Republican party ; a vital faultline?

Hellm0 · 28-10-2009 4:08pm #1

What is unfolding up in NY at the moment is quite interesting. The social conservatives and the radical anti-federalists are uniting to elect a third candidate, this Hoffman fella. What I am hoping is that this leads to a split in the republican party on a national scale; this has potential, I believe, as figures like Sarah Palin are getting involved who will draw enough attention to the division to widen it. With an aging, defeated and inflexible leadership in place, the GOP might not have the strength to keep these nutjobs under the party banner.

Any thoughts?

Black Swan · 29-10-2009 2:27am

Two major contenders for Republican presidential candidacy in the 2012 primaries could be middle-of-the-road former speaker Newt Gingrich vs right-wing conservative "Tea Party" Douglas Hoffman? And if either won the bid, how would they ensure that they could unify their party by election time?

The other problem they have is that in the 2008 presidential, approximately 35 percent of voters were registered Republican, the smaller of the two parties in registration. If this continued up until 2012, they would have to draw both Independents and some Democrats to win?

The 2010 mid-term elections should give the pulse of the US electorate in terms of Obama's Democrat party's performance since January 2009, as well as if the Republicans have made any gains or losses in position by seats (won or lost in US House and US Senate)?

The US stock market appears to be recovering (which should hurt the Republican cause a bit with investors), although unemployment continues to be quite troublesome, and the specter of a credit card bubble bursting could result in a double-dip recession (which I believe would give the Republicans many seats in Congress at mid-term, heralding the old saying why politicians often win "It's the economy stupid!")?

JohnMc1 · 29-10-2009 4:22pm

Just like this past Pres election the Rep candidate is as much of a liberal [oops. Progressive is the new buzzword] as the Dem candidate so ofcourse people are going to turn against him.

bobbyjoe · 29-10-2009 4:51pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Just like this past Pres election the Rep candidate is as much of a liberal [oops. Progressive is the new buzzword] as the Dem candidate so ofcourse people are going to turn against him.

Do you thinkk that the far right side are alienating people from the republicans?

JohnMc1 · 29-10-2009 5:00pm

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Do you thinkk that the far right side are alienating people from the republicans?

No its the reverse actually. The Reps pandering to the far left is driving people away from them. People want an actual choice in elections. Screw all this liberal vs. liberal light nonsense [That's why the reaction to Obama vs McCain was "You have got to be kidding me."].

If you claim to be a Conservative be a Conservative.

Manic Moran · 29-10-2009 5:41pm

The elections tend to always revolve around the independents. What if we don't want to be conservatives?

NTM

JohnMc1 · 29-10-2009 5:45pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The elections tend to always revolve around the independents. What if we don't want to be conservatives?

NTM

Then don't vote for Reps. My last sentence was more about me feelings towards the Politicians who claim to be Conservative when it suits them [ie. McCain claiming to be one when when he won the Nomination] and then as liberal [Progressive, whatever the new word of the month is] as the Dems.

Both parties have been hijacked by clowns that want to do nothing more than give lipservice to the community.

Hellm0 · 29-10-2009 6:05pm

Honestly I have come to the conclusion that they are two sides of the same coin (Rep vs Dem). In terms of "policy" they are the same on core issues and only differ on high visibility social / pseudo economic points.

It makes sense when you look at it from a power perspective. Two parties give the illusion of choice. A comparison I like to draw is the Betty Crocker Cake Mix "Just add an egg" ploy, supposedly thought up by Edward Bernays. The concept being that people think they have input into government, when in fact the governmental cake mix always comes out the same. *

When this is taken into account, I am very happy that the socially conservative right is chaffing at the bit. Should they abandon the "republican" party, all that will be left are the free marketeers and corporatists in the pay of lobbying groups. Seeing as American politics is based much more upon what ideology you define yourself in opposition to, I am hoping this will lead to an push in the democrat party away from those policies. Of course both sides are already mired in big business, but with someone to point the finger at maybe the democrat party will move away from that kind of politics in an effort to attract votes.

* Just to clarify, I am not suggesting collusion/conspiracy between the parties(though that may be the case) but rather a situation which is mutually beneficial, one which has lasted long enough that it may not need central guidance to be self sustaining.

JohnMc1 · 29-10-2009 7:52pm

Hellm0 wrote: »

Honestly I have come to the conclusion that they are two sides of the same coin (Rep vs Dem). In terms of "policy" they are the same on core issues and only differ on high visibility social / pseudo economic points.

