Bujin

I think you've made my larger point....the more mainstream moderate Republicans won handily, while the hard right conservative couldn't even win with the help of Palin, Pawlenty, Thompson, and Fox News.

A broader party wins elections - an ideologically pure party can make noise at town halls about how they "want their country back", but not much more.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

groovy

Hardly. Your point was that the conservative candidate couldn't win in even a "highly conservative" district. Which, as I've demonstrated, is not the case.

Bujin

That region has 46,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats. In 2006, the vote was 130,000 / 69,000 Republican. In this election, it was 62,000 / 57,000 Democrat. So my point is still the same....in the last 8 elections, the Republicans trounced the Dems. And when the hard right candidate ran, the Dems won. Not sure how this makes the point that conservatives proved anything, except that they can keep moderate Republicans and right-leaning independents home on election night.

As for the claim that the 23rd is not consistently Republican: that district has been, as you can see in your link, been redistricted numerous times. The majority of the district, including it's largest city, haven't elected a Democrat since the Civil War. This is also the perspective of the paper from the largest city in the region - http://watertowndailytimes.com/artic...WS03/311049975. They support that this area has been represented by Republicans "since the mid-19th century". Despite your attempts at spin, they would know better.

Purity over winning is a core value, I suppose. If that's the Republican Party's goal, more power to them.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

groovy

Actually, that was only your point from the point that your original point changed. My point, which has been the same all along, is that a conservative third party candidate getting 45% of the vote sends the message that the conservative wing can't be ignored. Now, given that the only difference between Scozzafava and Owens is a possible vote in the House, I don't see how the residents of the 23rd District lost anything.

groovy

I've spun nothing. The claim that this seat hasn't gone Democrat since the Civil War, or in the last 100 years, depending on which lie you want to accept, is undeniably false.

groovy

That actually proves my point, not yours. This is a moderate district, as seen by the history of voting for Democrats and moderate Republicans.

Bujin

Getting 45% of the vote is no big achievement if a more mainstream candidate averages 70% in the same district. That simply means that the conservative candidate is a smaller draw than a more moderate one....it sends a message that ideological purity loses elections. If that's the message, I guess it can't be ignored.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

zelgo

Although Republicans did win two Congressional seats (NJ was a surprise to me; VA was not), the main lesson I see is that the entire political landscape will change in about 5 - 10 years as the young reach voting age and the old die off.

In this election, the white, elderly came out to vote for what they tend to: for Republicans and against gay marriage. This wasn't a group that ever supported Obama. With other voters missing, they dominated.

Maine voted 53% - 47% against gay marriage. Even with the older crowd dominating, it was very close. Within a few years, as younger people join the voting roles, gay marriage referenda will pass everywhere. California will pass it in two years and other states will follow. It's inevitable. If the vote were 80% - 20%, I would predict otherwise--but it's 50-50 in most places currently.


As for those who claim that Democrats should stop telling Republicans to act moderate to get elected--well, acting moderate is EXACTLY what the Republicans did to get elected in VA and NJ. That's what George W. Bush did. It's the ONLY way you can get elected in America. If the right wing thinks the correct strategy is go even further right--look to the American election after Carter (when the Democratic Party tilted too left) or the plight of the conservatives in England--shut out for years until the current leader started putting on a moderate stance. A right winger's natural reaction is to think you're losing because you're not right enough--America looks at it very differently.

Certainly, Americans are fed up with the slow pace of economic recovery (as if Obama can turn the mess handed to him around in one day), so they voted for whomever wasn't the current party. It wasn't a wholehearted endorsement of Republican economic values. The problem is that, with only two major parties in America, people don't really have a choice and just go back and forth when they are unhappy.

Some claim that this election will make moderate Democrats question whether to support healthcare reform. If they don't pass something this year, however, taking a lesson from what happened to the Democrats in Congress after the Clinton Bill failed, they will all be voted out. (Heck, I'll lead that charge!) People want their Congress to govern. If Congress doesn't govern, they get voted out--it doesn't matter what party you're in.

