• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Third Party RINOs Will Help TEA Party

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I’m sure you read the title of this blog and scratched your head. I assure you I am not crazy.

In 1992 and 1996 Republican candidates who leaned moderate were defeated by Bill Clinton. In neither election did Clinton get 50% of the popular vote. In fact, George W. Bush and Al Gore both came closer to 50% in 2000 than Clinton ever got. In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, Republicans were hijacked by the third party candidacy of Ross Perot. Perot was a spunky, debt-conscious candidate who predicted many of the troubles we face today. Though some conservatives would have preferred Perot to George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, it was from these elections that we had ingrained in our minds that a vote for a third party was a vote for the Democrat.

In 2006 the electorate shifted. We had RINO Republicans in office, who had easily ridden George W. Bush’s coat-tails and the architecture of Karl Rove. Conservatives did not like these RINOs and moderates couldn’t tell the RINOs from the Democrats and didn’t like our hundred billion dollar deficits. In 2006 conservatives stayed home. Or, in some cases, they voted for the third party candidate.

In this case, I am not talking about a conservative third party candidate, but I am talking about the 2006 re-election of Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut as an independent. Joe had lost to his radical leftist opponent Ned Lamont, and decided to leave the Democrat party and run on a third party ticket. In this race, moderate Republicans dumped their no-chance-in-hell (or any other blue state) candidate and voted with the moderate Lieberman. Lieberman won.

Lieberman’s victory against the radical wing of his party, assisted by moderate Republicans, has given hope to moderates everywhere. When Marco Rubio went from double digits behind Charlie Crist to the obvious winner, Crist dropped the Republican party and ran as a third party candidate. Rubio still leads him and his opponent by double digits in a state Democrats gave to Obama in 2008, and the other Senators are a true blue Democrat and a moderate Crist appointed Republican.

You can’t blame RINOs for being upset about their upset losses to TEA party candidates. Basically, they have been fired by the people in their party. They didn’t expect it; their bosses in the party kept telling them they were awesome. Crist will be giving up his Jim Greer expense account and his wife won’t be able to use tax dollars to go to Disney World or partying in NYC anymore. Murkowski won’t get the lobbyist attention anymore. Castle is left friendless and embarrassed in Delaware.

So what has changed since 1996? Now the moderate is the third party. Instead of the conservative vote being split between the candidate who can win and the candidate who we like, while the moderates and Democrats give the Democrat the victory, conservatives will be united against a candidates whose electorate will be split between radical Democrats and moderates. Did I mention that Rubio holds a double digit lead over Crist and Meek?

Gallup shows that conservatives make up the largest group percentage-wise in this country. They accounted for 40% back in 2009 when the deficit was only a trillion dollars and people still thought everything was Bush’s fault. Moderates accounted for 35% and liberals took 21%. That leaves “don’t knows” of 4%. When Republicans were acting like moderates (safe word for mildly liberal), Democrats won. Why not? It was 50% to 40%. Moderates looked at both parties, asked what’s the difference, and then voted for the party that wasn’t pretending to be something it’s not.

But split the liberal and moderate vote, and conservative TEA Party Republicans have a 5% advantage over their RINO opponents. Still think I’m crazy? The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll has Marco Rubio at 40%, Charlie Crist at 26% and Kendrick Meek at 21%. Sounds like Gallup got it about right.

So, Conservatives, call Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle and encourage them to start write-in campaigns. The moderates in this country need someone to vote for.

UPDATE: Since I first posted this on my wordpress blog, Rasmussen has come out with a new poll showing Miller at 42%, McAdams at 25%, and Murkowski's write-in campaign at 27%. Murkowski took 8 points from Miller and 19 from McAdams. If you go to Polls right now, I have a post titled Delaware Poll where you can vote between O'Donnell, Coons and a Castle write in campaign. Sofar, O'Donnell is running away with it.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,586
Reaction score
33,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Or if you want a decent poll of how the Delaware race is ACTUALLY going, rather than polling a non-Delaware based, decidedly conservative leaning forum...

