|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 23 2013 08:26 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 23 2013 07:47 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 07:09 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans seem to be trying their best to boost their chances of a white house 4 years from now with Hispanics. Obama is currently dominating that front. I'm really questioning the long term survival of the Republican party. I'm sure those years after the republicans used the southern strategy to win 49 states cycle after cycle they were questioning the democrats long term survival. A Democratic victory of less then one percent of the nations population is nothing near that. George Bush did well with the Hispanic vote and I'm sure that the cast of candidates for 2016 is worlds ahead then the one they had for 2012. It's more about demographic trends than current numbers. The republican base is shrinking, the democratic base is growing. The GOP likely has to reevaluate certain hardline policies, specifically conservative social policies that are turning away young voters in droves, which basically makes the future electorate toxic for them for a long time to come. Edit: Of course, cretins like Murdoch/Akin/Cruz/Bachman etc don't exactly help. Add a host of conservative media personalities who don't really have any interest in winning elections, just attracting more viewers/listeners, and it amounts to a swampland of intransigent belligerence that appeals to the hardcore base, but drives almost everyone else away. Conservative policies always push away the younger voters and interest the older voters more. Its the same in every country and there isn't a way for conservatives to out liberal liberals so there really isn't a reason for republicans to change their tune on social policies. It was the same story 20 years ago as it was the same 40 years ago. No one seriously thinks that the tea party or fox news is helping these days. The left was lucky enough for OWS to die a quiet slow charitable death to attract its crazies and leftist media is now considered to be normal media and not even remotely activist. I agree I don't know what the way forward is and I hope someone above my paygrade knows. The problem as I see is that I really don't think the current generation or the next are going to become more socially conservative as they age. Views on things like gay rights, women's health/right to choose, immigration etc are very likely moving in one direction, and if the GOP will not change at least to a moderate position, eventually they will be left with policies that are considered so extreme few swing voters will take them seriously. Case in point, someone like Perry and Santorum, while certainly attractive to a specific part of the electorate, are in all probability never going to be president of the US again. Sure, but it will change. Just look at GOP senators / representatives from liberal areas. As the underlying population changes so do parties. I have no doubt republicans from more metropolitan areas will eventually evolve with the country as a whole, or perhaps as a majority is a better term, someone like Chris Christie. I'm just not sure the more violently anti-liberal wing of the party will let them. It's basically impossible to win the party endorsement without the hardcore christian right, and now also the Tea Party approval. The insular rural areas that still maintain this uncompromising stance are fundamentally different from urban NY or LA, and unlikely to endorse any candidate who does not conform to the ever more suffocating straitjacket that is the "pure" conservative ideology. It may be that there will have be a serious housecleaning at some point, a reckoning with the elements of the party that are shackling more progressive candidates to policies they don't like and can't win with.
Sure, but I don't see that as a big issue beyond presidential elections. Republicans in MA don't need permission from evangelicals in the bible belt to elect the Senators / Representatives that they want. It's still an issue (Scott Brown was guilty by association) but it doesn't seem too big of an issue to me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 23 2013 08:26 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 23 2013 07:47 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 07:09 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans seem to be trying their best to boost their chances of a white house 4 years from now with Hispanics. Obama is currently dominating that front. I'm really questioning the long term survival of the Republican party. I'm sure those years after the republicans used the southern strategy to win 49 states cycle after cycle they were questioning the democrats long term survival. A Democratic victory of less then one percent of the nations population is nothing near that. George Bush did well with the Hispanic