|
|
On November 19 2012 01:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2012 02:54 Probe1 wrote:On November 18 2012 00:21 kafkaesque wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Could this possibly be real? Your president is such a cool dude... It's real, it came up on my facebook an hour ago + Show Spoiler +I think that's why Republicans don't understand. The young vote doesn't always agree with is policies but President Obama acts like a fucking human being instead of a political robot. actually he talks in a monotone, never changes pitch or cadence, and falls on his face without a teleprompter... tbh, he's one of the worst public speakers in politics right now (major figure). but the media says he's cool and Beyonce invited him to a party so I guess he's cool. personally, I think jobs and opportunity are cool, but I guess I'm just the turd in the punchbowl here... edit: stupid me, why should I care about runaway debt when the President "gets me"?
The success of public speaking is directly measured in public opinion, so I think he's done pretty well for himself.
Obama has often been criticized for being under-experienced. Which is a true to an extent. His rise to the Presidency has less to do with his rèsumè than with his 2004 keynote speech at the DNC.
|
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians.
|
On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians.
I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate.
But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away.
Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy.
|
On November 19 2012 01:51 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians. I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate. But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away. Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy.
eh, don't mind me, I just have a lingering bitterness in my mouth from the election. my own fault for being so partisan as to not take an objective look at the polls. thanks for the compliment though, it's more'n I deserve, to be sure.
I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true. and since we know that CA ain't exactly a bastion of conservatism, it can't be the greedy Republicans who are at fault here. another thing that doesn't help is the "Republicans are anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-middle class, anti-everything good" line that the other side has been pushing for years now.
I think what's to be done is supporting the shale-oil boom in North Dakota. there's close to 0% unemployment in some of these places up there, with less than 3% unemployment state-wide, and they haven't even gotten started doing the real drilling yet. I know everyone's got an opinion on fracking and they ain't all nice, but it's been a god-send to North Dakota and it'll be a god-send to this nation if we support it.
Republicans always do well with working, industrious, people. more people with good jobs and cheap living (courtesy of red-state heaven) means less people looking for the handout that the Obama administration and Democrat party are offering. Republicans always lose in the social realm, where we win is with the economy. my own personal interpretation is that we need to support massive immigration reform and really push for less regulation on fracking. this'll help us shore up the Hispanic votes and get people out of their craptastic blue states and into red states. the more people work, the more likely they are to vote for lower taxes (I hope).
young people have always been a lost cause, and until Barack is well and gone I don't see us making any gains with black people. too much vitriol and anti-GOP rhetoric stemming from our unabashed opposition to the President is focused on the idea of us being racist for us to have a chance there. education reform is going to be a huge part of this too. the more people start seeing the world for what it is, the less likely they will to jump at the pipe-dream politics that both parties are peddling right now.
either way, we're all gonna take a big hit pretty soon. even if we "avoid" the fiscal cliff, that'll just make the fall that much harder when we finally run out of money to borrow.
edit: when I say that we always lose on social issues, I mean that we're never going to be the popular party on that front. I think people are more socially conservative than they like to think, but they end up voting liberal for other reasons, and then attach themselves to the liberal social positions as a justification. no one is losing an election because of abortion, they are losing because of really crappy speaking (Akin, Murdoch) and really stupid politicians (half the GOP).
|
I'm not I sure agree that most people are more socially conservative that they think, I honestly think that in 20-30 years an overwhelming majority of the electorate will find anti-abortion and gay-marriage stances really hard pills to swallow, even if they agree with some or all of the conservative economic policies. But then again I live in Sweden, you know the place where taxrates are over 9000%, so I guess I wouldn't really know how that stands in america.
As for the drilling, sure it will create jobs, and profitable ones at that. The problem as I see it is that unless your job is safe enough, pays enough and provides adequate benefits, the incentive to trade nationalized healthcare, planned parenthood etc for lower taxes just isn't there. The bar for when the progressive tax increases actually start taking effect is set so high that a majority of americans will never reach it. Republicans will have to find some way to convince people that they are not just voting to give up benefits and entitlements in order to finance tax breaks for people who make more in one year than they make in ten. As long as a huge portion of the american work force makes the kind of wages that barely pays rent and the bills, and don't get dental and healthcare coverage through their employment, whatever minor taxbreak they could be offered will pale in comparison to what they would lose.
