"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[edthecynic]

Hillary's 2008 campaign was the first to raise the issue of Obama's birth, that is established record of fact. You popping in to claim Freerepublic beat them to it is not only unsupported with evidence, it is laughable and pathetic. Apropos, really.

The established record of fact is the freepers were first. You can't even give the date of the first anonymous Operation Chaos emails! Why don't YOU establish that date first and then prove they came from Hillary and not your MessiahRushie, who openly admits it was HE who tried to revive Hillary's campaign.

 

[Boss]

McCain was nominated because of the establishment GOP pushing his candidacy through the early primaries and undermining the conservative opposition. He distanced himself from social conservatives and tried to make a case for some "moderate" form of conservative philosophy that never made any sense to conservatives. Romney was the same thing, the establishment's pick

Why are conservatives letting the Establishment pick for them?

Assuming conservatives aren't drooling retards, anyone could see that McCain wasn't a conservative, and Mitt was a flip-flopper on every position he ever held. Why would conservatives trust either of them to be on their side?

I guess you need to read my OP and discover what my take on that is? As I stated there, Conservatives have lacked a clear articulate voice for Conservative philosophy. In 2008, that translated to Fred Thompson and Alan Keyes, neither of whom could carry the message. In 2012, there were several strong Conservative voices but they ended up splitting the conservative votes and Romney won the nomination by default.

Conservatives did not nominate Romney or McCain. The GOP is sharply divided between Conservatives and Establishment Republicans who are not Conservatives. The Establishment has all the money and power within the party and Conservatives fight a constant uphill battle. The Establishment sets the Primary schedule, they can line the cards up to fall in their favor. Scheduling open primary states early on, so they can "work across the aisle" to defeat the Conservative candidates before they get started good. By the time we get to Super Tuesday, the Establishment has their boy out in front with a seemingly insurmountable lead and the rest is history.

The ONLY way to defeat their strategy is for Conservatives to settle on a candidate and stick with them all the way. In 2012, Conservatives bounced around from Bachmann to Gingrich to Cain to Santorum... their votes were all wasted chasing the 'flavor of the week' and they lost to an organized Establishment campaign who had their shit together.

Nowhere have I stated that this is going to be easy. Conservatives must first get by the obstacle of their own party elites who are out to sabotage their efforts any way possible. However, once they have overcome this obstacle, defeating the Democrat is a piece of cake. Establishment "moderate" Republican types can't defeat the Democrats, this should be obvious by now.

 

[Boss]

I'm not trying to prevent it, I'm encouraging it! If not Rafael Cruz, then Mike Huckaminajad or Marco "one dry foot" Rubio.

But I'm also telling you that conservatives, by themselves, cannot elect a conservative president. There aren't enough of them in the country. They can't even nominate a conservative in their own party.

If Conservatives could elect a president, Mitt would be in the Oval Office, because conservatives had no bigger incentive to vote than to oust Obama in 2012, and they didn't come close.

You're not paying attention. Mitt Romney was not a Conservative. Conservatives are just not going to support a Liberal who is trying to placate Conservatives with rhetoric. May as well elect the true Liberal who is at least honest about what he is... even if he's not honest about a damn thing else. Conservatives sat at home on election day and watched the Republican party fall flat on it's face like they predicted it would. This will happen again in 2016 if the GOP doesn't nominate a Conservative.

Now..... IF we successfully turn "Conservatives" into some warped and twisted radical extreme ideology with all sorts of undesirable views of fringe elements.... you are absolutely correct... no one like that can ever win the presidency because only about 2% of the Conservatives are nutbags like that. But you see, that is NOT Conservative philosophy, that is an exaggeration based on hype and rhetoric. If we step back and objectively evaluate what Conservative philosophy is, this country is actually about 60% Conservative. The problem in the recent past has been, no one to articulate the message effectively. Do we have that in 2016? Remains to be seen but Cruz is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[zeke]

Conservatives sat at home on election day and watched the Republican party fall flat on it's face like they predicted it would. This will happen again in 2016 if the GOP doesn't nominate a Conservative.

It's really pretty cool how you have made this built in guaranteed excuse for Republicans losing the next Presidential election.

Republicans will lose and have lost because they didn't appeal to a small enough percentage of the voting public who were looking for a crazier right wing whack job (like a Bachman or a Cain) than what was offered.

