68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 02:42 pm
@JTT,
Rather, there's a dummy born every minute, and they teach their children the same politics.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 07:11 pm
Good evening.
I know how some of yall feel about polls in general (especially this early) and Rasmussen in particular. Nonetheless, here is a summary of a poll Scott released on Sunday.
> 46% of Likely Republican Primary voters (LRPV) who support Sarah Palin claim that that they are at least Somewhat likely to support a 3rd party candidate, with 22% claiming that that they would be Very Likely.\
> Among all LRPV's, 35% say that they might be at least somewhat likely.
> 56% report that they will vote for whomever the Repub nominee is.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:00 pm
I mentioned a month ago that there will be a gathering in D.C. called The Conservative Political Action Conference. 10,000 attendees from Feb 10th-12th.
7 of the Repubs on our list of potential contenders will speak. Sarah Palin, for the 3rd year, has declined citing scheduling conflicts, despite being offered the coveted closing address slot.
CPAC is kind of an umbrella group, with many organizations participating. The media has been focusing on one of them: GOProud, which is a gay conservative group. That is not acceptable to a number of them.
I would suggest that there are those in the conservative movement (eg the Tea Party movement) who want to focus on the economy and don't want to wade into social issues.
Does that make any sense?
Thank you.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:36 pm
@realjohnboy,
I think you're right about the social issues thing. economy is far more compelling and I don't think that GOP has the moral command on these topics so why invite such obvious national criticism? I think despite the internal struggle with groups like the Log Cabin Republican and GOProud, these groups will give CPAC some positive traction with moderates.

However, that good will could be spoiled depending on how conservative pundits sell or condemn it.

A
R
T
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 05:40 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
economy is far more compelling and I don't think that GOP has the moral command on these topics so why invite such obvious national criticism?


Probably because bringing teh Gay Hate is the prime goal for several prominent organizations on the right-wing. Their alliance is bullshit to begin with - the money Republicans use the social ones and then do nothing for them, and have for years - but it can't be allowed to be too obvious or the religious types might revolt, and the GOP would collapse.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:30 pm
@realjohnboy,
I don't agree with this, actually -- the groups who refuse to attend because GOProud will be there have actively waded into social issues. If they had just not made a big deal out of it, the whole thing would've been quieter.

GOProud was involved at last year's CPAC and it wasn't as big of a deal then.

It might be wiser for them to focus on economic issues, but I don't think that's what the more extreme tea party types will be doing. The whole anti-gay, pro-life social issues thing is central to their ability to rally the troops.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:32 pm
@sozobe,
soz, I believe you are correct; they have the habit of ignoring what's really important for our country, and appeal to those who think gays and pro-life are more important issues.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 08:56 pm
@sozobe,
I think it will be telling to see after CPAC who on the conservative PR front will be put forth on network television and on the pundit circuit. While you're quite right that social issues have proven effective rally points in the past, I feel like amongst conservatives the notions of federal over-reach and notions of a creeping socialism proved themselves to be equally effective in the 2010 midterms. In fact, I think avoiding the social topics probably contributed to many victories. I think Sharron Angle and Chrisitne O'Donnel's campaigns took it there and it diffused the more successful Tea Party brand. Treading off into social politics didn't help these candidates and left them easily exposed to criticism.

There is a lot of time still and week to week the national political totem is re-stacked.

Also, nice avatar. Go Pack!
R
T
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 12:27 am
Quote:
Real democracy comes from waking up!

by Howard Zinn and Gary Krane


The political culture of the United States is obsessed with and dominated by voting. Every election year is accompanied by the media's and the politicians' obsession with persuading Americans that voting for one candidate or another (and only if they are Democrat or Republican, of course) is the most important act of citizenship.

We get high on voting and forget that whether presidents have been Republican or Democrat, impotent or oversexed, they have followed the same basic policies. Whether crooks or Boy Scouts, handsome or homely, agile or clumsy, they have taxed the poor; subsidized the rich; squandered the nation's commonwealth (our minerals, airwaves, water and forests); wasted our taxes on bombers, missiles, ships and other corporate welfare; ignored the decay of the cities; and done so little for poor minority kids that for every Afro-American in college, five are now in prison, and for every Latino in college, three are in prison.

Harry Truman was blunt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were wily. And Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were charming. But the first three spent billions and sent armies to Asia to defend dictators and massacre more than 2 million of the people we claimed to be helping, and the latter three again spent billions of our taxes to also arm and prop up dictators and oligarchies, and to subvert democratic movements against those governments in places like Indonesia, El Salvador and Guatemala, ending in murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. John F. Kennedy was witty; Carter was "caring"; George Bush, the elder, was firm; and Reagan said he was against big government. But all expanded our federal budgets enormously by spending hundreds of billions building up grotesquely huge nuclear weapons systems (we continue building B-2 bombers at $2 billion apiece) at the expense of providing a great public education system, health care for all Americans regardless of income, jobs that pay a living wage and mass transit for all of our cities.

Despite the decimation of the former Soviet Union, Al Gore and George W. Bush both want to continue this military spending madness, which year after year consumes more than 50 percent of our discretionary federal budget (the budget that the president and Congress determine). And Bush has the gall to claim he is against big government.

Nixon was corrupt and Gerald Ford straightforward, Reagan endearing and Clinton someone who claimed to feel the pain of the poor. But all coldly cut essential benefits for the poor and gave hundreds of billions of dollars of favors instead to rich corporations and billionaires.

This obsession with voting is made all the worse by corporate media's obsession with "fine distinctions." The more the media can keep us distracted by this tweedledum-tweedledee horse race, the more they (and therefore the major candidates themselves) can avoid dealing with the huge issues and solutions being purposely ignored by both major party candidates: Issues like who in fact owns and controls both houses, universal health care, full public funding of elections, seriously cutting the defense budget, decriminalizing drugs, returning to labor their rights to organize, and the frightening concentration of media ownership itself.

Why else did they both make sure Ralph Nader was kept out of the debates? The tragedy of all this is that this cult of voting and fine distinctions (and often "personality" as well) takes the energy of ordinary citizens, which, combined, can be a powerful force, and depletes it in the spectator sport of voting.

Today, sadly, our most cherished moment of democratic citizenship comes when we leave the house once in four years to choose between two mediocre Anglo-Saxon males who have been trundled out by big corporate and billionaire-run political caucuses, million-dollar primaries and managed conventions for the rigged presidential debate and multiple choice test we call a "democratic" election.

Presidents come and go, but the 200 top corporations keep increasing their almost complete control over our elections and the two major parties' candidates (with big corporations and billionaires funding 90 percent to 98 percent of both parties' budgets), over our work lives by weakening labor's rights, over our health care rights (43 million uninsured now compared to 32 million when Clinton took office), over our airwaves, and over our legal and court system, even determining how easily any of us can be sent to prison for victimless "crimes."

To further prove greed knows no boundaries, they now want to take over public education and social security. No president in this century has stopped the trend. Not even Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Only when mass movements have galvanized the country have presidents made important reforms, as when strikes and turmoil throughout the nation in the 1930s pushed FDR into his New Deal measures. Sure, Roosevelt was a sensitive man. But it took mass protests to sharpen that sensitivity and make it take action. Then and only then did he take huge steps to help the poor, establish the minimum wage and create Social Security (which had been the Socialist Party's most popular demand).

But that didn't change the basic nature of an unfettered capitalist system, whose highest priority has always been profits and power and to hell with the rest.

Voting Day 2000 has again come and gone. Sure, one of the presidential candidates is better than the other. But we will go a long way from spectator democracy to real democracy when we understand that the future of this country doesn't depend, mainly, on who is our next president. It depends on whether the American citizen, fed up with the buying off of our Congress and president by the billionaires; fed up with the murderous greed of our health care system and the pharmaceutical companies; fed up with the planetary self-destructive path of our energy, auto, lumber, agribusiness and chemical companies; will organize all over the country a clamor for change even greater than the labor uprisings of the '30s or the black rebellion of the '60s and shake this country out of old paths and falsehood into new paths and the truth.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Real_democracy_waking_up.html

0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:36 am
@failures art,
But some of the ones who won "took it there" too. I don't think that's the reason that Angle and O'Donnell lost. (More about their opponents, their gender, and their craziness. :-)

I don't think it'll be either/or, I think that the economy will be hammered AND social issues will be a big part of the picture, especially anti-gay and pro-life stuff. I also think that it's the more extreme right/ Tea Party people who will hammer the social stuff more.

What will be interesting is how the economy will change in the two years + before election day 2011, and how that will affect things. I think it's quite possible it will continue to improve and then kind of pull the rug out from under that whole line of attack.

That's what happened with Reagan -- economy was bad when he took office, still wasn't good two years into his first term, and then improved a lot before he was re-elected in '84. Not to say that history would repeat itself that exactly, but there's precedent.

Thanks re: my avatar, go Pack!
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:38 am
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

It might be wiser for them to focus on economic issues, but I don't think that's what the more extreme tea party types will be doing. The whole anti-gay, pro-life social issues thing is central to their ability to rally the troops.


I think you may be wrong in this. The social issues have been around for a long time and, except for an apparent quietly growing social rejection of abortion, have been fading in their critical importance. The truly new element in the tea party awakening (if that is what it is) is the fast growing concern about the expansion of the reach of government in our lives and the financial crisis that appears to accompaqny it - at all levels of government.

I'm not suggesting the rally the troops element to which you referred isn't there, only that it is no longer the growing element of the dynamic.

H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 09:33 am
@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

It might be wiser for them to focus on economic issues...

Conservatives must focus on economic issues.



sozobe wrote:
The whole anti-gay, pro-life social issues thing is central to their ability to rally the troops.

These so called 'issues' need to be pushed aside.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 12:54 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

sozobe wrote:

It might be wiser for them to focus on economic issues, but I don't think that's what the more extreme tea party types will be doing. The whole anti-gay, pro-life social issues thing is central to their ability to rally the troops.


I think you may be wrong in this. The social issues have been around for a long time and, except for an apparent quietly growing social rejection of abortion, have been fading in their critical importance. The truly new element in the tea party awakening (if that is what it is) is the fast growing concern about the expansion of the reach of government in our lives and the financial crisis that appears to accompany it - at all levels of government.

I'm not suggesting the rally the troops element to which you referred isn't there, only that it is no longer the growing element of the dynamic.


The problem for your coalition is that without the 'social conservatives,' you will lose elections in droves. And they don't like being told that their issues aren't as important as other issues.

I don't know where you get the 'social rejection of abortion' data from. Polling has shown that in the last 15 years there has been no appreciable change in people's opinions on the matter.

I would also challenge the 'expansion of government' line. This is a big deal amongst Conservatives; but not independents or Liberals. And polling once again clearly shows that the public believes reducing spending and cutting the debt are far from the most important priorities at this time.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 01:19 pm
@sozobe,
soz, Glad to see we're on the same page concerning gays and prolife issues for the conservative's meme.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 02:52 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The problem for your coalition is that without the 'social conservatives,' you will lose elections in droves. And they don't like being told that their issues aren't as important as other issues.

I don't know where you get the 'social rejection of abortion' data from. Polling has shown that in the last 15 years there has been no appreciable change in people's opinions on the matter.

I would also challenge the 'expansion of government' line. This is a big deal amongst Conservatives; but not independents or Liberals. And polling once again clearly shows that the public believes reducing spending and cutting the debt are far from the most important priorities at this time.

Cycloptichorn


In the first plave it's not "my coalition". In the second the social conservatives aren't very likely to vote with "your" coalition, no matter what the Republicans may do. Moreover right now it is yours that faces a problem in winning eloections. In the third place I believe the issues of the increased reach of government and the growing deficit are associated in the minds of at least many of those aroused by the public debt issue, as indeed they are in fact.

Finally my essential point was that it is the public debt & expanding government issue that has grown in intensity, certainly more than the issues surrounding social conservatism. I believe that one is very obviously true.

I'm not a student or close follower of polls and am not interested in becoming one. However I have read and heard several referencesd to a slowly declining public approval of abortions over the decades since the Roe vs Wade ruling of the Supreme Court.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 03:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

I'm not a student or close follower of polls and am not interested in becoming one.


Well, it's not hard to understand why: forming arguments based on actual data rather than assertion would make it much, much more difficult for you to project your personal worldview onto Americans as a whole.

And besides, who can be bothered to put actual effort into the things they say? To check and see if their arguments match reality? Right? I mean, it's pretty clear that these things are less important to you than advancing an ideological viewpoint.

Re: 'your' coalition: You are a Republican. The Republican party consists of two main factions: social and fiscal Conservatives. So what I said isn't inaccurate in the slightest.

Regarding the likelihood of social Conservatives voting for Democrats, you may be right. But keep marginalizing them and see the level of support they give Republicans. We all know that, given the low level of civic participation in voting, having people stay home is as dangerous as having them vote for the other guy.

But, hey. My advice to the Republican leadership right now would be: don't take my word for it! Keep on marginalizing the social wing of your party. Call 'truces' on social issues. Don't move the ball forward on social issues or even try all that hard to stop Democrats. I'm sure everything will work out just great next time you need that group of voters to come out and support your candidate - like in 2012.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 03:21 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I'm not a student or close follower of polls and am not interested in becoming one. However I have read and heard several referenced to a slowly declining public approval of abortions ...

I have no problem with that, Georgeob. I don't expect everyone to share my interest in polling.
I would suggest that you google in "polls regarding abortion" which includes polls over the last decade or so (along with the wording of the question) from Fox, CBS and Gallup. It is the 1st entry that popped up headlined Fox....
It will only take a minute or so.
Thanks.
(PS: IF I can make to SF in May, I hope to meet you).
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 05:00 pm
@realjohnboy,
I'm interested in many of the subjects that are the subjects of polling and moderatedly interested in the polls themselves. However, I generally find conversations or discussions with those habitually claim superior knowledge and understanding based on poll results to be a bit unpleasant and unsatisfying. As you have previously indicated, polls vary in their statistical makeup, sampling size & technique, and relevence to the issue at hand. As often as not there are stastically significant differences in the results of polls on related questions. Polls are certainly good evidence that should be considered, but they generally aren't the only useful evidence. People often forget these considerations.

I closely followed you tabulation of poll results and discussions leading up to the recent election. They were interesting and often illuminating - a good example of intelligent comparative analysis of polls and other relevent evidence.


I'll be in Germany thru mid May but home in the Bay area after that. I understand Walter Hindler may be there as well. Of course ole Cicerone will be there too. In person he is a very amiable, interesting guy - not at all the irritable, name-calling crank he often appears to be on these threads. I look forward to meeting you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 05:10 pm
Polling evidence, while certainly fallible, is surely considered superior to no evidence, one would think. In every case.

When multiple polls ran by different organizations and polling various different groups all find similar results, one can indeed draw evidence of popular opinion from them.

Though I certainly understand why the proponents of certain positions don't want to hear that. It is extremely harmful to their arguments.

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 05:59 pm
I would go beyond that, Cyclo, by a couple of steps.
It turns out Georgeob is correct. The % of people describing themselves as "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" has crept up in the last decade, according to the "polls regarding abortion" google search I suggested. I hope that those of you closely following the thrust of this thread will at least look at that. It will only take a minute. It will, perhaps, be significant as we slog forward.
Three states, including my state of Virginia, have released preliminary Census 2010 data. If the trend holds, the U.S. population grew a lot in the last decade, with much of it fueled by people who describe themselves as "Hispanic."
They tend to be social conservatives when it comes to abortion, perhaps contributing to the bump up in the "pro-life" poll numbers.
Several states will enjoy a big increase in population once the full Census numbers are compiled. It will be interesting to see how redistricting plays out regarding social/political issues.
I'm done.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 06:30:19