Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But he's not extreme enough for the tea partiers. I've noticed that any candidate the tea party is for comes across as a gay-hating lunatic. And that doesn't attract the independent voters at all. The Republicans are finding out that they won't win many elections by playing to their old, bigoted base - at least not at the national level.
If they run a reasonable, more moderate candidate, they lose the tea party/social and religious extremist vote. If they run a tea party nut, they lose the independent vote. Either way, they lose
Welcome home, Hillary. Welcome home!
I see, so to oppose a "traditional" marriage for gays while being ok with a civil union makes one a gay hater? It's all or nothing at all with liberals? Nothing that the Teaparty as an organization is extreme in regards to the issues we are faced with today. Not even on social issues, IMO.
Here's the extremes which most liberals adhere to:
1. Demanding a "traditional" marriage between same sex couples. WTH?
2. Ok, with mothers killing their unborn aka abortion.
3. Ok, with giving illegal aliens amnesty even though we have 23 million Americans out of work and a shortage of natural and social resources with an uncontrolled population growth from illegal immigration.
These are only a few of the extremes that liberals think is normal. I am sure there are plenty more I could bring up.
I seriously doubt that Hillary will run and if she does I doubt that she will win.
I oppose abortion except in cases where it may be needed for medical reasons or as a result of sexual assault, but I also recognize that abortion is here to stay and it's not going to go away. In regards to gay marriage, I am a bit more ambivalent on this issue but I lean against it. Guess what? Like abortion it is here to stay, it's not going away. Within a decade gay marriage will be the law of the land in every state and territory in the Union.
We might as well accept the fact that we have lost the "morals war" and move on. It's time to focus on expanding our big tent, right wing coalition instead of making it smaller and smaller by pandering solely to old White people who live in the Deep South and rural western states.
It's your kind of defeatist attitude that is bringing this country down. This country is worth fighting for and only a coward would not. Nothing is set in stone with the fighting American Spirit. Sorry you don't have it.
Adrian, I agree. I am left of center, and Kucinich was my first choice for president in 2004. That said, I had to take a strategic approach because I REALLY wanted Bush gone, so I ended up backing Kerry. These Teajahdists are fooling themselves in thinking there is a ground swell of support for extreme right wing candidates. Nope -- there's not.
I may not agree with the rhetoric but I think the problem to me is that there is an echo chamber with conservatism that causes a confirmation bias that they think that there's a lot of people who believe in ideals of the tea party, constitutional, conservative ideals or even libertarian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006
I couldent have said it better, I agree 110% I wish the Republican Party had more people like you and me who can be the voice of moderation and centrism. We need to drop the social issues and the no compromise purity of the Tea Party.
I do too but it seems fruitless until we hit bottom and the republicans rebrand or a new party replaces what the Rockefeller Republicans, even Nixonan Republicans stood for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
The real question should be whether the Tea Party helps or hurts the GOP win presidential elections. The OP made the argument that there are disaffected conservatives who are not voting because the GOP nominates moderates instead of true conservatives. The problem with that argument is since we elect President's based on electoral rather than popular votes, those missing conservative voters have to be located in competitive states for the strategy to work. Ted Cruz, for example, may attract more voters that normally don't vote in Texas, or Oklahoma or Alabama, but can he expand the map beyond the traditional Red states? By playing the "missing conservatives" strategy, the GOP would be betting that a more conservative candidate would be more likely to win in North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania and/or possibly Wisconsin, because those are the state's most likely to fall the Republicans way. Increasing your margin in Texas isn't going to make a difference.
This is the problem I see. There are unsure amounts of conservatives that may show up for the non-traditional conservative/republican strongholds. We have to worry about the national vote and not increasing the margin of victory in red states. The margin of victory don't matter so long as you have the majority of the votes.
I seriously doubt that Hillary will run and if she does I doubt that she will win.
Well, well, well ... we finally agree on something!
I am amazed by all these people who are so convinced that Hillary is the next president. I cannot wait to see the looks on their faces when she announces that she is retiring from politics and is foregoing a presidential bid in 2016.
I may not agree with the rhetoric but I think the problem to me is that there is an echo chamber with conservatism that causes a confirmation bias that they think that there's a lot of people who believe in ideals of the tea party, constitutional, conservative ideals or even libertarian.
I do too but it seems fruitless until we hit bottom and the republicans rebrand or a new party replaces what the Rockefeller Republicans, even Nixonan Republicans stood for.
This is the problem I see. There are unsure amounts of conservatives that may show up for the non-traditional conservative/republican strongholds. We have to worry about the national vote and not increasing the margin of victory in red states. The margin of victory don't matter so long as you have the majority of the votes.
As an Idaho Democrat, I've never voted a straight ticket in my life. there have been many times when my choice has been restricted to one Republican or another Republican in the primaries, so I'm a registered Republican here. But more importantly, there have been many Republicans in the election I honestly believed were a better choice for me than his Democratic opponent.
Idaho is about as conservative as it gets. All shades of conservatism exist here, including in our Democrats. We here have seen the big split in the state GOP that sprung up in 2010, and the established old-style conservatives who are moderate enough to serve us all, no matter what our beliefs are or what party we belong to, still hold the majority of our state and national offices.
The problem you may not see, mkpunk, is the possibility that the Republican party may now have all the conservative voters you will ever get. There may be no more who will go out and vote.
This happened in last year's elections. Traditionally, Idaho voters always turn out in high numbers, with relatively little decrease in off-year elections, but 2014 was one of the lowest turnouts ever. After a challenge from a strong Tea Party state senator, who ran against our incumbent GOP governor failed, a lot of the tea party voters stayed home and didn't vote as a way of protesting.
But not voting doesn't ever send any message at all. Potential voters who are indifferent to politics in general may feel just as strongly about social issues as committed voters, but those issues have never been sufficient by themselves to the the motivation to go register and vote. They'll argue those issues with friends and neighbors, and down in the local diner, but they won't go register and won't go stand in line when it counts.
Nixon was a big risk for the GOP, as he was a very divisive person, but once elected, his Congressional skills enabled him to get things done. Reagan was a once-in-a-blue-moon candidate whose personal charm and charisma is never common stock in politicians, just as Obama was.
People like them are seldom the choices voters are given, and trying to find one on a regular basis is a lot like buying a lottery ticket and coming up with a winner. Like lightning, these people don't strike when expected or where expected. And even the most charming candidate has to have enough substance to make voters assured they're making a pretty safe bet when they vote for the guy.
And the undecided voters need to have more assurance their boat isn't going to be tossed around in the political seas more than the committed voters. That bunch wants smooth sailing and a steady course. A radical to them may not be seen as extreme to a committed, habitual voter, especially the voters who are most partisan.
A presidential election is like no other. The winner always came the closest to what the majority of the voters wanted when they were elected, and those wants continually change. Moderation is the only way they win, because most voters do not want sudden radical change, even though they sometimes get it. Voters don't have many ways of expressing their wants and desires except through the ballot box, and what goes into the ballot box can always be disputed as to the voter's intentions, but the results are always quite clear.
Extremists do not win. Moderates win, and what defines 'moderate' all depends on the conditions and problems of the present. If it was otherwise, we would have recently seen Ralph Nader or Ron Paul become the President. (Or others- there are always enough extremists to go around in both parties.)
I see, so to oppose a "traditional" marriage for gays while being ok with a civil union makes one a gay hater?
It's separate but equal 2015. Personally, I'd love to see ALL marriage be called civil unions in a legal sense rather than married or rename marriage by law to secular marriage. What's good for one, is good for all or it's good for no one.
Quote:
It's all or nothing at all with liberals? Nothing that the Teaparty as an organization is extreme in regards to the issues we are faced with today. Not even on social issues, IMO.
Here's the extremes which most liberals adhere to:
1. Demanding a "traditional" marriage between same sex couples. WTH?
2. Ok, with mothers killing their unborn aka abortion.
3. Ok, with giving illegal aliens amnesty even though we have 23 million Americans out of work and a shortage of natural and social resources with an uncontrolled population growth from illegal immigration.
These are only a few of the extremes that liberals think is normal. I am sure there are plenty more I could bring up.
These maybe extreme but as someone who is supporting conservatives that want prayer in school (not everyone is Christian and some may be in fact agnostic or even atheist,) limiting abortion (which can bring more kids who would need welfare to cover their bring up either in the system or from poor parents) and repealing of the fourteenth (equal protection,) sixteenth (income tax,) and seventeenth (election of senators) amendments.
I don't know about you but school prayer is a problem because we have separation of church and state and the ability to practice one's religion or not to practice any, equal protection returns us to separate but equal which is fairly similar to what I say about gay marriage being limited to "civil unions" and the repeal of the seventeenth amendment will allow for local special interests, even national interests to be in office without a time limit nor a term limit and the only true voice the people have in congress is their representative.
As an Idaho Democrat, I've never voted a straight ticket in my life. there have been many times when my choice has been restricted to one Republican or another Republican in the primaries, so I'm a registered Republican here. But more importantly, there have been many Republicans in the election I honestly believed were a better choice for me than his Democratic opponent.
Idaho is about as conservative as it gets. All shades of conservatism exist here, including in our Democrats. We here have seen the big split in the state GOP that sprung up in 2010, and the established old-style conservatives who are moderate enough to serve us all, no matter what our beliefs are or what party we belong to, still hold the majority of our state and national offices.
The problem you may not see, mkpunk, is the possibility that the Republican party may now have all the conservative voters you will ever get. There may be no more who will go out and vote.
This happened in last year's elections. Traditionally, Idaho voters always turn out in high numbers, with relatively little decrease in off-year elections, but 2014 was one of the lowest turnouts ever. After a challenge from a strong Tea Party state senator, who ran against our incumbent GOP governor failed, a lot of the tea party voters stayed home and didn't vote as a way of protesting.
But not voting doesn't ever send any message at all. Potential voters who are indifferent to politics in general may feel just as strongly about social issues as committed voters, but those issues have never been sufficient by themselves to the the motivation to go register and vote. They'll argue those issues with friends and neighbors, and down in the local diner, but they won't go register and won't go stand in line when it counts.
Nixon was a big risk for the GOP, as he was a very divisive person, but once elected, his Congressional skills enabled him to get things done. Reagan was a once-in-a-blue-moon candidate whose personal charm and charisma is never common stock in politicians, just as Obama was.
People like them are seldom the choices voters are given, and trying to find one on a regular basis is a lot like buying a lottery ticket and coming up with a winner. Like lightning, these people don't strike when expected or where expected. And even the most charming candidate has to have enough substance to make voters assured they're making a pretty safe bet when they vote for the guy.
And the undecided voters need to have more assurance their boat isn't going to be tossed around in the political seas more than the committed voters. That bunch wants smooth sailing and a steady course. A radical to them may not be seen as extreme to a committed, habitual voter, especially the voters who are most partisan.
A presidential election is like no other. The winner always came the closest to what the majority of the voters wanted when they were elected, and those wants continually change. Moderation is the only way they win, because most voters do not want sudden radical change, even though they sometimes get it. Voters don't have many ways of expressing their wants and desires except through the ballot box, and what goes into the ballot box can always be disputed as to the voter's intentions, but the results are always quite clear.
Extremists do not win. Moderates win, and what defines 'moderate' all depends on the conditions and problems of the present. If it was otherwise, we would have recently seen Ralph Nader or Ron Paul become the President. (Or others- there are always enough extremists to go around in both parties.)
The bold is something that I've thought about. I imagine there are some non-republican conservatives but perhaps not enough to win enough states en route to an electoral victory.
I do think the stay-at-home vote don't work and is at best a zero-sum game as you either see a moderate win or in the worst case scenario help the Democrats win. I don't know where some of these stay-at-home voters on here live but if they lived in say Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin in 2012, we wouldn't see an Obama white house right now as Romney would have 286 while Obama would have 252. I don't know what is worse, having a person who you don't want in office that kind of sort of aligns with your political view, or someone that you claim is an anti-Christ Muslim...
