Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Democrat Presidential Nominee Vice President Choice will Draw Independents

Now that many Republican pundits have to admit Obama's statements about bitter small towners are not affecting polling among Democrats, they're floating the bloated idea Obama's "bitter-gate" or bitter-isms, or bitter-bunts, or anything about the bitter episode-TV will stick should he be the Democratic nominee.

Jonah Goldberg appearing on Fox 'n Friends said the Jeremiah Wright story didn't have much of an affect on Obama's ratings among rank-and-file Democrats, either. But come the Fall (you could see him struggling with what word to use there), there will be an affect. Many of those "independents" needed to capture the White House, yes, they will become important.

As for the Democrat superdelegates, they are watching every little move.

Can't you just see it now. Superdelegates after Hillary Clinton either takes Pennsylvania by a 6-point spread or loses to Barack Obama in PA by a (who has a crystal ball - margine, even if it's 2-percentage points) - by golly she's got the momentum and after all is said (more flub-ups) and done (Obama leads in delegates, popular vote, polls) by June, Hillary will have our ears, our attention.

Uh uh? We'll have to see what the polling reveals by then.

Understand, there are conservatives who are members of an independent party, but since the presumed nominee is after all John McCain, those independents are unlikely to swing to John McCain who is viewed by many as a chamelian conservative. One day he's conservative on issues, another day he's liberal on issues, another he can't seem to make up his mind and he's split.

Overall, though this is a generalization which we dislike, but it must be pointed out, independents largely lean liberal anyway.

Here's what will be a defining issue for them.

Choice of Vice President by the Democrat nominee.

John McCain has already indicated he will not choose a VP who is anywhere, anyway, near pro-choice.

McCain obviously shows by that factor in his choice he believes he simply cannot have any chance of winning in the Fall if he snookers his true conservative base. He won't dismiss the pro-lifers' period.

So he'll choose a VP who is clearly and staunchly pro-life.

Should by some way on this earth Hillary Clinton become the nominee of the Democrats, Clinton will indeed choose both a clearly anti-Iraq war and a clearly pro-choice VP.

Should Barack Obama become the nominee, his choice - no doubt in our mind - will be someone who is clearly against the Iraq War, but not necessarily clearly pro-choice. In fact, we believe Nominee Obama could get away with a candidate who at least is against partial-birth abortion.

Hillary Clinton could not have such as her VP.

Come the Fall, the VP candidate will draw in those independents who themselves are largely and by all polling statistics of both beliefs. In other words, most people who sit out the Primary year-after-year after year are not clearly pro-choice and not clearly pro-life. They are stuck in-between on the question.

While it's a difficult place to be it's the place from which independents will vote in the Fall.

Given the Libertarian Party candidate come the Fall will not make any rifling statements about long-standing Libertarian positions, those independents aren't likely to be political flippers or switchers or swingers.

Given Ron Paul should he remain among many similar minded supporters viable and the proverbial write-in campaign is renewed - won't attract any Democrats away from whoever is the nominee - despite disatisfaction with whatever happens.

Given Ralph Nader will only take away handfuls of liberals unless Al Gore announces backing of Nader over the Democrat Party's nominee, Nader won't make any dent in pulling independents away from one or the other of the majority Party nominees.

The remaining independents will be drawn to the deciding factor of the choice of the VP by the Democratic nominee. This will be the factor that will clinch the deal for undecided "independents" and potentially a few straggling Democrats disatisfied with the nominee (whoever that turns out to be).

We already know Hillary Clinton will not choose her husband Bill Clinton for VP since she is diametrically opposed to his stance on free trade pacts.

So, no matter who she chooses, the choice will not be Bill Clinton. And she will have to choose someone who is clearly and unequivocally pro-choice.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, should he be the Democratic Party nominee, will have the proverbial foot-in-the-independent door by choosing a VP whose position on abortion meets with the split position among most independents.

Should he be the nominee he will have a leeway unlike either Hillary Clinton or John McCain in the choice of a VP.

