Vander Plaats and Rants within 10 points of Culver
- Thursday, July 16, 2009, 4:33
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,462 views
- 55 comments
Yesterday, TheIowaRepublican.com poll showed Bob Vander Plaats with a commanding lead over his opponents for the Republican gubernatorial nomination. With plenty of time before the Republican primary on June 8th and an unsettled field of candidates that is just taking shape, Vander Plaats’ lead in the poll can be attributed mainly to one thing, name recognition. Let’s not kid ourselves though – Vander Plaats is in a position all of his competitors would love to be in.
Today, we look to see if Vander Plaats’ early strength against his primary opponents correlates to him being the best candidate Republicans can nominate to take on Governor Chet Culver. To do that, we will look and see how Vander Plaats does in a head-to-head test against Governor Culver and compare those results to how Chris Rants, a lesser known candidate, does in a head-to-head match-up against Culver.
Question: If the elections for Governor were held today, and the candidates were Bob Vander Plaats and Chet Culver, who would you vote for between Bob Vander Plaats, the Republican candidate and Chet Culver, the Democratic candidate?
Chet Culver: 48%
Vander Plaats: 39%
Neither/Won’t Vote: 3%
Don’t Know: 10%
Refused: 1%
Question: If the elections for Governor were held today, and the candidates were Chris Rants and Chet Culver, who would you vote for between Chris Rants, the Republican candidate and Chet Culver, the Democratic candidate?
Chet Culver: 46%
Chris Rants: 36%
Neither/Won’t Vote: 3%
Don’t Know: 13%
Refused: 1%
Both Vander Plaats and Rants are within 10 points of Governor Culver. That should be disturbing to Culver and his aides. Culver is obviously well known across the state, and he has a favorability rating of 48%, which is very average. Yet, Vander Plaats and Rants, who are unknown to a significant portion of Iowans, are already within striking distance if they capture the nomination. Vander Plaats has a general election favorable rating of 24%, and Rants’ rating is 18%. Vander Plaats is unknown to 43% of general election voters, and Rants is unknown to 56%.
As we delve deeper and deeper into TheIowaRepublican.com poll, we keep finding signs of Culver’s vulnerability. As we were able to see on Tuesday with the head-to-head numbers between Culver and Nussle, if Republicans nominate a reasonably well known and competent candidate, Culver will be ripe for defeat. It is likely that, as the current field of GOP candidates becomes better known, each will improve his position in a head-to-head poll against Governor Culver.
Already a majority of Iowans want to give someone else a chance to govern the state. Additionally, when people were asked how they would vote if they could re-cast their ballot in the 2006 gubernatorial election, enough people changed their minds to make the Culver vs. Nussle race to a statistical tie. It is very rare to see such a large group of people regret their choice at the ballot box. Typically, voter regret poll questions tend to show more people still supporting the winner of that election than the loser.
The following is how Vander Plaats matched up against Governor Culver by Congressional District
1st CD: 47.3% Culver – 43.6% Vander Plaats
2nd CD: 46.7% Culver – 36.1% Vander Plaats
3rd CD: 50.2% Culver – 37.2% Vander Plaats
4th CD: 48.5% Culver – 37.2% Vander Plaats
5th CD: 42.5 % Culver – 41.3% Vander Plaats
Governor Culver defeats Vander Plaats in every congressional district, but it’s a competitive race in Iowa’s 1st and 5th districts.
The following is how Chris Rants matched up against Governor Culver by Congressional District
1st CD: 42.2% Culver – 43.8% Rants
2nd CD: 47.8% Culver – 31.1% Rants
3rd CD: 49.2% Culver – 38.6% Rants
4th CD: 47.5% Culver – 30.4% Rants
5th CD: 43.8 % Culver – 38.9% Rants
Rants actually beats Governor Culver in a head-to-head match-up in the 1st Congressional District, which is surprising since Vander Plaats has a higher name ID than Rants does in that district. In all of the other congressional districts, Vander Plaats outperforms Rants.