It's separate but equal 2015. Personally, I'd love to see ALL marriage be called civil unions in a legal sense rather than married or rename marriage by law to secular marriage. What's good for one, is good for all or it's good for no one.
These maybe extreme but as someone who is supporting conservatives that want prayer in school (not everyone is Christian and some may be in fact agnostic or even atheist,) limiting abortion (which can bring more kids who would need welfare to cover their bring up either in the system or from poor parents) and repealing of the fourteenth (equal protection,) sixteenth (income tax,) and seventeenth (election of senators) amendments.
I don't know about you but school prayer is a problem because we have separation of church and state and the ability to practice one's religion or not to practice any, equal protection returns us to separate but equal which is fairly similar to what I say about gay marriage being limited to "civil unions" and the repeal of the seventeenth amendment will allow for local special interests, even national interests to be in office without a time limit nor a term limit and the only true voice the people have in congress is their representative.
We've had prayer in our schools in the past. But in today's PC world suddenly it is offensive to some. Well no one is demanding that they participate. It's even offensive to salute our flag in school now. Funny how these same liberals that complain about it don't dare say anything when Muslims are allowed to have their prayer sessions several times a day in some of our schools. Libs have made sure that there are no symbols of the Christian holiday of Christmas also unless it is on private property. Oh, and don't dare say Merry Christmas it has to be Happy Holidays.
A life is a life. They shouldn't be looked upon as mere welfare receivers and killed because they have poor parents. Parents just need to start acting more responsibly like using birth control if they can't afford to support a kid.
We've had prayer in our schools in the past. But in today's PC world suddenly it is offensive to some. Well no one is demanding that they participate. It's even offensive to salute our flag in school now. Funny how these same liberals that complain about it don't dare say anything when Muslims are allowed to have their prayer sessions several times a day in some of our schools. Libs have made sure that there are no symbols of the Christian holiday of Christmas also unless it is on private property. Oh, and don't dare say Merry Christmas it has to be Happy Holidays.
A life is a life. They shouldn't be looked upon as mere welfare receivers and killed because they have poor parents. Parents just need to start acting more responsibly like using birth control if they can't afford to support a kid.
I saluted the flag because I am an Eagle Scout. Don't take my "PC" awareness of other religions for being strictly liberal. I didn't get why some scouts and some students in my classes didn't respect the pledge or those that don't respect national anthems, even those that aren't ours (I'm looking at you people who laugh at the Canadian national anthem at hockey games.) I don't mind saying Happy Holidays because it is a catchall for every religious and secular holidays.
What my problem is with school prayer is it shouldn't be lead. As an acting senior patrol leader in a more religious troop, it was awkward for me to lead prayer before trips. Not because I wasn't but, I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. I do believe in God but that's between me and Him. I do bow my head during NASCAR invocations too but I don't want to be told you have to prayer for this. Prayer is supposed to be individualized. If you want to pray to Cthulhu that's on you, if you talk to Mohammad and Allah that's fine too, if you pray to just J-D that is good with me but you can't tell anyone they have to pray "in Jesus' name amen."
According to a study by the New York Times, 3 out of 4 self-identifying Tea Partiers were 45 or older (so 1 out of 4, are presumably under that.) The other thing was 29% overall, were 65 and older. In other notes, the male/female spread was fairly close with 59% being male and 41% being female. Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe - CBS News The Wikipedia entry for the Tea Party Movement has several citations that the Tea Party supporters tend more likely than Americans overall to be white, male, married, older than 45, regularly attending religious services, conservative, and to be more wealthy and have more education.
As for the point paradiseca makes, it is common theory that most Tea Partiers claim to be against welfare but do take some form of it. With it being a larger percentage that is 65 or over than under 24, it is something to think about.
The NYT has no clue what the Tea Party is either. Still 9 years after Ron Pauls tea party the Progressives are clueless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wish the Republican Party had more people like you and me who can be the voice of moderation and centrism. We need to drop the social issues and the no compromise purity of the Tea Party.
I don't know what is worse, having a person who you don't want in office that kind of sort of aligns with your political view, or someone that you claim is an anti-Christ Muslim...
