US Presidential Elections 3

[Guard Dog]

According to the GOP leaders, McCain was too moderate, and he lost because he wasn't conservative enough.

 

Anybody else see a problem with that idea?

 

You need to understand something about the GOP, it is not at all a monolithic entity. It is made up of three contentious factions that often work against each other despite their common causes. Even the three factions are broken into subgroups. The Democrat party is as well (there are dozens of factions there) but they have been more successful uniting when the chips are down. The three big groups are the Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and the Rockefeller Republicans. McCain was the champion of the Rockefeller's. He tied the Socials to him with his choice of Palin but made no effort to court the Fiscals who were hostile to him anyway. The big thing about the Republican base is, if they don't like you, they will stay home. And looking at voter turnout between registered Dem's and Repubs it looks like they did. The Republican party is in shambles now. The Rockefellers are blaming the Socials for the loss. The socials are blaming the fiscals and the fiscals are the ones who claim McCain was not conservative enough. But they say the same thing about Bush (correctly too since he has never practiced economic or fiscal discipline). I tend to agree. Conservative economics has never failed to produce growth in the US. Just look at the last President who cut taxes and spending at the same time. Bill Clinton. Surprised? From 1994 to the end of his term Clinton governed far more as a supply side fiscal conservative that Bush ever did. Before his it was Regan whose tenure saw the longest period of sustained growth in US History.

 

So yes, I'd say that statement is true. If McCain was more conservative he might be President now. But if Bush had acted more like a conservative (small government, non-interventionist foreign policy, lower taxes and spending) the environment that saw the Republican party fragment and collapse and saw Obama sweep into power might never have happened.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

My Republican governator is asking to raise the sales tax to nearly 10%. I'm pretty sure the whole democrats = more taxes idea is just an illusion.

The illusion is our governors a republican.

 

Well played!

[Guard Dog]

Here is an excellent article about the current state of the Republican party and how it can climb out of it's pit return to prominence. You guys really should give this a read: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...310865404578730

[Humodour]

lol.

 

The GOP's plans to get out of the massive hole they've dug themselves involve purging moderate Republicans in an era where youth are increasingly centrist, and heavily Democrat-leaning minorities (Hispanics, Asians, and African-Americans) continue to outpace whites in terms of population growth.

 

These guys are amazing. I truly look forward to seeing what the GOP has to 'offer' in 2012.

[Volourn]

I remember it wa sjust 4 years ago where everyone was claiming the Democrats were the party falling part. L0L The election wa slost. It's not the end of the world for the Republicans just like it wasn't for the Democrats. The country is split between the two parties with extras thrown in. Demos won the extras this time. *shrug*

 

And, yeah, some Republicans are throwing Palin under the bus simply because when you lose you need someone to blame. It's why people are also blaming Bush but let's not forget the country voted Bush in twice (even if the first time had question marks) so he obvioiusly did soemthing right to get elected low opinion polls or not. And, he might very well have won a 3rd time.

 

 

"how it can climb out of it's pit return to prominence."

 

Pit? Prominence? They just had the presedency for 8 years. They had nearly 50% of the popular vote. Doomsday Talk is just a tad premamture much like in 2000/2004 with the Demos.

 

Obama won simply ebcause people saw him as the better choice for President at this time than McCain. That's life.

[Guard Dog]

These guys are amazing. I truly look forward to seeing what the GOP has to 'offer' in 2012

.

 

What they offer will depend on how well they do in the 2010 races and how well the voters are dispositioned towards Obama. If he is beatble you will see two of the best candidates remaining, Bobby Jindal, John Thune, Charlie Christ, Jennifer Beck, J.C. Watts all come to mind. They are all young, charismatic and conservative enough to unite the Fiscal and Social Conservatives and in the case of Crist probably the Rockafellers too. If Obama looks unassailable they will trot out cannon fodder like Bob Dole from 1996. Possible choices would be Tom Coburn, Haley Barbour, or Jeb Bush (although I doubt he's interested). The Republicans should and probably will concentrate on Congress for the next two or three elections anyway.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

I remember it wa sjust 4 years ago where everyone was claiming the Democrats were the party falling part. L0L The election wa slost. It's not the end of the world for the Republicans just like it wasn't for the Democrats. The country is split between the two parties with extras thrown in. Demos won the extras this time. *shrug*

 

And, yeah, some Republicans are throwing Palin under the bus simply because when you lose you need someone to blame. It's why people are also blaming Bush but let's not forget the country voted Bush in twice (even if the first time had question marks) so he obvioiusly did soemthing right to get elected low opinion polls or not. And, he might very well have won a 3rd time.

 

 

"how it can climb out of it's pit return to prominence."