It makes sense when you look at it from a power perspective. Two parties give the illusion of choice. A comparison I like to draw is the Betty Crocker Cake Mix "Just add an egg" ploy, supposedly thought up by Edward Bernays. The concept being that people think they have input into government, when in fact the governmental cake mix always comes out the same. *

When this is taken into account, I am very happy that the socially conservative right is chaffing at the bit. Should they abandon the "republican" party, all that will be left are the free marketeers and corporatists in the pay of lobbying groups. Seeing as American politics is based much more upon what ideology you define yourself in opposition to, I am hoping this will lead to an push in the democrat party away from those policies. Of course both sides are already mired in big business, but with someone to point the finger at maybe the democrat party will move away from that kind of politics in an effort to attract votes.

* Just to clarify, I am not suggesting collusion/conspiracy between the parties(though that may be the case) but rather a situation which is mutually beneficial, one which has lasted long enough that it may not need central guidance to be self sustaining.

I would say that the vast majority of Americans are traditionalists [maybe 70-80%] and the rest is the fringe on both sides. The extreme groups aren't as big as we are meant to believe.

Wanted to see one Political party die off is stupid and reeks of bias. Neither Dems or Reps represent the majority anymore. People need to stop seeing Dems and Reps as their favorite sports team [ I had to laugh last night on another message board when a poster said we when referring to the possibility of the Dems losing seats next year]

Black Swan · 29-10-2009 9:45pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The elections tend to always revolve around the independents...

The only place to be if you want to increase your choice and opportunity to actually participate in the process, provided that the electorate is relatively small (city, county, and some small population state elections).

When populations are large, like the California or presidential elections, political cliques, PACs, and special interest lobbies with large bank rolls make decisions in smoke-filled rooms as to whom will be the primary candidates. They then buy mass marketing expertise and media to entertain the population, and sway them into voting for their unreal comic book action hero, allowing for unknowns like Obama or Palin to suddenly appear, look like they can walk on water, and turn such water into wine.

Manic Moran · 30-10-2009 1:48am

Then don't vote for Reps. My last sentence was more about me feelings towards the Politicians who claim to be Conservative when it suits them [ie. McCain claiming to be one when when he won the Nomination] and then as liberal [Progressive, whatever the new word of the month is] as the Dems.

That's fair enough. As long as you also accept that the chances of winning the next election are reduced accordingly.

When populations are large,

When it comes to getting involved in the process, you have a bit of a point (I don't agree with you that it goes that far, though). When it comes to the importance of independents in winning, I think it applies just as much (if not more so) in the large states as the small ones.

NTM

JohnMc1 · 30-10-2009 12:52pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's fair enough. As long as you also accept that the chances of winning the next election are reduced accordingly.

Absolutely. The Ind candidate has been considered a vote syphon [or if you really want to be a pessimist a waste of a vote] The voters need to get out of this stupid idea of acting like the Reps and Dems are their favorite sports teams and thats when a valid third party will emerge. One can argue that there is a desperate need for one now.

Manic Moran · 30-10-2009 5:51pm

The voters need to get out of this stupid idea of acting like the Reps and Dems are their favorite sports teams

Probably fairer to say that they act like the Reps and Dems are their greatest rivals, and vote for the person with the best chance of defeating the enemy.

NTM

JohnMc1 · 30-10-2009 6:04pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Probably fairer to say that they act like the Reps and Dems are their greatest rivals, and vote for the person with the best chance of defeating the enemy.

NTM

Either analogy actually works. They have this sill idea that whoever wins actually effects their personal lives [maybe tax wise but thats about it] As my friends father always says "Regardless of who wins you still got to go to work tomorrow."

Pocono Joe · 30-10-2009 10:22pm

The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated! Barack Obama and his administration have done more to invigorate the Republican party (well at least the Conservatives) than any Republican "leader" could ever have hoped to in such a short period of time.

JohnMc1 · 30-10-2009 10:56pm

Pocono Joe wrote: »

The reports of our demise have been greatly exaggerated! Barack Obama and his administration have done more to invigorate the Republican party (well at least the Conservatives) than any Republican "leader" could ever have hoped to in such a short period of time.

Yeah the Dems have set themselves up for a fall with their need to be stupid. The Controversy of Van Jones, Anita Dunn admitting to admire Mao Tse Tong [or however its spelled] and then Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank just being themselves. The Reps are poised for a comeback even though they haven't done anything to deserve it just sit by and watch the Dems implode. I guess the old saying of "Give a fool enough rope and eventually they'll hang themselves." is true.

jank · 30-10-2009 11:18pm

How about we just wait and see what these elections actually bare as everything else is just mindless speculation. Anyway..

