1 out of 3 conservatives want the republicans to lose

[88Comrade2000]

Just watched a segment on MSNBC's Scarboro Country and he cited a poll where 1 in 3 conservatives want the Republicans to lose.

Bush and the Republicans are rapidly losing their base, with mistep after mistep. While they won't vote for democrats, they will not vote for ***** republicans in name only either.

The hatred of Bush vote is far stronger than the pro- Republican vote. There is consequences for actions and the Repbulicans will find out this fall, that their base will tell them to go home by staying at home themselves. The fear of Speaker Polosi or impeachment hearings will not sway them.

Republicans aren't giving any reason for conservatives to vote for them when they aren't siding with the people on immigration and are spending like crazy.

This has to make conservatives stomachs crawl:

Welfore happened under Bill Clinton: Democrat and a republican congress. Deficit reduction happened under Clinton and the Republicans.

The tidal wave is forming and it will be sweeping the republicans out this fall in numbers similiar to the democrats being swept out in 1994.

The republican base is getting ANGRY and they will punish their leaders. Unlike their congressmen who will do anything to stay in power; the base will stick to their principles and not vote for these idiots and stay home or vote for some conservatives if any on the ballot.

I actually think for 2008, this would be the best thing for the republican party. The party needs a cleansing and they are about as morally bankrupt as the democrats are. They need real conservatives that will act like conservatives and stick to their principles. I think it's pretty clear, the democrats will go crazy once in power and overdue it. Once in power, they public will see they really have no ideas. I can see an opening in 2008 after the 2 years of a democrat Senate/House and even president if Cheney/Bush were removed from office. An opening similiar to what Newt Gingrich saw in 94. Hmm, Newt is probably running for president. He has some real ideas.

[dreamingwolf]

this is a trait of the Republican party that while it hurts it I think it makes it stronger, its members are not affraid to vote for an outside voice to demonstrate a need for change in the party. Perot demonstrated this better than any other election. This is a trait that I wish the democrats would adopt, the democrat voters protest is to just not vote. This sends no clear message to the party in how they could re-address their agenda to put up strong opposition.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Thats why their needs to be more politcal parties in this country....dems and repub are way to currupt..

-Grant

[dreamingwolf]

Thats why their needs to be more politcal parties in this country....dems and repub are way to currupt..

-Grant

I wont argue that, but its not a question of more parties its both sides voting on other parties. the problem is theres a stagnation of the left holding their vote as better then whats best. There are plenty of partys out there right now, and theres no rule saying there should only be two parties. The problem comes from the left mostly, the right sure tried everything they could to squash Perot but he still got nearly 20% of the vote too so its just not the left.

I think if a third party left group ran a canidate was not that further left than the main, we would see an amazing restructuring of both parties. There is no fear of that cause the left vote is locked.

[jpillian]

I was actually thinking this in 2004. The party in power from 2004-2008 is going to absolutely deep six their side for the next few years. There really is no "feel good" end state for the War on Terror; and the short term ramifications are really tough politically.

I was kind of hoping Kerry would win the election so that the Dems could suffer the fallout. In the end, Bush and the GOP will get it both barrells. Several decades from now? The situation in America will be looked at differently. Short term, voters will draw a correlation between the (what is viewed as) inability to quickly conclude the War on Terror and the country's leadership (whether or not that is warranted, has been the subject for a gazillion Tailgate threads already).

[heyholetsgogrant]

I wont argue that, but its not a question of more parties its both sides voting on other parties. the problem is theres a stagnation of the left holding their vote as better then whats best. There are plenty of partys out there right now, and theres no rule saying there should only be two parties. The problem comes from the left mostly, the right sure tried everything they could to squash Perot but he still got nearly 20% of the vote too so its just not the left.

I think if a third party left group ran a canidate was not that further left than the main, we would see an amazing restructuring of both parties. There is no fear of that cause the left vote is locked.

I agree that both parties need to be restructed...I think someway thier needs to be grassroots movements on both sides (republican and democrat) to take their parties back, this is truely getting patheltic how ths country is getting runned into the gound. Corporations and special interest run this country and curuption is ramped on both sides...I am seriously considering becomming an independent this summer.

-Grant

[Mass_SkinsFan]

What people need to realize is that the "1 in 3" Conservatives who want the Republicans to lose are not from the end of the spectrum where they're going to vote for a Democrat. It's the REAL Conservatives that are fleeing the Republican party like a sinking ship. If the Republicans can't find, nominate and run a REAL Conservative in 2008, they run a massive risk of losing the Oval Office. I'm just not sure that there's actually a REAL Conservative in a high enough position in the party to win the nomination.

[Extreme]

wait, so you mean to tell me a liberal network cited a liberal poll saying 1 in 3 conservatives want republicans to lose:doh: yeah, i'll put a lot of stock in that

[cjcdaman]

wait, so you mean to tell me a liberal network cited a liberal poll saying 1 in 3 conservatives want republicans to lose:doh: yeah, i'll put a lot of stock in that

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Thank you!!!

[Barney B]

wait, so you mean to tell me a liberal network cited a liberal poll saying 1 in 3 conservatives want republicans to lose:doh: yeah, i'll put a lot of stock in that

I see your point, yet it seems as though there are a number of conservatives on this board who are in a mood to punish the Republicans. As an example, see Mass Skins Fan's post above yours. Now, I know that this board represents a small sample, but I wouldn't dismiss this poll out of hand.

[Teller]

If you're a conservative and your not on some level pissed at this administration, you're not a conservative.

I'm not one of those people who puts a lot of stock in the national debt having a drastic effect on the economy. But taking a budget surplus (one of the few things I commend Clinton for) and creating a deficit IS pretty ridiculous.

Sure, I've benefitted from the tax cut, so I can't complain there. But if you're going to give a tax cut, you have to control spending SOMEWHERE.

Look, where we are right now (the Republican party) is our own fault. We've had the house, senate and white house for going on six years. What's been accomplished?

Add to that wiretapping questions, failure to find WMDs (though I believe they were there before the war), the failure to capture or kill Bin Laden, the failure to rein in Ahmedinijad, out of control gas prices, and on and on.

The only thing conservatives have working in our favor is the failure on the dems part to present a true forward-thinking agenda. If they realize the American people aren't content with criticism of the administration without a better plan, we're in trouble -- and for a long time to come.

I'm not prepared to go out and vote for Democrats, because they don't have a clearly stated plan for the country themselves. But I'm as conservative as they come. And George W. Bush is not a conservative.

[Larry]

Every few years I keep mentally going back to an idea an instructor once hit us with in class: Proportional voting.

The way proportional foving would work if used for Congressional voting here in Florida is: Florida, right now, has (I think) 26 Congressmen. But under (I'm going to call it PV), instead of dividing the state up into 26 carefully gerymandered distraict which will go to whoever gets 51% of that district, instead, the GOP would put a slate of 26 candidates up for election, statewide. (The D's would provide a list of 26 candidates. So would the Libertarians, the Communists, and so forth.)

Voters vote for a party, not a person.

If the R's get 51% of the vote, statewide, then the first 13 (maybe 14, depends on rounding) names on their list go to Washington to represend "Florida". If the D's get 46%, they might send the first 11 people from their list.

One result of PV: Under that system, in order for the Libertarians to send a man to Washington, instead of needing to get 51% of some gerymandered district, instead, they need to get 4% of the vote, statewide. (I could see them sending two or three people.)

With a proportional system, the parties can never write off your state. No matter where the poll numbers are, they're always with a percent or two of gaining or losing a seat.

The way that system works in practice, according to the instructor, is that you get hundreds of parties, with very subtle differences between them. You might get a party who's platform is "We're just like the GOP, but we're not anti-porn". Or "We're just like the Democrats, but we support the Second Ammendment." And when those parties get to Washington, that's the way they vote. They form coalitions with similar parties on the issues they agree on.

The voters get more choices, and those choices get implimented.

(It also does away with the absolutely dispicable decenial tradition of "redistricting".)

Some arguments I've heard against PV are that you won't have a Congressman who's job is to look out for your county any more. But to me that's a good thing. The purpose of Congressmen is to do what's best for the country, not what's best for southeast Jacksonville.

And it might have the effect of reducing the effects of personality on elections. (Although there's nothing to, say, keep the D's from putting some candidate who's really photogenic into slot 13 on their list, and advertising that "If we can get 52% of the vote, then Tom Cruise (or whoever) gets elected!")

And as far as I'm concerned, there's no law or rule that says Congressmen have to come from districts. (All the Constitution says is the formula for determining how many Congressmen Florida has.) IMO, Florida could decide to do away with Congressional districts by passing a state law. (Or by the voters passing a referendum.)

[DjTj]

I wont argue that, but its not a question of more parties its both sides voting on other parties. the problem is theres a stagnation of the left holding their vote as better then whats best. There are plenty of partys out there right now, and theres no rule saying there should only be two parties. The problem comes from the left mostly, the right sure tried everything they could to squash Perot but he still got nearly 20% of the vote too so its just not the left.

I think if a third party left group ran a canidate was not that further left than the main, we would see an amazing restructuring of both parties. There is no fear of that cause the left vote is locked.

wolf, I don't think there's something fundamentally different about Democrats vs. Republicans that makes them less likely to vote for someone else. Nixon first won by courting the Dixiecrat vote. There are people who still call themselves "Reagan Democrats." Plenty of Democrats will cross over for the right candidate, but there has simply been nobody in recent years that has appealed that demographic.

The reason you may feel like Democrats don't do that is because a lot of the strong and vocal Democratic support right now is based in interest groups: pro-choice, unions, environmentalists, Blacks, etc. - these people have a personal issue-based attachment to the Party and really won't cross over for any reason. The Republicans now have the same kind of strong base in the Religious Right.

All those people are what you would describe as "locked" - it's not a left/right thing so much as an issue-based thing. If people are more interested in a single issue than they are about the general welfare of the country or even a political philosophy, they are unlikely to change sides from election to election.

The conservatives that voted for Perot were those that had less of an issue-based attachment to the Republican Party - they simply felt that George H.W. Bush was leading the country in the wrong direction with his fiscal policies. It was the same thing with Reagan Democrats - they weren't married to abortion or the environment or some Democratic issue; they simply felt that Carter wasn't providing the right kind of foreign policy leadership.

There are plenty of voters in each Party that can move one direction or the other, and we've seen it happen many times in the past. That really has nothing to do with our lack of a third party.

The reason a third party never emerges is the winner-take-all structure of our elections. Being the majority party in the United States system is everything - you get nothing by being a minority ... A plurality state would never be stable because you could always gain so much more by merging to becoming a majority party. Unless we switch to a European system of party-based representation, we're going to be stuck with two parties forever - and I'm personally not really opposed to that.

...and as I typed this post, Larry made a great post about proportional voting, which is the ONLY way we're getting a multi-party system.

[AJ_Skins]

I think this is all a lot of hot air right now. The media is looking at polls and drooling over the concept of their beloved Democrats getting a leg up on the despised George W. Bush, but I think ultimately people are just fed up with Washington. There is no love for the Democrats.

I can tell you right now, if I was a Republican candidate, what my campaign would be comprised of, and what I would win with easily:

1. PRO: Secure the borders first, then think about what else to do about illegals.

2. PRO: Oppose the environmental extremists who have handcuffed our ability to produce our own energy and driven up prices. Drill in ANWR now.

3. CON: If you elect my opponent and thereby a Democrat majority, s/he and Nancy Pelosi will spend the next two years trying to impeach President Bush.

4. CON: The Democrats will not defend the country against terrorism.

If the Republicans would run on that message, they would win, and probably gain seats.

[dreamingwolf]

DjTj

I wont dispute any of your post cause it is accurate. However I dont think you understood my point, or more likely I didnt voice it correctly. I just wish the democrats can shake up their party alittle bit, but they wont ever.

Sure as you said the swingers will bail for a close to ideal Republican but they wont vote for a third.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Interesting post DJTJ, but I think Dreamingwolf's point is dead on

Conservatives fired GHWB in 1992 by voting en mass for Ross Perot. No Ross Perot, GHWB is president until 1996

It looks like conservatives are going to sit at home this fall and not vote, barring Bush stepping up and vetoing any spending bill that is above the rate of inflation, or proposes a new budget which slashes the federal government

Ultimatley it will work well for the party in the long run, sort of like 1992's devestating defeat which gave Dems control of everything ended up being the turning point for 1994

Once it is proven once again that Democrats have no ability to run the country, and a true fiscal conservative shows up willing to make the hard cuts in the government, and doesn't espouge compassionate conservativism, you will see the revival of the 1980 Regan Revolution and the 1994 Gingrich Revolution

The Hassert/Frist/Delay/Bush current crop needs to give up its grip on the party, after wasting political capital on Terri Schiavo and totally blowing it on SSI reform and spending.

On terror I give them an A+, but spending and lack of tax reform has broken my faith in them

I actually would love to see Newt Gingirch run for President. Or someone like McCain take Gingrich's ideas. Unfourtantley for Newt he is personally as toxic as Hillary is

[luckydevil]

you will see the revival of the 1980 Regan Revolution and the 1994 Gingrich Revolution

What Reagan revolution.... what Gingrich revolution.............. some of us are still waiting for it

[DCsportsfan53]

4. CON: The Democrats will not defend the country against terrorism.

I'm not sure what exactly you base this on. Considering how incapable we were of responding to disaster when it happened in NO I don't see how we are ready to respond to a terrorist attack. Our troops and National Guard are spread around the world and it takes 4 ****ing days to show up for a hurricane but we're safer HERE because of what Bush and the Republicans have done? It took ONE DAY on horseback for federal troops to show up in San Fransico after the great earthquake. Hell, the Canadian Royal Mounties got to NO before our guys did. If that's how we respond to disaster I'd really, really hate to see what happens if, God forbid, another terrorist attack happens.

Great discussion in this thread. HH, you're objective as hell when evaluating football and I should've expected you'd be the same in regards to politics. You're ability to think, dissect and reason in a debate is something I respect greatly. If only more were able to see through both parties attempts to polarize their base and realize that each candidate should be evaluated based on principles, plans and actions NOT their party membership. It's something that's too important to be caught up in us against them, party line till I die crap that a lot of people subscribe to. :2cents:

[Johnny Punani2]

My prediction is the Dems will win control of the House but as Rdskns2000 hinted to before they will F things up in those two years (impeachment/investigations , increased taxes, spending, etc) and the Rep party will offer a real conservative cand in 2008 and win the election.

[AJ_Skins]

I'm not sure what exactly you base this on.

I base it on who the Democrats are. They don't believe there should be a War on Terrorism. They think whoever remained alive that bore responsibility for 9/11 should have been apprehended through diplomatic negotiations with the countries where they were hiding and tried in American courts with full legal protection. After using the attacks as an excuse to raise taxes, we should have just gone on about the business of cutting the defense budget, nationalizing health care and indoctrinating kindergarteners on "alternative lifestyles", and forgotten 9/11 ever happened.

Instead, that wacko religious fanatic fascist Bush used this minor incident as an excuse to drag the country into "war" to feed his oil buddies and the military industrial complex and destroy civil liberties at home, because that's what Republicans do, and now Europe doesn't like us anymore. :cry:

[DjTj]

DjTj

I wont dispute any of your post cause it is accurate. However I dont think you understood my point, or more likely I didnt voice it correctly. I just wish the democrats can shake up their party alittle bit, but they wont ever.

Sure as you said the swingers will bail for a close to ideal Republican but they wont vote for a third.

Well, the Democrats will actually need to be in power before they can shake anything up ... there hasn't exactly been much of an opportunity for it in the past 20 years.

When Carter was dumped in 1980 and Mondale was destroyed in 1984, that was a kind of shake-up, and I definitely think that opened the door for the DLC and Clinton in '92, who was a free trading, pro-business Democrat very different from those that preceded him.

...and in California, there is very much a far left party that has been making waves in several local elections: The Green Party is definitely having a serious effect on California Democrats.

I just don't buy the claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party that would prevent a shake-up from happening - it's the oldest surviving political party in the United States, and it has made it this far by being able to change when it needed.

[Joe Sick]

Ex-cellent!

[AJ_Skins]

Ex-cellent!

He thinks he can hide behind a pair of glasses, but we know better.

[Thiebear]

Its called Responsibility for your actions.. You had 6+ years and did a craptacular job.

As oppoed to: the same ole, same ole.....

insert Democrats first action is to investigate the logs of the white house....

(thats what were looking for).... :doh:

[Larry]

I base it on who the Democrats are. They don't believe there should be a War on Terrorism. They think whoever remained alive that bore responsibility for 9/11 should have been apprehended through diplomatic negotiations with the countries where they were hiding and tried in American courts with full legal protection. After using the attacks as an excuse to raise taxes, we should have just gone on about the business of cutting the defense budget, nationalizing health care and indoctrinating kindergarteners on "alternative lifestyles", and forgotten 9/11 ever happened.

Instead, that wacko religious fanatic fascist Bush used this minor incident as an excuse to drag the country into "war" to feed his oil buddies and the military industrial complex and destroy civil liberties at home, because that's what Republicans do, and now Europe doesn't like us anymore. :cry:

(He knows that's "who the Democrats are", because Rush tells him so.)