vote and I'm sure that the cast of candidates for 2016 is worlds ahead then the one they had for 2012. It's more about demographic trends than current numbers. The republican base is shrinking, the democratic base is growing. The GOP likely has to reevaluate certain hardline policies, specifically conservative social policies that are turning away young voters in droves, which basically makes the future electorate toxic for them for a long time to come. Edit: Of course, cretins like Murdoch/Akin/Cruz/Bachman etc don't exactly help. Add a host of conservative media personalities who don't really have any interest in winning elections, just attracting more viewers/listeners, and it amounts to a swampland of intransigent belligerence that appeals to the hardcore base, but drives almost everyone else away. Conservative policies always push away the younger voters and interest the older voters more. Its the same in every country and there isn't a way for conservatives to out liberal liberals so there really isn't a reason for republicans to change their tune on social policies. It was the same story 20 years ago as it was the same 40 years ago. No one seriously thinks that the tea party or fox news is helping these days. The left was lucky enough for OWS to die a quiet slow charitable death to attract its crazies and leftist media is now considered to be normal media and not even remotely activist. I agree I don't know what the way forward is and I hope someone above my paygrade knows. The problem as I see is that I really don't think the current generation or the next are going to become more socially conservative as they age. Views on things like gay rights, women's health/right to choose, immigration etc are very likely moving in one direction, and if the GOP will not change at least to a moderate position, eventually they will be left with policies that are considered so extreme few swing voters will take them seriously. Case in point, someone like Perry and Santorum, while certainly attractive to a specific part of the electorate, are in all probability never going to be president of the US again. Sure, but it will change. Just look at GOP senators / representatives from liberal areas. As the underlying population changes so do parties. I have no doubt republicans from more metropolitan areas will eventually evolve with the country as a whole, or perhaps as a majority is a better term, someone like Chris Christie. I'm just not sure the more violently anti-liberal wing of the party will let them. It's basically impossible to win the party endorsement without the hardcore christian right, and now also the Tea Party approval. The insular rural areas that still maintain this uncompromising stance are fundamentally different from urban NY or LA, and unlikely to endorse any candidate who does not conform to the ever more suffocating straitjacket that is the "pure" conservative ideology. It may be that there will have be a serious housecleaning at some point, a reckoning with the elements of the party that are shackling more progressive candidates to policies they don't like and can't win with. Show nested quote +No one thinks they become more socially conservative as they age but they always do. Yeah abortion, separation of church and state, and immigration are always going to follow that mantrum of "the more they change the more they stay the same". the Idea that Conservative politics are dead and there is now only moderate and liberal policies is the dumbest shit I've ever read. There will always be a party pulling things to the right and another pulling them to the left. The idea that they shift one direction over the years to another is just the way politics exist. Conservatism exists in Sweden as much as it exists in America. Liberalism exists as much in south Korea as much as it exists in Germany. Societies change though. They really do. Sweden today compared to just 25-30 years ago is a fundamentally different place when it comes to many social issues, go back 50 years and it might as well be another country. No serious politician here today can publically hold views that would have been considered fairly standard conservative ideology a few decades ago without effectively committing political suicide. I'm reasonable sure this applies to the US as well. You are right that there will always be parties pulling in both directions. I think that the scale itself will move inexorably left over the next years in the US, leaving less and less space for more extreme conservative policies. I may be wrong. I hope we can just agree to disagree if you think otherwise. big stage candidates have always had to negotiate between different audiences. they say different things to different people, and given how insular the radical right's media access is, it's not that hard to control, control, control the image projection through friends in the media. see romney during primaries and romney in the debates.