For being somewhat unknown, both Vander Plaats and Rants perform well against Governor Culver. This is not only good news for them, but also good news for Iowa Republicans and the other candidates in the race. The looming Republican primary contest is vital in making our candidates better known across the state. While Vander Plaats has a clear name ID advantage in the Republican primary, that doesn’t necessarily give him a huge leg up over his Republican competition when it comes time to take on Governor Culver.
The head-to-head numbers and polling data in general also indicate that people shouldn’t dismiss Chris Rants. Vander Plaats now has to deal with the pressure and expectations that come with being the frontrunner, and this is something that he has never had to deal with before. Rants, on the other hand, is likely to be the alternative candidate to Vander Plaats unless another of the other candidates emerges quickly.
Rants is also probably better suited to be the underdog candidate than the lead horse. While we have witnessed a kinder, gentler Rants since he lost his leadership position, Rants is likely waiting for the right moment to strike at his opponents. There probably isn’t a Republican politician in the state that can level an attack better than Chris Rants.
We also looked at what many consider to be Rants’ main weakness – being removed from his leadership position. For those who discard Rants as a serious candidate because of this, you are in the minority as most people don’t seem to care.
Question: Chris Rants was Speaker of the Iowa House and the leader of his caucus but has been replaced in both leadership positions. Does that makes you more likely to vote FOR that candidate or more likely to vote AGAINST that candidate.
GOP Primary Voters:
For: 10%
Against: 20%
Doesn’t Matter: 61%General Election Voters:
For: 8%
Against: 23%
Doesn’t Matter: 59%
The polling data shows that Rants has the opportunity to define himself to the voters, and that is something that he has already taken full advantage of on the campaign trail.
The head-to-head numbers are not just promising for Vander Plaats and Rants, but the rest of the field as well. If another candidate is able to emerge, it is safe to assume that they would also fair very well against Governor Culver in a head-to-head match-up. And, it’s also safe to assume that, as our Republican candidates become better known, they will likely do even better against Culver.
When any incumbent has a ballot test below 50% like Culver currently does, it’s never good. While Culver is liked and people don’t necessarily disapprove of the job he has done as Governor, they are open to someone new. That was never more evident than when only 36% said Culver deserves to be re-elected. The question for Republicans is, who is best positioned to take him on in the general election?
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 454 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
55 Comments on “Vander Plaats and Rants within 10 points of Culver”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The margin of error for subgroups in the sample is always significantly higher than the margin of error for the poll as a whole.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your 1st CD sample was a bit skewed. Democratic voting performance in that district has consistently been higher than in the 3rd CD, and I really doubt that two western Iowa Republicans would run better against Culver in the 1st than in the 3rd.
I agree with that. Still, when you look at the statewide sample and see that two candidates like Rants and Vander Plaats are only 10 points behind an incumbent Governor, it’s a good sign for Republicans. I was shocked that Culver couldn’t break the 50% threshold in the head-to-heads.
This shows that any republican has a shot at Culver. Those of you saying Bob cannot win need to just let the primary process work itself out. Whoever wins the primary, we need to be united because this poll shows that any republican can take on Culver if they raise their name I.D. and get better known to the general electorate.
Stacia,
Right on. We need to actively support our candidates, but not by tearing down our other candidates. When the process works itself out, then we need to focus on Culver.
Craig, do you have any more polling data or is this the conclusion? Great job on the questions asked and all the data you collected. It is nice to see where the race is at this point and encouraging that Debt Culver can be defeated by whoever wins the primary.
“Right on. We need to actively support our candidates, but not by tearing down our other candidates. ”
- So, the exact opposite of what Steve Deace does.
Big story tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Why is Deace so important. Gosh, you guys are ridiculous!!! Have your own opinions, form your own opinions. Pursue what you think is best, but get off the “I hate Deace bandwagon.” You guys sound like a bunch of nuts when you keep talking about a guy on the radio.
Yes, Craig goes on his show once a week because 250,000 people listen everyday. While you are up in arms about this fact, he has brought unbelievable attention to this website. You might have noticed that The Iowa Republican has been on several tv stations, radio stations, conservative blogs, liberal blogs, and from all over the state. So while you whine and gripe about Craig going on Deace’s show, he has also hugely raised the Republican party’s prominance in the daily discussion.
NOW SHUT UP ABOUT DEACE ALL YOU CRAZY WHINERS!!!!
“Big story tomorrow. Stay tuned.” My guess is the following: 1) Craig polled Iowans on Obama. 2) Craig polled Iowans on their presidential preference for 2012. 3) Craig polled Iowans on the Michael Jackson Butter Cow or 4) Craig polled Iowans on Sarah Palin’s “quiting” of governing of Alaska. All of these except for maybe #3 would generate a lot of buzz to this website. I can’t wait to find out.
The rest of us work our tails off trying to rescue this state and Deace with his 50,000 watt blowtorch comes along and undermines our work and deliberately tries to elect Dimocrats all the while pretending to be more virtuous and a better Christian than the rest of us.
Unfortunately, there are some gullible people who drink his KoolAid. Make no mistake about it, I understand he gets a thrill out of defeating Republicans but it is a tragedy that ANYONE cannot see through what he is doing to our state and nation.
And frankly, I don’t care how much attention he’s generating for TheIowaRepublican or any other website. I care about the damage he’s doing to our state and nation.
Three cheers for the Republicans who refuse to go on his show!!
DVFO,
You are so right. There are a lot of dimwitted, gullible people in this state. And at the top of that list are people who still actually think that Deace really voted for Obama. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure he didn’t vote for McCain. I’m pretty sure he went third party, which I’m sure pisses you off too.
Anyone with half a brain who listened to him around the election knew what he was doing. He’s famous for claiming to take some bizarre stand, and then when all the callers call in to say how crazy he is, he uses that to prove a point about an analogous situation.
That particular gimic annoys me, but he does it quite often.
I’m sorry you’re still stuck on this, but it makes you look stupid to keep bringing it up. Thought you’d want to know.
Lydia: He said he voted for Obama and his mile long rant on election day attempted to justify his reason for voting for Obama. I quit listening to him after that rant and know the guy is not rational.
Stop making excuses for him. If he said he voted for Obama–he must have voted for Obama.
We also know he did everything within his power to protect Culver and Boswell.
I’m not familiar with where the opposition candidates *should* be in relation to the incumbent this far out . . . but . . . ten points doesn’t seem that close.
I still object to the characterization that BVP has a “commanding lead”. To the extent that he has a lead, it is almost completely a factor of name recognition. It is WAY to early for anyone to have a commanding lead. (See, e.g., Hillary Clinton circa mid-2007.)
DVFO,
To Lydia’s point, you do look stupid for bringing Deace up nearly every day. Because you continue to throw this “Deace Voted for Obama” montra around, I spent some time and looked through what actually happened. You can read the blog post here: http://www.whoradio.com/pages/stevedeace.html?page=51
For those of you who don’t want to go look, here are the pertinent thoughts Deace had. (The quotations marks are his, I didn’t add anything.)
By now, a lot of you are aware of my “endorsement” of Obama for president that is on the blog. But again, my blog is not the story. Your reaction is. My blog is simply a theological, psychological, and cultural case-study on the type of people we have become. Why do you think I ended the broadcast of my Obama “endorsement” the other night with the phrase, “let those who have ears to hear, let them hear?”…Right away, several of you recognized it for what it was—allegory demonstrating how phony, unbiblical, and pragmatically useless of a standard the lesser of two evils is.
Doesn’t sound like he was “endorsing” Obama, but providing commentary on Republicans.
