Shattering the Myth that the Tea Party is Dead

[YoungRepublican]

You are profiling, and in a bad way. I'm Tea Party, I don't subscribe to Gay Bashing, I am Charitable, I act on Conscience, not the flavor or public opinion of the day, I serve Justice, and do take responsibility for my own thought, word, and action. I suggest you check your premise, and knock off the generalizing, and acting like DNC clone, by throwing everyone not on board with your platform under the bus. Liberty, is not so much about conforming to the will of the powers that be, as it is about personal freedom and individual expression and choice, without the fear of being punished without cause, for the exercise of it. What principle would you compromise to gain power over others?

Is there a good way to profile? I am speaking to the majority of what I have read on this website. I am not putting forth a platform, just telling you and the rest of the Tea Party who devided the Republican Party during this last election that they are killing us. I suggest you look within to the thoughts your Tea Party puts forward. I personally would comprimise plenty of my principles, if in return you would comprimise some of yours. that is how we get things done. I am a Pro-life Republican, if I may assume for a second you are not (even if you are, just play along). I will compromise that they shouldnt be performed by the government and shouldnt occur after the first tri mester if you comprimise that there are reasons for them to occur. I am not compromising principle, im conceeding values so we arent stuck in the gridlock that is going to seriously harm my generation.

Is there a good way to profile?

For starters, try to reserve judgement.
I'm not dividing anything nor anyone. I'm hear to bear witness, and tell the truth about what I see, from my unique perspective, and I advise you to do the same. I try not to compromise principle, but defend it, with respect for individual liberty and free will. There are things we do not act on without consent. There are circumstances where we do not act without consent. There are always boundaries and limits. We do not abandon reason. Let's distinguish between right action and wrong action. What harms us in part is what we find ourselves caught up in, against our better judgement, concerning our own actions.

But the Tea Party constantly acts without consent of those the legislation they create is affecting. It is their lack of respect for personal liberty that turns me so far off from their platform. What you interpret as a wrong action, I may feel the exact opposite. Im sure many of our opinions are opposite, I'm sure many of our opinions align as well. Im not asking you to abandon reason but understand that we all dont feel the same way about every issue and middle ground always needs to be reached. Look at this fiscal cliff. we're going to go over it because these congressman are on opposite plains of what they think is right and they refuse to comprimise. come on we are smarter than this.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Usually you have to fight like a mother for the middle. As long as the GOP wants to concede it, the Dems should be happy to take it.

Seriously, if you were watching this from Mars, you'd be laughing at the GOP for embracing the division.

Yet nobody is fighting for the people who abstain, which is a far bigger pool from which to draw.

If you were watching from Mars, you'd be laughing at the short-sightedness.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Counterfactual thinking is a term of psychology that describes the tendency people have to imagine alternatives to reality. Humans are predisposed to think about how things could have turned out differently if only..., and also to imagine what if?. Counterfactuals are conditional propositions, containing an antecedent and a consequence

Counterfactual thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toro, that is an unwarranted assertion, and linking to a Wiki on counterfactual thinking doesnt prove jack shit, and you know it.

Shit, is this the best gun grabbers can do these days?.

 

[JimBowie1958]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Counterfactual thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh-huh.

The Jesse Ventura election tends to support my POV , far more so than the "gotta fight for the middle" conventional wisdom chickenshit.

All he did was motivate less than the 15% of people who normally would've sat on the sidelines, and then next thing you know he was the Guv.

That's reality, pal.

You'd have a point if the election in 2002 didn't have 150,000 more voters than when Ventura was elected in 1998, and if hadn't Ventura won with a mere 37% of the vote.

Obama won because he mobilized voters that tend to vote less - young people and minorities. We have always known through empirical analysis that these voting blocks voted less.

Now, the onus is on you to show that all these conservatives - who are generally white males who vote in a higher proportion to the rest of the population - would come out to vote if the party was more conservative without alienating even more of the moderates who are already voting that the Republican party has already alienated.

Back it up with hard analysis. Otherwise, it's just a counterfactual fantasy of those on the far right. Just saying "There are all these conservatives who don't vote blah blah blah" doesn't wash.

Do the googling and then the math yourself, but here is an EXPLANATION, not bothering to dig this shit up for yo since it wont matter in your mind anyway.

1. According to Gallup, 45% of Americans self-identify as 'conservative', while only 20% self-identify as liberal, and 35% identify as moderate.

2. The exit polls show the voters being about 25% liberal, 40% moderate, and 35% conservative. For every vote in the middle gained in the vote in general, there was aloss of two conservative votes.

3. Romney had a significant lead in polls among moderates and it all disappeared in a few days before the lection because of various events in the news, like the way Obama responded to Hurricane Sandy. So the modrate vote that Romney sacrificed two conservative votes for, failed to deliver in the final vote.

So, go ahead and say how crazy that is and how deranged I must be for thinking that way, blah, blah, blah.

In this electorate, a truly conservaative party would go for that 45%, leaving RINOS fighting the libtards in the Democratic Party to fight over and split the 55% left, which gives true conservatives a plurality win.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Uh-huh.

The Jesse Ventura election tends to support my POV , far more so than the "gotta fight for the middle" conventional wisdom chickenshit.

All he did was motivate less than the 15% of people who normally would've sat on the sidelines, and then next thing you know he was the Guv.

That's reality, pal.

You'd have a point if the election in 2002 didn't have 150,000 more voters than when Ventura was elected in 1998, and if hadn't Ventura won with a mere 37% of the vote.

Obama won because he mobilized voters that tend to vote less - young people and minorities. We have always known through empirical analysis that these voting blocks voted less.

Now, the onus is on you to show that all these conservatives - who are generally white males who vote in a higher proportion to the rest of the population - would come out to vote if the party was more conservative without alienating even more of the moderates who are already voting that the Republican party has already alienated.

Back it up with hard analysis. Otherwise, it's just a counterfactual fantasy of those on the far right. Just saying "There are all these conservatives who don't vote blah blah blah" doesn't wash.

Do the googling and then the math yourself, but here is an EXPLANATION, not bothering to dig this shit up for yo since it wont matter in your mind anyway.

1. According to Gallup, 45% of Americans self-identify as 'conservative', while only 20% self-identify as liberal, and 35% identify as moderate.

2. The exit polls show the voters being about 25% liberal, 40% moderate, and 35% conservative. For every vote in the middle gained in the vote in general, there was aloss of two conservative votes.

3. Romney had a significant lead in polls among moderates and it all disappeared in a few days before the lection because of various events in the news, like the way Obama responded to Hurricane Sandy. So the modrate vote that Romney sacrificed two conservative votes for, failed to deliver in the final vote.

So, go ahead and say how crazy that is and how deranged I must be for thinking that way, blah, blah, blah.

In this electorate, a truly conservaative party would go for that 45%, leaving RINOS fighting the libtards in the Democratic Party to fight over and split the 55% left, which gives true conservatives a plurality win.

The only issue with that point is the majority of those who identify themselves as conservative dont live where we need them to. It doesnt really matter if you are hard line conservative or your average run of the mill Republican, If you didnt vote for Romney you have no bussiness in discussing the election from a conservative POV. If we put up Pawlenty or Gingrich we would have swept the shit out of Kansas, but at the end of the day it wouldnt really mean much after getting rocked even worse than we did in Dade or Cinci. I voted for Romney because he was the best candidate and any repub who abstained in this election because of his lack of "true" conservative values might as well have voted for Obama, becuae you did nothing to get him out of office.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The true way to power is to....

JEEBUS! Why are RINOS and neoMarxists always talking about taking power? In a Republic, no one group has power, especially not a single person like the Obamessiah.

exclude others and purify the party, purging all those who disagree and don't march lockstep with our dogma. That way, the tens of millions of True Conservatives who did not vote this election because Mitt Romney was not conservative enough, not caring one wit whether or not the communist President might be re-elected, will come out and vote for us. F*** the moderates. Who needs 'em.

Take it to the bank.

There is very little difference between Obama and Romney except that what Obama wants to do right now, the RINOS are willing to do more gradually so they can figure out how to make money off it first.

Romney was chosen because of the simplistic stupid-shit analysis of the left-v-right paradigm. It seems to make sense to retards that you do the Old Nixon strategy of securing the party base in the primaries and then moving to the center in the general election.

But it isnt 1968 anymore, and what RINOS think is a moderate position is actually far left of the center for most in this country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The only issue with that point is the majority of those who identify themselves as conservative dont live where we need them to. It doesnt really matter if you are hard line conservative or your average run of the mill Republican, If you didnt vote for Romney you have no bussiness in discussing the election from a conservative POV.

Lol, you say that as if GOP = conservative. And I am conservative on about 2/3 of the issues, and to the left on the rest, and those are mostly pro-blue collar working class economic interests.

If we put up Pawlenty or Gingrich we would have swept the shit out of Kansas, but at the end of the day it wouldnt really mean much after getting rocked even worse than we did in Dade or Cinci.

No, you probably would have lost more in those places, but having the third of conservatives who stayed home, instead turn out to vote in the other counties would have more than made up the difference.

Doesnt it make you stop and think for even a second that the simple fact that the GOP has had less turn out with the last two RINOS at the top of the ticket, lower vote totals than Buish had in 2004? The RINOS are killing the GOP, and good I say; lets ahve a REAL choice from now on. I dont mind the Dems have power to 2020 if need be to get rid of all the fucking RINOs who have destroyed the GOP.

I voted for Romney because he was the best candidate and any repub who abstained in this election because of his lack of "true" conservative values might as well have voted for Obama, becuae you did nothing to get him out of office.

Hell conservative issues are SAFER with Obama in the White House because it averts the 'Only Nixon Could go to China' syndrome.

Nixon goes to China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a political metaphor, it refers to the ability of a politician with an unassailable reputation among his supporters for representing and defending their values to take actions that would draw their criticism and even opposition if taken by someone without those credentials. Although the example is that of a hardliner taking steps toward peace with a traditional enemy, and this is the most common application of the metaphor, it could also be applied to a reputedly cautious diplomat defying expectations by taking military action, or a political leader reforming aspects of the political system that they have been strong supporters of.

Right now the GOP can stop anything the Dems put forward and stop it dead cold because they control the House. The only problem that they have is that hey have a humbnuts like Boner in charge who shits his pants every time the Obamessiah clears his thought.

But with a President Romney? Control of the House becomes ineffective as the then leader of the GOP can ram through anything he wants if he is willing to through the TOM folks under the bus and build a coalition in Congress of Democrats and RINOs.

The thought of President Romney is thus FAR more problematic, IMO.

But the methods used by the RINO leadership to force Romney on the public, manipulating the Iowa results to steal Santorums momentum he would have had, then letting h im have credit only after they needed a strong Santorum wave to split the conservative vote with Gingrich, the way they manipulated the ballot process in Virginia to only allow Romney and Paul on the ballot in that state, and the many other shenanigans building up to the fiasco of a convention where they rammed through a rules change that lets the RNC change rule in the GOP without being in a convention, thus giving the RNC complete control, all that tells me that the RINO are just as fascistic and thuggish as the Demowhores who are behind their messiah.

It doesnt matter what party is in charge these days; they are just opposite sides of the same Statist coin.

 

[Oddball]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Counterfactual thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh-huh.

The Jesse Ventura election tends to support my POV , far more so than the "gotta fight for the middle" conventional wisdom chickenshit.

All he did was motivate less than the 15% of people who normally would've sat on the sidelines, and then next thing you know he was the Guv.

That's reality, pal.

You'd have a point if the election in 2002 didn't have 150,000 more voters than when Ventura was elected in 1998, and if hadn't Ventura won with a mere 37% of the vote.

Obama won because he mobilized voters that tend to vote less - young people and minorities. We have always known through empirical analysis that these voting blocks voted less.

Now, the onus is on you to show that all these conservatives - who are generally white males who vote in a higher proportion to the rest of the population - would come out to vote if the party was more conservative without alienating even more of the moderates who are already voting that the Republican party has already alienated.

Back it up with hard analysis. Otherwise, it's just a counterfactual fantasy of those on the far right. Just saying "There are all these conservatives who don't vote blah blah blah" doesn't wash.

Don't care about any of that.

Point is that there are far more votes to be had from those who have abstained than there are by pursuing the squishy knock-them-over-with-a-feather "moderates"....Whether or not they are "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore), or whether they necessarily need to be so, is notwithstanding a statistical fact that you don't need Sherlock Holmes to see...The pool of abstainers is a much larger pond in which to fish for votes.

The Ventura race demonstrated that you would only need <15% of those who otherwise probably wouldn't vote to swing the election your way.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Jim, I get what youre trying to say, but to think that we would have had a greater chance with a hard line conservative is just not something I can get behind. As for the third party being added, it would just devide us more than we already are. finally, the way I see our voter turn out, especially in this election is, if you claim to be a conservative and still at the very least didnt vote to get Obama out of office then you have no place to talk about the election. Only those who voted have earned the right to talk about the change they wanted.

 

[Toro]

Uh-huh.

The Jesse Ventura election tends to support my POV , far more so than the "gotta fight for the middle" conventional wisdom chickenshit.

All he did was motivate less than the 15% of people who normally would've sat on the sidelines, and then next thing you know he was the Guv.

That's reality, pal.

You'd have a point if the election in 2002 didn't have 150,000 more voters than when Ventura was elected in 1998, and if hadn't Ventura won with a mere 37% of the vote.

Obama won because he mobilized voters that tend to vote less - young people and minorities. We have always known through empirical analysis that these voting blocks voted less.

Now, the onus is on you to show that all these conservatives - who are generally white males who vote in a higher proportion to the rest of the population - would come out to vote if the party was more conservative without alienating even more of the moderates who are already voting that the Republican party has already alienated.

Back it up with hard analysis. Otherwise, it's just a counterfactual fantasy of those on the far right. Just saying "There are all these conservatives who don't vote blah blah blah" doesn't wash.

Don't care about any of that.

Point is that there are far more votes to be had from those who have abstained than there are by pursuing the squishy knock-them-over-with-a-feather "moderates"....Whether or not they are "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore), or whether they necessarily need to be so, is notwithstanding a statistical fact that you don't need Sherlock Holmes to see...The pool of abstainers is a much larger pond in which to fish for votes.

The Ventura race demonstrated that you would only need <15% of those who otherwise probably wouldn't vote to swing the election your way.

Ventura was a third party candidate who attracted a lot of outsiders otherwise disgusted with the process and won with 37% of the vote. There is no equivalence on a national scale within a two-party system. The best equivalent to your Ventura analogy is Ron Paul and we know how well that fared.

Ventura didn't win on ideology. Your solution - and correct me if I'm wrong - is to have a more conservative candidate to inspire conservatives to come out and vote, right? That's based on ideology. Try and see this another way. If a liberal said this, "We need more liberal candidates so that more liberals who otherwise wouldn't vote would come out and vote," would you agree? It's (almost) as valid as the conservatives saying we need more conservative candidates. Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have said this in the past. But having a more conservative (liberal) candidate to attract more nonvoting conservatives (liberals) will push away moderates who are already voting, and bring out liberals (conservatives) who aren't voting to vote against the more conservative (liberal) candidate.

History tells us its difficult to win without winning moderates. There is very little in history to tell us that trying to attract more nonvoting like-minded people by pushing either party to the extreme is a successful strategy. One-term, third-party state governors winning a third of the vote is not a good analogy for a national election.

 

[del]

Uh-huh.

The Jesse Ventura election tends to support my POV , far more so than the "gotta fight for the middle" conventional wisdom chickenshit.

All he did was motivate less than the 15% of people who normally would've sat on the sidelines, and then next thing you know he was the Guv.

That's reality, pal.

You'd have a point if the election in 2002 didn't have 150,000 more voters than when Ventura was elected in 1998, and if hadn't Ventura won with a mere 37% of the vote.

Obama won because he mobilized voters that tend to vote less - young people and minorities. We have always known through empirical analysis that these voting blocks voted less.

Now, the onus is on you to show that all these conservatives - who are generally white males who vote in a higher proportion to the rest of the population - would come out to vote if the party was more conservative without alienating even more of the moderates who are already voting that the Republican party has already alienated.

Back it up with hard analysis. Otherwise, it's just a counterfactual fantasy of those on the far right. Just saying "There are all these conservatives who don't vote blah blah blah" doesn't wash.

Don't care about any of that.

Point is that there are far more votes to be had from those who have abstained than there are by pursuing the squishy knock-them-over-with-a-feather "moderates"....Whether or not they are "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore), or whether they necessarily need to be so, is notwithstanding a statistical fact that you don't need Sherlock Holmes to see...The pool of abstainers is a much larger pond in which to fish for votes.

The Ventura race demonstrated that you would only need <15% of those who otherwise probably wouldn't vote to swing the election your way.

minnesota =/= usa

thanks for playing

 

[uscitizen]

The Tea Party is not dead it just smells that way.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.

So THANK YOU Tea-Partyests for your part helping to put Obama into the Oval Office for another four years.

The Tea Party was successfully demonized after 2010. This was vital due to the response to the Tea Party in the 2010 elections.

How did they do it? The GOP sent retards to Washington that caved to the debt ceiling, and the US downgrade was subsequently blamed on the Tea Party. All of that ugliness did nothing but make Americans mad, especially since the GOP backed down.

Make no mistake, the GOP is a Big Government party and as such diesdains the Tea Party. This does not stop them from trying to gain their support through demagoguery, however.

All the Tea Party wants is fiscal sanity, yet they are referred to as extermists as those in Washington who run trillion dollar deficits are referred to as the sane ones. This is what boggles my mind. Just know the power arrayed against you in the Tea Party, for they are impressive. You have no major party to work through and the media is against you.

Fear drives the threatened to some pretty extreme actions. One thing that can be said about the Tea Party, it strikes fear into the hearts of all big government proponents.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Personally I think the TEA PARTY movement did much to galvanize liberals to get out and return to office a POTUS that they are not especially thrilled with.

So THANK YOU Tea-Partyests for your part helping to put Obama into the Oval Office for another four years.

The Tea Party was successfully demonized after 2010. This was vital due to the response to the Tea Party in the 2010 elections.

How did they do it? The GOP sent retards to Washington that caved to the debt ceiling, and the US downgrade was subsequently blamed on the Tea Party. All of that ugliness did nothing but make Americans mad, especially since the GOP backed down.

Make no mistake, the GOP is a Big Government party and as such diesdains the Tea Party. This does not stop them from trying to gain their support through demagoguery, however.

All the Tea Party wants is fiscal sanity, yet they are referred to as extermists as those in Washington who run trillion dollar deficits are referred to as the sane ones. This is what boggles my mind. Just know the power arrayed against you in the Tea Party, for they are impressive. You have no major party to work through and the media is against you.

Fear drives the threatened to some pretty extreme actions. One thing that can be said about the Tea Party, it strikes fear into the hearts of all big government proponents.

The only fear the Tea Party strikes in me is the fact that it makes all of us other conservatives look stupid. I am against the ACA, but the thing is I know why I am against it and see a few things in it that may have use. You people drove Mitt Romney off of the stage because of his own healthcare plan that was, if you knew anything about economics, a good plan. Trust me soon all of the tea party members will be passed or too old to be taken seriously and we can reclaim our party. I give it 10 or 15 years. hopefullt people still find the GOP credible by then

 

[Oddball]

You'd have a point if the election in 2002 didn't have 150,000 more voters than when Ventura was elected in 1998, and if hadn't Ventura won with a mere 37% of the vote.

Obama won because he mobilized voters that tend to vote less - young people and minorities. We have always known through empirical analysis that these voting blocks voted less.

Now, the onus is on you to show that all these conservatives - who are generally white males who vote in a higher proportion to the rest of the population - would come out to vote if the party was more conservative without alienating even more of the moderates who are already voting that the Republican party has already alienated.

Back it up with hard analysis. Otherwise, it's just a counterfactual fantasy of those on the far right. Just saying "There are all these conservatives who don't vote blah blah blah" doesn't wash.

Don't care about any of that.

Point is that there are far more votes to be had from those who have abstained than there are by pursuing the squishy knock-them-over-with-a-feather "moderates"....Whether or not they are "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore), or whether they necessarily need to be so, is notwithstanding a statistical fact that you don't need Sherlock Holmes to see...The pool of abstainers is a much larger pond in which to fish for votes.

The Ventura race demonstrated that you would only need <15% of those who otherwise probably wouldn't vote to swing the election your way.

Ventura was a third party candidate who attracted a lot of outsiders otherwise disgusted with the process and won with 37% of the vote. There is no equivalence on a national scale within a two-party system. The best equivalent to your Ventura analogy is Ron Paul and we know how well that fared.

Ventura didn't win on ideology. Your solution - and correct me if I'm wrong - is to have a more conservative candidate to inspire conservatives to come out and vote, right? That's based on ideology. Try and see this another way. If a liberal said this, "We need more liberal candidates so that more liberals who otherwise wouldn't vote would come out and vote," would you agree? It's (almost) as valid as the conservatives saying we need more conservative candidates. Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have said this in the past. But having a more conservative (liberal) candidate to attract more nonvoting conservatives (liberals) will push away moderates who are already voting, and bring out liberals (conservatives) who aren't voting to vote against the more conservative (liberal) candidate.