|
On February 23 2013 08:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:26 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 23 2013 07:47 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 07:09 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans seem to be trying their best to boost their chances of a white house 4 years from now with Hispanics. Obama is currently dominating that front. I'm really questioning the long term survival of the Republican party. I'm sure those years after the republicans used the southern strategy to win 49 states cycle after cycle they were questioning the democrats long term survival. A Democratic victory of less then one percent of the nations population is nothing near that. George Bush did well with the Hispanic vote and I'm sure that the cast of candidates for 2016 is worlds ahead then the one they had for 2012. It's more about demographic trends than current numbers. The republican base is shrinking, the democratic base is growing. The GOP likely has to reevaluate certain hardline policies, specifically conservative social policies that are turning away young voters in droves, which basically makes the future electorate toxic for them for a long time to come. Edit: Of course, cretins like Murdoch/Akin/Cruz/Bachman etc don't exactly help. Add a host of conservative media personalities who don't really have any interest in winning elections, just attracting more viewers/listeners, and it amounts to a swampland of intransigent belligerence that appeals to the hardcore base, but drives almost everyone else away. Conservative policies always push away the younger voters and interest the older voters more. Its the same in every country and there isn't a way for conservatives to out liberal liberals so there really isn't a reason for republicans to change their tune on social policies. It was the same story 20 years ago as it was the same 40 years ago. No one seriously thinks that the tea party or fox news is helping these days. The left was lucky enough for OWS to die a quiet slow charitable death to attract its crazies and leftist media is now considered to be normal media and not even remotely activist. I agree I don't know what the way forward is and I hope someone above my paygrade knows. The problem as I see is that I really don't think the current generation or the next are going to become more socially conservative as they age. Views on things like gay rights, women's health/right to choose, immigration etc are very likely moving in one direction, and if the GOP will not change at least to a moderate position, eventually they will be left with policies that are considered so extreme few swing voters will take them seriously. Case in point, someone like Perry and Santorum, while certainly attractive to a specific part of the electorate, are in all probability never going to be president of the US again. Sure, but it will change. Just look at GOP senators / representatives from liberal areas. As the underlying population changes so do parties. I have no doubt republicans from more metropolitan areas will eventually evolve with the country as a whole, or perhaps as a majority is a better term, someone like Chris Christie. I'm just not sure the more violently anti-liberal wing of the party will let them. It's basically impossible to win the party endorsement without the hardcore christian right, and now also the Tea Party approval. The insular rural areas that still maintain this uncompromising stance are fundamentally different from urban NY or LA, and unlikely to endorse any candidate who does not conform to the ever more suffocating straitjacket that is the "pure" conservative ideology. It may be that there will have be a serious housecleaning at some point, a reckoning with the elements of the party that are shackling more progressive candidates to policies they don't like and can't win with. No one thinks they become more socially conservative as they age but they always do. Yeah abortion, separation of church and state, and immigration are always going to follow that mantrum of "the more they change the more they stay the same". the Idea that Conservative politics are dead and there is now only moderate and liberal policies is the dumbest shit I've ever read. There will always be a party pulling things to the right and another pulling them to the left. The idea that they shift one direction over the years to another is just the way politics exist. Conservatism exists in Sweden as much as it exists in America. Liberalism exists as much in south Korea as much as it exists in Germany. Societies change though. They really do. Sweden today compared to just 25-30 years ago is a fundamentally different place when it comes to many social issues, go back 50 years and it might as well be another country. No serious politician here today can publically hold views that would have been considered fairly standard conservative ideology a few decades ago without effectively committing political suicide. I'm reasonable sure this applies to the US as well. You are right that there will always be parties pulling in both directions. I think that the scale itself will move inexorably left over the next years in the US, leaving less and less space for more extreme conservative policies. I may be wrong. I hope we can just agree to disagree if you think otherwise. big stage candidates have always had to negotiate between different audiences. they say different things to different people, and given how insular the radical right's media access is, it's not that hard to control, control, control the image projection through friends in the media. see romney during primaries and romney in the debates.
Yup! Or Romney as Governor of MA :p
|