Regardless of your views about pragmatism vs. principle, SHUT UP ABOUT DEACE, YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT!!!
Maybe you look like the idiot for defending him because he said he did vote for Obama.
You took a sentence or two from a very, very long rant. He did say he voted for Obama.
Is that too much for even you to believe? This shows how radical he really is.
Thinking: Maybe you should check his blog of Nov. 4.
Chet is continuing down the road towards being one termer…
If he wants to have any chance of winning re-election..he better start getting serious about the budget. Waiting around until September is going to only cement his image of “What, me worry?”
More and more..people are starting to believe that Culver is not competent or capable to handle our state’s problems..
Wow, stupid can’t even recognize stupid when you hold a mirror in front of stupid’s face.
He said the whole thing was an allegory. He only claimed to “endorse” Obama to get a rise out of people and get them to think about whether there was really that much difference between McCain and Obama. If we are really honest with ourselves, there’s not, which is probably why I had a sick feeling in my stomach as I marked McCain on my ballot.
DVFO,
To me, Deace is irrelevant, so we can let that horse die.
You say you “will support any Republican candidate.” I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I respect your logic and reasoning to get to that conclusion. In other words, it makes sense where you’re coming from.
But then you say things like “no more Romney,” “Huckabee is not a conservative,” patronize Palin supporters by referring to her as the “second coming,” note that you’re “no fan of Fong,” and assert that “BVP is not our strongest candidate” (all in one blog, I’m not hunting around for quotes). I’m not weighing the merit of any of those statements, but what I am saying is that you seem to have a “purist” mindset of sorts (albeit different from Deace’s). In other words, you have ideals that you want in candidates and many don’t meet that standard. Your quotes clearly reflect that sentiment.
Your contention that you will support ANY Republican gets lost in all your critiques. By all means, find a candidate to support, but don’t tear down all the others in the process. I don’t believe that is helpful for the party you are so adamantly bound to support.
I hope you understand when I say I’ll support ANY Republican candidate, I’m referring to the general election.
I have no idea what I’ll do about the gov race in the primary–it’s too early. We don’t even know who is running.
Same for prez next time. It’s way too early. But I know for certain, I’ll be voting a straight ticket in the general elections.
The Republican team is my team. There are only two teams on the field and I want the other one defeated.
By all means, find a candidate to support, but don’t tear down all the others in the process. I don’t believe that is helpful for the party you are so adamantly bound to support.
So it’s ok for Deace to do all he can to destroy our candidates and you defend him yet if I point our a fault with a potential primary candidate, that’s not ok.
Everyone of our candidates are better than any Dumbocrat.
BTW, I did not vote for Obama.
NO, ITS NOT NECESSARY FOR EITHER ONE OF YOU. LET THE DEACE THING GO!!!
By all means, find a candidate to support, but don’t tear down all the others in the process.
Thinking, let the DVFO thing go. He’s a two-trick pony. Trick #1: Deace flames. Trick #2: THE DUMBOCRATS (or Dimocrats) ARE DESTROYING THE WORLD.
Deace has the most widely heard show on Iowa politics, and the author/owner of this site discusses not only this site but most stories appearing here on Deace’s show every week. Like it or not, Deace is relevant to the discussion of what’s happening in Iowa politics right now.
So as long as he continues to go on the radio everyday and blast any Republican he doesn’t like, and run cover for the ones he does like, I, and many others, will continue to discuss him. Sorry.
Mr. Hawk, I wish more understood the true nature of deace. He is nothing but a turd-thrower! He has made a point of specifically targeting the GOP while using “Christianity” as a cover to hide behind and a club to beat those that disagree. As someone who takes my faith seriously, this infuriates me! Don’t believe me? He purposely misled people to criticize Sen. McKinley for not doing anything about the Varnum decision when in reality there really wasn’t much Sen. McKinley could’ve done. He and friends like Bill Salier have specifically targeted others like Matt Strawn, Steve Scheffler and Congressman King, who by the way is one of the most conservative members of Congress. Why would somebody who claims to be for the cause of conservatism actively try to bring so much discord and disssention among conservatives?
