Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Conservative Analysis: "True conservative" candidates would win more elections

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    4,369


    Default Conservative Analysis: "True conservative" candidates would win more elections

    You've probably heard many conservative talking heads and tea partiers insist that if the GOP would run far right conservative candidates, they would energize their base and win elections.

    I've always thought of this as bullshit. I'm not sure I believe that the GOP is losing the votes of those on the right because their candidates are too moderate. These people would likely just vote for what they consider to be the lesser of the evils (in this case, the moderate republican). It might affect the turnout of those who lean conservative, but I don't think by much. Furthermore, it's not like the GOP doesn't have election strategists who would jump on any chance they get to win more elections. If this proposed strategy of running more conservative candidates was legit, I think the GOP strategists would embrace it.

    Regardless of your political views, do you think this strategy could be successful?
    When they said "sit down", I stood up.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    626


    Default

    Christie's the only dude that has a hint of a chance, if Hillary's actually running.

    And that's fine. He's the only common-sense works-across-party-lines guy (of either party, really), and that's all people are going to give a shit about, jobs and bipartisanship and ending the bullshit. No way Paul or Cruz or whoever else makes it, once they're out of the primary. Republicans should just want to win at this point, run an "anyone but Hillary" campaign, only way they get it. Go with a tea party candidate, have a democrat president. Way it is. They've gotta get into a headspace where they prefer Christie to the alternative.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,927


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bighead384 View Post
    These people would likely just vote for what they consider to be the lesser of the evils (in this case, the moderate republican).
    You've basically got it there.

    To win you want to be slightly left or slightly right. You'll get the votes of the moderates and some of the extremist vote simply because they have no better option to vote for. The rest of the extremists just won't vote at all or they'll vote for some party that has no hope of ever winning. Point is, you'll maximize your votes and minimize the effect of those who don't vote for you, thereby maximising your odds of success.

    It creates the kind of two party system we see in the US where neither party really differs substantially because they both play it as close to the center as possible. This results in huge numbers of people becoming dissatisfied with the system and disillusioned with democracy in general. If you accept the idea that under democracy the people get exactly the kind of government they deserve then you end up disillusioned with the whole damn human race. Or, then again, you could use it to argue how comfortable and therefore good Western life has become since extremism always becomes more popular when people are miserable.
    Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,053


    Default

    A lot of people seem to think that Romney and McCain had much better chances before their running mates were selected. Both of them (McCain more so than Romney) are a bit more toward the middle if we're comparing Democrats and Republicans, but their running mates were way far to the right. I guess the GOP thought far-right running mates would attract far-right voters, but since those folks were put off enough by having a moderate candidate, they didn't vote anyway. And in the mean time, they lost a bunch of middle-ground voters who were leaning toward McCain/Romney. I actually think nowadays that a Democrat could get in by being more liberal than a Republican could be conservative, if that makes sense. I think someone considerably more liberal than Obama could win an election than someone like Perry or Bachmann. Maybe I'm just too optimistic, though. :P
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    626


    Default

    Romney was pretty damn center. McCain is too, I'm not sure you can really put one over the other, though. Romney didn't lose because he was too right, he lost because he was painted (rightly or wrongly, though probably moreso than the reality actually was) as the heartless Robocop-Bad-Guy rich dude.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,927


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
    heartless Robocop-Bad-Guy rich dude.
    I didn't actually follow that campaign at all but it generally irritates me whenever a presidential candidate's wealth is brought up. I mean, they're all rich dudes. You can't run for president without being a rich dude. Let's not pretend that just any regular citizen actually has a chance of being president. You cannot get there without wealth. It just doesn't happen.
    Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    626


    Default

    Well, obviously there are different degrees of it and all. Obama was comparatively pretty modestly-wealthy compared to the Bushes or Romneys or whatever.

    But yeah, nobody bitches about Kerry being worth a few gazillion (more than Romney). At least you can make an argument for Romney at least partially earning it, or at least going a way to substantiate it and build upon it. Kerry inherited it all through marriage, but nobody really minded.

    I mean, I didn't particularly like Romney or anything, but I do feel he kind of got a bad deal, painted maybe a little inaccurately. But that's politics I guess.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,927


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
    Obama was comparatively pretty modestly-wealthy compared to the Bushes or Romneys or whatever.
    Oh, certainly. Which is why it was always funny when Bush was portrayed as more of an everyman regular Joe figure. But they're all on the same side of the fence and it's weird how many people don't recognize that.

    I think somehow the fact that Kerry married in to insane wealth was the most endearing thing about him. I have no idea why. Just this weird feeling.
    Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    626


    Default

    It's kind of a point, though, democratic guy marries into Scrooge money, and it's cool, but a republican with a stash of cash through a mix of inheritance and genuinely making it himself is inevitably going to be labelled Mr Burns, y'know?

    Equally sickeningly rich, but only one side of politics is going to pay the price for that. People didn't really give a shit about Kennedy's background, either, but anyone from the Bush clan is a no-good moneybags.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,927


    Default

    While everyone on the left gets portrayed as overeducated elitist snobs.

    Like you said before, that's politics I guess.
    Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •