Replies

Tell you what, Jindal would be a fabulous choice. The "he's not experienced enough" argument would be automatically neutralized by Obama's lack of experience - and the latter is at the top of his ticket....It would win over many of us who remain deeply suspicious of Senator McCain.

You're right about experience not being a campaign issue the dems can raise. I admit that as one who's not enamored of McCain, but can easily tell who's best for the country in a McCain/Obama matchup, I'm motivated by the fact that Jindal is the type of conservative Republican I'd like to see moving to a higher level withing the party. As are several of the others mentioned.

Of course if we could all stay home, they can go the way of Santorum and Allen :<(.

Which is precisely why the VP choice carries such import: how many of us will be motivated to go out and help the likes of VP Charlie Crist advance? Arguably it would be better to endure four years of darkness and await a new dawn in the GOP than to reward the party for shifting to the left.

If it's Jindal, many of us will be inclined to both vote and work to elect John McCain, having some positive motivation concerning the future of the party.

Campaign consideration: Given present realities, which number do you think would be larger?: moderate votes lost by choosing a conservative VP, or conservatives lost by choosing a liberal/moderate?

We probably don't have the answer, but have to consider many moderates don't follow politics that closely and will only vote for the top of the ticket, that discontented moderates are likely to swing to the other candidate whereas conservatives are more likely to simply stay home. I also suspect that of those who call themselves "moderate" many are really liberals (witness the MSM deeming itself objective and centrist). So many variables in play.