Romney 2012?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

Data from Rasmussen reports:

Fiscal issues: 41% of Americans consider themselves fiscally conservative. 43% consider themselves fiscally moderate. Only 11% are fiscally liberal.

Over 50% of Democrats consider themselves fiscally moderate. 49% of independents consider themselves fiscally moderate. Didn’t break down the distribution between fiscal liberals and fiscal conservatives among Democrats. But at least some of the remainder are fiscally conservative.

Social issues: Only 37% of Americans say they are conservative when it comes to ?social issues like abortion, public prayer, and church-state topics.? The vast majority are moderate on these issues and a minority are liberal. Just among the Democratic party, only 20% are socially liberal. Most are social moderates.

Overall: Only 16% of the Democratic population is socially and fiscally liberal. Even though that’s what the leadership is. Similarly, only 24% of the electorate is both fiscally and socially conservative. Even among the Republican party it’s actually a minority of the party. Maybe that’s why the Republican leadership really isn’t though it still tries to pay lip service to this demographic.

You can make what you will of the data. But a vast majority of this country are social moderates and fiscal moderates, erring to the fiscal conservative side. Seems pretty clear that a party that was socially moderate and fiscally moderate that erred toward fiscal conservatism would clean up on votes.

It’s just not either existing party.

182

So then let it die. If it’s a party that insists on pandering to the social right wing, I want no part of it. I’d prefer a new party to emerge.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Damici wrote:
False. They’d get almost all the typical Republican voters, because they’re on their side with regard to taxes, spending and foreign policy, and they’d get ALL the fucking swing voters. Every. Single. One.

The half that always vote Democratic still would, the half that always vote Republican still would, and ALL the swing voters would vote for the Republican in that case. They’re (the swing voters) who wins elections.

Election won.

Sloth wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You drop the Pro-life stance and the GoP is dead.

Why?

Because that’s the way it is. They could try running strictly libertarian Republicans, but I doubt they’d get very far without the pro-life movement.

If the Republicans were more socially moderate, current Democrats who are socially moderate and fiscally conservative (or even fiscally moderate) would defect to the Republican party in droves. The liberals would still vote Democrat. And who cares. They wouldn’t be needed.

Oh yeah, “droves” I’m sure… You lose the social conservatives and the GoP is dead. [/quote]

183

Yeah, because as the Palin family has proven SO well, abstinence-only sex ed is the BEST way to go!! :slight_smile:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’[/quote]

184

I don’t put much confidence into what people self identify themselves as in a report. Over 50% of Democrats are fiscal moderates? Hogwash. Aboslute Hogwash. The Democrat party is so far left, fiscally moderate includes universal healthcare as an option.

185

[quote]Damici wrote:
Yeah, because as the Palin family has proven SO well, abstinence-only sex ed is the BEST way to go!! :slight_smile:

Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’

[/quote]

How about no sex education, no absitnence education?

186

You’re not listening: Combine the socially moderate stances WITH fiscal conservatism and strong national defense. This is really simple. Fiscal conservatism is not IN ANY WAY wed to right-wing social conservatism or religion. The two have NOTHING to do with one another.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A dirty little secret about alot of social conservatives, from my experience. You take the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-sex ed. plank out of the party platform, and many would just vote Democrat.

Why? Because Democrats would just attract them with “helping the poor.” Social conservatives aren’t neccassarily fiscal conservatives. It’s the social issues like life in the womb and the sanctity of marriage prevent them from voting Democrat. Many didn’t want to even vote for McCain. Now abandon the social issues, and well, less reasons not to vote Democrat.[/quote]

187

Start up the moderate party, you guys should easily win.

188

EXACTLY!! Let them flee! Where are they gonna’ go?

Say you’ve got one candidate (Democrat) who’s socially moderate/liberal AND fiscally liberal.

Say you’ve got another candidate (Republican) who’s socially moderate and fiscally CONSERVATIVE.

Let the religious nutjobs make their choice! I’m pretty sure they’d prefer the latter.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’[/quote]

189

[quote]Damici wrote:
You’re not listening: Combine the socially moderate stances WITH fiscal conservatism and strong national defense. This is really simple. Fiscal conservatism is not IN ANY WAY wed to right-wing social conservatism or religion. The two have NOTHING to do with one another.

Sloth wrote:
A dirty little secret about alot of social conservatives, from my experience. You take the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-sex ed. plank out of the party platform, and many would just vote Democrat.

Why? Because Democrats would just attract them with “helping the poor.” Social conservatives aren’t neccassarily fiscal conservatives. It’s the social issues like life in the womb and the sanctity of marriage prevent them from voting Democrat. Many didn’t want to even vote for McCain. Now abandon the social issues, and well, less reasons not to vote Democrat.

[/quote]

But social/traditional Conservatism IS a major plank of the Republican platform. You’ll lose a ton of base, to do what? Attract a group who thinks medical insurance provided to all is moderate? That Social Security is untouchable? You’ll attract them with a libertarian lite message? It’ll go over about as well as the real Libertarian Party.

190

[quote]Damici wrote:
EXACTLY!! Let them flee! Where are they gonna’ go?

Say you’ve got one candidate (Democrat) who’s socially moderate/liberal AND fiscally liberal.

Say you’ve got another candidate (Republican) who’s socially moderate and fiscally CONSERVATIVE.

Let the religious nutjobs make their choice! I’m pretty sure they’d prefer the latter.

Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’

[/quote]

They’ll go to Constitution Party or the Democrats, in large measure. If social conservatism is what kept them voting Republican, and that’s abandoned, it’s no longer a deciding factor. Why not go for those who’ll bail out American automakers? Or protect domestic manafacturing? Or provide health care for the poor?

191

[quote]Damici wrote:
EXACTLY!! Let them flee! Where are they gonna’ go?

Say you’ve got one candidate (Democrat) who’s socially moderate/liberal AND fiscally liberal.

Say you’ve got another candidate (Republican) who’s socially moderate and fiscally CONSERVATIVE.

Let the religious nutjobs make their choice! I’m pretty sure they’d prefer the latter.

Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’

[/quote]

By the way, the savvy Democrat leader would certainely capitalize on your attitude towards the Religious. They might not adopt a Pro-life stance (okay, they won’t) but they’ll speak to their concerns alot better than calling them “nutjobs.”

192

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Start up the moderate party, you guys should easily win.[/quote]

It should. People who participate in politics are much more extreme in their views than most of the country. Why do you think they get active?

Hint. Few do it out of a desire to serve their country and represent the views of their constiutents. They want to push their agenda of what THEY think will make the country better. And don’t really care if constituents agree. They only care enough to cater to the extent necessary to stay in office.

193

Because:

– McCain is pro-life, which turns off the great majority of women in this country (doesn’t matter about the exceptions, etc. – when asked in interviews he clearly and emphatically states that he is staunchly pro-life). In the last debate he even made a tasteless joke about people who make exceptions for the quote “life of the mother” (quotes being his) and sneered at it, as though the life of the mother doesn’t matter!

– He was 212 years old, and it showed. In 2000 he was a vigorous, exciting, viable candidate who spoke energetically (and stuck to his principles). In 2008 he literally came across as bordering on senility, and that frightened people.

– That fear was GREATLY exacerbated by the fact that he nominated an incompetent, brainless, inexperienced, right-wing whackjob as his VP, and the thought of HER taking over the country if he died absolutely mortified people. He completely lost the experience argument when he nominated her. He completely lost the “maverick,” centrist argument when he nominated her because she’s a right-wing, evangelical loony tune.

– He nominated her PRECISELY to pander to the right-wing base, as opposed to running like his true self, like he did in 2000, when he basically said fuck the base, they’re a bunch of whackjobs. This time around he even came back around and sucked up to Bob Jones and the other right-wing preachers that he so boldy (and CORRECTLY) criticized in the past.

– And, of course, running like that (to the right in order to pander to the base), there was no way he wasn’t going to get painted with the “GWB II” brush.

– Because he couldn’t speak or debate to save his life. As I pointed out, he couldn’t even effectively make the easiest argument there is to make, that low taxes benefit everyone!! He didn’t know how to EXPLAIN it!! And so he even lost THAT argument to Obama!!

LESSON: For the umpteenth time, from now on the party needs to STOP nominating right-wing dolts. PERIOD.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why wasn’t McCain the moderate everyone was waiting for? He was the “Maverick, Independent minded Republican.” Until he had to run against the Democrat nominee of course. Then he was just like Bush.

Edit: He doesn’t approve of a federal ban against gay marriage, he’d let states decide. While he does come across as pro-life, he allows for they typical exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother in danger). He’s definitely not anti-entitlement/“social safety net.”[/quote]

194

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
EXACTLY!! Let them flee! Where are they gonna’ go?

Say you’ve got one candidate (Democrat) who’s socially moderate/liberal AND fiscally liberal.

Say you’ve got another candidate (Republican) who’s socially moderate and fiscally CONSERVATIVE.

Let the religious nutjobs make their choice! I’m pretty sure they’d prefer the latter.

Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’

By the way, the savvy Democrat leader would certainely capitalize on your attitude towards the Religious. They might not adopt a Pro-life stance (okay, they won’t) but they’ll speak to their concerns alot better than calling them “nutjobs.”[/quote]

No. That’s not going to happen nor should it. But the savvy Democrat leader could just as easily adopt a more centrist stance to social and fiscal issues. It might alienate some social and fiscal liberals, but that’s only a small minority of the party. the could just as easily capture off-setting moderate votes as Republicans.

195

Hmm. If Reagan, for example, was guilty of it, how is it that he was colossally successful politcally? Hmmm? Because you win elections by winning the MIDDLE, the swing voters.