On February 23 2013 08:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:26 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 23 2013 07:47 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 07:09 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans seem to be trying their best to boost their chances of a white house 4 years from now with Hispanics. Obama is currently dominating that front. I'm really questioning the long term survival of the Republican party. I'm sure those years after the republicans used the southern strategy to win 49 states cycle after cycle they were questioning the democrats long term survival. A Democratic victory of less then one percent of the nations population is nothing near that. George Bush did well with the Hispanic vote and I'm sure that the cast of candidates for 2016 is worlds ahead then the one they had for 2012. It's more about demographic trends than current numbers. The republican base is shrinking, the democratic base is growing. The GOP likely has to reevaluate certain hardline policies, specifically conservative social policies that are turning away young voters in droves, which basically makes the future electorate toxic for them for a long time to come. Edit: Of course, cretins like Murdoch/Akin/Cruz/Bachman etc don't exactly help. Add a host of conservative media personalities who don't really have any interest in winning elections, just attracting more viewers/listeners, and it amounts to a swampland of intransigent belligerence that appeals to the hardcore base, but drives almost everyone else away. Conservative policies always push away the younger voters and interest the older voters more. Its the same in every country and there isn't a way for conservatives to out liberal liberals so there really isn't a reason for republicans to change their tune on social policies. It was the same story 20 years ago as it was the same 40 years ago. No one seriously thinks that the tea party or fox news is helping these days. The left was lucky enough for OWS to die a quiet slow charitable death to attract its crazies and leftist media is now considered to be normal media and not even remotely activist. I agree I don't know what the way forward is and I hope someone above my paygrade knows. The problem as I see is that I really don't think the current generation or the next are going to become more socially conservative as they age. Views on things like gay rights, women's health/right to choose, immigration etc are very likely moving in one direction, and if the GOP will not change at least to a moderate position, eventually they will be left with policies that are considered so extreme few swing voters will take them seriously. Case in point, someone like Perry and Santorum, while certainly attractive to a specific part of the electorate, are in all probability never going to be president of the US again. Sure, but it will change. Just look at GOP senators / representatives from liberal areas. As the underlying population changes so do parties. I have no doubt republicans from more metropolitan areas will eventually evolve with the country as a whole, or perhaps as a majority is a better term, someone like Chris Christie. I'm just not sure the more violently anti-liberal wing of the party will let them. It's basically impossible to win the party endorsement without the hardcore christian right, and now also the Tea Party approval. The insular rural areas that still maintain this uncompromising stance are fundamentally different from urban NY or LA, and unlikely to endorse any candidate who does not conform to the ever more suffocating straitjacket that is the "pure" conservative ideology. It may be that there will have be a serious housecleaning at some point, a reckoning with the elements of the party that are shackling more progressive candidates to policies they don't like and can't win with. No one thinks they become more socially conservative as they age but they always do. Yeah abortion, separation of church and state, and immigration are always going to follow that mantrum of "the more they change the more they stay the same". the Idea that Conservative politics are dead and there is now only moderate and liberal policies is the dumbest shit I've ever read. There will always be a party pulling things to the right and another pulling them to the left. The idea that they shift one direction over the years to another is just the way politics exist. Conservatism exists in Sweden as much as it exists in America. Liberalism exists as much in south Korea as much as it exists in Germany. Societies change though. They really do. Sweden today compared to just 25-30 years ago is a fundamentally different place when it comes to many social issues, go back 50 years and it might as well be another country. No serious politician here today can publically hold views that would have been considered fairly standard conservative ideology a few decades ago without effectively committing political suicide. I'm reasonable sure this applies to the US as well. You are right that there will always be parties pulling in both directions. I think that the scale itself will move inexorably left over the next years in the US, leaving less and less space for more extreme conservative policies. I may be wrong. I hope we can just agree to disagree if you think otherwise. big stage candidates have always had to negotiate between different audiences. they say different things to different people, and given how insular the radical right's media access is, it's not that hard to control, control, control the image projection through friends in the media. see romney during primaries and romney in the debates.
thats just our media not doing its job to protect the citizens of this country and call out polticians for being hypocrits/lying.
I hate corporate news 
|