 

Pit? Prominence? They just had the presedency for 8 years. They had nearly 50% of the popular vote. Doomsday Talk is just a tad premamture much like in 2000/2004 with the Demos.

 

Obama won simply ebcause people saw him as the better choice for President at this time than McCain. That's life.

 

No you are right. I say pit because the party is leaderless at the moment. There is no Reagan to unify them as he did in 1977, no Gingrich like in 1992. It's fractured and falling to infighting much the way it did after Goldwater lost. It does not mean they will not get their act together but there is precious little time to do it.

[Humodour]

The thing is, the Republicans can't keep campaigning on a theme of neoconservatism (war, war, WAR!!!) or social authoritarianism (gay is a sin durrh). If the Republicans want to re-invent themselves to be remotely successful in era of globalisation and immigration, they're going to have to start campaigning on a platform social centrism and social welfare made efficient by the free market.

 

The trouble is, unlike most other countries (where the other party is actually centre-left), the Democrats already occupy that centre-right or 'Third Way' niche. Which leaves the GOP in a particular bind, since it can only campaign on issues of ideological fundamentalism (which doesn't work too well, though I'm sure you'll disagree).

 

Getting rid of moderate Republicans is absolutely ludicrous. You can't get rid of people like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins and then expect to suddenly win those heavily Democratic seats (Maine and Pennsylvania) with far-right conservatives. The only reason those seats are Republican in the first place is precisely because those Senators are moderates.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Krezack

[Guard Dog]

The thing is, the Republicans can't keep campaigning on a theme of neoconservatism (war, war, WAR!!!) or social authoritarianism (gay is a sin durrh). If the Republicans want to re-invent themselves to be remotely successful in era of globalisation and immigration, they're going to have to start campaigning on a platform social centrism and social welfare made efficient by the free market.

 

The trouble is, unlike most other countries (where the other party is actually centre-left), the Democrats already occupy that centre-right or 'Third Way' niche. Which leaves the GOP in a particular bind, since it can only campaign on issues of ideological fundamentalism (which doesn't work too well, though I'm sure you'll disagree).

 

Getting rid of moderate Republicans is absolutely ludicrous. You can't get rid of people like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins and then expect to suddenly win those heavily Democratic seats (Maine and Pennsylvania) with far-right conservatives. The only reason those seats are Republican in the first place is precisely because those Senators are moderates.

 

The Neoconservatives are a subset of the Social Conservative faction. Once Bush leaves office they are most likely to fade into the night. They have no other champions. All those candidates I mentioned are from the Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian bent. And I would not be so quick to dismiss social conservative thought. I would point out that now 30 of 50 states have passed laws banning gay marriage via ballot initiative and none of the votes have been close. You need to understand something else about Americans, we are a generous and gregarious people but we also have a strong isolationist streak and if Obama starts talking about globalization most Americans will see that as surrendering our sovereignty as a nation. Nothing and I do mean NOTHING will put the Republicans back in power faster.

 

I believe the next 4-6 years will lead to an ascendancy of the Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian factions in the party and they will be much less inclined to suffer an economic moderate like Snowe, but social moderates like Specter will do fine. You cannot out-democrat the democrats. So they should not even try.

 

 

The truth is, something has to give. The schools of political thought (liberal and conservative) have far more in contention than they have in common now. And the very culture of the US is beginning to realign by region. Look at all the electoral maps since 1996 and you cannot help but see it. The day may come when Americans realize that the people in California have no common culture or politics with the people from Alabama. Or the folks in Texas no longer consider themselves the countrymen of New Yorkers. The day that happens will be the beginning of the end of the US. And that will be a sad day indeed.

[Humodour]

After the election, 75% of Americans support Obama's presidency:

 

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMUMOO...XXvcp5SVyFO7xXg

 

Meanwhile, Rasmussen shows 70% of Republicans think Sarah Palin was a good choice and would make a good president. God help us.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...n_helped_mccain

 

Edit: Oh, and Obama ended up splitting Nebraska's electoral votes, winning the Omaha district. For a pretty much final total of 365 electoral votes.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Krezack

[Meshugger]

There's rumors going around the 'net that ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (yes, his name requires caps-lock) might become the head of energy in the Obama administration.

 

Sounds too absurd to be real, IMO.

[Humodour]

Hah!

 

After the way Arnie stupidly mocked Obama's physique as a reason he shouldn't be president, I highly doubt there's any love between the two.

 

Still, Arnold is a green energy proponent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwar...onmental_record

[Guard Dog]

There's rumors going around the 'net that ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER (yes, his name requires caps-lock) might become the head of energy in the Obama administration.

 

Sounds too absurd to be real, IMO.

