to Pawlenty. I chatted with him and a few more pictures were taken. Pawlenty is such a nice guy. He goes beyond the "would you have a beer with him?" factor. I know it's going to sound really corny but he's very soft spoken and engaging. It was just a "Oh, yeah. That's nice" to everything you said to him. My friend told him about my job and the Governor actually followed up on it, asking me what I do exactly and such. I wished him the best of luck and told him we were "hoping" for him (to be the running mate).

So, basically, I obviously don't actually know the guy but if he's anything like what he appears to be, he's probably a really awesome guy. Anyway, here's my picture...


()

Awww.. Phil has a man crush on T-paw.

 Yeah, Pawlenty is a nice guy as long as he can't rationalize you into numbers and formulas.  That's when he really stops caring :)

I must add that he was very well received, too. He was surrounded by a big crowd at every moment.

cnn must think there is a decent chance pawlenty will be picked.

on their stupid little map they have minnesota as a tossup, but have pennsylvania in blue. 

Nice pic Phil. I have I think own  same shirt as you. After that, it goes downhill rapidly as to any potential pictorial similarities. :P

Nice story, Phil.  I just hope you don't cry in the shower when Ridge is picked.

I'm actually starting to not care if it's Ridge. I never really minded. I just don't think it's that wise and could cause some problems. Oh well.

Ugh..I'll vote Barr.

*Shrug*

Plenty of ex-Pennsylvanians living in Florida.

By the way, the local news just showed an interview with Pawlenty. He's looking like the running mate...  ;)

He looks like a sure loss.  I don't care how nice he is.  McCain has invested way too much into hammering Obama for inexperience to then turn to someone who has none.  It would be suicide to do that now.

Pawlenty has no experience? Ok, right...

::)

I'll cry if he gets obliterated after the VP deabtes.

Not really, but I'll be upset.

I'm sure many people cried when Quayle got "obliterated" against Bentsen.

I'm sure they cried again on Election night, too. Tears of joy, that is. If Bush could survive Quayle, McCain can survive Pawlenty. Enough already.

Too bad that this year we aren't coming off of an extremely popular Republican president, who won by landslide proportions.

Bush was a shoo in.  McCain isn't.

Not nearly enough to avoid backlash against McCain if he is picked.

Two things changed Phil:

McCain has hammered Obama far more for his inexperience than even I figured he would by this point of the campaign... and hammered is the word.

Obama went out and picked someone who make Methuselah look freshfaced and naive.  Don't get me wrong, I think picking Biden was a huge blunder, but we can't open ourselves to a counter attack in any way over experience and McCain has invested way too much in that angle.  If Obama had picked Kaine, then different story, but the Biden VP means we need to pick someone experienced.

The GOP wasn't as popular in 1988 as people like to believe. Neither was Reagan.


And how is Ridge much better? They had the same amount of time as Governor. Ridge does have the advantage of serving in the House during the 1980s and early 1990s but is that really going to make a difference?

Using Ridge's time as head of Homeland Security as proof of "good experience" is a huge risk. He wasn't seen as a great director and is mainly remembered by the public as a joke with a color chart.

I know that.  Don't forget Dukakis was an atrocious candidate, who was easily perceived as a typical liberal Democrat.  Frankly, the ticket may have had a chance if Bentsen was at the top of the ticket.

I disagree that Reagan was unpopular, but please correct me if I'm twisting your words.

Insiders I spoke with two weeks ago gave me that impression, too. They seemed to like Pawlenty, and think that he would mesh well with the campaign. Of course that was before the selection of Biden. What remains to be seen is whether McCain's campaign feels the need to match Biden in some specific way with their pick.

Let's run a comparison of these two men.

Ridge was both an excellent student and a local start of high school athletics.  Tim Pawlenty never made it past JV on his high school hockey team.

Ridge worked his way through Harvard and then Dickinson Law.  Pawlenty took both his degrees from the University of Minnesota (not bad, but not Ridge).

Ridge is a decorated Vietnam Veteran... Pawlenty has been C-in-C of the Minnesota National Gaurd, and that's it... closest he has been to battle was on his JV hockey team.


Ridge spent six terms in congress, and that's not just votes, its committees, work, etc... I would say that's a decent deal more valuable than Pawlenty's couple of terms in the Minnesota House.

Ridge is remembered as  a hugely successful governor who won reelection in a landslide... did Pawlenty even break 50% in his last election? 

Pennsylvania is generally considered a state with more gravitas than Minnesota.   

As for SHS... well, you can't really fault Ridge either... he served well for the job he had... and the fact remains that, although there were attempts, there were no successful attacks while Ridge was SHS.

Ridge is (quite marginally) pro-choice, but he is defiantly a practicing Catholic... Tim Pawlenty, raised Catholic, and left... that's bound to anger more people than it attracts.

Now, let's compare photos:

()()

Ridge says to me, strong, able, with a little bit of swagger and humor.

Pawlenty says nice guy, but he kinda reminds you of that wimpy guidance councilor who seems overly enthusiastic and is always trying to be "your buddy".

NEED A BIGGER PICTURE!!!!!!

Did you see the 300th pore to the lower left of his nose? My god!

Wow.


Ok.


Uh...so because Pawlenty didn't serve in Vietnam, we can mock him?



I acknowledged that.


Pawlenty ran against an apparently very popular statewide elected official who was supposed to beat Pawlenty in a terrible GOP year. Ridge ran against...Ivan Itkin. Really terrible comparisons here, my friend. Terrible.


LOL  


Oh darn! ::)




Uh...wow.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

The "mocking" is to make a point that, even were Pawlenty to obtain as much experience as Ridge in government, he would still look kinda weak by comparison.

And if you think that there aren't people who will be put off by the fact that Pawlenty left the Church, then you are nuts... "Oh look, the Democrats have a real Catholic on their ticket, why weren't we good enough for Pawlenty?"

The reason Ridge's opponent was so weak is because the Democrats knew they would get crushed no matter who ran, so they didn't bother to try to front a heavy weight (and 98 was a bad Republican year, too).

I'm not being a dick, Phil, I'm being realistic.  I'm sure Pawlenty is a great guy, but I want to run with the best VP pick possible, and while that might not be Ridge, Ridge is a way better all around off of a shallow comparison, which is the best that most VP candidates get.

Ridge brings is PA, and helps in Ohio, Minnesota is out of out column regardless.  Elsewhere, Ridge does far less damage to the ticket than Pawlenty does.  Bottom line.

"The Democrats have a real Catholic on their ticket."

Wow. I'll stop there.


Yay! Ridge won in a landslide in a more Republican state than Minnesota! Congrats!  ::)

By the way, 1998 was not a bad year compared to 2006.



Wrong.


Right, a Pro Choice candidate is less damaging than a guy who isn't as much of an accomplished athlete than Ridge when he was in high school!  ::)

This argument will become about 10x more entertaining if McCain doesn't pick either Ridge or Pawlenty in a week.

But for now, I agree with Phil.

1) Phil, you are being extremely naive if you don't think there will be Catholics, especially older ones, who see it that way.  When a guy starts out a Methodist and goes Baptist, who cares.  Works a bit differently for us.

2) I think they key fact is that the Democrats kept all their good people out of the race, knowing utter defeat was inevitable.  They didn't even bother.  Ridge didn't even start campaigning until October, and he didn't have to do anything at all.  He's probably the most popular politician this state has had in the last century.  98 wasn't a horrible year, no, but it was an anti-Republican year.

3) You seem to be the only person in PA who doesn't think he brings in PA.

4) Remember how Rush Limbaugh would never support John McCain?  The only people making a big fuss will be the conservative talk show hosts, and they'll get over it quick.  The thing people will remember most is the chatter of the talking heads after the grand introduction.  Ridge provides them an hour loop of material, at least... material about Vietnam, popular PA governor, SHS, a little personal backround, five minutes on abortion, and that's it.  At the end they will know that Ridge is a bit unorthodox, but he is a free thinker, a war hero, and a good, committed public servant with a real record.

Pawlenty's real couldn't fill up half that space, and that's when people will start thinking, if someone doesn't bring it up, which they will, that Pawlenty has about as much expirience as Obama, and if McCian is railing about Obama's lack thereof, then that is devestating to the campaign.  And the same thing will happen if he picks Romney, Jindal, Palin, etc, etc, etc.

The game has changed.

And after people here about his inexperience, that's when groups like Catholic Answers take to the street and tell everyone on their mailing list that Pawlenty has renounced the Catholic Church, which is all the little ladies at the Rosary and Alter Societies will talk about.  And that's when McCain loses the Catholic vote, and PA, Ohio, Michigan and Florida with it.

Almost half of Catholic voters support some abortion rights... hardly any support renunciation of the faith.

Ok but you're being extremely naive if you think that that will have a major impact.


But, again, it doesn't compare to Minnesota in 2006.


Uh...only person in PA? Ok so now you and J.J. count for all of PA? Dude, you're seriously losing it.


We don't need any more problems, Super. And enough with this BS about Ridge being someone with a "real record."



It's called conversion, Super. They'll get over it if they're that committed to the issues that social conservatives care about.

How old were you in 1988? Two? Or weren't you even born?

Oh yea, history books don't exist. That's right.

Were you alive in the 1860s? If not, how do you know that Abraham Lincoln was hated in the south?

You definitely just produced the worst argument of this thread. Congrats.

Phil, if you get the answer directly out of him, I'll buy you a car (sometime when I have money, like 20 years in the future).

He wasn't as popular towards the end of his time in office.

1)  Phil, one of the reasons I really respect your opinion is because, unlike alot of people on here, you actually know something about ground level politics.  And so you have to know that there will be people who either stay home, or vote for Obama on election day, because of this.  It's just like "Obama's a Muslim"... "Pawlenty renounced Catholicism"... some people here that once, and they don't want to hear the rest.  Now we might have a manifest heretic in the White House.  Not voting for that guy.  Even if 40,000 people do that in each of the 4 states I named, then the game is up.  Meanwhile, no one is going to vote for us because Pawlenty skipped Catechism to bang the cheerleader.

2)  Ridge got 58% of the vote with the 3rd Party candidate stealing votes from him.  Pawlenty got 44% of the vote with the 3rd Party candidate stealing votes from the other guy.  Ridges margin of victory was 26%.  Pawlenty's was >1%.

3)  Phil, you know better.  I know people in the real world who are well connected in state politics.  They are all of the same opinion as myself, to varying degrees and I know what I know, because I know it... I'm not guessing.  Even were that not the case, JJ knows what he is talking about.

4)  Pawlenty is all risk.  Sure, he might keep the Religious Right happier, but he doesn't bring anything.  If the Religious right abandons us for Ridge, which I don't think they will, then at least Ridge opens other doors and allows us to run a campaign more appealing to moderates, and it doesn't make us risk our trump card, either.  Ridge has risk, but brings in reward.  eitherway, I don't think that the doomsday scenario pans out with Ridge.

5) Issues only comprise half the story, and most people only really care about one, maybe a couple.  The other half is personalities, which is probably out best chance at winning this thing.

You've made the point well that if we were casting the Vice President in a movie, Ridge would beat Pawlenty.

Don't cite Ridge's experience asa  Congressman.  He was an awful Congressman.

For the nuclear freeze and against aid to Contras?  I'm sorry, that doesn't do it for me.

If he delivers PA I'll be happy, but I can't say I'd be excioted about Tom Ridge as Vice President or heir apparent.

And Pawlenty, while I'm sure he's a nice guy, is no prize.  He's a big government guy.  And speaking of guys who might not deliver their own state...

What is wrong with the nuclear freeze?  Even Reagan was for it... though not the way it was attempted.

Dude, get a grip.


First of all, stop comparing PA to MN for a Gubernatorial race especially in 2006. Secondly, Pawlenty received 47%, not 44%.


Good for them. That doesn't mean they are correct and you're a dope if you think "everyone" agrees with you.

Ridge has this national advantage.  Obama/Biden had been hitting McCain on being a "not the same" and too tied to the right wing.  Ridge explodes that myth.  It helps stop an avenue of attack.

It also directly ties McCain to the Bush administration. Just pointing out the obvious.

1)  Phil, I have a grip.  I am telling you, this is what other people are going to be thinking.  I really don't care if the guy left.  It's a non-issue to me.  It's gonna be a big issue once it gets out to hardline Catholics.

2)  Sorry, I was looking at 2002.  Eitherway, what else do I have to compare it to?  The point is made, Ridge is far stronger, electorally, in his home state than Pawlenty.  If Pawlenty doesn't bring in his home state, or any state, then what in the Hell is the point of having him on the ticket?  For morale?  Is he gonna give us a pat on the back and a "good job"?  Ridge strengthens our hand in PA and Ohio, and might even help us soften our image and pull in some other voters... not to mention he would be a capable President... not that Pawlenty wouldn't be... but I haven't seen the evidence.

Ridge is a bulldozer, Pawlenty is a retaining wall.  One of them move the earth, the other just holds it in place.  If we are gonna win, we need a mover.

3)  the only "serious" figures I have heard say otherwise are all people from out of state who only get a voice because they own a microphone.  Who have you been talking to?  This isn't a challenge, I just want to know, so I at least know who to compare notes with.

That's going to be really hard to avoid regardless.  And of all the Bush Admin figures of prominence, ridge is probably the most detached.

Yeah, he's a hit and run poster.

I doubt people care about Ridge that much anymore, Super.

Having a running mate isn't also about bringing in your homestate. Are you really that dense? Was Obama looking to lock up Delaware?

He satisfies conservatives and is young. Ridge has the charisma of my socks and is a problem for the base. Deal with it.


Oh, yes. I'm just shaking in fear when I see the big, bad Tom Ridge!  ::)


Plenty of people that don't think "being from PA" is enough to swing a state. Ultimately, McCain wins or loses PA on his own.