I think you are on to something there boss. Keep searching for the craziest right winger you can find. It's a sure fire thing he or she will win the election. True story boss, the crazier the better.

 

[zeke]

Hey boss, is there now a "conservative" political party? Or do those whack jobs still try and function as Republicans?

I think you boss, should start a new Conservative party. And you boss, be the first candidate. You crazy enough.

 

[Skylar]

It's really pretty cool how you have made this built in guaranteed excuse for Republicans losing the next Presidential election.

And that's really what the OP is offering us. An excuse for failure. Not a recipe for success.

Republicans will lose and have lost because they didn't appeal to a small enough percentage of the voting public who were looking for a crazier right wing whack job (like a Bachman or a Cain) than what was offered.

Its a simple fact that the 'far right' conservatives simply don't have the numbers to elect a president. Or even nominate their candidate within any major party.

If they can't jump the comparatively low slung hurdle of the GOP primary where conservative ideals are most accepted, they're going to do far worse at the significantly higher hurdle of the rest of the electorate. Which isn't as sympathetic to conservative beliefs. And often, openly opposes them.

The math just doesn't work.

 

[Boss]

Again, we're listening to one of the Insane Clown Buddies prattle on with his absolute nonsense. Anyone who coordinates his avatar with other members in order to ridicule Conservatives is probably not a very good objective (or mature) source of reason when it comes to Conservatives. It's like asking someone with a swastika on their arm who they think the Jews should elect as president of Israel. You have NO credibility in this debate. Why are you even here?

Shouldn't you be spending your precious time occupying the Democrat thread on why they shouldn't nominate Hillary, who is much older than Cruz and in the back pocket of more big money millionaires than all Republican front-runners combined? Oh wait... there is no such thread because you lot don't have a non-hypocritical bone in your body. You'll march in lockstep like a bunch of little sheep with the same avatar, to vote for whomever is opposed to the Conservative.

As for your warped perspective of the demographics, need I remind you that the vast and overwhelming majority of Conservatives began as Liberals when they were young and stupid like you? The problem you have is not your voters dying, it's that they get smarter and grow the fuck up... then they are Conservatives.

All that blah blah blah and you still can't explain why conservatives didn't just nominate a fellow conservative instead of Bush, McCain, and Romney.

Since they have all this power.

Well all you need to do is ask me if you want an explanation. Bush was nominated because he ran as a strong social conservative. Not only are social conservative evangelicals the largest conservative voting bloc, they are the largest overall voting bloc. McCain was nominated because of the establishment GOP pushing his candidacy through the early primaries and undermining the conservative opposition. He distanced himself from social conservatives and tried to make a case for some "moderate" form of conservative philosophy that never made any sense to conservatives. Romney was the same thing, the establishment's pick, the man who everyone said had the best chance to win. We had to be more "moderate" and "run to the middle" which in translation, means "non-conservative" and "willing to abandon conservative philosophy." Meanwhile, conservatives couldn't decide between several good candidates and Romney won the nomination by default.

How could the 'establishment republicans' override the 'conservatives' if the conservatives have the power in the GOP?

Again, you can't even get a 'real conservative' through the GOP primary, a party with the highest concentration of self proclaimed conservative voters. Why then would you ever think you'd find more support for conservative candidates among moderates and liberals, where the concentration of 'conservatives' is far lower?

Your position simply makes no sense.

But again... If you are absolutely convinced Conservatism is the kiss of death for Republicans, why are you here trying to prevent a Conservative from being nominated?

Laughing.....'if I'm wrong, why are you disagreeing with me'?

Really?

Where did I say Conservatives had power in the GOP?

Also, there is a severe problem with your perception of the political spectrum. You see it as sort of a dial that runs from Left to Moderate to Conservative, and that's not accurate. People don't fit into your pigeonholes. There are liberals who are conservative and conservatives who are liberal. Most moderates and independents are philosophically conservative. Most conservative-liberals or liberal-conservatives call themselves "libertarians" and they don't vote for republican ideologues.

 

[Skylar]

Again, we're listening to one of the Insane Clown Buddies prattle on with his absolute nonsense. Anyone who coordinates his avatar with other members in order to ridicule Conservatives is probably not a very good objective (or mature) source of reason when it comes to Conservatives. It's like asking someone with a swastika on their arm who they think the Jews should elect as president of Israel. You have NO credibility in this debate. Why are you even here?