Election 2010: Delaware Senate - Rasmussen Reports™
Coons earns 53% of the vote to O’Donnell’s 42%, with leaners included. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
And that's using Rasmussen!
 

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yeah, but Deuce, you are making my point for me. In a one on one race between very conservative O'Donnell and radically liberal Coons, Coons has an edge. Nobody is talking about how radical Coons is, like how he supports making all taxpayers fund partial birth abortions, but everyone is talking about how radical O'Donnell is, like that she doesn't believe in evolution and thinks masturbation is wrong (things that will never come up in a senate vote, whereas taxpayer funding for abortion has and will). But, when you introduce a "moderate" in the form of left leaning Republican Mike Castle, what happens to radical marxist Coons 53%? My guess is it goes to around 21%, Castle gets 30-35% and O'Donnell wins it with 40%.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, but Deuce, you are making my point for me. In a one on one race between very conservative O'Donnell and radically liberal Coons, Coons has an edge. Nobody is talking about how radical Coons is, like how he supports making all taxpayers fund partial birth abortions, but everyone is talking about how radical O'Donnell is, like that she doesn't believe in evolution and thinks masturbation is wrong (things that will never come up in a senate vote, whereas taxpayer funding for abortion has and will). But, when you introduce a "moderate" in the form of left leaning Republican Mike Castle, what happens to radical marxist Coons 53%? My guess is it goes to around 21%, Castle gets 30-35% and O'Donnell wins it with 40%.
Interesting concept.
The thought of Castle running as a write in has been irritating the hec out of me. Maybe I need to re-think that.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Let's just say the GOP has a mega win on 11/2 - like 35 House seats and all the winnable Senate seats are picked up including West Va. California & Connecticut - let's say Patty Murray in Washington alone survives. Obviosly McMahon & O'Donnell slide in based on Populist anger .

Well THEN Sarah Palin looks simply great . She will be seen in terms bordering on Joan of Orleans. Obama is left with his Veto (which he will use) and Pelosi with like a 7 seat edge. Loks Bad - Right (??)

I say - Barry quietly smiles because he knows that Palin as the 2012 GOP nominee is a Trainwreck on the way. Also speaking of back & forth momentum - What if She actuially becomes the First Female POTUS (??) Can you image the rebound from that for Democrats and their Allies.

These are very dangerous times, and while Sarah is no dunce - she's no stratigist. She is however filling up a few Banks.
 

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Ned, I don't think Palin will win the Republican primary, although she certainly is gaining momentum as a credible candidate. But if the FRC straw poll is any indicator, even fundi conservatives don't view her as a Presidential candidate, although she placed second as a vice-presidential candidate. More likely, I think we will see someone like Mike Pence or Haley Barbour. We will see a conservative Republican candidate who has a proven track record, has the values, and does not have baggage from facing the left's smear/attack machine in a previous election.
 

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ned, I don't think Palin will win the Republican primary, although she certainly is gaining momentum as a credible candidate. But if the FRC straw poll is any indicator, even fundi conservatives don't view her as a Presidential candidate, although she placed second as a vice-presidential candidate. More likely, I think we will see someone like Mike Pence or Haley Barbour. We will see a conservative Republican candidate who has a proven track record, has the values, and does not have baggage from facing the left's smear/attack machine in a previous election.
Herman Cain pretty much has thrown his hat in the ring. I'll vote for him over Palin.
I think the liberals just like keeping Palin out there as a scare tactic. "OOOhhh can you imagine idiot Sarah Palin as POTUS." You don't see them talking about the really viable candidates because they know we have quite a few of them.
 

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I like Cain, but I think he is tier two. If you go to whitehouse2012.wordpress.com, we have some good discussion of potential primary candidates.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,586
Reaction score
33,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, but Deuce, you are making my point for me. In a one on one race between very conservative O'Donnell and radically liberal Coons, Coons has an edge. Nobody is talking about how radical Coons is, like how he supports making all taxpayers fund partial birth abortions, but everyone is talking about how radical O'Donnell is, like that she doesn't believe in evolution and thinks masturbation is wrong (things that will never come up in a senate vote, whereas taxpayer funding for abortion has and will). But, when you introduce a "moderate" in the form of left leaning Republican Mike Castle, what happens to radical marxist Coons 53%? My guess is it goes to around 21%, Castle gets 30-35% and O'Donnell wins it with 40%.
On what do you base this idea that Castle running will make O'Donnel actually get more votes?