I hate to say this, Super, but I think a lot of this is about blind geographical loyalty on your part since you and Ridge are from the same area. I just don't think he's as connected with those people as he once was. I won't be distraught if the guy is McCain's pick but it is a strategic mistake.



Not with Pawlenty.

To answer your last point... oh really?

Back in 2002 Pawlenty was preparing to run for the Senate, but at literally the last hour, Cheney calls Pawlenty and says, "we have this other guy for Senate, we want you to run for governor," and Pawlenty says "yes, sir." And changes his plans.  Cheney says "jump" and Pawlenty says "how high."  Is Tim Pawlenty his own man, or is he George Bush's?

I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

LOL

You really think that will be used in an ad, let alone be considered effective?

Ok, Super. Ok.

I think that, in 15 seconds, I just came up with the outline for the most devastating ad of the campaign, and if you don't think they would run it, and if you don't think it would be effective, then you don't know nothin' jack.

Most devastating ad of the campaign? Are you being serious?

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, Super. I'm sure the Obama campaign would love to hire you for campaign ad design.

I thought of that in 15 seconds.  If I thought of it, chances are 15 guys at the DNC will have a spot ready to go by the time the Convention rolls around.  And that's when I would run it.  At the time people care the most about the ticket as a whole.  Run it on all the networks, in every battle ground state right before Pawlenty is about to make his big introduction to the country.  and then if McCain tries to go after Biden in anyway, then just run it again, and again, and again... and contrast it with McCain's claims about Obama not being able to lead.  Talk about McCain's claims to be a maverick, with this guy in the co-pilot's chair?  Then wait for the VP debate and watch Biden throw Pawlenty around like a rag doll.

The effects could be brutal, and we lose support, credibility and valuable campaign time trying to fix our mistake.  Of course, it would clear by October, but by that time, we will have lost so much speed, that we'll just be like that guy who is chasing down the ball carrier heading towards an open end zone making one last pathetic lunge so we don't look like we were beat... the enevitable result being that we end up flat on our faces, while Obama dances in the end zone.

And people still won't care. It would be weaker than Obama's "Seven houses" ads.

You really must be joking if you think that that ad would be devastating. You are usually all gloom and doom if things don't go your way but this is just extreme.

I'm not moping.  I know we can win.  And I know we will win with Ridge.

At best, Pawlenty gets us no where we wouldn't be anyway.  At worst he totally undermines the message of McCain's campaign.  A month ago, I said differently, but that was before McCain made it clear that experience and character won't be issues, they will be the issues.  and he was destroying Obama with it.  Hence why Obama ultimately felt the need to pick Biden.  But that in and of itself was a miscalculation, because it went against the central theme of Change, youth and vigor.  He's opted to fight us where we are strongest, and we can beat him to death here.  Problem is, if we go with Pawlenty, then we weaken ourselves here.  He brought the fight where we wanted it.  We should exploit it.

Picking Ridge is a proactive move, at a time when Obama is reacting to us.  Picking Pawlenty is a purely reactionary move.  And I don't see what it gets us.  With Ridge, we can stick with our stregths will still moving forward.  Ridge does things for us that Pawlenty can't.  Its as simple as that.

Listen, we really over analyze the affect of the running mates outside of the base vote. Ultimately, people don't care much. Obama is the one that needs to fight McCain when it comes to experience. It's not going to boil down to Biden vs. whoever our pick is.

I also don't get how Ridge is that strong when it comes to standing up to Biden. Ridge doesn't match Biden's attitude. We're probably going to "lose" the debate to Biden especially if we try to play his game. He's the master. I say we not worry about that since the debate won't be a big deal anyway.

This thread is painful.  Phil is mopping the floor with the counterarguments.


Two terms as governor beats any Senator for executive experience.  (Bayh was governor before Senator.  Not Biden.)


()

This one is going to make a difference.  Electorally, strategically, tactically and personally, Ridge is the better choice.  I have nothing against Pawlenty, other than I don't see what he brings, other than the negative stuff.  Most people don't note much what a VP brings to a ticket, but they note what it takes away... and Pawlenty shuts alot of doors, including those that bring us the clearest path to victory.  It will matter, because even if the attacks don't reach to many people, it only takes 2% nationally to change the whole thing and put it out of reach.

I had no delusions that I was going to convince you, but I've made my case.

On my list, Pawlenty ranks just above Romney and below Ron Paul.  Put him in the over a few more years and see what we get, but not this year... I don't see it.  And the other choices are all frought with potential hazards as well.

I'm just gonna let that hang there.

I've stated this several times now: He's young and he satisfies the base. He is the choice that avoids problems.

Also, I don't know what you're getting at when you say Ridge is "personally" a better choice. Besides his connections to his home area, who is he connecting with that well? The man often seems detached. Maybe he connects with the old time Catholic crowd (despite his view on an issue that means a lot to them) but, again, I think we're getting them anyway.

1) Ummm... what?  First off, I made no claims about Bayh/Biden one way or the other, so you must truly be a dreaming things up.  Secondly, I'm sorry, but what was your point... Ridge has the experience as governor and in congress, and as a cabinet member, which was the topic of conversation.  Whatever you were doing before you stumbled in here, sleep it off.  Thirdly, ummm... no, it really doesn't.  Every US Senator is like their own mini-executive branch.  I could see saying that two terms as governor of California trumps two terms as Senator of Delaware, but lets get some perspective here.

2) I respect Phil's arguments, even if I don't agree with them.  I expect others to attempt to return the favor.  In otherwords, f**ktard isn't becoming of you.  You should take it off and put your normal attire back on.

No, all that stuff you mentioned is covered in strategy, electoral, and tactics... what I am saying about the personally is that Ridge has a way better background and personal narrative and he comes off stronger.  And I'm sorry, Phil, I do think the whole episode in 2002 I brought up with Pawlenty changing his plans round the Bush White House will be brought up.  And when I say "devastating" I don't mean nuclear bomb, but it will slow down the campaign and chain it to Bush even more... certainly more than ridge would.

Your point was that a two-term governor has no experience, "none."  I brought up Bayh because he was a two-term governor before he was a Senator, so he has executive and legislative experience.  Biden has never been anything but a Senator and has no executive experience whatsoever.

But then you brought up Ron Paul, which is its own variant of Godwin's Law.

You basically argued that Ridge had a bigger jockstrap in high school. Who cares?


 
You did mean nuclear bomb. You said it would be "the most devastating ad of the campaign."

How is God's name can the connection of Cheney asking Pawlenty to run for Governor instead of Senator be more of a chain to the Bush administration than a man who served in that administration?

These arguments aren't even making sense. I can respect a different opinion on the matter but saying that Ridge isn't as connected to the administration as Pawlenty is is outrageous.

You don't need to be an "executive" to have leadership experience (I don't recall having used the word "executive" once, unless I used it to refer to Ridge vs Pawlenty, but I don't think I did) and if you honestly think that a six year governor of Minnesota has more experience in government than the longest serving member of the US Senate, then you either drastically underestimate the job of US Senator, or you are nuts.  And the reason I brought up Ron Paul as a superior choice, is because, at least if we got him we would get the money and the fan club. 