The reason so many are adverse to deace’s opinions is he rarely targets the dems with the same contempt he has for the GOP and never actually offers any constructive alternatives. He seems too busy trying to make himself look important. Those of you that want to hate on me over this, so be it, but maybe you should carefully re-think why so many like myself are wary of him.
Guys, Deace is very relevant. Check it out… Where his show comes in well, Romney lost. Where it doesn’t, Romney won. That’s no accident.
I think a lot of you are right… he doesn’t care if the winner has an “R” by their name. He seems to care about one thing and that is doing what is right by God’s standards. Not Republican standards or conservative standards. Unfortunately, too many people use these political groups as their religion which is why this country is heading where it is.
You can sometimes get after him because of his tone. And, yes, he does go after Republicans harder than Democrats. The Dems are mostly godless people. Everyone knows it and they don’t really try to hide it! The Republicans try to talk like they’re better, but they don’t act like it. That is worse in my book as well.
Deace believes that this country is in the shape it is in now because people who should be standing for righteousness (the church, Republicans, and conservatives) aren’t doing it. I couldn’t agree more. If you are a Christian and you’re more worried about man than God… good luck with that.
I’m one of those gullible knuckleheads that thinks Deace is right on. I’m glad I stumbled onto his show. I’m looking forward to this website also. Should be fun…
Tyler–welcome to the Des Moines branch of the Branch Davidians. David Koresh thanks you. There’s a compound replete with concertina wire waiting waiting for you.
Poor Tyler is incapable of thinking for himself. He depends on Deace for his marching orders. The problem with this is Tyler is relegating himself to irrelevancy.
That’s ok by me as long as Tyler doesn’t think it’s more virtuous to vote third party than Republican.
To my knowledge, there has never been anyone worthy of Deace’s vote in a general election. Admittedly, I don’t listen at all any more and even in the past only listened long enough at any one time to get really ticked off so if Deace has found someone worthy to vote for in a general (except Obama) I apologize.
He was head over heels in love with Huckabee and now VP but that’s it as far as I know.
Tyler, what criteria do you use to determine who is worthy of your vote? Have you ever found a human worthy?
Tyler, when Jesus shows up on the ballot, let me know, will you?
“If you are a Christian and more worried about man than God….” Tyler, your buddy deace sure seems to be! He uses it as a crutch to support his ranting and a club to go after his targets. Please tell me what is so “Christian” about that?
Christianity is the foundation of Deace’s rants, not a crutch or excuse that he uses because he loves ripping on Republicans so much. And it isn’t used as a club either. Even if you take Christianity completely out of the picture, is it wrong to expect people on our side to not steal our money? Is it too much to ask that they don’t lie to us or enable mothers to kill their babies? Is it OK to use their untruthfulness to beat them over the head? I think it is.
Your reaction to Deace and my post really just emphasizes the fact that a lot of Republicans hate Christians just as much as the Democrats do. Should I treat someone better that hates my worldview just because they have an R by their name? Or should I be more upset when I find out that people that I thought shared my values or say they share my values, end up not being much different than the other side?
Deace doesn’t give me my marching orders, but he does do a good job of articulating a lot of the thoughts I have myself. I can tell that many people here simply don’t get where he’s coming from… and don’t want to get it. Because that might mean you have to examine yourselves and a growing number of us today don’t want to do that.
Tyler, your post is an insult to any Christian who does not want to do things exactly the same way that you and Deace think we should do it.
Yours is a very arrogant attitude. You are using God’s name to try to control people to do what you believe is correct. Frankly, I believe you, and Deace are using the Lord’s name in vain. Why do you think YOU are speaking for the Lord? I am offended at your attitude.