And where exactly do you get the idea that Coons is a "radical Marxist?" I'm not too familiar with the dude, not being from Delaware.

(i suspect you're just being blindly partisan)
 

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
On what do you base this idea that Castle running will make O'Donnel actually get more votes?

And where exactly do you get the idea that Coons is a "radical Marxist?" I'm not too familiar with the dude, not being from Delaware.

(i suspect you're just being blindly partisan)
Well, I didn't say if Castle ran that O'Donnell would get more votes. In fact, I said she'd get less. But I also said that Coons would get much less because all the moderates who know as much about him as you do will vote for Castle instead. Reread what I said.

As far as Coons being a radical marxist, well he said that about himself in a paper but I think he was being facetious. But if you look at his platform, he supports Obamacare, stimulus, and bailouts and he supports taxpayer funded partial birth abortion. He doesn't have a moderate bone in his body.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Palin is no long term stratigist. She is enjoying the moment , but might get caught in a momentum that leads to long term disaster for the GOP - if that is still possible in our society with minimal attention span.

My chief point is that Obama can win with say 50.7 % One on one Vote and like 290 Electoral Votes. He knows it and the ever rising Hispanic Vote is what they intend to hold onto . It's their Life preserver. If California was truly contestable for the GOP then it would be different - however Boxer has a 50/50 shot at reelection in 38 days. The fact that it could occur with this level of unemployment and her nasty abrasivenmess shows how polarized the State is AND that the Hispanoc Vote is there in BIG numbers and probably underestimated in polling.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,586
Reaction score
33,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, I didn't say if Castle ran that O'Donnell would get more votes. In fact, I said she'd get less. But I also said that Coons would get much less because all the moderates who know as much about him as you do will vote for Castle instead. Reread what I said.

As far as Coons being a radical marxist, well he said that about himself in a paper but I think he was being facetious. But if you look at his platform, he supports Obamacare, stimulus, and bailouts and he supports taxpayer funded partial birth abortion. He doesn't have a moderate bone in his body.
Marxism does not mean what you think it means.

Coons did not describe himself as a Marxist. His conservative friends called him that and they were joking.

As for the rest, maybe you're just so far to the right that you don't know what "moderate" means anymore...

Many of you conservatives these days are throwing around words like "socialism," "fascism," and "Marxism" while clearly not understanding what those words actually mean. It's almost like you're using them as a synonym for "bad." They're very specific political philosophies and in fact fascism is completely incompatible with socialism.

edit: And nowhere on Coons' platform was partial-birth abortion listed, so you're going to have to show me some evidence of that particular claim.
 
Last edited:

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Marxism does not mean what you think it means.

Coons did not describe himself as a Marxist. His conservative friends called him that and they were joking.

As for the rest, maybe you're just so far to the right that you don't know what "moderate" means anymore...

Many of you conservatives these days are throwing around words like "socialism," "fascism," and "Marxism" while clearly not understanding what those words actually mean. It's almost like you're using them as a synonym for "bad." They're very specific political philosophies and in fact fascism is completely incompatible with socialism.

edit: And nowhere on Coons' platform was partial-birth abortion listed, so you're going to have to show me some evidence of that particular claim.
Coons supports Roe v. Wade rights "before legislation and courts began eroding them". If he doesn't mean third trimester and partial birth abortions, then he really needs to clarify that point.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,586
Reaction score
33,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Coons supports Roe v. Wade rights "before legislation and courts began eroding them". If he doesn't mean third trimester and partial birth abortions, then he really needs to clarify that point.
I figured that is what you based that assumption on. There's a hundred different ways that various state legislatures have messed around with abortion laws, but you went ahead and assumed it was the one you personally found most abhorrent.

