Oh, and Sam, don’t dismiss the power of the Christian Right here, despite your disbelief in its size. In a fairly-evenly-divided country, the smaller and more active groups control the balance. That may not be true in the parliamentary systems you’re familiar with, but you need to understand how it works here a little better before making such non-fact-based pronouncements, okay?
Who do you really think is in charge now? Moderates? No, the Christian Right. But not according to you, apparently.
I believe someone mentioned that he was going to be 71 when Bush’s hypothetical second term would end. If his wife’s against his running, my guess is that he’d only run if he genuinely believed his country needed him. And I can’t see why he’d believe that.
I’ve been waiting for nearly two decades for the Christian right to lose influence. It keeps on not happening. Remember, over a decade ago, how the Swaggart/Bakker/Tilton/etc. scandals were finally going to kill them? Then they helped turn Congress over in 1994, and that story died fast.
They weren’t influential in the Presidential elections of 1992 and 1996, since by 1992, they were pretty disillusioned with Daddy Bush (despite his giving them Clarence Thomas), and they understandably never cottoned to Dole in the first place, so they had a hard time getting people’s butts out of the pews and into the polls those years. But they know Dubya is one of them, so they got out there in 2000 and 2002.
Buahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Well, it’s not exactly new. You’ve just described the Perotistas. And the big gulf in today’s American political landscape between a ‘fiscal conservative’ (balance the budget) and an ‘economic conservative’ (cut taxes, then cut taxes some more) is worth mentioning. The GOP is run by economic conservatives; the political lineage you’re describing, which also included Tsongas Democrats in '92 and John Anderson’s supporters if you want to go all the way back to 1980, are fiscal conservatives.
Of course, “McCain Republican” is getting to be an oxymoron. Other than his commitment to a strong military - which the Dems could use - he has less in common with the GOP every day.
They love Powell, but he’ll be pretty old in 2008. And they don’t really know Condi that well yet, although she’s probably right up their alley.
But the thing is, this really isn’t a GOP demographic. It’s a centrist demographic.
It doesn’t have to resonate with the ‘general public’; it just has to resonate strongly with about 15% of the population, which (if they vote heavily) is more than enough to control the GOP. If they control the GOP, and the GOP is either running the country or can block a Dem President’s initiatives, then they’re in the driver’s seat.
Baloney. If that were the case, then they would have been more influential in the 1940s through 1970s than they were from 1980 on. It’s been the other way around.
If you’re ever in the DC area, Sam, I’ll take you to some big evangelical churches. You’ll see some old folks, but you’ll see plenty of young folks, too. This isn’t a demographic that’s in any danger of dying out.
[/QUOTE]
“McCain Republicans” ? Here’s a tip for ya, Sammy: They’re Democrats. His big states in 2000 were those that allowed crossover voting in their primaries.
Elvis:
I’m more or less with you on the continued influence of the “Christian Right”. It may be waning in the cities, but is still very strong in the “heartland”. And the new GOPers that Sam is talking about typically aren’t funding that party the way the “Christian right” is, nor are they anywhere near as well organized.
However, don’t underestimate Sam Stone’s understanding of US politics and political systems. Based on his posts, he’s got a better understanding than 99% of Americans. Anyway, he doesn’t need me to defend himself.
John, I was referring specifically to the current administration and the current Congress - no question they are most strongly “run” by the Christian Right, regardless of its actual level and distribution of support among the populace. That was the point - that well-organized pressure groups can control the government even if they’re small. And those that are not only confident that they’re right but that God is on their side do not think it’s worthwhile even to listen to other views, do they?
As for Sam’s understanding of US politics, that gets smacked down pretty much continuously here, and especially when he makes cracks about others’ patriotism. I hope you’ll agree that he’d be adding much more to the debates by actually showing a real interest in, and commitment to, his own country. But, as you said, it’s up to him to defend himself when he can.
The problem isn’t in the general election, it’s in the primaries. Primary voters tend to be the most motivated voters, and the most motivated voters in the GOP are the Christian right. The moderates and centrists in either party don’t tend to vote that much in primaries. The primaries tend to bring out the extremes of both parties and the candidates are forced to pander to those extremes to get the nominations (which is why we saw GWB speaking at an openly racist university, for instance).
If the GOP forces their own most active constituents to choose between a social moderate (who can win a general election) and a strong social conservative (who cannot), they will have a division in the party. Letting go of the abortion plank is simply not an acceptable compromise for an awful lot of religious conservatives and they could hijack the primary process. The religious right will direct many of their grass roots voting campaigns towards the conservatives. Remember the support that Buchanan got for a while in '94 because Dole wasn’t considered conservative enough.
If motivated enough, the religious right could force a nomination on the GOP which might not represent the majority view of republican voters, but all that matters is who votes in the primaries.
DTC:
You lost me. It’s always been my understanding that GOP candidates (for pres) do BETTER in the general election when they come from the more conservative side of the party (Reagan vs Dole) whereas Dems do better when they come from the more centrist part (Clinton vs Dukakis or McGovern). The Dems really need to resist that natural tendancy if they want to win the White House more often.
Sounded like you were saying the opposite is true for the GOP. Maybe we’re quibbling about about strong vs moderate. From my perspective, the GOP guy needs to be slightly right of the GOP center and the Dem, also, needs to be slightly right of the Dem center. That’s one reason why I think Hillary will fail unless she can completely reinvnet herself to she her “left of center” image.
But you are right about the primaries. To understand the way presidents get elected, you HAVE to look at the primaries. People often forget that. And it’s often why voters feel like they don’t really care for either candidate all that much.
Nixon once said that GOP candidates for POTUS had to run as fast as they could to the right during the primaries and then run as fast as they could back to the middle during the election. That’s exactly what GWB did, and it’s what Clinton did (in reverse) when he got elected. Let me also remind you that GWB lost] the popular vote. Other than Reagan, right-wingers have to moderate their views after they get nominated in order to get elected. Opponents have something to do with it too. Dole had to run against a very popular incumbent with a robust economy. Reagan had a weak opponent in Carter, who was struggling both with economic problems and with the Iran hostage crisis. The door was more open than usual for a far-right conservative.
Ironically, while I think Powell would win a general election. I don’t think he could win the GOP nomination.
“Ironically, while I think Powell would win a general election. I don’t think he could win the GOP nomination.”
**DTC: **
Too bad we may never find out…
If we somehow do, I’d bet 5 cyber-bucks that he would. But I do understand exactly what you mean and why you think he’d lose.
No, you disagree with it. Not the same thing.
THAT, I’d like a cite for.
And here’s obligatory Elvis cheap shot. We’ve gone through this before - Elvis claims that I ignore Canadian issues, and I point to multitudes of Canadian threads that I participate in. Then he waits a while, and repeats the charge. Ad infinitem. I really wish he’d stop.
ElvisL1ves, if you want to mindlessly spew insults at people, there’s a forum for that. Would you mind leaving GD for the grown-ups?
TheRyan, if you’re unaware of the background of a discussion, it’s better not to inject yourself into it, okay? We’re about fighting ignorance here, and that does include helping correct each others’ bad habits of not respecting facts and not addressing the subject matter. You might be aware of the criticism december takes here for his own partisan filtration of facts, but he doesn’t actually habitually invent facts as our friend with the hole in his arm does (and is routinely called out for without effect on his habits, I might add).
You and Sam both consider who has actually asked here, on this board, “Why do you hate your country?” (Sam, you’ve conveniently forgotten in just a few weeks?), and who has been called out by the moderators for the behavior you’re correctly decrying. Hint: It ain’t me, babe.
Sam, if you want a cite for being called out on a lack of knowledge of, or perhaps interest in, the facts of US politics, you need only reread this thread for the closest such. You claim an interest in and respect for Canadian politics as well, but, on the rare occasions when you actually do get into it here, it’s in entirely dismissive terms.
Both of you, if you’d like to continue your defense of ignorance, the Pit is available. But I’d really recommend trying a respect for facts first, okay?
Now, TheRyan, the thread is about US presidential candidacies - do you have anything useful to add to it?
Oh, the irony. 
Well, we couldn’t get Bill Simon to win against him, and this was during the height of Davis’ repugnance. Of course, with the way Simon ran his campaign, perhaps Donald Duck would’ve been better.
At any rate, I’d like to see Condi become governor, but I’d also like to see Ahnuld become governor. Talented and intelligent minority woman who has a decent chance at the Presidency should she want it, vs The Terminator. Damn, that’s a hard choice.
Jeff