Shouldn't you be spending your precious time occupying the Democrat thread on why they shouldn't nominate Hillary, who is much older than Cruz and in the back pocket of more big money millionaires than all Republican front-runners combined? Oh wait... there is no such thread because you lot don't have a non-hypocritical bone in your body. You'll march in lockstep like a bunch of little sheep with the same avatar, to vote for whomever is opposed to the Conservative.

As for your warped perspective of the demographics, need I remind you that the vast and overwhelming majority of Conservatives began as Liberals when they were young and stupid like you? The problem you have is not your voters dying, it's that they get smarter and grow the fuck up... then they are Conservatives.

All that blah blah blah and you still can't explain why conservatives didn't just nominate a fellow conservative instead of Bush, McCain, and Romney.

Since they have all this power.

Well all you need to do is ask me if you want an explanation. Bush was nominated because he ran as a strong social conservative. Not only are social conservative evangelicals the largest conservative voting bloc, they are the largest overall voting bloc. McCain was nominated because of the establishment GOP pushing his candidacy through the early primaries and undermining the conservative opposition. He distanced himself from social conservatives and tried to make a case for some "moderate" form of conservative philosophy that never made any sense to conservatives. Romney was the same thing, the establishment's pick, the man who everyone said had the best chance to win. We had to be more "moderate" and "run to the middle" which in translation, means "non-conservative" and "willing to abandon conservative philosophy." Meanwhile, conservatives couldn't decide between several good candidates and Romney won the nomination by default.

How could the 'establishment republicans' override the 'conservatives' if the conservatives have the power in the GOP?

Again, you can't even get a 'real conservative' through the GOP primary, a party with the highest concentration of self proclaimed conservative voters. Why then would you ever think you'd find more support for conservative candidates among moderates and liberals, where the concentration of 'conservatives' is far lower?

Your position simply makes no sense.

But again... If you are absolutely convinced Conservatism is the kiss of death for Republicans, why are you here trying to prevent a Conservative from being nominated?

Laughing.....'if I'm wrong, why are you disagreeing with me'?

Really?

Where did I say Conservatives had power in the GOP?

Well at least we're in agreement that conservatives lack the numbers in the GOP to get a 'far right' candidate nominated. And that's with 70% of republicans self identifying as conservatives.

By far the most sympathetic group in US politics for 'far right' ideology. But 'far right' conservatives are going to do better among moderates, independents and liberals than they will among republicans or conservatives?

Nope.

Also, there is a severe problem with your perception of the political spectrum. You see it as sort of a dial that runs from Left to Moderate to Conservative, and that's not accurate. People don't fit into your pigeonholes.

Oh, I've seen your 'perception of the political spectrum'. And its gibberish. Where you insist that moderates are actually conservatives. And that independents are actually conservatives. All backed by nothing but you citing yourself. And you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Back in reality when we actually ask people what they believe, moderates aren't conservative. And most independents aren't conservatives either. According to who? According to moderates and independents. Gallup and Pew asked them.

Your entire basis of 'perception of political spectrum' is naked denial. Where you ignore anything a moderate, liberal or independent has to say about their own political beliefs....and imagine whatever you'd like, pretending that you speak for them.

Which is completely irrelevant. As you citing you pretending to be other people isn't evidence. Its just your imagination.

There are liberals who are conservative and conservatives who are liberal.

No, there aren't. Liberals are by definition, not conservative. Those are mutually exclusive terms. You can be say, an independent and a liberal. Or a republican and a moderate. But you can't be a liberal and a conservative.

You've confused party affiliation with political affiliation. They aren't the same thing. Nor are they interchangeable. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which is why your argument is so unpersuasive. And your claims so meaningless.

 

[Boss]

Again, we're listening to one of the Insane Clown Buddies prattle on with his absolute nonsense. Anyone who coordinates his avatar with other members in order to ridicule Conservatives is probably not a very good objective (or mature) source of reason when it comes to Conservatives. It's like asking someone with a swastika on their arm who they think the Jews should elect as president of Israel. You have NO credibility in this debate. Why are you even here?

