• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question regarding past elections and now

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
52,184
Reaction score
35,955
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
One of the most common phrases I have heard over the last few election cycles from some on the right is that the Republicans lost because they selected "Moderates" or "RINOS" to be the nominee. That if a "real conservative" was selected they'd win.

Heres es the troubling bit of that logic for me.

In a process tailor made to be aimed at "the base" a "real conservative" failed to be elected both years....if they can't even win their primary, an election aimed squarely at the base that supposedly would be most interested in a "real conservative", why in the world should anyone just assume or accept as fact the notion that such a "real conservative" would've won the general election?

if you can't even get enough conservatives to vote for you in a primary, why are we to believe they'd get enough in the general?

So could someone who keeps making that argument please explain how this mythical "real republican" couldn't win either primary but you are so absolutely certain they would have unquestionably won the general?
 

The most common excuse I hear for the primary failures would be...."The establishment selects the nominee in advance and undermines any REAL conservatives".
Second most common is..."No REAL conservatives were in the race".

I think it all amounts to the conservative GOP base being sore losers and not accepting the fact that they are a minority in their own party.:shrug:
 

People buy the lie that we need to elect candidates based on electability. So they vote for who they're told is most likely to win.
 
Conservatives belief that they represent what the typical voter looks like and therefore the problem with GOP candidates is that they aren't conservative enough and that a more conservative candidate would win. There is no evidence that this is true. The last candidate to unabashingly run as a real conservative was Barry Goldwater, who lost in a landslide. Both Reagan and GW Bush didn't show their conservative policies until elected.

Eisenhower and Nixon were center right for their time (liberal by today's standards) and GHW Bush was center-right.

so go ahead, nominate the most conservative candidate you can muster and repeat the 1964 election.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
People buy the lie that we need to elect candidates based on electability. So they vote for who they're told is most likely to win.
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot to this. For about the past decade, or so, it seems, conservatism has been depicted as “extreme” and “outdated”, and generally had some negative connotations unfairly attached to it. I think that a lot of people inwardly hold conservative values, but have been somewhat shamed and intimidated into backing off from these values.

I think there is a very strong perception, among many conservatives, that in order to get a Republican in the White House, we need to run someone who is more “moderate”.

And I think that the last two elections, we have seen the result of this folly. Twice, now, we ran a “moderate” Republican up against what ought to have been a very weak Democratic candidate, and both times, the Democrat won. Obama did not win either time by being “moderate”' he won by standing for a rather extreme version of the liberal/Democratic ideology, each time against a Republican who failed to really stand for Republican values.

Being wishy-washy, and failing to really stand for anything, does not appear to be a winning strategy.
 

If there is any year for a real conservative to win the nomination, this is the year.

We have seen in recent history Tea Party Conservatives running against the establishment and winning even after being severely outspent. People are sick of the establishment and they are waking up...the time is ripe for a real Conservative to win.

Trump is bitchslapping the establishment right now, its beautiful to see him trash talk about Jeb Bush. Really if you look at the polls its all real Conservatives at the top and the establishment are getting creamed. Its a beautiful thing.
 
WSUwarrior said:
Really if you look at the polls its all real Conservatives at the top and the establishment are getting creamed. Its a beautiful thing.
Click to expand...

Well, aside from Trump.

If Trump the exact same history of policy support that he has today, but had the same temperament and presentation as someone like a Huntsman or a Romney, many would likely be screaming "RINO". It's getting to the point where it's sad that apparently being a "real conservative" actually doesn't matter about your policy views, your history, your ideological beliefs...but whether or not your brash, in peoples face, and aggressive.
 

Its not just that he is brash and aggressive....but that he is brash and aggressive when it comes to issues that we are worried about. We are pretty pissed off about Obamas weakness when it comes to the real issues...and Trump is profiting on that.
 


If there's any good that I hope to see come from Mr. Trump, it is in the hope that other Republican candidates will be inspired, by the example that he is setting, to come out and say what they know needs to be said, without being so afraid of wrong-wing politically-correct intimidation.
 

I've got one even better than that.

I've heard in debate plenty of times that the reason that Obama won a second term is Romney being the nominee convinced "real conservatives to stay home." So instead of voting for someone who "real conservatives" may agree with the majority of the time, they stayed home and allowed a Democrat to be elected whom they will rarely if ever agree with, all because someone whom they would agree with just all the time did not get the nomination.

Explain that little piece of brilliance...

Personally, I think the Republican party has become so entrenched in division political warfare that even the slightest disagreement within the group of those who should probably vote Republican anyway gets the brand "RINO" or "Moderate" or a dozen other terms all designed for one conservative to tell another conservative they do not belong. And in the end, the Democrats reap the rewards.

It is political stupidity and the results are easy to track on why when we poll by party identification that Republicans are headed downward and Independents are headed upward. What was it, sometime last year Gallup and Pew ran polls showing that we hit record highs of people identifying as Independent? Something like 42% felt alienated from ole (D) and (R), especially (R).

Republicans did this to themselves, suggesting who does and does not belong.
 

It's astounding that anyone would call Trump "a real conservative" when "RINO's" like Huntsman, Romney and McCain are far to the right of Trump
 
WSUwarrior said:
Its not just that he is brash and aggressive....but that he is brash and aggressive when it comes to issues that we are worried about. We are pretty pissed off about Obamas weakness when it comes to the real issues...and Trump is profiting on that.
Click to expand...
I think you conservatives have to decide whether President Obama is weak or whether he's a dictator.

When it comes to foreign policy, Republican candidates can't communicate how their policies would be different.
 
MTAtech said:
I think you conservatives have to decide whether President Obama is weak or whether he's a dictator.

When it comes to foreign policy, Republican candidates can't communicate how their policies would be different.
Click to expand...

He is weak to our enemies and tough to our allies and the American taxpayer.


He is the friend to our enemies, brutal dictators, criminals, losers...he treats mexicans better than he treats American citizens. He treats Cuba and Iran better than he treats Israel, France, and Germany....what is to like about the guy? His priorities are ****ed up. The middle class has been steamrolled by his policies and the 1% keeps getting richer and richer under his Presidency...how can you not see this?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Regarding income inequality, if you think that the Republicans are the party that wants to reduce income inequality, you should review political history over the Obama Administration. When the financial crisis was in full bloom, Obama asked to have unemployment benefits extended, as had been historically done. The GOP controlled House wouldn't do so unless the Bush tax cuts were extended.

In every economic matter it should be plain as day that Republcan policies are designed to help the rich and powerful and not the average worker. The GOP is against raising the minimum wage; against pro-labor policies; is for lowering taxes on high earners, etc. etc.
 
Last edited:

How does extending unemployment benefits help income inequality? LOL


If you want income equality more to North Korea. They are all very equal in income, misery, and starvation. I prefer an economy with winners and losers, because that means I have a chance to be a winner, and I am a winner. Maybe if you worked a little harder you would support winning as well.
 
Your second paragraph is typical of income inequality deniers. Nobody who looks at in one inequality as a problem thinks that everyone should earn the same, regardless of output. What we do suggest is that the laws not be skewed towards concentrating income in few hands, which leads to lower productivity and social unrest.

The first paragraph's answer, as sangha explained is obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…