And yes, not insulting the electorate the day after you lose an election is probably a good idea.
|
oh run away debt, all you have to do is pay down foreign debt, a country can hold crazy amounts of domestic debt just fine. But then again republicans wont ever say that, or will they point out the only way to deal with the debt right now in the short term would be to raise taxes and cut programs which will cause a recession. So again whats the point of run away debt? Both parties have plans to deal on the long term none of them have a deal for the short term just because you ran a rave about the debt doesn't mean the party's plan is any more valid then the next party. Then you'd have to quit the deceptions and lies in politics oh well.
|
On November 19 2012 01:51 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians. I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate. But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away. Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy.
I disagree with this. If Romney had been more consistently conservative, if not socially than fiscally, I would have voted for him (instead Gary Johnson got my vote because he has an actual, honest track record being Governor of New Mexico). I would even argue that Romney would have gotten more votes if he had a more consistent record of being conservative, even on social issues. How come George W. (the socially right-wing, economically left-wing minus his famed tax cuts, Pres.) managed to get elected? And then re-elected? He was, like, the anti-libertarian, yet he still somehow got elected twice in a row. Same thing happened back with Reagan; he won back-to-back Presidential terms as well.
The "not-so-moderate" moderate Republicans? They lost. John McCain, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush when he tried getting reelected (his "Read my lips" schpeel killed his candidacy, really...) all failed.
When I look at past election results, I see that, for whatever reason, conservative Republicans with strong reputations to back them up do better than the "nice moderates" that tend to lose. I personally conclude that there is a "silent majority" of conservatives in America, both social and fiscal, who simply refuse to vote for soft moderate Republicans such as Romney and McCain, and then Democrats take the election.
|
On November 19 2012 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 01:51 McBengt wrote:On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians. I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate. But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away. Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy. I disagree with this. If Romney had been more consistently conservative, if not socially than fiscally, I would have voted for him (instead Gary Johnson got my vote because he has an actual, honest track record being Governor of New Mexico). I would even argue that Romney would have gotten more votes if he had a more consistent record of being conservative, even on social issues. How come George W. (the socially right-wing, economically left-wing minus his famed tax cuts, Pres.) managed to get elected? And then re-elected? He was, like, the anti-libertarian, yet he still somehow got elected twice in a row. Same thing happened back with Reagan; he won back-to-back Presidential terms as well. The "not-so-moderate" moderate Republicans? They lost. John McCain, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush when he tried getting reelected (his "Read my lips" schpeel killed his candidacy, really...) all failed. When I look at past election results, I see that, for whatever reason, conservative Republicans with strong reputations to back them up do better than the "nice moderates" that tend to lose. I personally conclude that there is a "silent majority" of conservatives in America, both social and fiscal, who simply refuse to vote for soft moderate Republicans such as Romney and McCain, and then Democrats take the election.
The only point in this election cycle when Romney became slightly competitive was when his campaign went for the middle ground. The first debate was Romney creating himself as a viable, moderate candidate, and voters actually responded to him and polls became closer. Even the VP pick, a hardline conservative, didn't do anything to improve his standing in the polls.
I'm hoping for the republicans to respond the way you do tho, I feel much more comfortable with a moderate democrat in office after 2016.
|
The only poll that matters, in my opinion, is the one that counts the votes on Election Day. That one speaks louder than every other poll before it. Many conservative Americans won't bother with voting if the Republican candidate isn't someone they believe they can sincerely rally behind (as the third party candidates they're more likely to agree with are not viable candidates), and it won't matter what the polls supposedly predict.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 19 2012 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 01:51 McBengt wrote:On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians. I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate. But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away. Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy. I disagree with this. If Romney had been more consistently conservative, if not socially than fiscally, I would have voted for him (instead Gary Johnson got my vote because he has an actual, honest track record being Governor of New Mexico). I would even argue that Romney would have gotten more votes if he had a more consistent record of being conservative, even on social issues. How come George W. (the socially right-wing, economically left-wing minus his famed tax cuts, Pres.) managed to get elected? And then re-elected? He was, like, the anti-libertarian, yet he still somehow got elected twice in a row. Same thing happened back with Reagan; he won back-to-back Presidential terms as well. The "not-so-moderate" moderate Republicans? They lost. John McCain, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush when he tried getting reelected (his "Read my lips" schpeel killed his candidacy, really...) all failed. When I look at past election results, I see that, for whatever reason, conservative Republicans with strong reputations to back them up do better than the "nice moderates" that tend to lose. I personally conclude that there is a "silent majority" of conservatives in America, both social and fiscal, who simply refuse to vote for soft moderate Republicans such as Romney and McCain, and then Democrats take the election.