I explained this clearly. Given a choice of a Democrat who is fiscally liberal (and socially liberal) and a Republican who is fiscally conservative (and socially moderate/liberal), who do you think the right-wingers will vote for? The Democrat??

Uh, no. And winning the ENTIRE swing voter block will far more than make up for the few Bible-thumpers who actually decide not to vote in protest.

Election won.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Damici wrote:
False. They’d get almost all the typical Republican voters, because they’re on their side with regard to taxes, spending and foreign policy, and they’d get ALL the fucking swing voters. Every. Single. One.

The half that always vote Democratic still would, the half that always vote Republican still would, and ALL the swing voters would vote for the Republican in that case. They’re (the swing voters) who wins elections.

Election won.

Way, way off base. Social conservatives/evangelicals are the largest part of the Republican base. The proportion of the party that is libertarian, or even strictly small government, is tiny in comparison. I’m not gonna bother to look up the numbers, but I thought this was common knowledge. You tell them they’re not welcome, you no longer have a Republican Party. That simple.

The only wonder is that they haven’t already fled, given decades of the GOP taking them for a ride, tossing out some cheap anti-gay rhetoric every four years, and then doing nothing substantial on their issues. Everyone from Reagan on has been guilty of this.[/quote]

196

Did you just make an argument for NO sex education?? Is that what you just did??

Tell me you’re joking . . . .

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
Yeah, because as the Palin family has proven SO well, abstinence-only sex ed is the BEST way to go!! :slight_smile:

Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’

How about no sex education, no absitnence education?[/quote]

197

[quote]Damici wrote:
LESSON: For the umpteenth time, from now on the party needs to STOP nominating right-wing dolts. PERIOD.

[/quote]

Sounds like maybe Barr should’ve been your man. Did you vote LP?

198

You’re not listening. Attracting the INDEPENDENT, SWING VOTERS is what wins elections. If the Republican party nominated the kind of person I’m describing, the Religious Right WOULDN’T HAVE A CHOICE – it would be between a fiscally liberal, socially liberal Democrat and a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican.

They would, without a doubt prefer the latter.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
You’re not listening: Combine the socially moderate stances WITH fiscal conservatism and strong national defense. This is really simple. Fiscal conservatism is not IN ANY WAY wed to right-wing social conservatism or religion. The two have NOTHING to do with one another.

Sloth wrote:
A dirty little secret about alot of social conservatives, from my experience. You take the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-sex ed. plank out of the party platform, and many would just vote Democrat.

Why? Because Democrats would just attract them with “helping the poor.” Social conservatives aren’t neccassarily fiscal conservatives. It’s the social issues like life in the womb and the sanctity of marriage prevent them from voting Democrat. Many didn’t want to even vote for McCain. Now abandon the social issues, and well, less reasons not to vote Democrat.

But social/traditional Conservatism IS a major plank of the Republican platform. You’ll lose a ton of base, to do what? Attract a group who thinks medical insurance provided to all is moderate? That Social Security is untouchable? You’ll attract them with a libertarian lite message? It’ll go over about as well as the real Libertarian Party.[/quote]

199

[quote]Damici wrote:
Did you just make an argument for NO sex education?? Is that what you just did??

Tell me you’re joking . . . .

Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
Yeah, because as the Palin family has proven SO well, abstinence-only sex ed is the BEST way to go!! :slight_smile:

Sloth wrote:
And, what the hell is “socially moderate”? Pro-Abortion, pro-gay marriage, teaching children how to put on condoms? Can’t help but feel folks really mean ‘socially liberal.’

How about no sex education, no absitnence education?

[/quote]

Well, yes, in fact I did.

200

Jeezus, man, PLEASE read/listen to what I’ve said a zillion times now. BECAUSE THE RIGHT-WINGERS STILL PREFER FISCAL CONSERVATISM AND STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE (and social moderation) OVER FISCAL LIBERALISM (and social liberalism)!!

You’re telling me a lot of the right-wingers, given that choice, would choose the DEMOCRAT?? What on earth are you talking about??

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Damici wrote:
EXACTLY!! Let them flee! Where are they gonna’ go?

Say you’ve got one candidate (Democrat) who’s socially moderate/liberal AND fiscally liberal.

Say you’ve got another candidate (Republican) who’s socially moderate and fiscally CONSERVATIVE.

Let the religious nutjobs make their choice! I’m pretty sure they’d prefer the latter.

Sloth wrote:
What you guys are describing sounds more like a Libertarian-lite party. Social conservatives would flee in ‘droves.’

They’ll go to Constitution Party or the Democrats, in large measure. If social conservatism is what kept them voting Republican, and that’s abandoned, it’s no longer a deciding factor. Why not go for those who’ll bail out American automakers? Or protect domestic manafacturing? Or provide health care for the poor?[/quote]