You are totally gullible. You stand there beating your chest saying for us to look at you–that you’re more righteous than the rest of us all the while ALLOWING Democrats to gain even more power. YOU are the one responsible for allowing more baby killing to occur. YOU are the one who is putting your stamp of approval on gay marriage and YOU are the one responsible for the demise of our economy and people’s jobs because you believe it to be more virtuous to do nothing than to try to stop the Democrats.
Stop hiding behind God pretending you are morally superior to the rest of us. At least we’re trying to stop this and you’re aiding the enemy.
“…..a lot of Republicans hate Christians as much as democrats do.” Tyler, you need to put down the Kool-Aid. What I and others hate is people like deace and yourself politicizing Christianity and the implication that if we aren’t in lock step then we aren’t as good a Christians as you. That is not only insulting it is blasphemous!
DVFO,
Can you honest read MIE’s posts and, knowing that he claims to be a Republican, claim there aren’t some Republican who are openly hostile toward Christians?
I think that’s all that Tyler was trying to point out. Christians who want to stand up for their principles in the public arena have to be weary of attack from all directions, not just democrats. Good grief, McCain himself has mocked Christians in the past. This is nothing new.
Lydia, I don’t think MIE is hostile aganist Christianty, but I think he would agree with me in opposition to the “Christian Jihad” that has been waged by a small segment against the rest of the party. Those of us that take our faith seriously are extremely offended by deace and others that are doing nothing but attacking our side and trying to destroy the only viable alternative to the liberal slide this State and the rest of the Nation are experincing right now, all the while claiming to be righteous because they are “Christians”. If Reagan were around, he wouldn’t be “Christian” enough for you folks either!
We are “extremely offended” by those “doing nothing but attacking our side.” By the way, you are a “Christian Jihad.” Interesting juxtaposition Timmy!
Lydia, Good grief!! Have I ever even addressed the issue of some Republicans being hostile toward Christians? Never!! What the heck are you trying to do and say?
I also have learned a very valuable lesson observing all this holier-than-thou talk. I hope I never use God’s name to try to control someone because I may, or may not bring honor to God’s name.
I recognize the fact that I am not worthy to do that.
I guess you’re also trying to say that MIE is not a Christian. Are you God? Can you make that judgment?
Personally, I do not see how anyone can be a Democrat and be a Christian but I’ll leave that final judgment to God. He doesn’t need me speaking for him.
Maybe while we’re at it, we can conclude that Deace cannot possibly be a Christian as he voted for Obama who four times voted to deny medical care for a baby born alive from a botched abortion.
Deace has also repeatedly undermined pro-life Republican candidates claiming they aren’t pro-life enough so we’re better off with Culver, Obama or Boswell. You try to justify that. And yet, you and Tyler are still pointing fingers at the rest of us that we just aren’t good enough Christians. We’re just not as good as you.
1. You jumped all over Tyler’s case, and he was talking about GOP hostility towards Christians, so, yes, you did address that issue indirectly (well, really you jumped on his case because he dared say a word in defense of Deace, who you hate).
2. You claim that I can’t just whether MIE is a Christian because I’m not God, and then in the next breath, you say that you don’t think any Democrat could be a Christian (which I don’t necessarily disagree with). But these statements coming from the same person are contradictory and make you a hypocrite.
3. Once again, you really need to get off of the Deace voted for Obama fallacy. As we discussed yesterday, it makes you look stupid and distracts from the real arguments.
I DID not say that a Democrat cannot be a Christian. You are deliberately trying to twist what has been said to suit your personal view.
What I said was that I personally do not see how a person can be a Christian AND a Democrat but I would leave that judgment for God. I was not contradictory and you can’t make a lucid argument without either outright lying or at a minimum twisting.
Go find Deace’s blog of Nov. 4 and then tell me he did not vote for Obama. If he didn’t I’ll apologize. If he did, will you apologize?
We should be allies but this finger pointing is ridiculous.
May I ask you a question? Have you seen fit, like Deace to not vote for Nussle, Lamberti or McCain? I have no idea if Deace tried to destroy Schmett but I would expect he probably did.
Do you really believe this is a way to advance an agenda? It advances the Democrat agenda.
DVFO, you may as well not waste your breath because there is no way you can get thru to some of these “true(?) believers”. Arguing with them is like trying to teach a pig to sing: It accomplishes absolutely nothing except annoying the pig!!!
Timmy: LOL!!
FWIW, Congressman Steve King on CSPAN right now with a superb speech regarding the American people being wiling to give up their freedom for this phony health care scheme.
There is a GREAT man!!!! Iowa is extremely fortunate to have him representing us.
Timmy–you are exactly right. What is wrong with our Party is that there are those who wish to politicize their Christian beliefs. I could give a whit what Iman Lydia thinks of me or the condition of my soul. What scares me is the prospect of her and her ilk coming into power and trying to legislate their religious beliefs on to me. As any serious student of conservatism knows, classical conservatism had its roots in the excesses of the French Revolution. Ideological battles, especially those based on religion, scared Locke and his progeny. Locke advocated a government that left people alone and was pragmatic and devoted to problem solving. Lydia and her fellow travelers consider themselves conservatives but they are the antithesis of conservative. They are no different than communists. They fret about ideolgical purity. They are chauvenistic. They are revanchists. The thought of the brown stained probiscus of the religious right invading the sanctity of the home and bedroom should scare the hell out of anyone.
MIE, yup, classical conservatism is waaaay too liberal for these folks, they make John Birch & Co. look downright sane. Wm. F. Buckley, Reagan et al would be considered RINO’s by these folks!
MIE- Exactly. True Republicanism is not interested in ideology. In fact one of the most beautiful aspects of a Constitutional Republic is that we are protected from such practices. The rights of the minority are to be protected just as much as the majority. For some reason religious voters who claim to be Republican can’t seem to grasp the FACT that their religiously based arguments for limiting the rights of others are counter to what this great state and country are all about.
There are Christians that can debate some of my theology. But there are a few basics that people who claim to be Christians shouldn’t be negotiating with. We call them the Ten Commandments. If there is a candidate that we know is regularly violating one or more of these basics, then they should not be good enough for a Christian voter.
Now, I do admit that it is difficult to find politicians that fit the bill. Politics does take compromise, but too many people are willing to compromise on the most important things in order to win. Winning elections shouldn’t be a Christian’s number one goal.
I have tended to associate myself with conservatism and Republicans because that has traditionally been the political home that most represented my Christian worldview. For awhile I even put those beliefs ahead of my Christian beliefs, but no more. You only have to look how much further we’ve slipped down this immoral slope as a country these past years to see that despite all the Republicans we’ve elected and all the conservative influence on the radio waves and all the money we’ve raised hasn’t been enough. We’re missing something, people.
Tyler, please show me how you are compromising your ideals by making a choice between a Nussle, for example and a Culver?
One of these two guys is going to win. It is STUPID and immoral to not keep the Dumbocrat out of office.
Make your choice for the most godly in the primary but after that, do everything to stop any Democrat.
Like I said it is immoral to not do all you can to keep Democrats out of power.
To surrender like you want to do is only making the matter worse. This isn’t heaven and Jesus is never going to be on a ballot and the Bible tells us there is none righteous–no, not one and you’re not perfect, either.
>We’re missing something, people.
That much is certain. It’s called being radically out of step with the majority of voters on both social and fiscal issues. The drum has been beaten so much that any meaning it once had has been lost. This is a transition period between older republicans and newer ones. Newer ones aren’t so afraid of this “immoral slippery slope” that many claim is occuring because they can see that it is steeped more in ideology than fact.
