|
|
Post by Yoda on May 24, 2011 3:57:07 GMT -8
So name a Republican candidate who is conservative enough to get nominated yet moderate enough to get elected.
I'm pretty sure that the conservatives here live under the delusion that their candidates appeal to the nation at large and would oppose the nomination of anyone who might. And for that reason, few who might will even run as they can't be nominated.
Yoda out...
.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 24, 2011 8:48:39 GMT -8
So name a Republican candidate who is conservative enough to get nominated yet moderate enough to get elected. I'm pretty sure that the conservatives here live under the delusion that their candidates appeal to the nation at large and would oppose the nomination of anyone who might. And for that reason, few who might will even run as they can't be nominated. Yoda out... . You expose your bias blatantly on the leading question. I, for one am very conservative but very moderate in most views. I certainly think that libertarian conservatives are pretty moderate as well. Ronald Reagan would be considered moderate by many standards and his strength of character was that he wasn't spineless and stuck to his values and core beliefs. If by "moderate" you mean spineless, you may want to look towards left-leaning libertarians and democratics. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 24, 2011 9:00:24 GMT -8
You expose your bias blatantly on the leading question. I, for one am very conservative but very moderate in most views. I certainly think that libertarian conservatives are pretty moderate as well. Ronald Reagan would be considered moderate by many standards and his strength of character was that he wasn't spineless and stuck to his values and core beliefs. If by "moderate" you mean spineless, you may want to look towards left-leaning libertarians and democratics. Not pointing to you necessarily, but no extremist thinks he's an extremist. Left or right, they consider themselves to be correct thinkers, standing up to the <insert whomever you prefer to demonize -- such as liberals, the lame stream media or the christian right). The question isn't whether you or I think someone is too conservative to be electable, the question is what the middle 50% of the voting public think. And it is rare that either the far left or the far right ever appeals to them sufficiently to win an election. I think my question still stands as valid. Name a Republican Presidential candidate that is conservative enough to win the nomination yet who is moderate enough to win the general election. Yoda out... |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 24, 2011 9:09:54 GMT -8
You expose your bias blatantly on the leading question. I, for one am very conservative but very moderate in most views. I certainly think that libertarian conservatives are pretty moderate as well. Ronald Reagan would be considered moderate by many standards and his strength of character was that he wasn't spineless and stuck to his values and core beliefs. If by "moderate" you mean spineless, you may want to look towards left-leaning libertarians and democratics. Not pointing to you necessarily, but no extremist thinks he's an extremist. Left or right, they consider themselves to be correct thinkers, standing up to the <insert whomever you prefer to demonize -- such as liberals, the lame stream media or the christian right). The question isn't whether you or I think someone is too conservative to be electable, the question is what the middle 50% of the voting public think. And it is rare that either the far left or the far right ever appeals to them sufficiently to win an election. I think my question still stands as valid. Name a Republican Presidential candidate that is conservative enough to win the nomination yet who is moderate enough to win the general election. Yoda out... My point, confirmed. Conservatives aren't extremists, extremists are extremist. The point is that you have obviously bundled all conservatives into that camp when they aren't, which is my point. You have to properly define the box in which you want others to play. By essentially leading the questioning by placing all conservatives as unelectable extremists, your implication in the original psot, you are driving the answer. Frankly, it is way too early to start picking candidates, I want to see what they all say, over time and scrutiny. I am very comfortable in the issues I am familiar with but not those I am not. I like to hear the experts in those other fields pick at the prospective candidates and see how they respond. If my family had their way, Ronald Reagan would have never been a nominee due to electability, he proved them wrong and we were all blessed by his service. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 9:16:16 GMT -8