Shouldn't you be spending your precious time occupying the Democrat thread on why they shouldn't nominate Hillary, who is much older than Cruz and in the back pocket of more big money millionaires than all Republican front-runners combined? Oh wait... there is no such thread because you lot don't have a non-hypocritical bone in your body. You'll march in lockstep like a bunch of little sheep with the same avatar, to vote for whomever is opposed to the Conservative.

As for your warped perspective of the demographics, need I remind you that the vast and overwhelming majority of Conservatives began as Liberals when they were young and stupid like you? The problem you have is not your voters dying, it's that they get smarter and grow the fuck up... then they are Conservatives.

All that blah blah blah and you still can't explain why conservatives didn't just nominate a fellow conservative instead of Bush, McCain, and Romney.

Since they have all this power.

Well all you need to do is ask me if you want an explanation. Bush was nominated because he ran as a strong social conservative. Not only are social conservative evangelicals the largest conservative voting bloc, they are the largest overall voting bloc. McCain was nominated because of the establishment GOP pushing his candidacy through the early primaries and undermining the conservative opposition. He distanced himself from social conservatives and tried to make a case for some "moderate" form of conservative philosophy that never made any sense to conservatives. Romney was the same thing, the establishment's pick, the man who everyone said had the best chance to win. We had to be more "moderate" and "run to the middle" which in translation, means "non-conservative" and "willing to abandon conservative philosophy." Meanwhile, conservatives couldn't decide between several good candidates and Romney won the nomination by default.

How could the 'establishment republicans' override the 'conservatives' if the conservatives have the power in the GOP?

Again, you can't even get a 'real conservative' through the GOP primary, a party with the highest concentration of self proclaimed conservative voters. Why then would you ever think you'd find more support for conservative candidates among moderates and liberals, where the concentration of 'conservatives' is far lower?

Your position simply makes no sense.

But again... If you are absolutely convinced Conservatism is the kiss of death for Republicans, why are you here trying to prevent a Conservative from being nominated?

Laughing.....'if I'm wrong, why are you disagreeing with me'?

Really?

Where did I say Conservatives had power in the GOP?

Well at least we're in agreement that conservatives lack the numbers in the GOP to get a 'far right' candidate nominated. And that's with 70% of republicans self identifying as conservatives.

By far the most sympathetic group in US politics for 'far right' ideology. But 'far right' conservatives are going to do better among moderates, independents and liberals than they will among republicans or conservatives?

Nope.

Also, there is a severe problem with your perception of the political spectrum. You see it as sort of a dial that runs from Left to Moderate to Conservative, and that's not accurate. People don't fit into your pigeonholes.

Oh, I've seen your 'perception of the political spectrum'. And its gibberish. Where you insist that moderates are actually conservatives. And that independents are actually conservatives. All backed by nothing but you citing yourself. And you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Back in reality when we actually ask people what they believe, moderates aren't conservative. And most independents aren't conservatives either. According to who? According to moderates and independents. Gallup and Pew asked them.

Your entire basis of 'perception of political spectrum' is naked denial. Where you ignore anything a moderate, liberal or independent has to say about their own political beliefs....and imagine whatever you'd like, pretending that you speak for them.

Which is completely irrelevant. As you citing you pretending to be other people isn't evidence. Its just your imagination.

There are liberals who are conservative and conservatives who are liberal.

No, there aren't. Liberals are by definition, not conservative. Those are mutually exclusive terms. You can be say, an independent and a liberal. Or a republican and a moderate. But you can't be a liberal and a conservative.

You've confused party affiliation with political affiliation. They aren't the same thing. Nor are they interchangeable. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which is why your argument is so unpersuasive. And your claims so meaningless.

Again, the term "far right" simply means a conservative. You've not distinguished a difference and you can't.

Again... you can ask people if they consider themselves "moderate" or "extremist" and 9 out of 10 will say "moderate" because that is what we all like to think we are. It does not mean that is what you are.

Joe Lieberman is a classic example of someone who was a liberal conservative. Zell Miller and Bill Clinton were also liberal conservatives. The terms are not mutually exclusive, that is the Great Myth being perpetrated by the left and mainstream media. It's not truth.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Therefore, it crosses many ideological lines.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A GOP candidate has never won the white house without at least 41% of the moderate vote. They couldn't muster that with Romney or McCain. So the notion that they could have with someone like Bachmann or Gingrich is absolutely hilarious.