Pawlenty might have an organization in his one state, but doesn't do us any good if we won't win there anyway.  And Pawlenty is an unknown outside Minnesota... and I mean a real unknown, not like someone who you might have heard of.

Ridge's base of power is larger than the state of PA, but even if it weren't, ability to carry PA does alot for us.  And Phil has never been to Erie, so I think he underestimates how fanatical people are up there, especially for a favorite son... and Ridge is the favorite son.  Horace Greeley once said that the primary passtime in Erie is politics... not much has changed in 140 years.  Ridge would produce a boost all over the state, but the tidalwave coming out of the Northwest would be hard for Obama to beat... and I an not kidding when I say 75% at least from that part of the state... its not exaggeration, its not drama, it would be a reality.

I am done taking this seriously. Completely finished. 

1) Yes Phil, I said he had a bigger jock strap... nevermind Vietnam (which Ridge didn't have to go to), or working his way through Harvard (as a construction worker, because his parents couldn't afford it... Ridge got in on grades alone), or any of that other stuff... you saw the one thing that kinda offended you, and clung to it.

2) Because Ridges job wasn't political, and he came in to do his duty and get the thing moving... which he did.  He worked crazy hours everyday, and protected the country without being a partisan voice for the Administration.  Ridge was in the Adminstration, but he wasn't intimately involved with the -ups that everyone associates with it.

Pawlenty set his sights on the US Senate, and instead did the administrations bidding, because he was just a good little soldier.  I'm not disrespecting the man, but I don't see how you draw the parallel.

If you really can't see how those differ, then I don't know what to tell you.

You have yet to answer my question as to what Pawlenty actually brings in.  All you have done was say he a nice guy and question Ridge.

I asked to be convinced, Phil, and all you said was "He won Minnesota during a really bad year"... as I recall, the main reason was because the Democrats couldn't muster a reason not to reelect him.  That's good, but I need a better reason than that, and I'm not finding one.  I asked for one, but all I got was opinions as to why Ridge would be bad, and comparisons for why Pawlenty would not be worse.  *shrug*

At the expense of literally millions of otherwise McCain voters.  Ron Paul and Alan Keyes are the only two I can think of capable of that.


If there were reason to believe Ridge could deliver Pennsylvania, or Romney could deliver Michigan, they might be worth the risk.  Polls suggest otherwise.  Even so, pinning an entire electoral strategy on Pennsylvania is… eccentric for a Republican.

I don't think Ron Paul is a good pick... thats kinda the point.


You are obviously trying really hard not to understand what I am saying, and so I am going to go to bed.  Because I refuse to continue to write multifaceted responses to points accross several pages of posts to have one sentence picked out.

I apparently have a lot of company.

Good night.

Do me a favor.  Read through what I have said on this thread.

And then go to this link, and read through this thread. 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=81323.msg1681593#msg1681593

Read what J.J. says also.  The reason I am so short tempered is not only because you can in here and insult me like an asshole, but because I have given pretty good explanations for why I think what I think, and they seem to go ignored in favor of nit picking a couple comments here and there.

Super,

The Department of Homeland Security is a punch line and its a punch line in large part because of Tom Ridge.

If you don't think picking Bush's Homeland Security Secretary is going to be a major negative, you're just not seeing clearly.

And calm down a little, man.

Phil,

Let's be honest about why people say Pawlenty is going to satisfy the base.  What people actually mean is that he will satisfy the evangelicals because he is one.  Pawlenty is not a conservative, he is only seen as a conservative because he is an evangelical married to another evangelical.

Pawlenty does nothng for the small government folks because Pawlenty with his "Sam's Club not the country club" nonsense is in favor of Bush-style compassionate consertvatism.

In other words, he's for big gvoernment.

And as I've said before, he isn't ready for prime time and probably never will be.  He is just not a commanding presence.

I've heard you employ this line about Dan Quayle not costing us the election in 1988 therefore it doesn't matter how stone cold stupid Tim Pawlenty is, but it's a terrible argument.  Dan Quayle did cost Bush votes in 1988, it just wasn't enough votes to cost him the election.  In this election, we are not riding Reagan's record to victory over a horrible candidate.  We're running against the failures of the Bush years and against a very skilled candidate.  We don't have the margin for error that Bush had in 1988.  Pawlenty won't be a disaster at Quayle's level, but he will be a mistake and will cost us votes everywhere outside Minnesota.

That's great and all. Really it is.

Oh, the athletic thing didn't "offend" me. It was just completely assinine to mention it. Totally irrelevant.


But...he was still in the administration. You can make it sound as nice as you'd like, Super, but he was a member of the Bush administration and people will always see it that way. So, please, don't try to make him see less connected than Pawlenty.


Dude, you are absolutely clueless if you think that one thing connects anyone to the administration moreso than someone who actually served in the damn administration.


Yeah, I see how they differ. Person A served in the administration and people will always know that. The Obama campaign will make sure that that is mentioned just as much as they say "Bush-McCain." Person B has a loose connection based on a campaign that never happened because of a political suggestion from Cheney. Most people won't get the connection or won't care. It'll be little more than a talking point; far from a "devastating" blow in a campaign ad.

I understand the differences quite well. You clearly don't.



Are you blind? Seriously. Are you blind? I want that answered because I clearly answered your question several times:



Now answer this question: Was that not clearly posted earlier? Don't tell me I have yet to say something when I've been repeating it for you.


Yeah, apparently winning in a Democratic state in a terrible year for any Republican isn't good enough for some of us.  ::)

Couldn't muster a reason not to re-elect him? I stated several times that his challenger was a guy that they hyped up big time. He was a guy that led Pawlenty several times during the campaign. Pawlenty looked like a goner. Then he re-took the lead.

And guess what? With a running mate, it's ok that I offered you reasons why Ridge would be bad but Pawlenty wouldn't be worse. That's what we have to aim for. When we decide to base political strategy around who has a more fanatical fan base at the Erie supermarkets, I'll give you a call.

Aside from his support for the smoking ban, I've yet to see "big government" from Pawlenty. Either way, he satisfies the people we can't afford to piss off.



John, with all due respect, you are in no position to call the man "stone cold stupid." What do you have that suggests that the guy is stupid? Seriously. Ok, you think he sounds stupid because of the way he speaks. He sounded fine to me. He's just a soft spoken guy. Start comparing him to Quayle when he's saying something stupid.

  
Some people are really blowing this out of proportion. Give me a call when he starts saying really crazy stuff like Quayle. You have absolutely no case for him costing us tons of votes based on his speaking.

Okay, I just said he wasn't going to be a Quayle-level disaster.  Did you read the post or simply assume your usual Pawlenty apologist position?

As for big government, how about Pawlenty's support of S-CHIP expansion?  This was the key size of government issue of the last year.  Democrats wanted to hugely increase the number of people dependent on government for their health care and Tim Pawlenty wanted to go along with them.

Not to metnion he was against the surge, demonstrating total empty headedness on foreign policy.

If you aren't good on defense and you don't believe in small government, what precisely do you bring to the table that is of interest to me?

As for the soft-soken bit, it won't play anywhere outside the upper midwest.  Outside the upper midwest people want a little bit of panache.  If there was ever an election where it should be obvious to everyone that style matters, it's this election.

Pawlenty doesn't have the style and he doesn't have the substance.  What does he have?

But you did call him "stone cold stupid" so...


I think plenty of conservatives supported this in Congress as well.

I'm not looking for a debate on whether or not he's a "true" conservative. He appeals to the people that need to stay satisfied.


Well, yes, that's a problem. I totally agree with you there.


We weren't discussing what appeals to you though.  ;)  You're a McCain fan anyway.



Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree since I think he has an appealing style and enough substance.

He didn't tell you? I'm shocked.

...

He actually whispered it to me and then gave me a wink. I promised not to tell anyone though.



;)

Gave you a wink, eh? Did he give you a suggestive pat on the backside as well?

(The answer had better be yes, or I'm going to be forever disappointed.)

There were people around, Everett. He couldn't. We all know he wanted to....  :P

OMG!  Tim Pawlenty: Not up to playing varsity level hockey -- not up to handling the nuclear launch codes.

As someone who is probably as neutral as one can get in an argument between Phil and Soulty and doesn't think either Ridge or Pawlenty will get picked (Romney, sorry)...I have to say Phil won this one. Big time.

Is anyone seriously going to consider the high school athletic level of the running mate as a serious factor in who they vote for? LOL.

And I'll just also add that even I didn't know Pawlenty was an ex-Catholic until after 2006. It was never an issue here. Clearly Minnesota Catholics don't care. Of course I don't think Pawlenty is a good pick either (even thinking from a Republican perspective), but John Ford's arguments are much more as to why.

I'm calm as can be.  When people keep chiming into to tell me to calm down... that is what makes me loose it.


Again, you are pointing out that one little thing that I said and saying "OMG high school athletics, what difference does that make?" When I pointed out that one little thing, in a long line of other things to prove the obvious point that Ridge's personal narrative, take as a whole owns Pawlenty's.  When they do those segments explaining who Tom ridge is, right after he is picked, its gonna sound way more impressive than Pawlenty, and that is what people will remember the most.

i have a headache from this thread. and it started so adorably, with the spirit of bipartisanship.  Keystone Phil and jfern joking with each other! touching.

I will definitely give credit where it's due. Phil owned the argument in this thread.

I know you would say that anyway, but how exactly?  I offered about 15 good reasons to put Ridge on the ticket (ing shut up about the high school comment, for the 50th time I only said it to illustrate a point), and all Phil has said is "Pawlenty doesn't piss off the base."  Well, so what?  Anyone who doesn't vote for us because Ridge is nominally pro-choice can be made up with the people who will vote for us, because we dont look like the Bob Jones Party, anymore.  And when Pawlenty was in Minnesoata, that was a small deal.  But huge-uber-Catholic organization will skip into action if you put Pawlenty on the ticket... Christ, I am bashing Catholics, BRTD, you should be eating this sh**t up.

I wouldn't deny that Ridge brings some assets or that you can make a lengthy list of reasons why Ridge should be the guy.  But you can't just tally up the number of reasons in favor of Ridge and compare against the number of reasons against.  Some reasons are a lot more important than others.  And some people view these reasons against Ridge as being dealbreakers:

1) pro-choice on abortion (And the problem isn't just that X number of people would vote for him on that basis and Y number of people against.  The bigger issue is just that it could lead to intra-party civil war, and the spectacle of that would present a huge PR nightmare for McCain....which he could easily just avoid by picking someone else.)

2) prominent member of the Bush administration for 3+ years

3) didn't exactly get sterling reviews while in that job while in the Bush administration

I still maintain that if McCain thinks he can get away with picking a pro-choicer, he might as well go the distance on that and pick a woman.

On net, I think we can agree that Pawlenty is a safer choice than Ridge.  Pawlenty doesn't get anyone mad, doesn't piss anyone off, comes across as a bit of a lightweight but he's no Dan Quayle.

Ridge is a riskier choice (and, probably, on net, a worse choice on average)...but there is the possibility that he could be quite helpful, if he brings in PA and the McCain media team is able to paint Ridge in exactly the way Soulty described.

If McCain felt like he needed to gamble, Ridge might not be a bad option.  But, considering that McCain is down maybe 1 or 2 points nationally, I wouldn't risk Ridge at this point.  If he were down 4 or more, I might advise him to roll the dice...but we're not there right now.

I bet you that there is no polling evidence that Ridge helps in PA at all. I haven't checked, but I make the bet anyway.

You think I'm going to defend Pawlenty? Ha. I'm just saying your arguments against him are quite shallow and your arguments for Ridge are based on large leaps of logic. I don't see why Catholics in Minnesota wouldn't care, or why a significant number would care if Phil of all people doesn't. Maybe if he was pro-choice I could see it being an issue, but are conservative Catholics seriously going to vote for a pro-choice Protestant and pro-choice Catholic over a pro-life Protestant and pro-life ex-Catholic Protestant? Like I said, if Phil of all people doesn't care...

If that were to happen though, it'd actually make me like Pawlenty somewhat, and that really just shouldn't ever happen.

Pawlenty is a worse choice than Biden by a long shot, unless you expect MN to go Republican.

Lest we forget:

()

I never claimed that there was.  But because I live here, and I live in Erie, and I have actually worked on the ground here politically, I know that Ridge is immensely popular.

Ever single comment thus far has been aimed at either taking what I said out of context or just blatantly putting words in my mouth.

Yeah, ok.  ::)

And they'll be enthusiastic about a Pro Choice Catholic? Remember when Kerry won the Catholic vote in...oh...nevermind.



::)

No one is arguing that he's flipping MN, J.J.

For the 80th time, Ridge could just barely be described as pro-choice.  He is opposed to abortion personally, and legally he actually restricted it as governor, and could make a very credible case for being anti-Roe... which is where the real battle is.

And please note, what I said was onyl in response to the notion that Ridge offends Catholics while Pawlenty does not.  Either one of them could, but at least Ridge buys us alot more.  I'm getting more than a little tired of people twisting my arguments around to make them sound like I am some damn extremist.

And the little ladies you do Rosary and Alter, and vote 100% of the time will care, once groups like Catholic Answers put that information out there.  Will it be a tidal wave, no, but it could hurt us with a group we need to get.

So they're going to vote for the pro-choice Democratic ticket instead?

I understand that his view is complex but when he's asked, "Mr. Ridge, do you consider yourself Pro Life or Pro Choice?" how will he answer? If he says "Pro Choice," then it's a problem. If he gives a complex answer, we're even more screwed.


And they'll also care about Ridge being Pro Choice.

Those people are voting for McCain anyway.

Yeah honestly, you guys are debating over nothing. This whole brou-ha-ha was kicked up just to
(1) make McCain seem open-minded to moderate voters by willing to consider a pro-choice veep
(2) remind pro-life voters that McCain himself is, as he said, completely pro-life

So in other words, you think there's close to 0% chance Ridge is picked? (Of which I generally agree by the way.)