That there hasn't been one so far doesn't mean that there can't be one, or that the greatest pool of available voters out there aren't the abstainers.

Vetura won because he told it like he saw it and was sincere....He talked straight, with little equivocation...He didn't deal in broad, nebulous, hairy-fairy crapola like hopey-changey.

History tells us its difficult to win without winning moderates. There is very little in history to tell us that trying to attract more nonvoting like-minded people by pushing either party to the extreme is a successful strategy. One-term, third-party state governors winning a third of the vote is not a good analogy for a national election.

No, inside-the-beltway and lamestream media "conventional wisdom" tells us that.,....Forgetting the fact that Reagan didn't govern like one, he campaigned twice sincerely and unabashedly on conservative principles.

Sincerity wins, not who can be the squishiest most gutless "moderate" you can be.

 

[del]

Don't care about any of that.

Point is that there are far more votes to be had from those who have abstained than there are by pursuing the squishy knock-them-over-with-a-feather "moderates"....Whether or not they are "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore), or whether they necessarily need to be so, is notwithstanding a statistical fact that you don't need Sherlock Holmes to see...The pool of abstainers is a much larger pond in which to fish for votes.

The Ventura race demonstrated that you would only need <15% of those who otherwise probably wouldn't vote to swing the election your way.

Ventura was a third party candidate who attracted a lot of outsiders otherwise disgusted with the process and won with 37% of the vote. There is no equivalence on a national scale within a two-party system. The best equivalent to your Ventura analogy is Ron Paul and we know how well that fared.

Ventura didn't win on ideology. Your solution - and correct me if I'm wrong - is to have a more conservative candidate to inspire conservatives to come out and vote, right? That's based on ideology. Try and see this another way. If a liberal said this, "We need more liberal candidates so that more liberals who otherwise wouldn't vote would come out and vote," would you agree? It's (almost) as valid as the conservatives saying we need more conservative candidates. Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have said this in the past. But having a more conservative (liberal) candidate to attract more nonvoting conservatives (liberals) will push away moderates who are already voting, and bring out liberals (conservatives) who aren't voting to vote against the more conservative (liberal) candidate.

That there hasn't been one so far doesn't mean that there can't be one, or that the greatest pool of available voters out there aren't the abstainers.

Vetura won because he told it like he saw it and was sincere....He talked straight, with little equivocation...He didn't deal in broad, nebulous, hairy-fairy crapola like hopey-changey.

History tells us its difficult to win without winning moderates. There is very little in history to tell us that trying to attract more nonvoting like-minded people by pushing either party to the extreme is a successful strategy. One-term, third-party state governors winning a third of the vote is not a good analogy for a national election.

No, inside-the-beltway and lamestream media "conventional wisdom" tells us that.,....Forgetting the fact that Reagan didn't govern like one, he campaigned twice sincerely and unabashedly on conservative principles.

Sincerity wins, not who can be the squishiest most gutless "moderate" you can be.

i'm sure president-elect paul agrees with your very astute observation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Jim, I get what youre trying to say, but to think that we would have had a greater chance with a hard line conservative is just not something I can get behind.

Well, the facts support the contention I am making, though the false right-left dichotomy makes it difficult to buy into. You have to eject that model first before you can see where things really are in this country.

As for the third party being added, it would just devide us more than we already are.

No, we are already well divided, but a third party would give a voice to the 40% to45% of Americans that self-identify as conservative.

finally, the way I see our voter turn out, especially in this election is, if you claim to be a conservative and still at the very least didnt vote to get Obama out of office then you have no place to talk about the election. Only those who voted have earned the right to talk about the change they wanted.

Well, I am not an idieological conservative. I am an historically conservative person in that I think Western Civilization and Christendom were things to cherish and protect. The conservatives of today are mostly about economics and national security with no depth in the cultural norms that got us where we got to.

As to the Democans or Republocrats; there isnt a spit's worth of difference between them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ventura was a third party candidate who attracted a lot of outsiders otherwise disgusted with the process and won with 37% of the vote. There is no equivalence on a national scale within a two-party system. The best equivalent to your Ventura analogy is Ron Paul and we know how well that fared.