 

[Skylar]

All that blah blah blah and you still can't explain why conservatives didn't just nominate a fellow conservative instead of Bush, McCain, and Romney.

Since they have all this power.

Well all you need to do is ask me if you want an explanation. Bush was nominated because he ran as a strong social conservative. Not only are social conservative evangelicals the largest conservative voting bloc, they are the largest overall voting bloc. McCain was nominated because of the establishment GOP pushing his candidacy through the early primaries and undermining the conservative opposition. He distanced himself from social conservatives and tried to make a case for some "moderate" form of conservative philosophy that never made any sense to conservatives. Romney was the same thing, the establishment's pick, the man who everyone said had the best chance to win. We had to be more "moderate" and "run to the middle" which in translation, means "non-conservative" and "willing to abandon conservative philosophy." Meanwhile, conservatives couldn't decide between several good candidates and Romney won the nomination by default.

How could the 'establishment republicans' override the 'conservatives' if the conservatives have the power in the GOP?

Again, you can't even get a 'real conservative' through the GOP primary, a party with the highest concentration of self proclaimed conservative voters. Why then would you ever think you'd find more support for conservative candidates among moderates and liberals, where the concentration of 'conservatives' is far lower?

Your position simply makes no sense.

But again... If you are absolutely convinced Conservatism is the kiss of death for Republicans, why are you here trying to prevent a Conservative from being nominated?

Laughing.....'if I'm wrong, why are you disagreeing with me'?

Really?

Where did I say Conservatives had power in the GOP?

Well at least we're in agreement that conservatives lack the numbers in the GOP to get a 'far right' candidate nominated. And that's with 70% of republicans self identifying as conservatives.

By far the most sympathetic group in US politics for 'far right' ideology. But 'far right' conservatives are going to do better among moderates, independents and liberals than they will among republicans or conservatives?

Nope.

Also, there is a severe problem with your perception of the political spectrum. You see it as sort of a dial that runs from Left to Moderate to Conservative, and that's not accurate. People don't fit into your pigeonholes.

Oh, I've seen your 'perception of the political spectrum'. And its gibberish. Where you insist that moderates are actually conservatives. And that independents are actually conservatives. All backed by nothing but you citing yourself. And you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Back in reality when we actually ask people what they believe, moderates aren't conservative. And most independents aren't conservatives either. According to who? According to moderates and independents. Gallup and Pew asked them.

Your entire basis of 'perception of political spectrum' is naked denial. Where you ignore anything a moderate, liberal or independent has to say about their own political beliefs....and imagine whatever you'd like, pretending that you speak for them.

Which is completely irrelevant. As you citing you pretending to be other people isn't evidence. Its just your imagination.

There are liberals who are conservative and conservatives who are liberal.

No, there aren't. Liberals are by definition, not conservative. Those are mutually exclusive terms. You can be say, an independent and a liberal. Or a republican and a moderate. But you can't be a liberal and a conservative.

You've confused party affiliation with political affiliation. They aren't the same thing. Nor are they interchangeable. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which is why your argument is so unpersuasive. And your claims so meaningless.

Again, the term "far right" simply means a conservative.

Says you. Which is meaningless. See, Boss......you still don't get how this works. You imagine that you can apply a definition, citing only yourself. And that everyone is bound to it. Me, Gallup, Pew, anyone who responded to their polls.

Laughing....nope! A far right candidate is one who is not a mainstream conservative. Just as a far left candidate isn't one who is mainstream on the left.

And no, neither moderates nor liberals are 'conservatives'. Nor are most independents. And even when 70% of republicans are self identified conservatives, they still don't want your far right candidates.

No one does. Not most republicans, not most conservatives, not most liberals, not most moderates, not most independents. You are gloriously, almost perfectly wrong.

Again... you can ask people if they consider themselves "moderate" or "extremist" and 9 out of 10 will say "moderate" because that is what we all like to think we are. It does not mean that is what you are.

Alas, that wasn't the question folks were asked. They were asked if they were liberal, moderate, or conservative. 58% of the folks asked said they were either moderate or liberal:

Simply destroying your imaginary narrative. Oh, you can imagine that liberals are conservatives and moderates are conservative. But you're clueless. And clearly in denial.