The bailouts, Obamacare, and the stimulus all had the effect of putting taxpayer dollars into the hands of private businesses. It's not socialism because that isn't what socialism means. Partisan, hyperbolic rhetoric is the real threat to America, if you ask me. President Obama put it really well in a speech a while back, saying that when you're calling your opponent The Devil you're leaving very little room to negotiate with them, and even trying means you now have to explain to your base why you're negotiating with The Devil.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I’m sure you read the title of this blog and scratched your head. I assure you I am not crazy.

In 1992 and 1996 Republican candidates who leaned moderate were defeated by Bill Clinton. In neither election did Clinton get 50% of the popular vote. In fact, George W. Bush and Al Gore both came closer to 50% in 2000 than Clinton ever got. In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, Republicans were hijacked by the third party candidacy of Ross Perot. Perot was a spunky, debt-conscious candidate who predicted many of the troubles we face today. Though some conservatives would have preferred Perot to George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, it was from these elections that we had ingrained in our minds that a vote for a third party was a vote for the Democrat.

In 2006 the electorate shifted. We had RINO Republicans in office, who had easily ridden George W. Bush’s coat-tails and the architecture of Karl Rove. Conservatives did not like these RINOs and moderates couldn’t tell the RINOs from the Democrats and didn’t like our hundred billion dollar deficits. In 2006 conservatives stayed home. Or, in some cases, they voted for the third party candidate.

In this case, I am not talking about a conservative third party candidate, but I am talking about the 2006 re-election of Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut as an independent. Joe had lost to his radical leftist opponent Ned Lamont, and decided to leave the Democrat party and run on a third party ticket. In this race, moderate Republicans dumped their no-chance-in-hell (or any other blue state) candidate and voted with the moderate Lieberman. Lieberman won.

Lieberman’s victory against the radical wing of his party, assisted by moderate Republicans, has given hope to moderates everywhere. When Marco Rubio went from double digits behind Charlie Crist to the obvious winner, Crist dropped the Republican party and ran as a third party candidate. Rubio still leads him and his opponent by double digits in a state Democrats gave to Obama in 2008, and the other Senators are a true blue Democrat and a moderate Crist appointed Republican.

You can’t blame RINOs for being upset about their upset losses to TEA party candidates. Basically, they have been fired by the people in their party. They didn’t expect it; their bosses in the party kept telling them they were awesome. Crist will be giving up his Jim Greer expense account and his wife won’t be able to use tax dollars to go to Disney World or partying in NYC anymore. Murkowski won’t get the lobbyist attention anymore. Castle is left friendless and embarrassed in Delaware.

So what has changed since 1996? Now the moderate is the third party. Instead of the conservative vote being split between the candidate who can win and the candidate who we like, while the moderates and Democrats give the Democrat the victory, conservatives will be united against a candidates whose electorate will be split between radical Democrats and moderates. Did I mention that Rubio holds a double digit lead over Crist and Meek?

Gallup shows that conservatives make up the largest group percentage-wise in this country. They accounted for 40% back in 2009 when the deficit was only a trillion dollars and people still thought everything was Bush’s fault. Moderates accounted for 35% and liberals took 21%. That leaves “don’t knows” of 4%. When Republicans were acting like moderates (safe word for mildly liberal), Democrats won. Why not? It was 50% to 40%. Moderates looked at both parties, asked what’s the difference, and then voted for the party that wasn’t pretending to be something it’s not.

But split the liberal and moderate vote, and conservative TEA Party Republicans have a 5% advantage over their RINO opponents. Still think I’m crazy? The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll has Marco Rubio at 40%, Charlie Crist at 26% and Kendrick Meek at 21%. Sounds like Gallup got it about right.

So, Conservatives, call Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle and encourage them to start write-in campaigns. The moderates in this country need someone to vote for.

UPDATE: Since I first posted this on my wordpress blog, Rasmussen has come out with a new poll showing Miller at 42%, McAdams at 25%, and Murkowski's write-in campaign at 27%. Murkowski took 8 points from Miller and 19 from McAdams. If you go to Polls right now, I have a post titled Delaware Poll where you can vote between O'Donnell, Coons and a Castle write in campaign. Sofar, O'Donnell is running away with it.
Your information is off, barely, but still off. In 1992, Clinton did win with less than 50% of the vote, but in 1996, he won with just barely a little over 50%..... Barely, but still over 50%.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I’m sure you read the title of this blog and scratched your head. I assure you I am not crazy.

In 1992 and 1996 Republican candidates who leaned moderate were defeated by Bill Clinton. In neither election did Clinton get 50% of the popular vote. In fact, George W. Bush and Al Gore both came closer to 50% in 2000 than Clinton ever got. In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, Republicans were hijacked by the third party candidacy of Ross Perot. Perot was a spunky, debt-conscious candidate who predicted many of the troubles we face today. Though some conservatives would have preferred Perot to George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, it was from these elections that we had ingrained in our minds that a vote for a third party was a vote for the Democrat.

In 2006 the electorate shifted. We had RINO Republicans in office, who had easily ridden George W. Bush’s coat-tails and the architecture of Karl Rove. Conservatives did not like these RINOs and moderates couldn’t tell the RINOs from the Democrats and didn’t like our hundred billion dollar deficits. In 2006 conservatives stayed home. Or, in some cases, they voted for the third party candidate.

In this case, I am not talking about a conservative third party candidate, but I am talking about the 2006 re-election of Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut as an independent. Joe had lost to his radical leftist opponent Ned Lamont, and decided to leave the Democrat party and run on a third party ticket. In this race, moderate Republicans dumped their no-chance-in-hell (or any other blue state) candidate and voted with the moderate Lieberman. Lieberman won.

Lieberman’s victory against the radical wing of his party, assisted by moderate Republicans, has given hope to moderates everywhere. When Marco Rubio went from double digits behind Charlie Crist to the obvious winner, Crist dropped the Republican party and ran as a third party candidate. Rubio still leads him and his opponent by double digits in a state Democrats gave to Obama in 2008, and the other Senators are a true blue Democrat and a moderate Crist appointed Republican.

You can’t blame RINOs for being upset about their upset losses to TEA party candidates. Basically, they have been fired by the people in their party. They didn’t expect it; their bosses in the party kept telling them they were awesome. Crist will be giving up his Jim Greer expense account and his wife won’t be able to use tax dollars to go to Disney World or partying in NYC anymore. Murkowski won’t get the lobbyist attention anymore. Castle is left friendless and embarrassed in Delaware.

So what has changed since 1996? Now the moderate is the third party. Instead of the conservative vote being split between the candidate who can win and the candidate who we like, while the moderates and Democrats give the Democrat the victory, conservatives will be united against a candidates whose electorate will be split between radical Democrats and moderates. Did I mention that Rubio holds a double digit lead over Crist and Meek?

Gallup shows that conservatives make up the largest group percentage-wise in this country. They accounted for 40% back in 2009 when the deficit was only a trillion dollars and people still thought everything was Bush’s fault. Moderates accounted for 35% and liberals took 21%. That leaves “don’t knows” of 4%. When Republicans were acting like moderates (safe word for mildly liberal), Democrats won. Why not? It was 50% to 40%. Moderates looked at both parties, asked what’s the difference, and then voted for the party that wasn’t pretending to be something it’s not.

But split the liberal and moderate vote, and conservative TEA Party Republicans have a 5% advantage over their RINO opponents. Still think I’m crazy? The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll has Marco Rubio at 40%, Charlie Crist at 26% and Kendrick Meek at 21%. Sounds like Gallup got it about right.

So, Conservatives, call Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle and encourage them to start write-in campaigns. The moderates in this country need someone to vote for.

UPDATE: Since I first posted this on my wordpress blog, Rasmussen has come out with a new poll showing Miller at 42%, McAdams at 25%, and Murkowski's write-in campaign at 27%. Murkowski took 8 points from Miller and 19 from McAdams. If you go to Polls right now, I have a post titled Delaware Poll where you can vote between O'Donnell, Coons and a Castle write in campaign. Sofar, O'Donnell is running away with it.
I would like to point out that just because a politician doesn't have the backing of either of the two major parties doesn't necessarily mean he has a moderate position on policies.
 
Top Bottom