Should Obama come within striking distance, or slam a home-run in Pennsylvania, look for a potential announcement Bob Casey, Jr. remains a strong consideration for VP.

Even should he choose like Bob Casey, Jr. - our bet is on Obama in the Fall.

A devout Catholic, Casey does not support abortion and holds pro-life views, which is at odds with Democratic Party stances, but appealing in battleground state Pennsylvania...

March 28, 2008, 11:11 am
The Casey Endorsement
By Katharine Q. Seelye

Despite the Republicans' push of the Jeremiah Wright story, the "bitter-gate" drama, and whatever else comes up, the Republicans can't bury a vote-deciding factor among uncommitted independents - a VP who can bring another side of the same coin to them.

The differences between Barack Obama and Bob Casey, Jr. will be their strengh.

Look for our crystal-ball prediction to come true after Pennsylvania's defining Democratic Primary presidential election.

(Net the Truth Online)

January 8, 2001 - Most Say Abortion Is Manslaughter

UTICA, N.Y. (Reuters/Zogby) - In a Zogby ``American Values'' poll respondents were asked to choose between the two statements, ``abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,'' or ``abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter.''
The nationwide poll of 1,005 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2% showed that 51% believed that that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter while another 35% said that abortion does not destroy a life and is not manslaughter. Eight percent agreed with neither statement while 6% said they weren't sure.

By party affiliation, 37% of Democrats said abortion was manslaughter while 47% disagreed. Another 67% of Republicans said that abortion was manslaughter while 23% disagreed. Fifty-one percent of independents felt that abortion was manslaughter while 32% said it was not...

On the issue of partial birth abortions, 56.4% oppose partial birth abortions because it is murder except if the mother's life is in danger; 31.5% say it's up to the mother to determine.

Respondents overwhelmingly oppose (71% to 22.8%) the use of federal funds for partial birth abortions.
Zogby International Web Site, August 26, 1999

Catholic Senator Says Pro-Abortion Obama's Okay With Him
By Penny Starr Senior Staff Writer
April 16, 2008

Capitol Hill ( - Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. (D-Pa.) does not think his endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) translates into a pro-abortion vote in the presidential election, even though Obama supports abortion across-the-board, including late-term partial-birth abortion.

"Some might characterize it that way, but I don't think it is" a pro-abortion vote, Casey told Cybercast News Service. "I have a long (pro-life) record, and it's a lot harder for me. It's much easier to be a Republican and have that position."

Casey recently endorsed Obama, despite the Democratic presidential hopeful's support of abortion and his opposition to legislation in the Illinois state Senate that would have protected babies who survived late-term abortions.

"We have a definitive and certain disagreement on abortion," Casey said. "I'm pro-life. (Obama) is pro-choice. I have supported legislation to outlaw partial-birth abortion. He doesn't agree with that."

Senate vote

Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban 63-34; Narrowly Approves Non-Binding Pro-Roe Statement

WASHINGTON -- Opinion polls show that a large segment of the American public is ambivalent on the subject of abortion, and the U.S. Senate has shown that it is no less so.

On October 21, the Senate approved the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 1692) by a lopsided vote of 63-34--but only after first adopting a non-binding amendment endorsing Roe v. Wade by a vote of 51-47. (See roll call chart, page 23.)

Allowing for two absent pro-life senators, the vote on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act demonstrated the highest level of support yet for that measure since it was first proposed in 1995. If all senators had voted, the tally would have been 65-35- -an increase of one pro-ban vote over last year, and only two votes short of the margin that will be needed to override President Clinton's anticipated veto.

The chief Senate sponsor of the bill is Senator Rick Santorum (R- Pa.).

The bill was originally introduced in 1995 by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.). President Clinton has vetoed the bill twice (with the enthusiastic support of Vice President Al Gore), in 1996 and 1997. On each occasion, the House of Representatives has voted to override the veto, but pro-life forces have fallen short in the Senate.

No comments: