Why is there no Romney Alternative?

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by adaher

Given that Republicans still win elections even though they move further to the right, why should they stop?

Is there some unwritten obligation for the Republicans to be centrist? Does this also apply to the party that booted its 2000 VP standard bearer for not being liberal enough?

You mean Joe Lieberman (I-Aetna)? The traitor that campaigned for McCain?

The Republicans can be as exteme as they want. If they want to limit their electorate to hayseeds, rednecks, morons, and bigots, they're off to a great start.

[adaher]

If that's enough to win elections, why shouldn't they? 40% of the country self-reports as conservative. Doesn't take much to get 11% more. Only 20% of the country self-reports as liberal. The obligation is on Democrats to move to the center if they want to win, which is why they've been saying "middle class" over and over for the past few years. If they say it, maybe they'll actually win the taxpayer vote for once.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by adaher

If that's enough to win elections, why shouldn't they? 40% of the country self-reports as conservative. Doesn't take much to get 11% more. Only 20% of the country self-reports as liberal. The obligation is on Democrats to move to the center if they want to win, which is why they've been saying "middle class" over and over for the past few years. If they say it, maybe they'll actually win the taxpayer vote for once.

But it's not enough to win elections. The Republicans are tied tied themselves to a shrinking demographic. There just aren't going to be enough old uneducated whites to win the presidency any more.

The "taxpayer vote"? WTF is that? The ones who pay the greatest percentage of their income in sales taxes? Democratic voters. The ones who pay the greatest percentage of their income in property taxes? Democratic voters.

[adaher]

Waiting for the Republicans to experience demographic doom is foolish. It's pure conjecture and there's all sorts of reasons why it probably won't matter.

With African-Americans declining as a share of the population nationally, with second and third generation Hispanics more and more identifying as white, and with the Asian population growing faster than any other, and whites ceasing to be a swing group and voting more monolithically Republican, the Democrats need to be the worried ones.

[BobLibDem]

If it makes you feel better to whistle by the graveyard, please do so.

[adaher]

If it makes you feel better to believe in a fairytale rather than actually try to persuade voters to support liberal candidates, you're welcome to it.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by adaher

Given that Republicans still win elections even though they move further to the right, why should they stop?

Is there some unwritten obligation for the Republicans to be centrist? Does this also apply to the party that booted its 2000 VP standard bearer for not being liberal enough?

How about the fact they usually don't win elections? Sure, Ronald Reagan was incredibly popular but what's happened since Reagan? Bush got elected in 1988 by promising to be four more years of Reagan. He couldn't live up to that and the Democratic candidate got more votes in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2008. The only election the Republicans have won since the Reagan era was 2004 with an incumbent President, who won by the smallest margin of victory of any incumbent in American history.

Republicans need to ask themselves if Americans love Republicans so much, why do they keep voting for Democrats instead?

[adaher]

You are forgetting Congressional elections. I never said that Republicans are dominating, only that they are winning about half the time, which is what a party should be doing. That's the proper tradeoff between ideology purity and winning elections: if you pander too much and win all the time, you don't end up standing for anything. If you are too ideologically pure, you never win. If you win about half the time, you've got just the right mix.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by adaher

Waiting for the Republicans to experience demographic doom is foolish. It's pure conjecture and there's all sorts of reasons why it probably won't matter.

If we're talking not about Republicans as such, but about those who fall into the "Staunch Conservatives" grouping (as distinct from "Main Street Republicans") in the Pew Political Typology, then, yes, they are demographically doomed; they are the oldest of the groups (61% of them are over 50), and most of their children and grandchildren will never think quite the way they do. The GOP will endure, but the Tea Party movement has a limited half-life.

[adaher]

I'd agree on the social conservative part of it. Economic conservatism is far more robust, and gaining all over the world. Personally, I'd love the Republicans to drop the culture war crap, it needlessly turns people off that would otherwise be gettable.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by adaher

You are forgetting Congressional elections.

No, I'm discussing presidential elections in a thread on presidential elections.

[adaher]

I don't think Bill Clinton's success proves anything, given governed like a conservative and advertised himself as a conservative. Those are not the actions of a party and an ideology confident that demographics will bail them out where persuasion has failed.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by adaher

I'd agree on the social conservative part of it. Economic conservatism is far more robust, and gaining all over the world. Personally, I'd love the Republicans to drop the culture war crap, it needlessly turns people off that would otherwise be gettable.

Economic conservatism (or liberalism, depending on what term you use) has in some ways been growing all over the world, China, India and Vietnam abandoned marxism and socialism for more liberal economic policies. But much of latin america has moved to the left economically as a rebellion against Chicago economics.

Plus a lot of young people in the US are growing up in an age of heavy student loan debt, predatory capitalism, lack of health insurance, etc. They likely aren't going to subscribe to conservative economics as much as the previous generation.

[adaher]

Latin America's move to the left has been highly overrated. Chile supposedly elected socialists, but you don't see them changing the basic social contract in Chile. they'll still have private social security accounts and they'll still maintain the free market policies that made Chile the richest per capita nation in Latin America.

As for young people, supporting liberal economic policies will only happen if liberal economic policies get them jobs. FDR brought liberalism into dominance by getting unemployed people back to work. Obama has not had that same level of success reducing the unemployment rate, especially among young workers.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by adaher

they'll still maintain the free market policies that made Chile the richest per capita nation in Latin America.

Oh yeah, like their nationalised copper industry?

Originally Posted by adaher

FDR brought liberalism into dominance by getting unemployed people back to work.

You WHAT? The New Deal, a liberal policy? Ahahah!

Consult this.

Originally Posted by Enlightening Meditation

while the right wing nutcase TEA Party members liked Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, or Perry.

Also, Paul. Keep in mind he's one of the Tea Party luminaries. The Tea Party is ideologically promiscuous enough to encompass both the military wing and the taxed enough wing of the party, as long as they're of the extreme Christian white variety.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by adaher

Latin America's move to the left has been highly overrated. Chile supposedly elected socialists, but you don't see them changing the basic social contract in Chile. they'll still have private social security accounts and they'll still maintain the free market policies that made Chile the richest per capita nation in Latin America.

As for young people, supporting liberal economic policies will only happen if liberal economic policies get them jobs. FDR brought liberalism into dominance by getting unemployed people back to work. Obama has not had that same level of success reducing the unemployment rate, especially among young workers.

Chile is one of many countries that moved to the left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_ti...ted_since_1998

Pink tide sounds like a feminine laundry detergent though.

As far as young people, if the best young people can hope for is 30k in student loan debt combined with minimum wage jobs (or permatemp jobs) with no benefits, that isn't going to endear them to neoliberal economics.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Also, Paul. Keep in mind he's one of the Tea Party luminaries. The Tea Party is ideologically promiscuous enough to encompass both the military wing and the taxed enough wing of the party, as long as they're of the extreme Christian white variety.

I wouldn't count Ron Paul as part of the current Tea Party movement. I view him has a Libertarian (extreme Libertarian in some aspects) and his original Tea Party was to support his campaigns (as opposed to the current Tea Party who basically co-opted the name and operates more like a hate group).

In the last couple years, Ron Paul has thrown off some off his Libertarian ideals (e.g. limiting governments ability to take private property for commercial developers) in favor of Right Wing ideology (his new emphasis on Pro-Life ideology), but I still wouldn't put him in the same category as a Bachman or a Santorum. (e.g. I haven't seen him push the Muslim meme or the "not quite American" stuff)

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Plus a lot of young people in the US are growing up in an age of heavy student loan debt, predatory capitalism, lack of health insurance, etc. They likely aren't going to subscribe to conservative economics as much as the previous generation.

First there needs to be a definition of what Fiscal Conservatism is. Are you talking Regan/Bush style (where the government and the debt grew uncontrolled despite all their talk) or actual small, financially effective government for the population.

IF the second then I submit that true fiscal conservatism would be along the lines of:

(a) Single payer health care as the most cost effective means of providing a healthy population able to learn and work

(b) Limited regulations on people's personal lives. Forget the drug wars, release people who are jailed for ONLY marijuana possession. Quit regulating what people can consume (e.g. Raw Milk). Quit regulating "marriage" beyond the basics on contract law (e.g. inheritance, etc).

(c) Strong regulation of corporations in the areas such as environmental protection, contracts and consumer protection. This is because, unlike humans, corporations are specifically in existence to make a profit and the pursuit of profit often endangers the rights of individuals (e.g. corporation the pollutes ground water)

(d) A military to protect the rights and freedoms of US Citizens. If corporations want 'muscle' there are now plenty of free market solutions (e.g. XE) that they can turn to. No US tax dollars should be spent protecting any corporate resources or influence abroad. If countries want assistance, they have to have skin in the game. If our troops are off-shore on our dime, then they should be conducting humanitarian actions, not trying to lock down some oil field or copper mines.

[Enlightening Meditation]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Also, Paul. Keep in mind he's one of the Tea Party luminaries. The Tea Party is ideologically promiscuous enough to encompass both the military wing and the taxed enough wing of the party, as long as they're of the extreme Christian white variety.

Ron Paul has had some team party support, but the right wing factions overwhelmingly dislike his positions on foreign policy related to a non-interventionist smaller military.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Enkel

First there needs to be a definition of what Fiscal Conservatism is. Are you talking Regan/Bush style (where the government and the debt grew uncontrolled despite all their talk) or actual small, financially effective government for the population.

IF the second then I submit that true fiscal conservatism would be along the lines of:

(a) Single payer health care as the most cost effective means of providing a healthy population able to learn and work

(b) Limited regulations on people's personal lives. Forget the drug wars, release people who are jailed for ONLY marijuana possession. Quit regulating what people can consume (e.g. Raw Milk). Quit regulating "marriage" beyond the basics on contract law (e.g. inheritance, etc).

(c) Strong regulation of corporations in the areas such as environmental protection, contracts and consumer protection. This is because, unlike humans, corporations are specifically in existence to make a profit and the pursuit of profit often endangers the rights of individuals (e.g. corporation the pollutes ground water)

(d) A military to protect the rights and freedoms of US Citizens. If corporations want 'muscle' there are now plenty of free market solutions (e.g. XE) that they can turn to. No US tax dollars should be spent protecting any corporate resources or influence abroad. If countries want assistance, they have to have skin in the game. If our troops are off-shore on our dime, then they should be conducting humanitarian actions, not trying to lock down some oil field or copper mines.

I agree with you except in preventing what people can consume. That's the only thing keeping the corporations from poisoning us. Even if the regulations include proper labeling, the race to the bottom will mean that everything will have bad stuff in it as it's cheaper than getting rid of it. The FDA is still needed.

I do agree that raw milk is a stupid thing to forbid. Same thing with sugary sodas.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by BigT

I do agree that raw milk is a stupid thing to forbid.

Just so people have some facts on this: raw milk sales are regulated by the individual states, not the federal government. At present, a majority - 32 states - allow the sale of raw milk for human consumption. It is highly regulated in those states, of course, but all milk and all dairy products of whatever kind, intended for whatever audience, is highly regulated.

You can see your state's laws and regulations starting with this page. That's a pro-raw milk site and highly activist but I believe their summaries are accurate.

Raw milk regulation shows up an interesting gap between libertarians and conservatives. The former wants to supersede state laws by eliminating regulations on the federal level and the latter want to preserve state powers by curbing the federal government's ability to make national rulings. I don't see how this gap can easily be narrowed. And calling it fiscal conservatism, as Enkel did, seems to create an entirely new class of beliefs that wouldn't please either side.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by adaher

. . . and whites ceasing to be a swing group and voting more monolithically Republican . . .

Actually, the latest NBC/WSJ poll has Romney leading with whites, but only by 53 to 40 percent; that's significant, but not "monolithic."

Romney's support among African-Americans, meanwhile, is at zero percent.

A new NBC/WSJ poll out Tuesday shows President Barack Obama with a four-point lead over presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney. But as is often the case with polls, some of the more interesting numbers were in the details. For example? Romney snagged zero percent of African-American voters.

Among key demographics, the poll noted that Obama had a lead over Romney. The most stark being when it came to African Americans: 94 percent to 0 percent. Via NBC:

<snip>

Romney, meanwhile, is ahead with whites (53 percent to 40 percent), rural voters (47 percent to 38 percent) and seniors (49 percent to 41 percent). In a sample of 12 swing states, Obama had a three-point lead, “a narrower edge in these battlegrounds than the eight-point lead the president enjoyed in the June and July NBC/WSJ polls.”

[adaher]

The white vote isn't monolothic now, but it could be in the future. Republicans have maintained their viability by winning more and more of the white vote. I read an article saying that Romney was doing as well among the country's 1984 demographics as Reagan did over Mondale. That's pretty remarkable and it shows that Republicans may not have to fear demographic change. More importantly, it shows that Democrats can't just wait in order to win. They actually have to persuade people. Especially since Asians, who actually are a swing group, are the fastest growing immigrant population now. More Democratic than Republican, but not by the same margin as African-Americans or Hispanics.

[gamerunknown]

Oh yeah, the Belaya Gvardiya come to rescue the country from the rampaging hordes. Does have a white ring to it.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by adaher

The white vote isn't monolothic now, but it could be in the future. Republicans have maintained their viability by winning more and more of the white vote. I read an article saying that Romney was doing as well among the country's 1984 demographics as Reagan did over Mondale. That's pretty remarkable and it shows that Republicans may not have to fear demographic change. More importantly, it shows that Democrats can't just wait in order to win. They actually have to persuade people. Especially since Asians, who actually are a swing group, are the fastest growing immigrant population now. More Democratic than Republican, but not by the same margin as African-Americans or Hispanics.

They may be more successful in winning the racist white vote and the uneducated rural white vote. I believe the key demographic is not race-based or age-based or gender-based, it it simply rural vs urban. As more of the nation becomes urbanized, Republicans have a steeper hill to climb. Look at the traditional blue states- they're the urban/industrial states. The only places where Republicans can count on electoral votes are from non-urban and southern states. Hillbillies, hayseeds, and rednecks are becoming an ever-smaller share of the electorate.

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by adaher

Given that Republicans still win elections even though they move further to the right, why should they stop?

Is there some unwritten obligation for the Republicans to be centrist? Does this also apply to the party that booted its 2000 VP standard bearer for not being liberal enough?

Well, no, but the more insane the Tea Party gets, the worse the republicans look and poll, and while there is a good 27% national average of people who will vote republican no matter what, the polls among most people are dropping.

Originally Posted by adaher

If that's enough to win elections, why shouldn't they? 40% of the country self-reports as conservative. Doesn't take much to get 11% more. Only 20% of the country self-reports as liberal. The obligation is on Democrats to move to the center if they want to win, which is why they've been saying "middle class" over and over for the past few years. If they say it, maybe they'll actually win the taxpayer vote for once.

That number is misleading, primarily because the well has been poisoned. People want to look conservative. However, when people are polled on real positions, rather than labels, they turn out far more liberal than one might think.

Originally Posted by adaher

I'd agree on the social conservative part of it. Economic conservatism is far more robust, and gaining all over the world.

Not sure if serious.

[adaher]

http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html

What this conservative group sees as "economic freedom" is a pretty good proxy for economic conservatism. Economic freedom around the world gained from 1980 to 2007. There have been setbacks due to the recession, but I doubt that's a trend.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by IceQube

With no shortage of anti-Obama sentiment, how come it's Mitt who has stepped up to the plate to face off Obama? He's been rather tepidly received as the GOP candidate.

Why isn't there some crowd-pleasing demagogue instead of Mitt?

Don't rule out: Because there actually is a loving God who loves America and wants her to thrive.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by IceQube

I can imagine a couple reasons why Mitt won the primaries

1) The far-right is vocal but small in number
2) Mitt managed to pander to the far right in the primaries (and is now paying the prices for etch-a-sketching)
3) Mitt as the $; Newt was funded by someone else and ended his campaign with tons of debt

Any more?

Is there really no one better than Mitt? Or does money speak really loudly?

Of course there's someone better than Mitt. He happens to be the President of the United States.

[Frostillicus]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

Guiliani? When he ran in '08 the better people knew him the less they wanted to vote for him. Even if his personality were appealing to voters, was he rabidly anti-abortion enough to get the nomination?

Guiliani is actually pro-choice, but then so was Romney when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts.

[Frostillicus]

Originally Posted by adaher

But didn't you say that Romney bought the nomination? Why won't he buy the Presidency? He has been outspent thus far, but he's outraised Obama in the last two months and may be able to swamp him in the home stretch.

Because unlike Romney's primary opponents, Obama will actually fight back. Oh, plus he's the current president, which kinda helps.

[Frostillicus]

Originally Posted by adaher

If that's enough to win elections, why shouldn't they? 40% of the country self-reports as conservative. Doesn't take much to get 11% more. Only 20% of the country self-reports as liberal. The obligation is on Democrats to move to the center if they want to win, which is why they've been saying "middle class" over and over for the past few years. If they say it, maybe they'll actually win the taxpayer vote for once.

Because once you win the election, you have to actually govern. You can't just sit around and say "government sucks" anymore. You are the government.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Oh yeah, the Belaya Gvardiya come to rescue the country from the rampaging hordes. Does have a white ring to it.

HAH?

[gamerunknown]

It's a joke. Right wing, white ring? White Guard protecting the country from the Bolshies/blacks?

Course, I don't actually believe that. I'm in the Rosa Luxemburg camp.

Originally Posted by adaher

What this conservative group sees as "economic freedom" is a pretty good proxy for economic conservatism.

Rent and wage labour? The freedom to be owned and the freedom to die?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

HAH?

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

It's a joke. Right wing, white ring? White Guard protecting the country from the Bolshies/blacks?

Course, I don't actually believe that. I'm in the Rosa Luxemburg camp.

HAH?

[DWMarch]

It just occurred to me that this could be a Machiavellian plot to destroy Romney and put him out of contention. If the Republicans knew in advance that they didn't have much hope of capturing the executive branch this time around, perhaps they're taking the opportunity to bankrupt the guy they all agree they hate. Romney fails miserably, takes Paul Ryan down with him and spends himself out of contention for next time around. Meanwhile the Republicans have three or four more years to find someone who doesn't have so many skeletons in his closet and who isn't so afraid of the media. For this election they can concentrate on winning senate and congress seats, from which they can effectively prevent Obama from doing... anything. The public ends up hating Obama for being ineffective, hates Romney for being a loser and shifts right as the country slowly goes to hell in a handbasket.

It's probably too clever but I do love the idea of the Republicans are trolling the whole country with Romney's campaign and deliberately setting him up to fail.