Bujin

[quote=zelgo;2016763]Within a few years, as younger people join the voting roles, gay marriage referenda will pass everywhere. California will pass it in two years and other states will follow. It's inevitable. If the vote were 80% - 20%, I would predict otherwise--but it's 50-50 in most places currently./QUOTE]

But...but...gays getting married? I want my country back!!! [/glennbeck]

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

groovy

Congressional seats?

Anyway, if the Dems pass Health Care reform young voters may dominate sooner than you think.

groovy

Yet, the Conservative candidate in a mostly moderate district did very well. We're repeating ourselves so I'll leave it at that.

Bujin

From Lyndsey Graham: “To those people who are pursuing purity, you’ll become a club not a party,” Graham told POLITICO in the Capitol Wednesday. “Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservativism is an asset. Blind ideology is not.”

I'm sure he'd the next RINO to be beat up.

KAM1138

That's not what I suggested at all. I might have omitted this, but Education in my view CAN be a State issue (and it is). I believe I mentioned State's involvement as well as local didn't I? I said that the Federal Government has no place. Perhaps you missed this distinction in what I said.

So, no, you are incorrect, that would not be the case. Even if it were on a local level that wouldn't be the case. Where I live most of these taxes are on a County basis, and a county is likely to have a diverse community with varying scales of wealth.

On the other hand, one can perhaps look at education quality in Cities (many controlled by democrats for decades) and many with very high per student dollars spent, and find very poor results, so your entire premise is flawed. Quality of education is not simply linked to dollars spent, and in fact, we are burning dollars for poor education in many places, and efforts of parents to remove their children from those failures are blocked by liberals regularly. In fact, I seem to recall that President Obama supported some effort to end programs in Washington DC that enabled poor children to attend better schools. Interesting isn't it?

There is something else. Even though the Federal Government uses money, it still doesn't compare to what the localities pay, so while the money that the Federal Government dangles isn't easily ignored it doesn't make up the bulk of the money needed to fund a school, so your example is incorrect on another level as well--as compared to reality in today's education system.

KAM

KAM1138

Again this "very conservative region" voted for Obama instead of the moderate Republican McCain. Your claims do not hold water.

Apparently you have never heard of 'splitting the vote.' A Republican (even a liberal one) and a Conservative will probably tend to split the vote vs a Democrat.

KAM

KAM1138

No, I am not a PROPONENT of gay marriage. Why would I be an activist for a religious arrangement that is not part of my religion (not that you know what that is). Nor am I am opponent of something that isn't my business and has nothing to do with me. What two strangers do isn't my affair.

However, you are correct, I have no right to make decisions about what other people do or what they call marriage, and if their religion is one that supports it, then why should I or the government have any say in it?

See, I'm not trapped in that little statist mindset that believes the Government is there to define things for me or others. That's the problem that people such as yourself create. YOU might believe that government has this power, and seek their approval, but I don't believe that is necessary and in fact, I believe it is improper.

If government wants to preside over "civil unions" (for heterosexual or homosexual) that is something they can do, because that is a LEGAL (not religious) arrangement. The only problem here is that Religion and legality (in the United States) are tied together improperly in "marriage."

This whole Gay marriage argument is moronic in my view and easily solved. Simply stated, Marriage is a Religious institution, and the government has no place in defining what a Religion is or upholds as their beliefs. A civil union is a legal arrangement between two people, and is obligated to apply that evenly without discrimination. Problem is over...IF equality is really the goal of this issue.

So, good attempt, but what you probably don't realize is that I actually have a set of principles which is consistent, and when there is a preference I have, I call it a preference, and don't seek to use government to push my preference on others--that's what Statists do, not what libertarians do.

That's the real difference here--I'm only out to defend my right to do what I want, not to make others do what I prefer.

