- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Think it is possible to bring in the Tea Party crowd without turning off moderates?
1. Any Republican that can't bring in the Tea Party movement loses in 2012. The numbers don't lie. Furthermore, it's about time the Conservative wing retook the party; the 'moderates' had their time and they got us destroyed. The American people aren't interested in milktoast.
2. Romney strikes me as a snake-oil salesman. He suffered a change of heart in too many key (for election) convictions too quickly for me to buy that they were all genuine.
3. Healthcare. Its' currently the Republicans biggest bat to beat Democrats with in 2012. Except for Romney, who would be hard-pressed to explain why when he did it it was okay, but when they do it, its' bad. He would sound needlessly partisan, whiny, and petty; which is precisely the opposite note to strike in the upcoming election cycles.
Find common ground and build on it. The idea of small-government seems like the good start (I believe that's the common complaint.)for the nomination and the election. McCain was hurt by alot of things; but critically those area's that came out strong for Bush in 2004 didn't come out for him in 2008. In a three-way race, a Democrat picks up 36% of the vote, a Tea Party candidate 23%, and Republicans 18%; with 22% undecided. Now undoubtedly in an actual presidential election with a "non-tea-party" Republican ticket some of that portion would hold their nose and vote (R), but a significant enough portion will refuse to do so (angry at the Party for ignoring them, and refusing to give their credibility any more to the one-defacto-party system) that Obama will win hands down. How well do you think Bob Dole would have done if Ross Perot had taken another 12% of the vote in 1996? That's what 2012 will look like. The Conservative / Tea Party movement right now is the political base in this country with the energy and the momentum behind it; just as Obama's base did in 2008. Republicans can get on the train, or they can stay off it, but it's the only train leaving the station.
Governor of Nevada I believe. You showed me a link to the guy on WS before, long time ago. You don't happen to still have it, do you?I can only think offhand of one national-level Republican with solid Tea Party credentials who can claim to be running on a small-government platform. Romney isn't that candidate. Huckabee is a big-government conservative of the style of Bush (that we neither want nor need), McCain is no longer an option, and Ron Paul is a little too far off the reservation to ever pull the Party people in.
Ok, hard to argue here.see, I've always thought that way about Congressional careers and the Presidency. Legislation is all about compromise. But Governing? that's an apples-to-apples Executive comparison. That's why (all other things being equal) the American people prefer to elect Governors over Senators; the feeling that they have "experience" being "the guy in charge".
Same here. Politics tends to be a pretty barbaric form of debate (at least in my opinion) and the little intricacies that are appreciated elsewhere are largely ignoredalso, i find it difficult to believe that the Tea Party folks are going to be all that particularly interested in the "nuance" of his situation. It strikes me as more of the "smells like a rat, dump it overboard" persuasion.
Well, perhaps. But as Harshaw said, I don't see it happening. Despite the delusional ego-stroking of some on the left who view themselves as 'superior', when a Democratic/more liberal candidate is threatened, the usual protocol is to back together like a herdI could see him gaining a very few (the David Brooks and other "moderate" conservatives who would be too uncomfortable with someone who actually believes all that stuff about small government and free markets). But I could see him gaining enough to make up for the massive numbers he would lose on the right. :shrug:
Romney is one of those guys of a type that highly partisan liberals LOVE to say, "oh, if only they had run HIM, I could have voted Republican."
Then, of course, if the Republicans actually end up running "him," there's suddenly a litany of reasons why they can't vote for him "now," because he "changed," yadda yadda . . . as there were a snowball's chance in Hell they were ever going to vote Republican, whomever they ran.
Think it is possible to bring in the Tea Party crowd without turning off moderates?
Find common ground and build on it. The idea of small-government seems like the good start (I believe that's the common complaint.)
Governor of Nevada I believe. You showed me a link to the guy on WS before, long time ago. You don't happen to still have it, do you?
Ok, hard to argue here.
Same here. Politics tends to be a pretty barbaric form of debate (at least in my opinion) and the little intricacies that are appreciated elsewhere are largely ignored .
Well, perhaps. But as Harshaw said, I don't see it happening. Despite the delusional ego-stroking of some on the left who view themselves as 'superior', when a Democratic/more liberal candidate is threatened, the usual protocol is to back together like a herd.
I wanted to say that he was from Nevada and the article was from the Wall Street Journal, but whatever. Daniels is exactly what we'll need.Indiana, fella named Mitch Daniels. I don't recall what link you are referring to, but here's a piece: The American Spectator : Blade Runner
Exciting isn't something that people always go forBut he suffers from 1. charisma (lack thereof)
I think that if he has a record for getting the job done, that will scream the loudest. The opposition will say: Look he's boring! He can say: Look, I made a small but functional form of government.2. energy
Or the country for that matter.(see #1) and 3. solid identity within the tea party regular-folk crowd.
If he can get across to the people well enough in Indiana and explain what he's going to do and do so clearly and without fluff (read: BS), then he should be fine. He sounds like he can get the message across, otherwise he wouldn't be governor.He's a policy wonk, not a regular citizen like you and me; who recognizes on a fundamental level how out of control our government is.
My problem with Palin so far is that she hasn't really done a good job of defending herself. The slime was smeared at her and she just let it keep on coming. The other issue is that a Palin and Daniels ticket will have a gaping foreign policy problem.I think, that he would provide excellent balance, however, as a VP pick on a Palin ticket. For those worried she can't talk to much good or sound smarterer than themselfs; please meet the former head of the OMB.
Please, Biden would cry to make him stop. Who knows, I might actually end up feeling sorry for Joe.Plus he would put Biden over his knee and absolutely spank him in a VP debate. :devil:
Yes, this will actually pretty tough.The old saw is that every Representative thinks he would make a good Senator and every Senator thinks he would make a good President. The trick is to keep good conservative Senators in the Senate so we A) don't lose their vote and B) don't lose the election.
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?