On February 23 2013 08:26 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 23 2013 07:47 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 07:09 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans seem to be trying their best to boost their chances of a white house 4 years from now with Hispanics. Obama is currently dominating that front. I'm really questioning the long term survival of the Republican party. I'm sure those years after the republicans used the southern strategy to win 49 states cycle after cycle they were questioning the democrats long term survival. A Democratic victory of less then one percent of the nations population is nothing near that. George Bush did well with the Hispanic vote and I'm sure that the cast of candidates for 2016 is worlds ahead then the one they had for 2012. It's more about demographic trends than current numbers. The republican base is shrinking, the democratic base is growing. The GOP likely has to reevaluate certain hardline policies, specifically conservative social policies that are turning away young voters in droves, which basically makes the future electorate toxic for them for a long time to come. Edit: Of course, cretins like Murdoch/Akin/Cruz/Bachman etc don't exactly help. Add a host of conservative media personalities who don't really have any interest in winning elections, just attracting more viewers/listeners, and it amounts to a swampland of intransigent belligerence that appeals to the hardcore base, but drives almost everyone else away. Conservative policies always push away the younger voters and interest the older voters more. Its the same in every country and there isn't a way for conservatives to out liberal liberals so there really isn't a reason for republicans to change their tune on social policies. It was the same story 20 years ago as it was the same 40 years ago. No one seriously thinks that the tea party or fox news is helping these days. The left was lucky enough for OWS to die a quiet slow charitable death to attract its crazies and leftist media is now considered to be normal media and not even remotely activist. I agree I don't know what the way forward is and I hope someone above my paygrade knows. The problem as I see is that I really don't think the current generation or the next are going to become more socially conservative as they age. Views on things like gay rights, women's health/right to choose, immigration etc are very likely moving in one direction, and if the GOP will not change at least to a moderate position, eventually they will be left with policies that are considered so extreme few swing voters will take them seriously. Case in point, someone like Perry and Santorum, while certainly attractive to a specific part of the electorate, are in all probability never going to be president of the US again. Sure, but it will change. Just look at GOP senators / representatives from liberal areas. As the underlying population changes so do parties. I have no doubt republicans from more metropolitan areas will eventually evolve with the country as a whole, or perhaps as a majority is a better term, someone like Chris Christie. I'm just not sure the more violently anti-liberal wing of the party will let them. It's basically impossible to win the party endorsement without the hardcore christian right, and now also the Tea Party approval. The insular rural areas that still maintain this uncompromising stance are fundamentally different from urban NY or LA, and unlikely to endorse any candidate who does not conform to the ever more suffocating straitjacket that is the "pure" conservative ideology. It may be that there will have be a serious housecleaning at some point, a reckoning with the elements of the party that are shackling more progressive candidates to policies they don't like and can't win with. Show nested quote +No one thinks they become more socially conservative as they age but they always do. Yeah abortion, separation of church and state, and immigration are always going to follow that mantrum of "the more they change the more they stay the same". the Idea that Conservative politics are dead and there is now only moderate and liberal policies is the dumbest shit I've ever read. There will always be a party pulling things to the right and another pulling them to the left. The idea that they shift one direction over the years to another is just the way politics exist. Conservatism exists in Sweden as much as it exists in America. Liberalism exists as much in south Korea as much as it exists in Germany. Societies change though. They really do. Sweden today compared to just 25-30 years ago is a fundamentally different place when it comes to many social issues, go back 50 years and it might as well be another country. No serious politician here today can publically hold views that would have been considered fairly standard conservative ideology a few decades ago without effectively committing political suicide. I'm reasonable sure this applies to the US as well. You are right that there will always be parties pulling in both directions. I think that the scale itself will move inexorably left over the next years in the US, leaving less and less space for more extreme conservative policies. I may be wrong. I hope we can just agree to disagree if you think otherwise.
Yeah I agree that the current global prosperity/ global peace that has been around for the post cold war era has led the world left a ton and will continue to do so as long as the wars cease. Just look how much obama's foreign policy has been exactly like Bush's was and yet was so much like clintons. In lybia and in pakistan obama pushed an air war with logistical support much like what clinton did in response to Europa's lack of interest in stopping another genocide in the balkans. If china and russia continue the cold war mcarthy's and thatchers will come back in force.