KAM

KAM1138

As opposed to winning without any regard to values or principles, which is the Democrat's goal apparently. Good point.

KAM

KAM1138

Let's look at Presidents and Presidential elections.

Jimmy Carter was a pathetic leftist failure, and got booted.

Ronald Reagan...who most will agree was conservative--First term major win, second--LANDSLIDE after forwarding distinctly conservative policies.

George HW Bush...went along with Democrat Tax Hikes and was generally a moderate. Lost attempt at re-election.

President Clinton: Ran as a moderate, won, and then pandered to his leftist fringe with massive tax increases and an attempt at universal healthcare. This resulted in a sweeping Republican takeover of Congress. President Clinton (being a brilliant politician) ran even more to the right (still moderate) and got easily reelected.

GW Bush was clearly called a Conservative, claimed to be a conservative, and got elected twice. In reality he wasn't conservative on many issues.

President Obama ran as a pragmatic moderate, and then promptly exposed this lie, revealing himself to be a hard left idealogue.

While it is true that moderates often get elected, it is DEMOCRAT moderates (those that claim to be) that get elected. While Conservative Republican Presidents (or those claiming to be) also get elected. Wishy-washy Conservatives (GHW Bush, John McCain) do not. When has a Democrat openly running as a liberal been elected to the Presidency? Not for a long time. Unfortunately the people are easily fooled, by leftists like Obama.

So, it isn't Republicans that need to fear being Conservatives, its is democrats that need to fear running as liberals. Obviously if you want to capture the middle you need to look somewhat moderate, but the last 30 years tells the tale fairly clearly. Conservative Republicans can and do win, and Liberal Democrats (all on the basis of the campaign image, not reality) do not.

KAM

KAM1138

Where does this ignorance come from? This whole notion is based on having the perspective of being a Democrat. What works for the Democrats (hiding their leftist, anti-liberty statist leanings) is REQUIRED, because true-believer liberals are a relatively small minority in this country (21% in a recent poll).

Republicans tend to win when they run as conservatives, because 40% (same poll) identify themselves as Conservative. Conservatives don't need to hide what they are, and when they attempt to go that moderate route, they are often lose.

Is our memory that short? Doesn't anyone remember the 2008 Presidential Election? Here's what happens. Republicans put up a very moderate Candidate--John McCain (who I personally like), and Democrat put up a leftist Barack Obama who they paint as a pragmatic moderate (a blatant lie, but hey, it worked). What happened? Democrats win. What more stark example do you need?

Here's what happens--Democrats just smear McCain and with near complete control of the media, its quite easy. This strong rival of GW Bush becomes his best friend and "third term." This to the rational person is of course a ludicrous and easily seen lie, but that's not how things work in elections.

John McCain the exact sort of Moderate that all you leftists say is needed for Republicans to win, gets Trounced. Yeah GREAT strategy, sure to work every time.

What you are advocating, using tiny (and often flawed) examples in local areas is just nonsense.

KAM

Bujin

You'll have to ask Lyndsey Graham that question....last I checked, he's a pretty high profile Republican. I guess you know better than him.

Actually Gallup lists: Democrats 34%, Republicans 28%. Both parties are the minority of the country, which is why going hard right is just as dangerous for the Republicans as going too hard left is for the Democrats.

Except that McCain beat up the more conservative opponents for the nomination, precisely because a more moderate candidate is more attractive to right-leaning independents. The hard right candidate simply can't get a wide enough coalition to get "50%+1" of the vote.

If Mitt had run as the more moderate candidate that he has been in the past, rather than trying to appeal to the hard right, he'd have been a much better candidate than McCain and may have had a better shot, both in the primary and the general election.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre

Bujin

Look up....my point went WAY over your head.

Having principles is fine...when the principles are so restrictive that they turn off a significant percentage of the majority, you have what Lyndsey Graham quite rightly called "a club, not a party".

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre