The Myth of the Triumphant Conservative

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Toro, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,771
    Thanks Received:
    11,058
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,106
    You've heard this before: "A conservative always wins. A moderate never does. So Republicans have to nominate a conservative."

    Never mind the gaping leap in logic that a "real" conservative (according to the dogmatic conservative ideologues) rarely wins the Republican nomination so why would a conservative have an easier time in the more moderate electorate? It simply isn't true. The way to win Presidential elections isn't to be a conservative Republican, it is to move to the center.

    Ideologues of all stripes succumb to the mistaken belief that their ideology is always appealing to the majority, and that The Truth will prevail if clearly articulated. And the more deeply held the ideological belief, the more the ideologue believes this to be true. This pertains not only of conservatives but to liberals, socialists, libertarians, Marxists, Austrians, etc. This is why conservatives believe that if only they had nominated a "real" conservative, they wouldn't have lost the election.

    Results suggest otherwise.

    Michael Medved: Conservatives, Romney, and Electability - WSJ.com
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2011
  2. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,832
    Thanks Received:
    15,671
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,994
    Grrrrrrrr......

    I am so sorry you posted that.
    I listen to Medved every chance I get, read his books, and respect the guy. Plus, his stats are pretty much spot on.

    And I'd love to believe that conservatives always win....
    ...but they don't.

    Medved is the Romney kind of Republican....he's got a lot of good poiints, with which I agree, but he's not a 'true believer.'

    But, as Lincoln said, "Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."

    Once the nominee is determined, conservatives will back whomsoever it is.
     
  3. Dot Com
    Offline

    Dot Com Nullius in verba Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    49,417
    Thanks Received:
    7,548
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Fairfax, NoVA
    Ratings:
    +16,303
    So he doesn't want social conservatives to stay home when Romney wins the nomination? That will be difficult for many of them.
     
  4. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,771
    Thanks Received:
    11,058
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,106
    I've always believed it is better to get half of what you want than none at all.

    Reagan believed that too.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,832
    Thanks Received:
    15,671
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,994
    Was McCain the choice of conservatives?
    He certainly was
    not.
    But he got 3 million more conservative votes than Bush did, and a higher
    percentage of conservative votes than Reagan did against Carter.
    This from exit polls.

    It indicates that conservatives will vote for Romney if he
    gets the nod.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,832
    Thanks Received:
    15,671
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,994
    "Die-hard conservatives thought that if I couldn't get everything I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying-go down in flames. No, if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get ... I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future."
    Ronaldus Maximus
     
  7. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,771
    Thanks Received:
    11,058
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,106
    And if conservatives came out in force for McCain against a charismatic candidate whom they knew little about, why would they not come out for Romney against a weak candidate they know and loathe?
     
  8. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Right-wing voters didn't come out in force for McCain.

    I wonder about that stat that McCain got "a higher percentage of conservative votes than Reagan did against Carter." How was that measured? How was it determined that someone was a "conservative voter"? At a guess, through self-labeling in an exit poll?

    If so, there are obvious problems with this. One finds right-wingers repeatedly trotting out polls showing that only 21% of Americans currently self-label as "liberal," yet issue polls show that liberal positions on actual issues are supported by 40-60% of the people, which means that there are an awful lot of liberals out there who for whatever reason refuse to call themselves liberals. Could be there are problems on the other end, too. Then again, it also could be that those few conservative voters who did vote in 2008 voted for McCain pretty reliably.

    Elections these days are mostly decided by voter turnout. Obama ran a strongly progressive campaign (which is why his tacking to the right in office was such a let-down), and liberal voters were galvanized to an extent not seen in decades. At the same time, conservative voters weren't excited about McCain, and tended to stay home. Hence Obama's big win. In 2010, the same process worked in the other direction: liberal voters stayed home while conservative voters went to the polls. The Republicans won only about 22% of the registered voters in that election -- but that was enough, because more Republican and Republican-Independent voters voted than did Democrats and Democrat-Indies.

    This election presents a different dynamic than 2008 or 2010. Progressives have communicated their dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democrats loudly and clearly, and everything hinges on what they do about that. It's too early to say at this point, but Obama has a CHANCE to do what Franklin Roosevelt did in 1936: shift to the left in the face of popular pressure. IF HE DOES -- and I'm not saying he will, mind -- then he wins. Doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is. IF HE DOESN'T, and that's a distinct possibility, THEN it matters who the GOP nominee is, because the election will be closer. That's when the OP becomes a reality.

    Here's why. Take any of the GOP candidates except for Romney and possibly Gingrich, and you find he or she appeals to only a small segment of the voters, the hardest of hard-core Republicans. It's not so important who the "true independents" like, the real swing voters, because they barely exist anyway, but there are a lot of Republicans and Republican-Indies out there who don't subscribe to hard-right positions. A majority of the party's voters in fact. So a hard-right candidate will make maybe 20% of GOP voters more inclined to go to the polls, while a more moderate candidate will make the other 80% more inclined to do so, and the hard-right voters are more inclined to vote anyway than the moderates. So in presidential elections it's better for the GOP to nominate a moderate, center-right candidate.

    Now, that would normally be true on the other side of the aisle, too, except for the fact that the Democrats are taking economic positions to the right of what the people want already, in actual legislation, and that's a burning issue. So -- not that there's any doubt who the Dem nominee will be -- but it very much matters what Obama does between now and Election Day in terms of taking a populist economic stance, something that he has so far not done convincingly.

    If he does that, OR if the economy substantially improves between now and then, he can't lose. If he doesn't, AND the economy remains a mess, then the Republicans have a chance, and in that case Romney is the best chance they have.
     
  9. Dot Com
    Offline

    Dot Com Nullius in verba Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    49,417
    Thanks Received:
    7,548
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Fairfax, NoVA
    Ratings:
    +16,303
    if those are totals, that would include Independents. A far -right candidate would get a lot less Independent votes.
     
  10. Reactionary
    Offline

    Reactionary Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    The supposedly right-wing candidates that win but are actually moderates and center-of-left in most issues are the reason why the country keep moving to the left and expanding government gets eveb bigger even when republicans have won most of the recent presidental elections during the last 60 years
     

Share This Page