How a Republican can -easily- win...

[Balog]

No no no NO damn it! Going weaksauce to try to appeal to Dems and the mythical independents is a death wish. McCain lost because he failed to get the people on his side excited, not because he failed to pander enough.

[makattak]

No no no NO damn it! Going weaksauce to try to appeal to Dems and the mythical independents is a death wish. McCain lost because he failed to get the people on his side excited, not because he failed to pander enough.

This too.

McCain only just barely got my vote. I wasn't really excited about voting for him, I swallowed my bile and did so.

McCain 2.0 (Or Dole 3.0, or GHWBush 4.0, whomever that may be, Romney is foremost in my mind) won't be getting my vote. Never again. (And if the party leaders knew how loyal a Republican I've been, they should be afraid.)

[charby]

Hey charby, Palin wants to stay in your hood for a few nights.

She is already here attending the Iowa State Fair.

[Perd Hapley]

Pandering to the base in this election cycle will be death.  The only way to get independants and (D)'s over is to talk about jobs, jobs, jobs.  On your second point, kind of.  I expect this election cycle to see the left trying to deflect the jobs discussion as much as possible and make it about gay marriage, etc.  

I don't know about that. That backfired on them in 2004, when social conservatives turned out in high numbers to vote for irrational marriage amendments, and against Kerry/Edwards. On the other hand, they may think they need to pander to their own base (not homosexuals, so much as irrationalists), by pushing the issue. Fortunately, irrational marriage mostly sells to judges; the electorate tends to vote against it, when they won't vote on much of anything else.

You're cracking me up, though. You think that jobs, jobs, jobs is not pandering to the base; only responding sensibly to irrational marriage demands is pandering.  

But keep in mind, no one's saying the GOP should try to make this into the marriage election. We're just pointing out the fact borne out in past elections, that being squishy on social issues (when pressed) loses votes.


Edit: changed "bans" to "amendments." The amendments might ban the legal recognition of irrational marriages, but the word "ban" encourages the lie that irrational marriage is an individual rights issue.

[Jamisjockey]

I don't know about that. That backfired on them in 2004, when social conservatives turned out in high numbers to vote for irrational marriage amendments, and against Kerry/Edwards. On the other hand, they may think they need to pander to their own base (not homosexuals, so much as irrationalists), by pushing the issue. Fortunately, irrational marriage mostly sells to judges; the electorate tends to vote against it, when they won't vote on much of anything else.

You're cracking me up, though. You think that jobs, jobs, jobs is not pandering to the base; only responding sensibly to irrational marriage demands is pandering.  

But keep in mind, no one's saying the GOP should try to make this into the marriage election. We're just pointing out the fact borne out in past elections, that being squishy on social issues (when pressed) loses votes.


Edit: changed "bans" to "amendments." The amendments might ban the legal recognition of irrational marriages, but the word "ban" encourages the lie that irrational marriage is an individual rights issue.

My point is that being against gay marriage and saying the right thing at the prayer breakfasts isn't going to help the economy, balance the budget, get our credit rating back, cut government spending, keep taxes from being increased, etc.  It might help bring out the conservative base, but without independants and swing voting democraps, the election will be lost.  Those voters are going to be voting almost entirely on the economy this cycle.

[AZRedhawk44]

My point is that being against gay marriage and saying the right thing at the prayer breakfasts isn't going to help the economy, balance the budget, get our credit rating back, cut government spending, keep taxes from being increased, etc.  It might help bring out the conservative base, but without independants and swing voting democraps, the election will be lost.  Those voters are going to be voting almost entirely on the economy this cycle.

Indies and swing voters also see the issue in a 20th century "left/right" polarity, and a "centrist" that will appeal to them will be someone that just wants to fix the job and investment situation without going off the Neo-Con or fundie deep end.

And tying an economic candidate to a bunch of southern fundie melodrama is going to turn off the people that see politics as a two-axis system of not just left/right, but also freedom/statism.