|
On February 23 2013 08:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:26 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 23 2013 07:47 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 07:09 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans seem to be trying their best to boost their chances of a white house 4 years from now with Hispanics. Obama is currently dominating that front. I'm really questioning the long term survival of the Republican party. I'm sure those years after the republicans used the southern strategy to win 49 states cycle after cycle they were questioning the democrats long term survival. A Democratic victory of less then one percent of the nations population is nothing near that. George Bush did well with the Hispanic vote and I'm sure that the cast of candidates for 2016 is worlds ahead then the one they had for 2012. It's more about demographic trends than current numbers. The republican base is shrinking, the democratic base is growing. The GOP likely has to reevaluate certain hardline policies, specifically conservative social policies that are turning away young voters in droves, which basically makes the future electorate toxic for them for a long time to come. Edit: Of course, cretins like Murdoch/Akin/Cruz/Bachman etc don't exactly help. Add a host of conservative media personalities who don't really have any interest in winning elections, just attracting more viewers/listeners, and it amounts to a swampland of intransigent belligerence that appeals to the hardcore base, but drives almost everyone else away. Conservative policies always push away the younger voters and interest the older voters more. Its the same in every country and there isn't a way for conservatives to out liberal liberals so there really isn't a reason for republicans to change their tune on social policies. It was the same story 20 years ago as it was the same 40 years ago. No one seriously thinks that the tea party or fox news is helping these days. The left was lucky enough for OWS to die a quiet slow charitable death to attract its crazies and leftist media is now considered to be normal media and not even remotely activist. I agree I don't know what the way forward is and I hope someone above my paygrade knows. The problem as I see is that I really don't think the current generation or the next are going to become more socially conservative as they age. Views on things like gay rights, women's health/right to choose, immigration etc are very likely moving in one direction, and if the GOP will not change at least to a moderate position, eventually they will be left with policies that are considered so extreme few swing voters will take them seriously. Case in point, someone like Perry and Santorum, while certainly attractive to a specific part of the electorate, are in all probability never going to be president of the US again. Sure, but it will change. Just look at GOP senators / representatives from liberal areas. As the underlying population changes so do parties. I have no doubt republicans from more metropolitan areas will eventually evolve with the country as a whole, or perhaps as a majority is a better term, someone like Chris Christie. I'm just not sure the more violently anti-liberal wing of the party will let them. It's basically impossible to win the party endorsement without the hardcore christian right, and now also the Tea Party approval. The insular rural areas that still maintain this uncompromising stance are fundamentally different from urban NY or LA, and unlikely to endorse any candidate who does not conform to the ever more suffocating straitjacket that is the "pure" conservative ideology. It may be that there will have be a serious housecleaning at some point, a reckoning with the elements of the party that are shackling more progressive candidates to policies they don't like and can't win with. No one thinks they become more socially conservative as they age but they always do. Yeah abortion, separation of church and state, and immigration are always going to follow that mantrum of "the more they change the more they stay the same". the Idea that Conservative politics are dead and there is now only moderate and liberal policies is the dumbest shit I've ever read. There will always be a party pulling things to the right and another pulling them to the left. The idea that they shift one direction over the years to another is just the way politics exist. Conservatism exists in Sweden as much as it exists in America. Liberalism exists as much in south Korea as much as it exists in Germany. Societies change though. They really do. Sweden today compared to just 25-30 years ago is a fundamentally different place when it comes to many social issues, go back 50 years and it might as well be another country. No serious politician here today can publically hold views that would have been considered fairly standard conservative ideology a few decades ago without effectively committing political suicide. I'm reasonable sure this applies to the US as well. You are right that there will always be parties pulling in both directions. I think that the scale itself will move inexorably left over the next years in the US, leaving less and less space for more extreme conservative policies. I may be wrong. I hope we can just agree to disagree if you think otherwise. big stage candidates have always had to negotiate between different audiences. they say different things to different people, and given how insular the radical right's media access is, it's not that hard to control, control, control the image projection through friends in the media. see romney during primaries and romney in the debates.
Maybe I'm overestimating how important this was, but wasn't one of the issues that plagued Romney throughout his campaign the impression of inconsistency that he just couldn't shake? The flip-flopper thing.