So name a Republican candidate who is conservative enough to get nominated yet moderate enough to get elected. I'm pretty sure that the conservatives here live under the delusion that their candidates appeal to the nation at large and would oppose the nomination of anyone who might. And for that reason, few who might will even run as they can't be nominated. Yoda out... . Which liberal appeals to "the nation at large"? I'll state it once again. The extreme left wing that currently controls the Democratic party is governing so far out of the mainstream that they have been resoundingly defeated in every national election since Barry took office. This is a trend which will not reverse itself without MAJOR economic improvement. Presidential elections aren't about appealing to the nation at large, they're about garnering sufficient electoral votes |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 24, 2011 9:31:30 GMT -8
Thanks afan, well said.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 24, 2011 9:54:05 GMT -8
So name a Republican candidate who is conservative enough to get nominated yet moderate enough to get elected. I'm pretty sure that the conservatives here live under the delusion that their candidates appeal to the nation at large and would oppose the nomination of anyone who might. And for that reason, few who might will even run as they can't be nominated. Yoda out... . Which liberal appeals to "the nation at large"? I'll state it once again. The extreme left wing that currently controls the Democratic party is governing so far out of the mainstream that they have been resoundingly defeated in every national election since Barry took office. This is a trend which will not reverse itself without MAJOR economic improvement. Presidential elections aren't about appealing to the nation at large, they're about garnering sufficient electoral votes I disagree. I think that Obama is not liberal enough. That is why he lost in the 2010 by elections. He ran on a platform of hope and change. What we got was GW Bush lite. We saw that in the health care reform bill. We liberals wanted a single payer system. What we got was the health insurance company full employment act. Disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 24, 2011 10:15:51 GMT -8
Which liberal appeals to "the nation at large"? I'll state it once again. The extreme left wing that currently controls the Democratic party is governing so far out of the mainstream that they have been resoundingly defeated in every national election since Barry took office. This is a trend which will not reverse itself without MAJOR economic improvement. Presidential elections aren't about appealing to the nation at large, they're about garnering sufficient electoral votes I disagree. I think that Obama is not liberal enough. That is why he lost in the 2010 by elections. He ran on a platform of hope and change. What we got was GW Bush lite. We saw that in the health care reform bill. We liberals wanted a single payer system. What we got was the health insurance company full employment act. Disappointing. I welcome the left to nominate someone farther to the left of Obama! It isn't that he is not left enough, he is plenty left in many things. What he is that you are probably actually disappointed with is that he is spineless and is a typical politician. He looks towards polls and other political assessments to make decisions other than doing what he strongly feels and then leads his constituency to his position. That is probably the disappointment you feel, even if you don't realize it! |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 24, 2011 12:06:29 GMT -8
Getting back to the basic question, the answer is yes. I think that Pawlenty and Romney are both capable of being nominated and elected. I'm not saying that their chances of winning are overwhelming, or even 50/50, for that matter.
2012 will be interesting. We have a President who is (so they say) popular personally but whose policies are largely unpopular. We have an economic situation that is very weak. Inflation could well take off, making further economic and employment gains very difficult. Under those circumstances, one would think that a normal incumbent President would be very vulnerable. The problem is that Obama is not a normal incumbent.
Somebody suggested that Barack Obama would not have won had he been (let's say) half Greek and half Italian. Many Americans cast their vote for Obama because they saw in his candidacy a chance to make history - - - the first (half) African elected to the country's highest office. In addition, Obama is young, and (again, so they say) charismatic, articulate, with the right kind of education. Perhaps most of all, the U.S. economy nearly collapsed a few weeks before the election, before which time the GOP was ahead slightly in the polls.
Obama has squandered much of his political capital by focusing on issues that were not uppermost in the minds of Americans. Obama's habit of bowing and apologizing for his country when visiting other countries has not helped, either. Perhaps worst, he has increased the U.S. national debt to a frightening level with questionable economic results.
However, Obama is still strong is many ways and will no doubt have the support of virtually the whole intellectual class and elite media. It's always tough to beat in incumbent in any case.
Now, what about the GOP. If they nominate Bachman, Palin, or Newt they will lose, no matter how bad things get (unless the economy absolutely collapses, with unemployment at 15% or more!). Pawlenty or Romney, provided that the country has decided that Obama has screwed the pooch, could win, but probably only if the economy has gotten worse. A possible scenario leading to a Republican victory could be one in which the electorate has decided to pick competence over charisma.
I can well imagine an election in which Obama wins with far fewer Electoral College votes than last time. Further, I can imagine a Congress narrowly controlled by the Republican in both Houses. That could all add up to a chilly four years in D.C.!
As I said , 2012 should be an interesting political year.
AzWm
PS: I should have mentioned Herman Cain, a man who has impressed me greatly. He is a very long shot to get nominated, but - - - GOD! - - - wouldn't that make for exciting debates!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 12:38:44 GMT -8
Which liberal appeals to "the nation at large"? I'll state it once again. The extreme left wing that currently controls the Democratic party is governing so far out of the mainstream that they have been resoundingly defeated in every national election since Barry took office. This is a trend which will not reverse itself without MAJOR economic improvement. Presidential elections aren't about appealing to the nation at large, they're about garnering sufficient electoral votes I disagree. I think that Obama is not liberal enough. That is why he lost in the 2010 by elections. He ran on a platform of hope and change. What we got was GW Bush lite. We saw that in the health care reform bill. We liberals wanted a single payer system. What we got was the health insurance company full employment act. Disappointing. And so they voted for Republicans? You lost because moderates want nothing to do with socialized medicine. Every poll, not just some polls, not just Fox news polls, EVERY poll, including the poll we like to call the election says that socialized medicine is wildly unpopular and radical. Every poll, not just some polls, not just Fox News polls says that 1.6 Trillion dollars in new Federal spending is reckless and dangerous. Every poll, not just some polls, not just Fox News polls say that Obama's handling of the economy has been dismal. The problem the liberals face this time around is that there's no cover for them. The have an actual record to defend and people are no longer buying the "Bush did it" line. They controlled the house, senate and the executive for two years and screwed everything up. Folks got a gander at what unfettered, unencumbered far left Liberalism looks like for the first time in generation or two and it scared the living crap out of them. These are problems the extreme left will have a difficult time over coming in the next year or so. You may get your radical lefty incumbent re-elected but it's a lock that the Senate will fall to the Republicans, you'll lose more house seats and more states will turn from Purple to Red. Just to maybe add some perspective to the budget issue: 1 million seconds = 11.6 days 1 billion seconds =31.7 years 1 trillion seconds = 31,709 years The Obama budget deficit is 1.6 Trillion dollars or : 50,735 years converted to seconds. The moderates are catching on. |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on May 24, 2011 12:53:06 GMT -8
The problem is the Republican Party is NOT one party, but two if not three distinct voting blocks - 1/3 Tea Party; 1/3 Libertarian; 1/3 old line moderate. Their problem in 2012 is finding one guy or gal who would appeal across that spectrum. Ain't gonna happen. To address the "socialized" medicine issue, let me ask you this conservatives, how do you think medical insurance works? This is how it works - it's a co-op. You enroll as many people as you can into a system and you spead the risk among the very young to the very old. You spread the risk and the cost and you hope for a little profit (in the case of corporate insurance companies, of course, profits are squeerzed out of the members by reducung benefits and disallowing care (pre-existing conditions, anyone?) How is "universal health care any different? It isn't, except for the profit part. It's absolutely amazing to me how presumed smart conservatives allow themselved to be duped by the insurance companies. Do you really think they care about YOUR welfare?  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 24, 2011 12:56:02 GMT -8
Many liberals stayed away from the polls altogether. Medicare is socialized medicine. Is it popular? Polls all seem to say "yes" by two thirds or more. Please explain that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 24, 2011 12:58:57 GMT -8