 

As batty as it sounds there may be some truth to it. It depends on how Arnold's chances of reelection are looking. As I have said here often enough, politics is a pragmatists game.

[taks]

God help us.

you mean god help the US, right? go back to australia twit.

 

taks

[taks]

social welfare made efficient by the free market.

wow, such an ignorant statement. there is no such thing. this very concept means BIG inefficient bureaucracies, which is entirely against the concept of a small government. the US citizens rightly want a small government. and should the pelosi/reid/obama reign give us the opposite, GD is correct, the libertarian types will move into power. fine by me...

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Yes unfortunately a big bureaucracy is needed for extended welfare, unless you are just going to write checks whenever someone says they need something, you need an army of case workers.

[Gorgon]

Hah!

 

After the way Arnie stupidly mocked Obama's physique as a reason he shouldn't be president, I highly doubt there's any love between the two.

 

Still, Arnold is a green energy proponent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwar...onmental_record

Doesn't he have a liver condition to worry about from when he pumped steroids as well as iron. The only muscle the president needs is the one between his shoulders.

[Aram]

Hah!

 

After the way Arnie stupidly mocked Obama's physique as a reason he shouldn't be president, I highly doubt there's any love between the two.

 

Still, Arnold is a green energy proponent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwar...onmental_record

Doesn't he have a liver condition to worry about from when he pumped steroids as well as iron. The only muscle the president needs is the one between his shoulders.

The trapezius?

[Gorgon]

No really, I always find it funny when presidents make a big deal out of running, while the secret service guys try very hard to look as exhausted as, whats the term, eagle one.

[Wrath of Dagon]

For once to my amazement I agree with Volourn. The only reasons Republicans lost was because everyone hates Bush and the economy tanked. Also I don't remember Clinton ever cutting taxes.

[Humodour]

God help us.

you mean god help the US, right? go back to australia twit.

 

taks

 

When you guys stick your noses into everybody else's business, don't complain when they start sticking their noses into yours.

 

The US impacts on the rest of the world. We thus take great interest in who you guys elect. We don't want some moron like Sarah Palin running your country into the ground because then your problems will just start spilling over into the rest of the world like they are now.

 

Now go on, take up your super-shortsighted isolationist stance, taks. It meshes really super well with your supposed free market ideology. Not.

 

social welfare made efficient by the free market.

wow, such an ignorant statement. there is no such thing. this very concept means BIG inefficient bureaucracies, which is entirely against the concept of a small government. the US citizens rightly want a small government. and should the pelosi/reid/obama reign give us the opposite, GD is correct, the libertarian types will move into power. fine by me...

 

taks

 

Haha. Good luck with your delusions of grandeur. I wish you luck in finding this 'Libertopia' you so desperately crave. Meanwhile, the world keeps turning.

[Volourn]

"For once to my amazement I agree with Volourn. The only reasons Republicans lost was because everyone hates Bush and the economy tanked. "

 

Next time *read* my post before you 'agree' with me, because you did anything but. The Repubs didn't lsoe because of any Bush 'hatred'. they lost becfause the country preferred Obama to McCain. Period. It's not complicated.

[Guard Dog]

Also I don't remember Clinton ever cutting taxes.

 

He did not cut much. In fact he raised income taxes, capital gains taxes, and inheritance taxes more than any other President in history (I expect all those marks are about to be eclipsed by Obama). But there were some important tax benefits we can thank him (and the Republican 101st Congress for) including the Lifetime Learning Credit which provides a tax credit for college tuition expenses for working adults, and a number of tax benefits for small businesses. What Clinton did manage to accomplish (after the 1994 elections I would point out) is cut almost $300 Billion in federal spending. He also was at least partially responsible for eliminating some 200,000 unnecessary federal jobs. Like I said, from 1995 to 2000 in terms of administration policy he was closer the being a Republican than Bush has been at times.

 

Of course that is overlooking the corruption, scandals, people dropping dead left and right, his inability to control himself, and the endless hit parade of liberty hating authoritarian judges he foisted on us.

[Pidesco]

Also, he had bad taste in women. I believe that's the important fact which should be learned from his tenure as president. A president cannot be a good president if he has such a basic character flaw. Look at JFK: one of the most well liked American presidents of all time, and he was always surrounded by hawt women. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[Aristes]

Yeah, the pundits call that the "hawt" factor in American politics. Seriously, though, Hillary was a cutie when she was younger. Laura Bush was a real hottie in her youth. I actually think Michelle Obama is really pretty. Now, if Dole had made it into office, I don't think Elizabeth Dole is or was all that sweet looking. You know, as much as she just struck me wrong, Palin is actually quite a pretty woman, rare in that she is prettier than the actress that portrays her.

 

Hmm, pesident by way of hot wife? I could see it happening.