Worse, when they were asked if they lean republican or democrat, 47% said they were democrat or leaned democrat. And that includes the independent voters.

There's simply no angle where you could be right.

You're making up an imaginary hypothetical based on nothing but you citing yourself while ignoring actual polls, actual questions and actual responses.

No thank you.

Joe Lieberman is a classic example of someone who was a liberal conservative. Zell Miller and Bill Clinton were also liberal conservatives. The terms are not mutually exclusive, that is the Great Myth being perpetrated by the left and mainstream media. It's not truth.

Says who? Again, you're offering your personal opinion backed by exactly jack shit. Does Liberman describe himself as a 'liberal conservative'? Does Clinton? Of course not. You do. Citing yourself. Which is meaningless gibberish.

Worse, neither of these men would ever vote for a far right candidate. Obliterating your core assumption. You simply don't know what you're talking about, can't back anything you've said, and are contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

Try again. This time without the imagination as evidence.

 

[Jroc]

Romney was a pathetic candidate who wasn't a real conservative.

Then why did conservative nominate him instead of a real conservative?

Conservatives didn't, Republicans did

 

[nodoginnafight]

Conservatives did - wingnuts didn't

 

[Skylar]

Romney was a pathetic candidate who wasn't a real conservative.

Then why did conservative nominate him instead of a real conservative?

Conservatives didn't, Republicans did

70% of republicans are self proclaimed conservatives.

 

[Jroc]

Well all you need to do is ask me if you want an explanation. Bush was nominated because he ran as a strong social conservative. Not only are social conservative evangelicals the largest conservative voting bloc, they are the largest overall voting bloc. McCain was nominated because of the establishment GOP pushing his candidacy through the early primaries and undermining the conservative opposition. He distanced himself from social conservatives and tried to make a case for some "moderate" form of conservative philosophy that never made any sense to conservatives. Romney was the same thing, the establishment's pick, the man who everyone said had the best chance to win. We had to be more "moderate" and "run to the middle" which in translation, means "non-conservative" and "willing to abandon conservative philosophy." Meanwhile, conservatives couldn't decide between several good candidates and Romney won the nomination by default.

How could the 'establishment republicans' override the 'conservatives' if the conservatives have the power in the GOP?

Again, you can't even get a 'real conservative' through the GOP primary, a party with the highest concentration of self proclaimed conservative voters. Why then would you ever think you'd find more support for conservative candidates among moderates and liberals, where the concentration of 'conservatives' is far lower?

Your position simply makes no sense.

But again... If you are absolutely convinced Conservatism is the kiss of death for Republicans, why are you here trying to prevent a Conservative from being nominated?

Laughing.....'if I'm wrong, why are you disagreeing with me'?

Really?

Where did I say Conservatives had power in the GOP?

Well at least we're in agreement that conservatives lack the numbers in the GOP to get a 'far right' candidate nominated. And that's with 70% of republicans self identifying as conservatives.

By far the most sympathetic group in US politics for 'far right' ideology. But 'far right' conservatives are going to do better among moderates, independents and liberals than they will among republicans or conservatives?

Nope.

Also, there is a severe problem with your perception of the political spectrum. You see it as sort of a dial that runs from Left to Moderate to Conservative, and that's not accurate. People don't fit into your pigeonholes.

Oh, I've seen your 'perception of the political spectrum'. And its gibberish. Where you insist that moderates are actually conservatives. And that independents are actually conservatives. All backed by nothing but you citing yourself. And you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Back in reality when we actually ask people what they believe, moderates aren't conservative. And most independents aren't conservatives either. According to who? According to moderates and independents. Gallup and Pew asked them.

Your entire basis of 'perception of political spectrum' is naked denial. Where you ignore anything a moderate, liberal or independent has to say about their own political beliefs....and imagine whatever you'd like, pretending that you speak for them.

Which is completely irrelevant. As you citing you pretending to be other people isn't evidence. Its just your imagination.

There are liberals who are conservative and conservatives who are liberal.

No, there aren't. Liberals are by definition, not conservative. Those are mutually exclusive terms. You can be say, an independent and a liberal. Or a republican and a moderate. But you can't be a liberal and a conservative.

You've confused party affiliation with political affiliation. They aren't the same thing. Nor are they interchangeable. You simply don't know what you're talking about. Which is why your argument is so unpersuasive. And your claims so meaningless.