We'll see what the policy-fusion results will be as the primaries unfold.

Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea Party^TM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.

[Jamisjockey]

Indies and swing voters also see the issue in a 20th century "left/right" polarity, and a "centrist" that will appeal to them will be someone that just wants to fix the job and investment situation without going off the Neo-Con or fundie deep end.

And tying an economic candidate to a bunch of southern fundie melodrama is going to turn off the people that see politics as a two-axis system of not just left/right, but also freedom/statism.

We'll see what the policy-fusion results will be as the primaries unfold.

Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea Party^TM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.

Sigworthy quote.


The GOP at its heart uses social conservatisim to snow the base, meanwhile spending like drunken sailors on payday, kowtowing to the demoncrats, and generally selling thier souls to make a buck.

[seeker_two]

Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea Party^TM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.

The GOP at its heart uses social conservatisim to snow the base, meanwhile spending like drunken sailors on payday, kowtowing to the demoncrats, and generally selling thier souls to make a buck.

Both quotes are sigworthy.....  

[roo_ster]

You are not going to see a fiscally conservative/economically rational candidate win without the social conservative vote.  Period. 

Give them the back of your hand and you'll be McCain in 2000.

Personally, I'm hoping to see a proper Tea PartyTM emerge with its own primary system and POTUS candidate, rather than piggy back on the putrifying painted whore's corpse that is the GOP.

All the laws & rules are stacked against displacing the two parties.  Best bet is to infiltrate the GOP, like many did in 2009-2010, but more so.

[seeker_two]

You are not going to see a fiscally conservative/economically rational candidate win without the social conservative vote.  Period. 

Give them the back of your hand and you'll be McCain in 2000.

What does being fiscally conservative/economically rational have to do with McCain?.....he wasn't any of that....

[henschman]

Obama is vulnerable to losing the votes of some anti-war democrats and independents, for escalating Afghanistan and getting us into another war in Libya over something that has nothing to do with us.  A Republican with a strong non-interventionist stance could win some of their votes.  The Neo-cons won't like it, but when the alternative is Obama, they will vote for the Republican whether they like it or not.  A candidate could get the votes of both independents and the socially liberal as well as limited government and socially conservative folks by taking a constitutionalist/10th amendment stance, saying that social issues need to be resolved on the state level rather than forced on everyone by the national government.  The candidate could say that while he has strong moral opinions against abortion and gay marriage, his adherence to the Constitution would prevent him from advocating laws addressing those issues on the national level.  

[MechAg94]

I think any Repub candidate can just pay a little attention to those social issues without making them central.  Every time they are brought up, just remind people that cutting spending and getting the economy back in shape will be the primary goals for the next 4 years.  

I think you also need to remember that many, if not most, of the independents are not politically between Repubs and Democrats, but likely just people fed up with both parties.  A Republican doesn't have to move to the left to get the independent vote.  

[Balog]

The myth that a candidate needs independents is poison. It's why tools like McCain and Romney do so well. Instead of voting for someone who represents actual conservative values, folks try to game the system and primary the most "electable" candidate, where electable is defined as squishy moderate.

Any attempt to actually reform fed.gov debt will be met by fierce opposition by from .gov employees protecting their jobs. And I include the parasites getting entitlements as fed.gov workers. Their job is to vote Dem, and they get paid in welfare.

[Matthew Carberry]

The President can do about jack concerning "social conservative" issues so why pander to either side?

Simply say that,

"Personally, based on my religious (or philosophical, or whatever) beliefs I feel x,y,and z are wrong but it is not the business under the Constitution of the President, or the Federal government for the most part, to make any rules, regulations or laws effecting them.

If there is a place for such legislation it is at the state level, if you wish to focus your energies on those subjects that is the proper place to do so.

This Presidential election is about getting the Federal government back to performing its limited Constitutional duties in a fiscally and morally responsible manner.  I will be focussing my energies on that larger purpose."

italics indicate spoken emphasis.

[RocketMan]

Obama is vulnerable to losing the votes of some anti-war democrats and independents...

A Republican candidate will never get any of those votes.  The folks on the left currently upset with Obama will never vote for a Republican.  To expend energies trying to get their votes is a complete waste, IMO.  They will hold their noses and vote for Obama just to vote against any Republican.  Their absolute hatred of Republicans will overcome any doubt or concerns about Obama.
A recognizable lefty third party candidate running (Ralph Nader for the umpteenth time) may siphon off some of the unhappy Democrat votes, but the Republican candidate will never receive a meaningful number of crossovers.

eta:  In my experience, most "independant" voters are typically lefties trying to claim some non-existant moral high ground by saying they actually think about the issues.  In the voting booth, they reach for the Democrat party lever.

[Matthew Carberry]

A Republican candidate will never get any of those votes.  The folks on the left currently upset with Obama will never vote for a Republican.  To expend energies trying to get their votes is a complete waste, IMO.  They will hold their noses and vote for Obama just to vote against any Republican.  Their absolute hatred of Republicans will overcome any doubt or concerns about Obama.
A recognizable lefty third party candidate running (Ralph Nader for the umpteenth time) may siphon off some of the unhappy Democrat votes, but the Republican candidate will never receive a meaningful number of crossovers.

Not all "anti-war" Dems are lockstep lefties.  By definition anti-war independents aren't either.  Many are just as single-issue on that and moderate-ish on other stuff as gun owners are.  Everyone is scared about the economy however.

If you can avoid scaring them with "OMG theocracy" and state a position on war that is not actively interventionist and the economy that is principled, many are likely ripe for the picking.

Few people in this country are "liberals", most just want to be left alone by the government in their social activities.  Very libertarian in that way.

[seeker_two]

A Republican candidate will never get any of those votes.  

Doesn't matter....as long as Obama doesn't get those votes, the GOP candidate has a shot....


....unless the GOP pulls another Dole/McCain RHINO our of their elephantine butt and snatches defeat from the jaws of victory....

[Balog]

Anyone worried about a theocracy is so laughably far off base worrying about them is like worrying about the opinions of 9/11 troofers.

The fact that lefties keep trying to use .gov force to compel Americans to accept moral decisions they disagree with and then spin conservatives defending against this as theocratic fundamentalists is truly one of the greatest double speak propaganda victories ever.

[Matthew Carberry]

Anyone worried about a theocracy is so laughably far off base worrying about them is like worrying about the opinions of 9/11 troofers.

The fact that lefties keep trying to use .gov force to compel Americans to accept moral decisions they disagree with and then spin conservatives defending against this as theocratic fundamentalists is truly one of the greatest double speak propaganda victories ever.

That was hyperbole.

The majority of Americans just do not support Federal intervention into morality issues.  What is more important, it is not the F-ing Federal government's job to so intervene.  Full Stop.

Do what you want on the state level and advocate, via electing Congressmen, to change Federal laws, perhaps even the Connie via amendments. 

The Pres should not be involved in any of that. Full stop.

Concerned about schools teaching stuff you don't agree with? The solution isn't Federal "morality rules", it's getting the Feds out of Education entirely.

Proper limited government policies will by definition accomplish all that social conservatives can legitimately want in our pluralistic Republic based on individual rights.

By making the argument about their various pet issues they get people to act against those legitimate limited government goals.  It's short-sighted and frankly stupid.

[Balog]

What "morality" issues are you talking about? Gay "marriage" is a lefty issue conservatives are defending against. Intelligent design vs evolution in schools is not something I have heard the candidates address. And abortion (for those on the pro-life side) is not a morality issue, it's a human rights issue. If Arkansas decided black folks could be hunted for sport, that is not a states right issue and fed.gov is right in stepping in to prevent genocide. And fed.gov created the mess where slaughtering the unborn is legal and even federally funded, so they can damn well fix the problem they created.