Chris, I never said that you did. My comment was not aimed at you. I was just giving my little opinion.  It actually was in response to a post Erc made, and right below his post. Torie is smart enough not to interject himself into the middle of a Chris v. Phil fight anyway. :P

Ah, then what good is he?  He carries the archconservatives and delivers them to McCain? 

IIRC, there was a poll result posted showing that Ridge would boost if not swing PA.

What is with this sudden idea that a running mate who doesn't carry his/her home state is meaningless?

Pawlenty does no harm. He satisfies a group of people that are very important to this party.

Hey, if Wisconsin returns to normalcy as a skin tight state, do not forget that the La Crosse area of Wisconsin is in the Twin Cities media market. Breaking news - Pawlenty might carry the cheese heads for McCain!  :P

He does no good.  There are candidates out there that will.

Whatever. It's not even worth arguing anymore.

Btw, here's a Bloggingheads clip in which (left of center) Noam Scheiber makes a decent case for Pawlenty (and implicitly, against Romney) on "relatability to the average Joe" grounds:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13386?in=05:55&out=09:51

I think it is.

I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney, to the point that in a head to head race, I'd vote for Hillary.  Romney is those candidates for VP that will help.  I'd like a few other people out there, but they won't help; I frankly don't know Pawlenty enough to like him or not, but I know he is one of those that won't help.  So, if it's a choice between Pawlenty and Romney, I say choose Romney.  Ridge helps even more.

Sorry but Romney clearly hurts more than he helps. How that is not clear to you is beyond me.

Why and where?  Yes, a Mormon hurts in some areas, but those areas will still go for McCain.

The fact that he's flip flopped over the years. It wasn't simply Romney changing his mind. I also think he comes across as a smug businessman. People don't like the guy.

Romney is not my ideal choice.  But between Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, and Lieberman, I am going with Romney

I have said I don't think Pawlenty helps the ticket and don't think he's an adequate heir apparent.  I don't feel the need to repeat why.

I think Ridge is a better choice politically than Pawlenty, but is an even worse heir apparent than Pawlenty.

Please, someone make the case that either of these guys can actually be President.  I didn't think so.  Once you realize doing the job of President has nothing to do with what state you're from, these guys both look less appealing.

Lieberman is the riskiest politically, with the greatest prospect of helping and the greatest prospect of hurting the ticket.  He won't be the heir apparent, so that is not a consideration.  Since McCain looks like he can win this race without throwing a hail mary, Lieberman shouldn't be the pick.

Mitt Romney is not my favorite guy on earth, as everyone knows.  But if you don't think he helps in Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, and (a little bit) in Colorado then maybe politics isn't the sport for you.  Is he the ideal heir apparent?  No, he is not.  But he is the smartest guy in the party on domestic policy issues and was actually a good Governor of Massachusetts.  As to who wold make the best President between Romney and Pawlenty and Ridge, the answer has to be Mitt Romney.

That said, the best choice available is Sarah Palin.

Enter Phil: But she's even less experienced than Pawlenty.  We'd throw away our best argument!

No, Phil.  We wouldn't.  Experience is not our best argument.  It will do us as much good as it did Hillary.  Obama's weakness isn't that he's inexperienced, its that he isn't ready for the job.  Readiness has very little to do with how many years you've been in elective office.

This is a huge difference between Pawlenty and Palin: Pawlenty comes off as not ready, Palin comes off as ready.

So what is our best argument if not experience?  Drilling is our best argument.  McCain's comeback started in large part because he won the energy issue.  You want a VP that reminds everyone that Democrats are responsible for $4 gas, pick Sarah Palin.

A little identity politics won't hurt, either.

Others have made that argument just as much as I did but uh...

What's our argument with Palin? I like her and all but what does she have? She's a woman Governor. Ok?


Whatever.

I think Palin wanted to tax the oil companies to death (probably an Alaskan money grab move, but I am not sure), which plays right into Obama's hands. It is worth checking out. 

And Pawlenty seems to come off as a Quayle Clone, without seeing how he performs.  His electoral performance is less than stellar. 

If Romney helped so much in New Hampshire, wouldn't he have done better in the primary there?

This is actually getting painful.

How does he come off as a Quayle clone? What gaffes has Pawlenty had?

His electoral performance is less than stellar. Sorry. We can't all be Tom Ridge. Tim Pawlenty, a man that seemed doomed in 2006, beat back a challenge from a man who was said to be very popular statewide. He was also a Republican running statewide in Minnesota in a terrible year for the GOP. He's done just fine.

Comparing Pawlenty to Dan Q. is indeed way over the top. Now, on the other hand, comparing Nancy Pelosi  to ... yes, much better that!

McCain is a New Hampshire made Republican.  He's never lost an election in New Hampshire.  Romney had a tall order ahead of him against McCain.

And Romney did do well in New Hampshire.  Well enough that I was worried on primary day that he'd beat my guy.

Romney's strength was the area near the border, where he actually beat McCain.  McCain does best upstate and Romney does best in the south, the part of the state in the Boston media market where many people commute to Massachusetts to work everyday.

Combne McCain's strength in the north with Romney's strength in the south and the Republicans will probably win New Hampshire.

Oh, I'm not; I don't know enough about him to form an opinion, but he has come off that way.  Someone young and inexperienced.

What state lies to the south of Wisconsin?

Eau Claire/La Crosse has its own media market. It is not part of the Minneapolis media market. Some counties in Wisconsin are, but not that many.

That too obviously. Of course I don't think Torie's comment was all that serious.

What gaffs did Quayle make pre convention in 1988?


Ridge can be Tom Ridge.  In 1998, a bad year, though not 2006, Ridge, with a pro-life candidate taking 10% of the vote, received 57% of the vote.

PA has 21 EV's.  MN, which Pawlenty won't swing anyhow, has 10 EV's.  OH has 20 EV's and Ridge helps more there than Pawlenty does.

It's Ridge, a hold of 41 EV, potentially, versus Pawlenty, with zero.  Which number is greater?

 

So how can we know that Pawlenty is Quayle-like? What the hell are you basing this off of?


Good for him. It wasn't as bad of a year and it was in a less Democratic state.


And Ridge isn't winning PA for McCain. McCain will win it for himself.


::)

Damn. I thought La Crosse was across the river from Stillwater, but that turns out to be errant. Even Eau Claire does not get Twin City TV eh? Yes, my comment was jive. Who knew?  BRTD of course! Don't sell BRTD short. :P

No, it has already been raised here, referring him Quaylenty.  It's the impression.


Good for him. It wasn't as bad of a year and it was in a less Democratic state.
[/quote]

Sorry that he couldn't run for a third term, but Pawlenty, in either race, wasn't stellar.  Did he ever get a majority?


It can make a difference.  Ridge on the ticket can be enough to swing the state, in this race.  As columnist Mark Shields said about a week after election day in 2000, "I have two words for George [W.] Bush:  Tom Ridge."  It almost made the difference then and it can this year.


Since you can't seem to comprehend, I'll explain it.  41 Electoral Votes is a larger number than zero Electoral Votes.  The goal of the election is to get the larger number of Electoral Votes.

Now, I'll ask you these questions:

1.  Who would rather have as VP, Tom Ridge or Joe Biden?  You can only choose one of those.

2.  Who would rather have as VP, Mitt Romney or Joe Biden?  You can only choose one of those.

That might very well be the choice you are facing.

And when people realize that that is based off of nothing, we'll see what happens.


44% in 2002 and 47% in 2006. I couldn't tell you the last time anyone received a majority in a Gubernatorial race in MN.


I'm rolling my eyes because of the assinine suggestion that Ridge is helping us win 20 of those 41 electoral votes.


Oh, these will be fun! Tom Ridge!


I refuse to say his name.


Oh, wow! Dramatic!

Now here's my question - Who would you rather have as VP - Pawlenty or Biden? You can only choose one of those!

Lol.  How is this even a question?  Have I wandered into an alternate universe in which Romney is popular?  Read the discussion in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=81427.0

We just got through a primary race in which he largely appealed to rich people, Mormons, and conservatives who latched onto the only viable alternative to McCain they had available.  (Almost all of those people are going to vote for McCain in the GE anyway.)  Romney was consistently getting massacred in head-to-head polls against Clinton and Obama by double digits.  The guy is unpopular with swing voters.  The main media meme about him is that he's an inauthentic flip-flopper.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Ridge is not palatable enough for conservatives and he leaves us open to attacks so therefore... we should go with Romney?  I don't follow your logic.  And while there might not be polls that show that Ridge would boost the ticket, there are defiantly ones that show that Romney would kill it.


Why, because Ridge voted against funding a murderous terrorist organization that Reagan himself didn't want to support, and because he favored a freeze on the number of times would kill end humanity with nuclear weapons?  As for his time as SHS, I don't know why people think he failed.  He led the most massive beaurocratic shift in the history of the United States, and he did it while fighting an active modern war.  There was never a successful attack while he was there, inspite of at least a half dozen attempts that we know of.  People laughed about duct tape, but that's the exact procedure recommended by DuPont (a Delaware based company, if Biden really want to go after Ridge) and the terror alert is the same system used by Israel.  The guy was as good as any, and better than most.


In Ridge's case I totally reject that, but I don't suppose I can convince you, so okay.



Romney doesn't help enough in Michigan to carry it... not by a long shot.  He might know people there, but they are the wrong crowd to appeal to.  The people Ridge knows in PA and Ohio are grassroots types, who are real Reagan Democrats, Hillary voters, and would be enticed to come out of us if Ridge is on the ticket.  The only way we don't win PA with ridge is if McCain himself proves to be too unpalatable for voters here... and if Ridge is a move to the center, then good.  McCain has swung so far to the right now to risk being unpalatable to the country as a whole.  We need to play to the middle.  As go those other states... if we absolutely need Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire to win, then this thing is already over.  That's barely a third as many EV's as Ridge assists us with.


I agree that experienced and ready aren't the same thing, but time spent actually in office doesn't hurt, not by a long shot.

Palin is one o fthose choices that looks good on paper, but I don't think she gets us a whole lot... women will still likely go more for Obama, and feminists will not support Palin.  We don't need to bring in Alaska.  And, with all due respect (and I really mean that) her family situation makes it difficult to justify the long hours.  I would rank her as maybe #3 out of the top 10 serious choices, but I still think Ridge puts us at more an advantage.

Again, put Ridge on the ticket, and we only lose PA if McCain loses it for us.  Even if McCain wins PA on his own, he will have to expend alot more effort to do it, then he would if Ridge were on the ticket.  Of course having Ridge on there does automatically win the state, but it puts it into our column with a lot less effort and resources, which we can then use elsewhere.

I'd rather have Pawlenty (or Quayle), but if my choice is Pawlenty, I might get stuck with Biden.


Then you don't understand the Pittsburgh and Erie media markets.

::)

And I might get stuck with Biden if we nominate Romney.


Yep. After all, Ridge's hard work in 2000 delivered PA for Bush because of those media markets.

And for the 100th time, he also doesn't understand the regional interests and connections that tom ridge has.

Are you crazy?


Doesn't mean he didn't work for it. Bush lost by four points, by the way.


::)

Romney's Mormonism is the least of his baggage.

The last poll I saw showed McCain Romney within the margin of error and McCain-Ridge getting blown out.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1546

Yeah, its a Zogby poll, but we don't have any ohter useful data.


You're starting to lose it.


You've defended his time at DHS before.  I don't buy it.  He was a disaster.  You're defending duct tape and plastic sheeting?  Who cares what state DuPont is located in?

Even if he wasn't a disaster, he was in Bush's cabinet.  That is toxic.  You're arguing that we need to pick Ridge to move to the middle, then you ignore the fact that he was one of the most recognizable members of the administration McCain has to take great pains to run away from.



"Wrong crowd to appeal to", I don't even know what that means.

And the Romney name won Michigan in the primaries, so...

And you can write off New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado if you want but take any of those states from Bush in 2000 then Gore is President.


No one is talking about dedicated feminists.  Suburban women, though, will like Palin.

Long hours as VP?  Does VP include duties I don't know about?  She's Governor of a state, I have to presume she's up to breaking ties in the Senate and greeting the girl scout who sold the most cookies.

If you mean the campaign hours, its a 60 day sprint.  She'll be fine with that.

Judging from this quote, Phil doesn't understand geography either.

::)


And?

Ridge's proximity to Ohio is about as relevant as Pawlenty's to Wisconsin.

The main problem with the neighboring state advantage: Even if people know who someone is, that doesn't mean they have a strong opinion of them. My parents know who Pawlenty is (thanks mostly to WCCO talk radio when they're visiting down here), but that doesn't mean they can tell you anything about him other than that he's the governor of Minnesota or have an opinion strong enough of him to influence their vote either way.

For starters, the very same poll you just quoted put McCain/Rice on par with McCain/Romney... I rest my case.  There is no way McCain/Rice is a good ticket.

You just described about half of the Presidential electorate.

He won with about 39% of the vote in what was basically a 3-way race (only McCain, Romney, and Huckabee really contested the state).  And he outspent both McCain and Huckabee by about 3 or 4 to 1.  And of course this was a GOP primary, not a general election.  And according to exit polls, in pretty much every state (including MI), McCain cleaned up with self described moderates and GE swing voters, whereas Romney did better with GOP stalwarts....who are probably going to vote for McCain in the general election anyway.  I'd like to see evidence that Romney is actually popular with Michigan swing voters.

Don't forget McCain saying the auto jobs were never coming back.

Plus how many of votes for Romney were just malicious Democrats crossing over?

The question is: How many in Michigan are planning on voting for Obama now, but love Romney so much they'll change their votes solely due to him on the ticket?

You don't get it.  About 20-25% of OH is in the Pittsburgh and Erie media markets, where Ridge has on TV since 1982.  Ads for his House seat, for Governor, news stories have been hitting this section for 25 years.

It's the same with Biden and the Phila media market.  He gets a boost from that.  Obama gets that boost.  It would be the same for Ridge in OH.

time to give this thread an enema:

()

Expanding on my last post, those numbers are low for Ridge, because the one thing most people remember about him right now is that Limbaugh and Hannity have been bashing him.  That will change.  The only reason Romney is ranked so high is, along with Rice, he has high name recognition.  That'll only make a difference in the short term.  Everyone else on the list polls exactly the same, because they are unknowns.  Compare this to a recent poll where Romney had the highest unfavorables of any GOP VP prospect.  John, your a brilliant strategic thinker, why are you buying into to this short term sh**t that won't matter by October?


The Contra were a nasty bunch of people.  They killed Romero.  I can understand why someone might not be wild about supporting them.



I addressed all of this before.  Not to sound dissmissive, but go back and read my earlier statements, I have nothing else to say.

My point was that if the Democrats are really dumn enough to go after "duct tape" it kinda puts Biden in an odd position, since I'm sure he doesn't want to piss off DuPont.  I doubt it would even come up.



The kind of people that the Romney brand appeals to in Michigan, the people he is still really popular with (or rather his father is still popular with) are millionaires and business types who are supporting McCain anyway.  Ridge can help bring in working class voters.  Ridge is the epitome of working class and he has always had broad appeal to them... if you had ever lived in Erie then you would easily understand why.

As for the states in question... Odds are holding them or not holding them isn't going to be the difference between a win and loss.  If it is, than it is, but its less likely than PA and Ohio having the same effect.


Doesn't the government of Alaska meet for, like three months total a year, or something like that?  The office of Vice President is more demanding, even if it isn't that glamorous.

BTW, John if we are gonna go for a female governor, why Palin... why not Linda Lingle?  I hope it has nothing to do with physical attractiveness.

Bump

:)

when did you switch teams?

It's not all name recognition.

Tom Ridge once had a nationally visible job as Homeland Security Secretary.

Folks know who he is.  Maybe not as fresh in their memory as Romney, but people know who he is and a mention of the words "color coded alert system" will surely jog their memory.

I think you are badly underestimating the negative effect of putting someone from this administration on the ticket.


I get it, he does well in Erie.


I'd say its the reverse, Vice President is a much coveted post who's actual value in governing is very overrated.  People our age overrate the position because our main experience is the very involved Dick Cheney.  But most VPs are not former Chiefs of Staff in a White House with a weak Chief of Staff.


Does Linda Lingle have an 80% approval rating?

Does Lnda Lingle have a compelling personal story and family life?

Does Lingle redirect every question she gets asked to drilling for more oil?

Does Linda Lingle make pro-life activists want to knock on every door they can  for this ticket?

Is Lingle as personally engaging as Palin?

I say no to all of these.  This is why Palin>Lingle.

No, you obviously don't get it, because you have no idea why he does so well in Erie.  he does so well because he a man who, despite his accomplishments, has no pretense about him.  He is a real member of the community, and people love him, because he is just like them.  He lives in a modest home, in a normal neighborhood, where anyone can go up to his door and have a reasonable expectation of seeing him in person (I did it once and got Michelle instead, but regardless).  He is still of the community even though the community thinks he is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  That kinda attitude wins votes, and it will fit in well with what McCain is trying to do with his campaign.

Ridge is the kinda guy who shows up at a local campaign HQ in 2006, when there is nothing in it for him, just to talk to people, say hi, and let everyone know what a great job they are doing.  sadly he was leaving when I popped back in, but he stayed for two hours.  That kinda thing means alot to people, and only someone who is really in touch with people would bother to do something like that.

So very, very beautiful.

Chris, you need to chill out, pal. Things can change in a moment's notice...and it still may be possible for Romney, Ridge, or Pawlenty. I will tell you this...unless you go out and go door to door for John McCain...we may not only lose Pennsylvania...but we may lose it badly. Get out there for McCain...pass the flyers and root for our guy....no bones or balls attached!

Why are you telling me to chill out?  There was nothing in what I said to even indicate that I am angry or worked up.

Anyway, I'm off o bed.  Obviously there is no converting the heathens.  And yes, Phil, I honestly do think it rather touching, as did the people there.

It sounds more and more like you were personally touched by your experience with Ridge and are thinking emotionally about this.

I concede that Ridge does well in Erie, and you refuse to let me agree with you.

I suggest Palin would be a good VP, you suggest its because she's pretty.

I produce data on McCain-Ridge compared with other tickets and you dismiss it out of hand.

Sigh.

My point is that it is hard not to be "personally touched" by Ridge once you actually have experience with him... I have considerably less than many people, and those who have more don't have anything bad to say about him either.

Again, when you say "I concede he does well in Erie" you belittle my argument.  His charm is transferable, and that's what makes him a good running-mate.


I see your reasons for Palin and told you I place her high on the list, but not #1, and while there are better options I think we should take them if we can.

The poll numbers you produced are soft.  Most of the VP choices produced no effect on the people being asked, and of the four who were well known, two of the choices (Ridge and Lieberman) have been run down by the conservative media as of late.  I know why you don't put Joe on, but Ridge's positives have no where to go but up, once he is on the ticket.  Rice and Romney are well known, but we all know Rice is not a winning choice, and while Romney might give a tiny, temporary boost, his negatives are pretty high, compared to other selections, in other polls.  Romney is a very polarizing figure within the party.  I don't think those numbers from that one poll mean a whole lot.

So my friend's picture with Pawlenty made the local paper but most importantly...

There is a picture of Pawlenty with our state Attorney General, our city party chairman and the city party's general counsel. My right leg and shoulder snuck into the picture!


;)

It will be especially awesome if Pawlenty was announced as the pick tomorrow. Making an appearance in the newspaper of an important swing/McCain favored, blue collar, Democratic area of an important swing state is a positive.

Damn, those must be some legs you got there ;)

...and Pawlenty whispered gently in my ear, "No, Phil. It's someone more attractive than I."



;)


I did get some good news concerning Pawlenty today. It turns out I did make one of the other local papers. It's a picture of me, my state Attorney General and Pawlenty. The caption calls me a "young Republican."

Well, Phil... it was fun being a total waste of time, with you.

LOL, this was funny. Especially with the whole idea that Palin would destroy both of them in the quality department.

Well this thread wasn't a gigantic ego-trip at all.

Edit: Blah blah, this will be interpreted as some major attack, I know that. My point was that it was a little silly for a local Republican to actually consider himself worthy enough to be told by a major politician if he was going to be the Vice Presidential candidate.

There's also a "greatest hits" post compilation that's just begging to be thrown together here.

And for the record, I didn't know who this thread was made by until I clicked it from the Index.

Eh. It's a self-conscious ego-trip. Nothing wrong with that kind.

This would've been even more amusing if Ridge was picked, but I highly doubt McCain ever gave him serious consideration (or Lieberman for that matter.)