Ventura didn't win on ideology. Your solution - and correct me if I'm wrong - is to have a more conservative candidate to inspire conservatives to come out and vote, right? That's based on ideology. Try and see this another way. If a liberal said this, "We need more liberal candidates so that more liberals who otherwise wouldn't vote would come out and vote," would you agree? It's (almost) as valid as the conservatives saying we need more conservative candidates. Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have said this in the past. But having a more conservative (liberal) candidate to attract more nonvoting conservatives (liberals) will push away moderates who are already voting, and bring out liberals (conservatives) who aren't voting to vote against the more conservative (liberal) candidate.

That there hasn't been one so far doesn't mean that there can't be one, or that the greatest pool of available voters out there aren't the abstainers.

Vetura won because he told it like he saw it and was sincere....He talked straight, with little equivocation...He didn't deal in broad, nebulous, hairy-fairy crapola like hopey-changey.

History tells us its difficult to win without winning moderates. There is very little in history to tell us that trying to attract more nonvoting like-minded people by pushing either party to the extreme is a successful strategy. One-term, third-party state governors winning a third of the vote is not a good analogy for a national election.

No, inside-the-beltway and lamestream media "conventional wisdom" tells us that.,....Forgetting the fact that Reagan didn't govern like one, he campaigned twice sincerely and unabashedly on conservative principles.

Sincerity wins, not who can be the squishiest most gutless "moderate" you can be.

i'm sure president-elect paul agrees with your very astute observation.

While I agreed with Paul on more issues than not, he was no Reagan conservative by any measure, in fact he denounced Reagan as too moderate.

 

[YoungRepublican]

Jim, I get what youre trying to say, but to think that we would have had a greater chance with a hard line conservative is just not something I can get behind.

Well, the facts support the contention I am making, though the false right-left dichotomy makes it difficult to buy into. You have to eject that model first before you can see where things really are in this country.


The presidential voting system used in the US is based in plurality voting, done through the electoral college. The history of it is that this system almost universally leads to two-party dominance its called Duverger's law. as long as you can vote for just one candidate, you'd better vote for one of the two frontrunners. It just makes more sense

As for the third party being added, it would just devide us more than we already are.

No, we are already well divided, but a third party would give a voice to the 4- to45% of Americans that self-identify as conservative.

I self identify as conservative and would always vote for the conservative i feel has the best chance at winning. Idiots who vote for Ron Paul are just wasting there votes no matter what moral place they are speaking from

finally, the way I see our voter turn out, especially in this election is, if you claim to be a conservative and still at the very least didnt vote to get Obama out of office then you have no place to talk about the election. Only those who voted have earned the right to talk about the change they wanted.

Well, I am not an idieological conservative. I am an historically conservative person in that I think Western Civilization and Christendom were things to cherish and protect. The conservatives of today are mostly about economics and national security with no depth in the cultural norms that got us where we got to.

Christianity has nothing to do with politics and it should have no place there. If you think that abortion is going to all of a sudden become illegal or gyas will go back to being incarcerated then you are just giving yourself false hope and its part of the reason we lose so many votes. History always favors progressive social values.

As to the Democans or Republocrats; there isnt a spit's worth of difference between them.

I dont even know what to say about that last claim though.

 

[uscitizen]

That there hasn't been one so far doesn't mean that there can't be one, or that the greatest pool of available voters out there aren't the abstainers.

Vetura won because he told it like he saw it and was sincere....He talked straight, with little equivocation...He didn't deal in broad, nebulous, hairy-fairy crapola like hopey-changey.

No, inside-the-beltway and lamestream media "conventional wisdom" tells us that.,....Forgetting the fact that Reagan didn't govern like one, he campaigned twice sincerely and unabashedly on conservative principles.

Sincerity wins, not who can be the squishiest most gutless "moderate" you can be.

i'm sure president-elect paul agrees with your very astute observation.

While I agreed with Paul on more issues than not, he was no Reagan conservative my any measure, in fact he denounced Reagan as too moderate.

Reagan was a conservative?

 

[YoungRepublican]

i'm sure president-elect paul agrees with your very astute observation.

While I agreed with Paul on more issues than not, he was no Reagan conservative my any measure, in fact he denounced Reagan as too moderate.

Reagan was a conservative?

Holy shit. I cant deal with people on this site who think that the GOP and my personal ideological hero isnt a conservative.. Are you kidding me?