Again, the term "far right" simply means a conservative.

Says you. Which is meaningless. See, Boss......you still don't get how this works. You imagine that you can apply a definition, citing only yourself. And that everyone is bound to it. Me, Gallup, Pew, anyone who responded to their polls.

Laughing....nope! A far right candidate is one who is not a mainstream conservative. Just as a far left candidate isn't one who is mainstream on the left.

And no, neither moderates nor liberals are 'conservatives'. Nor are most independents. And even when 70% of republicans are self identified conservatives, they still don't want your far right candidates.

No one does. Not most republicans, not most conservatives, not most liberals, not most moderates, not most independents. You are gloriously, almost perfectly wrong.

Again... you can ask people if they consider themselves "moderate" or "extremist" and 9 out of 10 will say "moderate" because that is what we all like to think we are. It does not mean that is what you are.

Alas, that wasn't the question folks were asked. They were asked if they were liberal, moderate, or conservative. 58% of the folks asked said they were either moderate or liberal:

Simply destroying your imaginary narrative. Oh, you can imagine that liberals are conservatives and moderates are conservative. But you're clueless. And clearly in denial.

Worse, when they were asked if they lean republican or democrat, 47% said they were democrat or leaned democrat. And that includes the independent voters.

There's simply no angle where you could be right.

You're making up an imaginary hypothetical based on nothing but you citing yourself while ignoring actual polls, actual questions and actual responses. And laughably ignoring the polls that were actually conducted while clinging desperately to the imaginary ones you made up.

You can't teach that.

Joe Lieberman is a classic example of someone who was a liberal conservative. Zell Miller and Bill Clinton were also liberal conservatives. The terms are not mutually exclusive, that is the Great Myth being perpetrated by the left and mainstream media. It's not truth.

Says who? Again, you're offering your personal opinion backed by exactly jack shit. Does Liberman describe himself as a 'liberal conservative'? Does Clinton? Of course not. You do. Citing yourself. Which is meaningless gibberish.

Worse, neither of these men would ever vote for a far right candidate. Obliterating your core assumption. You simply don't know what you're talking about, can't back anything you've said, and are contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

Try again. This time without the imagination as evidence.

Your polls are meaningless most people dont even know what true conservatism is. The liberty of the individual, smaller federal government, a strong America at home and abroad.The best thing you leftist can come up with is racism, homophobia, anti women, same old bull. A person like you who can look at Hilary Clinton, a very shallow person who only cares about herself and her circle of friends and family. A person who sells out this country for cash, who has no sympathy for her own ambassador, who was murdered, in part because of her negligence, is a person who is pretty much a joke to me.You can keep your stupid polls. All we need is a person who can articulate conservatives principles and there are a few now who can do it

 

[Jroc]

Romney was a pathetic candidate who wasn't a real conservative.

Then why did conservative nominate him instead of a real conservative?

Conservatives didn't, Republicans did

70% of republicans are self proclaimed conservatives.

if they can explain it. Bohner says he's a conservative. So does McConnell, doesn't mean much does it? They are a joke

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boenher is a conservative, Jroc is not, and he gets laughed at when he tries to enforce his reformatting of word and terms. Laughable.

 

[Jroc]

Boenher is a conservative, Jroc is not, and he gets laughed at when he tries to enforce his reformatting of word and terms. Laughable.

Boehner is a drunk who has no principles left. Obama loves him as you do fake

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boenher is a conservative, Jroc is not, and he gets laughed at when he tries to enforce his reformatting of word and terms. Laughable.

Boehner is a drunk who has no principles left. Obama loves him as you do fake

Yep, you are a neo-con far rightie.

 

[Skylar]

Your polls are meaningless most people dont even know what true conservatism is.

It doesn't matter what YOU believe conservatism means. It matters what they do. As they outnumber you by orders and orders of magnitude. And have far more impact on an election than you do alone.

You're insisting that I ignore people on their OWN self identified political affiliation and instead believe you pretending to speak for them.

Um, no. What else have you got?

All we need is a person who can articulate conservatives principles and there are a few now who can do it

Save that most people aren't conservative. Most are independent, liberal or moderate. And far right candidates don't appeal to any of these groups. Hell, even conservatives don't want far right candidates.

No one does.