Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichiGator2002, Oct 17, 2013.
that is what happens now when they nominate a moderate
You vastly underestimate the power of money and TV time spent and wasted on a muddled confusing message designed to draw only the Pub leaning voters.
A moderate who tried to appeal to the extreme of the republican party and thus lost folks in the center. Ongoing demographic changes tend not to support your position.
Only hard to understand if you labor under the leftist hybrid of hope and propaganda that says that the conservatives are an extremist fringe among the votes available to an opponent candidate (opponent to the Democrat). But the reality is that "extreme fringe" is easily a plurality, and probably a majority of the nationwide set of people who are open to voting against the Democrat, the votes that can be had. The GOP has routinely tried to win the Presidency by trading two "extremists" staying home for probably every 1 or 1.5 "moderates" or "disgruntled Democrats" they can get across the finish line as turnout.
In fact, if you go to the core of all things Tea Party, the Santelli Rant on the Chicago trading floor, ripping bailouts and stimulus mentality and basically everything statist progressives believe in as economic theory, I bet you would find a plurality of majority of all likely voters who agree with everything he was saying. It is just that most of those people have no real reflection in DC, people speaking on their behalf. It isn't any Democrat, but it also isn't Graham or McConnell or Boehner or Cantor.
I labor under an attempt to be as objective as possible about facts. You make a decent point though about the plurality vs extreme fringe, though "easily" is more wishful thinking than reality.
Even if it were, it still makes no sense to try to move to the extreme right for a general election while in the midst of a rapidly changing demographic environment, regardless of whether folks might find some agreement with the sentiments espoused in Santelli's rant or not. Convincing people to vote against a candidate is often not enough if the one doing the convincing doesn't have anything to offer people or if all they have is to offer is what the extremes of the republican party want; that is a recipe for losing.
No actually it is not Bill.
What happened was Romney didn't have much appeal to start with. He never really stated how he was going to address budget problems. He was a Mormon and I know for a fact that hurt him with certain voters because I hear it out of their mouths. And then he went and made that absolutely stupid 47% comment right close to the election that went viral.
His being a moderate didn't cost him the election. His being him was what caused it.
While it is not surprising we disagree I am still trying to figure out how the hell the likes of McCain and Romney get the pub nomination in the first place
Some good points here, Hall. However, I think I have to admit that his more centrist-views certainly didn't help. Romney wasn't really who the Right wanted or needed, but it's who we got. He certainly didn't energize the base or the party the way past Republicans did, ever notice the political stickers on cars? "W" stickers were everywhere, I mean, I still see them -- I rarely see any Romney-stuff.
I agree with you on Romney's appeal or lack there of, but there is something else that is a more responsible of why Obama won. Democrats are superior when it comes to the ground "get out the vote" strategies.
GOTV helps, but there's also just numerically more Democrats than Republicans right now. Albeit, clustered geographically which hurts in the House. Winning nationally is much easier when you basically just have more voters.
As I look at the pubs out there today I am not sure I see one candidate that is conservative enough to draw the base and yet can still appeal to you mods
Lol ...... Watch a little MSNBC, MTV, and BET and you'll realize just how he did it. Amazing what over half of the people in this nation have become (regressed to). Now, Barry and his minions will add to the population of unproductive know-nothing takers via amnesty to some 11 million illegals.
Remember the movie "Idiocracy"? Looks like Obama's election indicates the US is on the way.
Liberal ideologues have a party that wants and solicits their votes and participation. Conservative ideologues have a party that barely tolerates and discourages their votes or participation.
I don't think for a second if you went round the country counting heads of "true believers", there would be much more than half as many liberal progressive die hards than conservatives.
Maybe because liberal ideologues are more reasonable in their expectations than conservative ideologues?
You are probably right though, there are less (extreme) liberal ideologues than (extreme) conservative ideologues. However, such extreme fringes are extreme not just in their adherence to certain beliefs, but in their actual numbers in society.
Generally speaking, most people are much more dynamic than you care to give them credit. They are full of contradictions and ideological inconsistencies; they might be more liberal on some issues, more conservative on others. Recognizing this can go a long way toward understanding why it's not very good strategy to play to the true extremes.
Yes, because you guys act like adults everyday on this board
The Democrats are essentially a squishy collection of elite neo-liberal capitalists with a soft spot, fossilized labor unions holding on for dear life, urban professionals, unmarried women, college students and middle & working class people of varying mostly-non white ethnic backgrounds. I think they do solicit votes and participation, which is exactly what parties should do. I wouldnt say there is as cohesive of an ideology that binds this coalition as there is on the other side (though that may be changing), because there are obvious potential points of fracture in the groups above. Also, the Democrats in office don't fear their base all that much, because they arent terribly reliable voters, historically and many of them don't want to rock the boat and make Dems looks bad out of fear of helping elect Republicans. That's my read on things anyways.
Maybe so but keep in mind Obama drew 2.5 million less votes n 2012 than he did in 2008. I have only voted for two Dems for POTUS in elections going back 40+ years. Carter, who carried the South because most thought he was a conservative Dem, and Obama the first time around. While those voting for a 3rd party would not have elected Romney it is worth taking into account how many similar voters sit home and did not vote. Not so much because Romney was moderate as he was just not much of a choice.
Republicans are going to have to find a better slate of candidates for a run at the White House. As I watched them cycle through one potential after the other I was simply dismayed. Really thought Obama winning the WH would serve to bring them together more. It seemed to do just the opposite as anyone who wasn't deemed "pure" by the far right were attacked on regular basis.
I think the Republican establishment is more the problem than anything else when it comes to candidates and that goes for senate and House candidates as well. Dem's are much better in this arena as well.
The modern democratic party has for decades been marked by the unreliability of voters as a result--in part--of a more dynamic and messy coalition of competing interests. While the messiness is less appealing to many people--even to many dems--the big tent inclusiveness is appealing, especially when placed in sharp contrast to a republican party that seems bent on wanting to purge all but it's most extreme true believers (not to mention it's catastrophic approach to minorities). Up until 2000, dems there was a history of dems rocking the boat, but I believe the after effects of Bush v Gore changed that quite a bit.
JD, I am not calling you out here, but this is where the problem has been in the republican party the last two national elections. You had candidates that had to try and "move" or "play" to a segment of voters to try and get elected. I think what Michi is saying as well as how I feel is we need a candidate that doesn't need to play or move, they are naturally conservative. Being conservative has and I firmly believe will get you elected nationally. Being conservative doesn't make you extreme!! Being conservative by default makes you on the pub side of the aisle but doesn't make you pub. There are alot of conservative dems that would vote for a conservative candidate if that is who they really are. Being conservative and having some core princilpes I believe would be embraced by a vast majority. If you have to move or play to a segment then that segment should recognize the insincerity and it will show as lack of turn out.