So name a Republican candidate who is conservative enough to get nominated yet moderate enough to get elected. I'm pretty sure that the conservatives here live under the delusion that their candidates appeal to the nation at large and would oppose the nomination of anyone who might. And for that reason, few who might will even run as they can't be nominated. Yoda out... Which liberal appeals to "the nation at large"? I'll state it once again. The extreme left wing that currently controls the Democratic party is governing so far out of the mainstream that they have been resoundingly defeated in every national election since Barry took office. This is a trend which will not reverse itself without MAJOR economic improvement. Presidential elections aren't about appealing to the nation at large, they're about garnering sufficient electoral votes I don't think an extreme liberal appeals to the middle any more than an extreme conservative does. I suppose you can be moderately liberal (which is what I would call Obama -- given that the left is as angry at him as the right is -- and you can be moderately conservative (as I thought McCain was). But neither the extreme left nor the extreme right appeals very much to the center. And that's my point. IMHO, the extreme right has taken over control of the Republican Party -- more so than the extreme left has taken over the Democrats. I suppose you could say that I'm looking for someone to identify a "conservative Obama" -- somebody who is far enough right to get the nomination but, like Obama, not so far to an extreme that he can't draw moderate voters. I just don't see anyone like that who is running on the right. Some of the economic conservatives might have a chance if they didn't have to adopt social conservative policy positions as well just to get the nomination. Because while there are a lot of economic conservatives in the middle, the very independence of the middle is revulsed by the social conservative's attempts to codify their religious beliefs. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 24, 2011 13:03:52 GMT -8
The problem is the Republican Party is NOT one party, but two if not three distinct voting blocks - 1/3 Tea Party; 1/3 Libertarian; 1/3 old line moderate. Their problem in 2012 is finding one guy or gal who would appeal across that spectrum. Ain't gonna happen. I would say, 1/3rd economic conservatives, 1/3rd social conservatives, and 1/3rd economic and social conservatives. There are a sprinkling of libertarians throughout all three categories. I think that most of the moderates have been driven off -- and I put myself in that category. Yoda out... . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 13:23:18 GMT -8
Many liberals stayed away from the polls altogether. Medicare is socialized medicine. Is it popular? Polls all seem to say "yes" by two thirds or more. Please explain that. Funny, you never see a poll asking Medicare recipients if they would rather have Medicare or private insurance. Care to guess what the result would be? Besides, government payments made on behalf of a beneficiary to a private entity that provides the actual care (subsidized by the privately insured) is NOT socialized medicine. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on May 24, 2011 13:32:52 GMT -8
Funny, you never see a poll asking Medicare recipients if they would rather have Medicare or private insurance. Care to guess what the result would be? Kind of depends upon how honestly the question was phrased. If it was, "assuming that the cost to you, and the coverage provided, was the same, which would you rather have...?", then I suspect that the private insurance would win out. If it was, "if medicare cost you $500 a month and private insurance cost you $700 a month, and assuming that the coverage provided was the same, which would you rather have?", then I suspect that the answer would be medicare. Now honestly, I don't know what the relative costs and provided coverages would be but I don't think you do either. Asking the question that you posed, without knowing how to phrase the question fairly, probably wouldn't get you a very reliable result. Yoda out... . |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 24, 2011 13:36:37 GMT -8
Come on Repubs! The only guy with the balls to answer the question was AW.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on May 24, 2011 14:56:53 GMT -8
Come on Repubs! The only guy with the balls to answer the question was AW. About this time of an election cycle, it always seems like the party out of power is in this situation. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 24, 2011 16:29:39 GMT -8
Come on Repubs! The only guy with the balls to answer the question was AW. Don't you think that this early in the election cycle that the basic question is very hard to answer. I would say, from my point of view, that most anyone could win should they win the nomination or they could lose in a landslide. Based on the last couple days and how Obama has further eroded part of his base by his stand on Israel, his chances have lessoned against any Republican. I would further say the Pawlenty just became a pretty viable candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 24, 2011 18:07:40 GMT -8
Come on Repubs! The only guy with the balls to answer the question was AW. I think I am very strong in my belief and I answered it the way I feel. Sorry if that doesn't fit your definition of "balls." |
|