I'm left wondering what issue you think the socially conservative are frothing at the mouth to impose their will about?

[Matthew Carberry]

Marriage is properly a state issue.  However part of being in the Union is "full faith and credit", that is a trade-off of the Republic.  Don't like gay marriage?  Don't gay marry.  Worried about economic effects?  Get the Federal government out of the "promoting marriage" business, whether via tax benefits or whatever, entirely.

Abortion is homicide plain and simple, whether justifiable, excusable, negligent or some flavor of actively criminal.  Homicide is a state issue.  There should not have been a Federal nexus in the first place.  However, the President cannot overturn Roe v. Wade through his own power and two wrongs (making it a requirement for USSC appointees) don't make a right.  Want to get rid of Roe v. Wade? Get enough people in our pluralistic society to amend the Connie.

[Balog]

All properly libertarian party line answers. Since that party has demonstrated it is an utter failure at getting enough votes to matter, how about we concentrate on winning an election and fixing the country instead of throwing a hissy fit that no Republican party candidate conforms to the Libertarian party platform?

[Matthew Carberry]

All properly libertarian party line answers. Since that party has demonstrated it is an utter failure at getting enough votes to matter, how about we concentrate on winning an election and fixing the country instead of throwing a hissy fit that no Republican party candidate conforms to the Libertarian party platform?

Strawman.

What I put down is all "small-l" libertarian if "libertarian" at all and limited to those narrow positions that actively cost votes among the non-Republican Party faithful.  

I'm not saying run as a gold bug, open-border, isolationist (which are the "L"ibertarian positions that don't get traction with the uncaring middle) but as an actual, limited government, Constitution as written, Republican.

Why would a doctrinaire Repub, not a social conservative single(moralist)-issue tag-along but a limited-government Republican, have real heartburn with any of that?

After all, they can push for more if they want to (and can demonstrate the numbers) after we win teh frikkin' election.

All that kind of statement can do is increase the voter base.

[Perd Hapley]

And tying an economic candidate to a bunch of southern fundie melodrama is going to turn off the people that see politics as a two-axis system of not just left/right, but also freedom/statism.

No one's calling for anything like that. The OP is calling for GOP candidates to tell half of their own party not to vote for them, right up front. This silly, tired notion is based on the idea that some great mass of independents and libertarians are going to flock to the GOP, and that this is worth the loss of a few bitterly clinging religionists out on the fringe. The problem with this, is that it doesn't reflect the reality of the political landscape, and it doesn't work. The GOP cannot win by alienating a massive chunk of those who favor small government, and are already predisposed to vote for the GOP. That strategy will lose elections. Like Balog said, you're simply calling for a RINO candidate who will fare no better than McCain did in 2008.

Damn your own people, and be not surprised when you lose on election day. Expel the social conservatives from the Tea Party, and see what a meager handful you have left.

No one wants to put the social issues on the back burner more than the social conservatives. Nearly everything we do (on the social front) is a rear-guard action against a left that keeps misusing government. Regardless of all that, however, you will never save the nation economically without us. Without us, you will have no firearms. You will have very little freedom to do much of anything at all.

The GOP at its heart uses social conservatisim to snow the base, meanwhile spending like drunken sailors on payday, kowtowing to the demoncrats, and generally selling thier souls to make a buck.

I'm not disagreeing with that.

[Matthew Carberry]

Fistful,

I disagree.
And I take issue with the claim that...

Gun rights are dependent on supporting abortion bans that simply cannot happen in today's society at a national level, even among Republicans?

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35819

That's the minority holding the majority in the Republican Party hostage to a losing hand that, by definition, violates the entire principle of limited government (in my opinion).

edited because I was way too much of a "jerk" (modified for family friendly) in my initial response.  I apologize for the tone to all involved in this thread. There's no excuse.