You can't point to history as a sign of anything. The electorate has changed quite a bit.
More people approve of gay marriage, a majority are still pro-choice, public opinion of the decriminalization of marijuana has been trending upward, and women are still a force to be reckoned with.
But please don't ever change. 
|
On November 19 2012 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 01:51 McBengt wrote:On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians. I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate. But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away. Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy. I disagree with this. If Romney had been more consistently conservative, if not socially than fiscally, I would have voted for him (instead Gary Johnson got my vote because he has an actual, honest track record being Governor of New Mexico). I would even argue that Romney would have gotten more votes if he had a more consistent record of being conservative, even on social issues. How come George W. (the socially right-wing, economically left-wing minus his famed tax cuts, Pres.) managed to get elected? And then re-elected? He was, like, the anti-libertarian, yet he still somehow got elected twice in a row. Same thing happened back with Reagan; he won back-to-back Presidential terms as well. The "not-so-moderate" moderate Republicans? They lost. John McCain, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush when he tried getting reelected (his "Read my lips" schpeel killed his candidacy, really...) all failed. When I look at past election results, I see that, for whatever reason, conservative Republicans with strong reputations to back them up do better than the "nice moderates" that tend to lose. I personally conclude that there is a "silent majority" of conservatives in America, both social and fiscal, who simply refuse to vote for soft moderate Republicans such as Romney and McCain, and then Democrats take the election.
You hit the nail on the head with this. Wishy-washy 'conservatives' who are scared of appearing 'too conservative' sabotage themselves with the conservative base in America. McCain and Romney were recent poster-boys reflecting this trend.
|
On November 19 2012 04:17 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 01:51 McBengt wrote:On November 19 2012 01:40 sc2superfan101 wrote:
the same public that can't sit through thirty seconds of a political speech before breaking out in cheers and applause at yet another carbon-copy, bite-size platitude that they've heard 10,000 times before thinks he's a good public speaker. of course they think he's a good speaker. he's the freaking King of platitudes. they guy's entire Presidency has been based off platitudes.
experience... what experience? you're so fucking spot on it hurts. he gave a few speeches, waved his hands around, cheated against Hillary (lol, not really but that was a very shady primary), and all the sudden he's qualified to lead the nation even though he's the most left-leaning Senator on earth and hasn't spent as much as three minutes in an executive position. shit, I have more managerial experience being a captain of a High-School wrestling team than he managed to rack up in fifty plus years.
it's good thing there's North Dakota (moving there soon, woot!!!) and the shale oil boom or we'd be straight up fucked. still probably screwed but at least the red states will be booming. California (my heart and home) has like 41% unemployment for people my age... lol @ filibusterer proof Dem-controlled state legislature and Dem governor. real good move there, fellow Californians. I mean no disrespect here, you have been one of the honest and intelligent conservatives in this thread, and that is good for creating an interesting debate. But surely you must understand, it's comments in the vein of what you posted there that is continuously dragging your party down. Post-election, the entire conservative media circus has gone off with wild accusations, incredibly stupid comments and complete fallacies. Meanwhile, the intellectual part of the republicans are desperately trying to salvage what remains of their image with minorities, single women, young people, gays etc. And they will never be successful unless the right wing lets up on the anger and bile, it's pure poison and it's scaring moderates away. Honest question here, where does the republican party go from here? With a shrinking demographic base, a new generation that is ever more rejecting the antiquated social policies, what is to be done? Obstructionism and bitterness will get nothing accomplished, and I firmly believe that having a relevant and active opposition is vital for any democracy. I disagree with this. If Romney had been more consistently conservative, if not socially than fiscally, I would have voted for him (instead Gary Johnson got my vote because he has an actual, honest track record being Governor of New Mexico). I would even argue that Romney would have gotten more votes if he had a more consistent record of being conservative, even on social issues. How come George W. (the socially right-wing, economically left-wing minus his famed tax cuts, Pres.) managed to get elected? And then re-elected? He was, like, the anti-libertarian, yet he still somehow got elected twice in a row. Same thing happened back with Reagan; he won back-to-back Presidential terms as well. The "not-so-moderate" moderate Republicans? They lost. John McCain, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush when he tried getting reelected (his "Read my lips" schpeel killed his candidacy, really...) all failed. When I look at past election results, I see that, for whatever reason, conservative Republicans with strong reputations to back them up do better than the "nice moderates" that tend to lose. I personally conclude that there is a "silent majority" of conservatives in America, both social and fiscal, who simply refuse to vote for soft moderate Republicans such as Romney and McCain, and then Democrats take the election.