The Dems will still control both houses after the next mid term but their filibuster majority wont be there any more. Not really a big shift. The big thing for the GOP is that their party doesn't have a leader and they don't know what to do to attract new votes. There is obviously a bit of a civil war in the gop as where to go in the future. Stay right or go left. The Hoofman issue is a sympton of this.

White rural votes are declining all the time, while urban latino votes continue to be attracted by the Dems.

Don't forget also that 80% of stimulus money is going to be spent in 2010. Personally I think Obama is a shoe in for a new term as there is nobody else out there that can challenge him. I just cant see him being defeated.

Welcome back PJ.

Black Swan · 31-10-2009 12:12am

jank wrote: »

Welcome back PJ.

Well, if PJ can come back, maybe there's still hope for the Republicans?

Pocono Joe · 31-10-2009 6:39pm

jank wrote: »

How about we just wait and see what these elections actually bare as everything else is just mindless speculation. Anyway...

Geeezzzzz… there’s no fun in that.

The Dems will still control both houses after the next mid term but their filibuster majority wont be there any more. Not really a big shift. The big thing for the GOP is that their party doesn't have a leader and they don't know what to do to attract new votes. There is obviously a bit of a civil war in the gop as where to go in the future. Stay right or go left. The Hoofman issue is a sympton of this.

White rural votes are declining all the time, while urban latino votes continue to be attracted by the Dems.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot depends on if the Dems (and some Reps) can get get illegal alien reform and attain the goal of making us Mexico North.

Also, as the old saying goes… The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money. When the new Europe-lite socialistic system totally fails and comes crashing down, folks with finally come back to their senses and start to put conservatives in office in order to correct all the misguided, but well meaning, doomed programs.

Don't forget also that 80% of stimulus money is going to be spent in 2010. Personally I think Obama is a shoe in for a new term as there is nobody else out there that can challenge him. I just cant see him being defeated.

Maybe, history shows us that when a President experiences a financial crisis early in their term and it gets better, that incumbent usually wins re-election, but jobs might just be his Achilles heal.

And what money? Have we convinced the Chinese to finance our insurmountable debt yet, or will we just keep printing it and drive interest rates through the roof, which will make our debt unsustainable? Hopefully American’s will wake up before Depression 2.0 hits.

Welcome back PJ.

Thanks, but never really left. Sorta like the Ayatollah Khomeini, have been living in exile until I noticed a regime change. Always kept up on the reading though, laughing at jank’s tales from the darkside, watching Overheal’s evolution into a moderate and hopefully Conservatism (does anybody else see a future Congressman in the making?). Then there’s always the moden day gladiator - Manic Moran’s attempts to interject a voice of reason into the conversations (stay safe), and JohnMc1’s never ending flirtation with mod warnings and bannings. And always enjoyed Blue Lagoons fantasy novelettes, and always wished Sand-the-knowledgeable would post more.

jank · 01-11-2009 8:47am

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Geeezzzzz… there’s no fun in that.

Oh, Of Course!

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not. A lot depends on if the Dems (and some Reps) can get get illegal alien reform and attain the goal of making us Mexico North.

LOL, Well the US is in the Americas after all.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Also, as the old saying goes… The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples money. When the new Europe-lite socialistic system totally fails and comes crashing down, folks with finally come back to their senses and start to put conservatives in office in order to correct all the misguided, but well meaning, doomed programs.

There has been a bit of socialism in the US since the new deal but didnt see anyone complaining until Obama went into office.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Maybe, history shows us that when a President experiences a financial crisis early in their term and it gets better, that incumbent usually wins re-election, but jobs might just be his Achilles heal.

And what money? Have we convinced the Chinese to finance our insurmountable debt yet, or will we just keep printing it and drive interest rates through the roof, which will make our debt unsustainable? Hopefully American’s will wake up before Depression 2.0 hits.

Well the Chinese do want ye guys to keep buying all that crap they make. Chimerica as a Neill Fergusan calls it.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Thanks, but never really left. Sorta like the Ayatollah Khomeini, have been living in exile until I noticed a regime change. Always kept up on the reading though, laughing at jank’s tales from the darkside, watching Overheal’s evolution into a moderate and hopefully Conservatism (does anybody else see a future Congressman in the making?). Then there’s always the moden day gladiator - Manic Moran’s attempts to interject a voice of reason into the conversations (stay safe), and JohnMc1’s never ending flirtation with mod warnings and bannings. And always enjoyed Blue Lagoons fantasy novelettes, and always wished Sand-the-knowledgeable would post more.

Good to have you back and judging by your recent post you have been turned into a Glenn Beck advocate. I suppose you when you were taking time out from boards.ie you were catching up on his latest weeping session.

liberal · 01-11-2009 4:22pm

It's going to be Huckabee as the nominee in 2012 the big question is who shall be his running mate, I think Jindel maybe

And Huck will win :eek:, Obama's rating is so low and let's hope he doesn't get a surge from a 9/11 type sceanario like GWB did

JohnMc1 · 01-11-2009 4:38pm

liberal wrote: »

It's going to be Huckabee as the nominee in 2012 the big question is who shall be his running mate, I think Jindel maybe

And Huck will win :eek:, Obama's rating is so low and let's hope he doesn't get a surge from a 9/11 type sceanario like GWB did

Huck and Rommney are probably the favorites at this time. I don't think they will need a 9/11 [or an economic disaster in Obama's case] to win big. The "Anybody but Obama" could easily carry them.

jank · 01-11-2009 11:58pm

I disagree, once you step back from the very vocal but ultimately small right wing fox news demograph he is not as unpopular as you may think. He will be very hard to beat. The fact that independants would rather cast their protest against the dems to other independants shows the trouble the GOP are in.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091031/NEWS09/910319997

JohnMc1 · 02-11-2009 12:04am

jank wrote: »

I disagree, once you step back from the very vocal but ultimately small right wing fox news demograph he is not as unpopular as you may think. He will be very hard to beat. The fact that independants would rather cast their protest against the dems to other independants shows the trouble the GOP are in.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091031/NEWS09/910319997

I suppose its Fox news responsible for these numbers then:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month

jank · 02-11-2009 12:52am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_el_ho/us_ny_special_election

LOL What is going on in the GOP is anyones guess.

jank · 02-11-2009 1:04am

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I suppose its Fox news responsible for these numbers then:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month

LOL, Nice one post the worst poll and say its the average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. The numbers are not much different from many other ex presidents. Better than some, worse than some Meh..

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Once Health care is passed (and it will but probably a watered down version) and unemployment starts to drop next year the numbers will improve. But only ones that matter are next year in november and 2012.

JohnMc1 · 02-11-2009 1:07am

jank wrote: »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_el_ho/us_ny_special_election

LOL What is going on in the GOP is anyones guess.

LOL. You changed the subject quickly. :rolleyes:

Scozzafava is like McCain. A liberal [excuse me. Progressive is the new term] Plus the Dems aren't as inclusive as they want you to think. My friend [a Moderate Conservative] was running for City Council in Queens and they sabotaged him every chance. Thankfully the candidate they did want didn't make it.

So spare me the Reps are exclusive while Dems are inclusive bull****.

jank · 02-11-2009 2:06am

JohnMc1 wrote: »

LOL. You changed the subject quickly. :rolleyes:

Scozzafava is like McCain. A liberal [excuse me. Progressive is the new term] Plus the Dems aren't as inclusive as they want you to think. My friend [a Moderate Conservative] was running for City Council in Queens and they sabotaged him every chance. Thankfully the candidate they did want didn't make it.

So spare me the Reps are exclusive while Dems are inclusive bull****.

Well first of that link is directly linked to teh subject matter at hand. I never said anything about the GOP not being inclusive. All I am saying is that there is a bit of a civil war for the conservative votes in the country.

Overheal · 02-11-2009 3:03am

watching Overheal’s evolution into a moderate and hopefully Conservatism (does anybody else see a future Congressman in the making?).

Im sorry I couldnt hear you over the sound of my own fantasy with that cute girl dressed as a german beermaiden last night.

So yeah, you might have a point.

Thanks, but never really left.

Welcome back to the Table, then.

@Liberal: Huckabee could possibly be a contender. I mean, John McCain didnt let 2000 stop him. And I do kinda like Huckabee. But, one of the things he started alluding late into the nominations was the suggestion that he held the Constitution in a less than honored regard - a document that could be easily rewritten I think he put it. Wasnt sure how serious he was about that. But I think it was silly of him to even joke about it. Constitutionalism is something I do look out for.

No Im starting to wonder if 2012 isn't going to be the year when a new Third Party emerges with enough momentum.

jank · 02-11-2009 3:51am

I think a 3rd party would be great. It would break the duopoly for Red Vs Blue.

CPT. SURF · 02-11-2009 2:37pm

The Morman thing is never going to go away for Romney. There are all kinds Mormans in jail now for sexual abuse of minors, even some of the higher ups. The Republicans count on the southern states, and baptists, Presbyterians, and non-denominational Christians are not down with John Smith and his secret underwearing gang of child molesters.

Republican party ; a vital faultline?

Comments