For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.
I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.
What do you think?
That's true. That wouldn't explain why Akin lost in Missouri, Mourdock in Indiana, Angle in Nevada, etc., though.Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.
For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.
I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.
What do you think?
Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.
For two consecutive elections now -- one in which Republicans won by large margins, and now one in which Democrats won despite the economy being heavily against them -- social issues seem to have cost Republicans major Senate seats in right-leaning states. The issue of abortion seems to be killing Republican candidacies. Gay marriage is turning a corner in popularity. And the demographics are shifting extremely quickly even further to the left.
I think it's usually a terrible idea to say "such and such an ideology is dead" after an election. These things have a tendency to turn around somehow or another. But it's hard to avoid the conclusion after the past four years that this country is shifting dramatically, social conservatism is no longer a winning ideology nationally, and it is unlikely to be one again for the foreseeable future.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Maybe some people considered the last two GOP presidential nominees to be too moderate.
Social conservatism will never die, because there will always be a societal status quo that some people will want to conserve.
What social conservatism MEANS, however, may change. But that would have been true without this election too.
Its an indication that republicans should quit nominating RINOs. They propped up a RINO named McCain in 2008 and lost.Then for some idiotic reason they decided to prop up a even bigger RINO named Romney in 2012 and lost. If the republicans actually care about winning then hopefully they don't pick another dirty liberal pretending to be a conservative in 2016.
Romney didn't lose because of Social Conservatism.
But I still think social conservatism is a losing tactic.
The world is moving on.
It's over.
You lost this battle of ideas long ago.
Whether you like it or not we're moving towards a more socially free future and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
:shrug: then you save as many as you can, for as long as you can.
Save what in a what now?
Liberals are only "against families" in the mythical land of religiously framed social conservatism. There is absolutely no basis in objective reality for any claim that liberalism rejects the family structure as the basic unit of society. That's idiotic in itself, and to claim it.The human wreckage of a socially liberal society are kids raised in single parent homes, children murdered before they get a chance to breathe, and a host of social ills (higher rates of incarceration, child rape, drug use, and educational failure). Entire generations in many area's have been lain waste because they have failed to heed the basic social conservative message of the centrality and importance of the family structure.
Even if our cause is doomed (and perhaps it is), it remains incumbent upon us to do the best we can with what we have to help those for whom we have the ability.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?