But really, the demographic of the electorate is changing, and has changed in a significant way since then, that is what the republicans are now trying to get to grips with.
I'm sure that the hardcore conservative had a strong platform 15-20 years ago, but judging by the turn-out and general trends in the population of america, that platform is rapidly deteriorating, and has deteriorated to the point where the right now has to scramble to avoid future irrelevance.
I really don't think the far right has much of a future in coming elections, specifically the Tea Party and social conservatives will find themselves increasingly isolated as the current crop of 12-18 year olds reach maturity. As someone stated earlier in the thread, I think the time for a general and rather comprehensive attitude adjustment within the GOP has come.
|
Yes, please conservatives, resist the push towards the center, please do. This act of pretending that Reagan-Era conservatism still holds water amongst the national electorate will make 2016 oh so much easier for Democrats. Fortunately for the GOP, a lot of the visible Republican leadership post election has made it clear that they acknowledge the shift in demographics, unlike what y'all are offering up, and if this notion wins out the GOP has a much better chance in the coming elections.
|
On November 19 2012 02:05 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I get that our rhetoric has gotten stale, and I get that constantly crying wolf doesn't help, but it's hard to refrain from being a bit hyperbolic when half of what you say isn't hyperbolic at all. people think I'm exaggerating when I say youth unemployment in California is close to 50%, but it's actually true.
Stopped reading right there. Went to BLS for latest local unemployment data (2011).
http://www.bls.gov/lau/table14full11.pdf
35.2% unemployment rate for age 16-19, 17.6% for ages 20-24.
Are you using some alternate definition of "unemployment" that I'm not privy to? Please tell me you're not doing "100 minus employment" to calculate the unemployment rate ><
On a completely unrelated note that bears no insight into the state of the GOP at large, is this a "facts" problem, or a "messaging" problem?
|
So I was correct earlier.
The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right (may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening.
Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
When you have a two-party system, generally you have both parties having to pull towards the center. It's just how it is. Sure the ultra-conservative vote is lying dormant, but so is the ultra-socialist vote.
btw if this election's taught us anything, it's trust Nate Silver.
|
On November 19 2012 04:51 cLAN.Anax wrote:So I was correct earlier. The Republicans have to concede to the left, rather than both parties becoming more moderate, in order for the country to "move forward." If there's no difference between the Dems and Reps, and both candidates look like flippant moderates, then the conservative vote will simply lie dormant. Should a viable candidate spring up in 2016 or 2020 that appeals to the right ( may even be hoping for a third party candidate from, say, the Libertarian or Constitutional parties), I imagine many Democrats and liberals will be in for a rude awakening. Don't trust everything you see in the polls, on the news, or via the web. Some voices only speak on Election Day.
The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves.
|
On November 19 2012 04:57 farvacola wrote:
The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves.
Legalizing marijuana and same sex marriage didn't favor "big government". Quite the contrary, even if the majority of conservatives want government bans on both.
There's a lot of disillusioned libertarians out there that voted for Johnson. Look at TL, pretty much every self-identified "conservative" in this thread was more closely aligned to Johnson than Romney.
|
On November 19 2012 04:54 Souma wrote:
When you have a two-party system, generally you have both parties having to pull towards the center. It's just how it is. Sure the ultra-conservative vote is lying dormant, but so is the ultra-socialist vote.
btw if this election's taught us anything, it's trust Nate Silver.
Doubting the ultra-socialist vote is nearly as strong as the far right voter base. I'd imagine they've already fled the U.S. to more liberal-favoring countries like those in Europe, or Canada up north.
And it's not totally based in history. Like I said, I would have voted for Romney, if he had a more reliable record as a rightie.
|
On November 19 2012 04:59 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 04:57 farvacola wrote:
The problem is that you seem to be listening to everything but the voices of election day. Even if we are to widen our scope and go beyond the presidential election, "big government" state issues passed all over the country, hardline Republicans lost hard fought senate battles, and Democrats picked up far more House seats than the Republican redistricting should have allowed. There is literally nothing substantial that indicates some unpronounced libertarian/conservative population, and the results of the election speak for themselves. Marijuana and same sex marriage aren't big state issues. Quite the contrary.
I was referring to the various bond levies and tax hikes approved in states like California, Georgia, and Florida, in addition to state pension protections passed in Illinois. I had a list assembled of every state that passed a "big government" issue, I'll have to dig it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.pr0gramm.com/2012/11/8191317327-5180e95d98-c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7djI.png)