Justin… one can barely tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. Give me one example of an issue that matters to Republicans or conservatives or Christians where we are better off now than we were, say, 15-20 years ago. The fact that so many people are fine with this is exactly the problem. If this trend is not a fact, then why do we care so much if Republicans win elections? Is it about power then?
DVFO… you’re absolutely right nobody is righteous here, including myself. But… I’m done comparing McCain to Obama (for example). From here on out, I’m holding up both candidates to the standards that I believe are the most important… God’s. Of course, there is never going to be a perfect candidate. But if one candidate has views that are openly against God’s law and the other says the right things but his record doesn’t match what he’s saying, then I think it is immoral to pick either one.
We’re never going to agree on this unless you believe that God chooses or allows our leaders like I do. That’s Biblical. I don’t believe my vote is going to change God’s mind one bit. But I do believe that God wants to know what I think is important. And sometimes neither candidate is acceptable.
Not to mention the entirely secular view that if we keep accepting candidates like McCain, what do you think we’re going to keep getting?
I voted for both McCain and Nussle because they were Republicans. These are they guys they gave us and they both got whipped. And that’s no accident.
>Justin… one can barely tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. Give me one example of an issue that matters to Republicans or conservatives or Christians where we are better off now than we were, say, 15-20 years ago. The fact that so many people are fine with this is exactly the problem. If this trend is not a fact, then why do we care so much if Republicans win elections? Is it about power then?
I guess it all depends on what you consider to be better off. That we still have a establishment clause is one reason we are better off. That gays can marry is good too, if you think about it. It is a reminder that our government can’t dictate the will of the majority on individuals. You have religious objections to these things, but maybe it’s time to remind you that God isn’t an american. If you truly believe that God is in control of everything political than who are you to judge gods decision to appoint BHO? If God is in control why vote at all, won’t he just pick some one for us? If you are not willing to agree to disagree about the role of religion in society, particularly government, then we are doomed to endlessly fight back and forth, reenacting the same conflicts that have plagued civilizations for all of human history. I care that Republicans win because to me Classical Republicanism is the answer to most of our societies ills. I would like to see our politics return to what seems most logical: As little government as possible, fiscal responsibility, management of the national and private interests in a way that is beneficial to all, and an emphasis on the right to be left alone. We are a nation of individuals, and as such we aren’t going to agree all the time, finding the balance of power is the trick.
For some reason my entire reply was deleted when I hit send comment. And what is up with the text field being all weird?
@ Tyler – I had and answer and it got lost to the internet, I will repost it tomorrow. Until then.
” But if one candidate has views that are openly against God’s law and the other says the right things but his record doesn’t match what he’s saying, then I think it is immoral to pick either one.”
Tyler, you just described Deace. He says one thing and his record doesn’t match.
This is Earth, this is not Heaven and you’re not applying for acceptance into heaven. You’re job is to do what you can to get the best, most moral government here on earth.
I still don’t understand the criteria you use to determine who is worthy of a vote. Frankly, I believe if you go the Deace route, you are paralyzing yourself because it’s not possible to find someone worthy.
I do not see how looking for the best person I can get, means I’m compromising my Christian ideals.
At one time, I also had a mindset like yours but now it’s become far easier to realize that in a general election, I must do all I can to elect the most moral person I can. I’m getting sick of the old addage, “the lesser of two evils is still evil”. Yup, it is but it also describes you and me and Steve Deace.
If I were running against Culver, you would probably decide I am not worthy of your vote because I don’t agree with your strategy and you think I’m not as good a Christian as you so it’s just as moral to allow Culver to remain governor.
I hope you see how destructive is this strategy. Remember Al Franken. Al Franken needs to be the poster boy of all you purist types. Thanks a lot.
Tyler: Remember that according to Deace, King is not good enough, either http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=8A425471-5056-B82A-37314ABFD7E89D0D
Deace and Salier have done their best to discredit King. They have discredited themselves in the process.
Tyler–Please note that politics is a full contact sport. The goal is to win.