I think you are right that it's fairly safe to present yourself as a more severe idealist to your base, but it seemed to hurt him with swing voters when the many contradictions became apparent.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 23 2013 23:58 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 08:42 oneofthem wrote:On February 23 2013 08:26 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 08:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 23 2013 07:47 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:37 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 07:09 McBengt wrote:On February 23 2013 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 23 2013 05:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Republicans seem to be trying their best to boost their chances of a white house 4 years from now with Hispanics. Obama is currently dominating that front. I'm really questioning the long term survival of the Republican party. I'm sure those years after the republicans used the southern strategy to win 49 states cycle after cycle they were questioning the democrats long term survival. A Democratic victory of less then one percent of the nations population is nothing near that. George Bush did well with the Hispanic vote and I'm sure that the cast of candidates for 2016 is worlds ahead then the one they had for 2012. It's more about demographic trends than current numbers. The republican base is shrinking, the democratic base is growing. The GOP likely has to reevaluate certain hardline policies, specifically conservative social policies that are turning away young voters in droves, which basically makes the future electorate toxic for them for a long time to come. Edit: Of course, cretins like Murdoch/Akin/Cruz/Bachman etc don't exactly help. Add a host of conservative media personalities who don't really have any interest in winning elections, just attracting more viewers/listeners, and it amounts to a swampland of intransigent belligerence that appeals to the hardcore base, but drives almost everyone else away. Conservative policies always push away the younger voters and interest the older voters more. Its the same in every country and there isn't a way for conservatives to out liberal liberals so there really isn't a reason for republicans to change their tune on social policies. It was the same story 20 years ago as it was the same 40 years ago. No one seriously thinks that the tea party or fox news is helping these days. The left was lucky enough for OWS to die a quiet slow charitable death to attract its crazies and leftist media is now considered to be normal media and not even remotely activist. I agree I don't know what the way forward is and I hope someone above my paygrade knows. The problem as I see is that I really don't think the current generation or the next are going to become more socially conservative as they age. Views on things like gay rights, women's health/right to choose, immigration etc are very likely moving in one direction, and if the GOP will not change at least to a moderate position, eventually they will be left with policies that are considered so extreme few swing voters will take them seriously. Case in point, someone like Perry and Santorum, while certainly attractive to a specific part of the electorate, are in all probability never going to be president of the US again. Sure, but it will change. Just look at GOP senators / representatives from liberal areas. As the underlying population changes so do parties. I have no doubt republicans from more metropolitan areas will eventually evolve with the country as a whole, or perhaps as a majority is a better term, someone like Chris Christie. I'm just not sure the more violently anti-liberal wing of the party will let them. It's basically impossible to win the party endorsement without the hardcore christian right, and now also the Tea Party approval. The insular rural areas that still maintain this uncompromising stance are fundamentally different from urban NY or LA, and unlikely to endorse any candidate who does not conform to the ever more suffocating straitjacket that is the "pure" conservative ideology. It may be that there will have be a serious housecleaning at some point, a reckoning with the elements of the party that are shackling more progressive candidates to policies they don't like and can't win with. No one thinks they become more socially conservative as they age but they always do. Yeah abortion, separation of church and state, and immigration are always going to follow that mantrum of "the more they change the more they stay the same". the Idea that Conservative politics are dead and there is now only moderate and liberal policies is the dumbest shit I've ever read. There will always be a party pulling things to the right and another pulling them to the left. The idea that they shift one direction over the years to another is just the way politics exist. Conservatism exists in Sweden as much as it exists in America. Liberalism exists as much in south Korea as much as it exists in Germany. Societies change though. They really do. Sweden today compared to just 25-30 years ago is a fundamentally different place when it comes to many social issues, go back 50 years and it might as well be another country. No serious politician here today can publically hold views that would have been considered fairly standard conservative ideology a few decades ago without effectively committing political suicide. I'm reasonable sure this applies to the US as well. You are right that there will always be parties pulling in both directions. I think that the scale itself will move inexorably left over the next years in the US, leaving less and less space for more extreme conservative policies. I may be wrong. I hope we can just agree to disagree if you think otherwise. big stage candidates have always had to negotiate between different audiences. they say different things to different people, and given how insular the radical right's media access is, it's not that hard to control, control, control the image projection through friends in the media. see romney during primaries and romney in the debates. Maybe I'm overestimating how important this was, but wasn't one of the issues that plagued Romney throughout his campaign the impression of inconsistency that he just couldn't shake? The flip-flopper thing. I think you are right that it's fairly safe to present yourself as a more severe idealist to your base, but it seemed to hurt him with swing voters when the many contradictions became apparent.
I don't disagree that there has been a left shift of some kind, or that it is important to appear as a credible moderate. It is just that the leftward tilt does not mean total abandoning the far right, given the special characteristic of that voter block. If you could just get some key voices to be loyal, they can be placated quite easily given the way media, information networks etc are polarized.
basically, if the radical right can be convinced to be quiet and stand behind a guy with moderate credentials, they can sell this guy to both the wider electorate and the base. there'd be a lot of misrepresenting who you are electing, but that's a given.
|
Just goes to show how dangerous Jon Huntsman could have been if not for the Tea Party/Conservatives:
Former 2012 Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman announced his support for gay marriage Thursday, culminating an evolution of public comments on the issue.
"Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry," Huntsman wrote in an op-ed in The American Conservative Thursday. "I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love."
He clarified that religions would not have to be forced to recognize gay marriages, but all Americans should be treated equally under the law.
Huntsman's support comes as many elected members of the Republican party decline to show support for gays and lesbians, despite the fact that more senior figures like former Vice President Dick Cheney and former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman -- who came out as gay after leaving the post -- support gay marriage. Neither the Log Cabin Republicans nor GOProud will participate in next month's Conservative Political Action Conference. There are no gay or lesbian Republicans in Congress, though there are several in state legislatures.
Huntsman, as Utah governor, favored civil unions for gays and lesbians, but stood against gay marriage. "I believe in traditional marriage,” he said while running for the GOP presidential primary. “I don’t think you can redefine marriage from the traditional sense.”
Source
|
I think huntsman is the only republican who's not an idiot
|
John huntsman was a boring candidate in a field of boring candidates that was formerly obamas ambassador to china. I think there are a few things in there that might have caused him to not have a chance other then the tea party.
|
He's good on the environment. If it were Huntsman - Obama, I might have voted for Huntsman over Stein just to make a point
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you gonna betray jill for that guy? how could you
|
tactics, comrade
democrats get to ignore me because republicans are so anti-green. threatening to vote for a greener republican seems like a decent way to get some attention
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
What are some current major federal programs/legislation that address socioeconomic issues? So far I have the Workforce Investment Act, SNAP (food stamps), TANF/unemployment/welfare, Head Start, ACA, pell grants/financial aid, and the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
|
On February 24 2013 06:47 sam!zdat wrote:
tactics, comrade
democrats get to ignore me because republicans are so anti-green. threatening to vote for a greener republican seems like a decent way to get some attention
Out of interest, I tend to vote for the green party in Sweden more oftan than not, who exactly is a credible candidate for environmental policies in the US currently? How does Obama measure up? I confess I only have superficial information here?
|
We don't have any credible candidate. environmentalism is a non-issue in US politics. Obama doesn't give a shit, it's not on his agenda - that's why I didn't vote for him the second time.
|
On February 24 2013 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:
We don't have any credible candidate. environmentalism is a non-issue in US politics. Obama doesn't give a shit, it's not on his agenda - that's why I didn't vote for him the second time.
No good green candidates whatsoever? Even independents? That's honestly a frightening thought given the scale of US industry. All the socio-economic politics in the world won't help if we are being invaded by mutated polar bears with eight arms.
|
On February 24 2013 07:23 McBengt wrote:
That's honestly a frightening thought given the scale of US industry.
Yes. yes it is.
we don't have independent politics. just reps and dems.
there's a very strong ideological bias against independent politics. it's a very cold-war mentality we have.
i have to argue with my mother, who is otherwise an intelligent woman, that because I live in Washington, and there is an electoral college, it is not in fact the case that a vote for Stein is a vote for Romney. Even when you explain to her, and she knows it is wrong, she still feels that it is somehow "wrong" to vote for a 3rd party, even though she is as much of a green as I am.
|
Well, I guess it's easy to ignore these issues when it will be future generations who pay price.
Yeah the electoral collage means that if you live in a landslide state you can vote pretty much however you want. I still feel the national popular vote should decide, but that's frankly none of my business. I guess it's a sort of "us and them" mentality.
|
On February 24 2013 07:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:23 McBengt wrote:
That's honestly a frightening thought given the scale of US industry. Yes. yes it is. we don't have independent politics. just reps and dems. there's a very strong ideological bias against independent politics. it's a very cold-war mentality we have. i have to argue with my mother, who is otherwise an intelligent woman, that because I live in Washington, and there is an electoral college, it is not in fact the case that a vote for Stein is a vote for Romney. Even when you explain to her, and she knows it is wrong, she still feels that it is somehow "wrong" to vote for a 3rd party, even though she is as much of a green as I am.
That's just such a foreign concept to me, even though I've been reading stuff about US politics for 5 years I can't quite grasp it.
In my country we have 3 trotskist parties with a candidate for presidential elections, and they do usually 10% cumulated...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
