Sure. Call yourself a Republican and you are one. Get elected as a Republican and caucus with them (if in a legislative body) and you’re a Republican elected official.
That’s all there is to it - and this is a major reason why party discipline and affiliation in the United States is so loose.
Well, parties change over time, don’t they? People watching the 1924 Democratic Convention would have assumed that black voters would never join the Democratic Party in any appreciable numbers - that convention was dominated by open Klan delegates. I’m reminded too that a bill was once passed to provide disaster relief for flood victims - this was vetoed by Democratic President Grover Cleveland on constitutional grounds.
So you can swear all you want. I’ll swear some myself - that the Democratic and Republican Parties some decades hence will differ in some important ways from the parties as they are currently constituted.
The conservatives haven’t gotten it yet. They’re refusing to admit they lost. They want to believe that the voters rejected John McCain because he wasn’t conservative enough and a true conservative candidate will win in 2012.
The problem with this theory is that it supposes that the people who disliked McCain for not being conservative enough chose Obama instead. How is Obama’s victory over McCain evidence of some deep untapped conservatism?
If conservatives manage to control the nomination process in 2012 they’re in for an awakening. They might manage to get somebody like Palin or Huckabee nominated but that true conservative will end up losing by a wider margin than McCain did. That event will hopefully finally shake off the conservative control of the GOP and allow moderate Republicans to take over.
Possibly a lot. Ultimately VP candidates have little impact.
But I’m not making this argument. I think it’s completely wrong. All I’m saying here is that the general gist of an argument that a conservative would make in support of the need for a more conservative candidate is “excite the base”, and noting that many liberals maintain a parallel position on their end. You can probably quibble forever about the details but it’s the same basic logic.
I myself think anyone who maintains such a position on either end is wrong, as we’ve discussed elsewhere.
If that happened and the Conservative nutjobs joined the Conservative party, I’d go back to being a Republican. Though it’s a tough row to hoe to be a Republican in NYC, particularly since I have connections to the Democratic party and almost none to the Republican one. But in the end I tend conservative so there it is.
These liberals can at least tell themselves that the voters went as far to the left as possible in 2008. They can believe that the people who voted for Obama would have prefered Kucinich. But conservatives are claiming that the people who voted for Obama would have prefered Huckabee.
The problem with that is that the base doesn’t win elections. Elections are won by convincing the swing voters in the middle to prefer your candidate over the other guy.
That’s generally true. But applying that to the GOP in 2008 doesn’t work.
As I pointed out, the GOP base was in fact excited about Palin, while they regarded McCain as weak tea. It’s hard to argue that the candidate on the ticket they were excited about had little impact on their voting, but the one they weren’t excited about did.
But like you say, that’s in response to an argument you were passing along, rather than making the case for yourself, so it’s not a genuine point of contention here. I should have noticed that when I responded to your earlier post - my apologies.
My understanding is that while what you say is true about elections in Presidential years, which have substantially higher turnout, off-year elections are much more dependent on turning out the base. A lot of those “swing voters in the middle” are low-information voters who don’t pay much attention to politics, and in off years, they tend to stay home.
I’m not saying he should fawn over her or disown her. When asked make a very bland statement about how as the party’s VP nominee, he is glad to have her endorsement for his Congressional seat. Sarah Palin is an example of how strong and intelligent women can succeed in our great country. However, like any human beings, we will have differences of opinion, and there are several things that I disagree with Gov. Palin about. I fight for what’s best for the people of my district.blahblahblah
Meanwhile you are still cashing checks that came in from Palin’s endorsement.
But you can’t get the money to get the message out to convince swing voters without the support of your base. It’s the juggling act that every politician must do.
True, although the money mostly comes from sources other than your base; base support is necessary only to convince the big-money donors you’re a serious candidate. Usually. OTOH, some forms of base support will send the big-money donors running away from you. It’s all part of the “wealth primary.”
I don’t know if this has already been brought up, by the dateline of the article in the OP is Tues., Nov. 3, 2009, 4:38 AM EST – that is, before the Democratic upset that followed later that day. I would be quite surprised if some battle plans haven’t been sent back to the drawing board.
Sure, he can cash the checks, but my point is that the distancing you suggest here would only work if Palin had endorsed Kirk on her own, rather than his having asked her to endorse him.
Now it’s “we have differences of opinion, but they were sufficiently unimportant to me that I felt comfortable asking her to endorse me.” No, Kirk won’t be saying that in so many words, but his opponents will make the point that that’s what his actions said.
But…the red meat wing of the party won’t, and that’s kind of the whole point of the thread. Your dimmer bulbs are always going to care more about ideological purity than actually getting things done.
Can you give some actual examples of that happening? Certainly in the case at hand the Conservative candidate had a strong chance of winning. Do you know of any examples of conservatives insisting on Republicans putting forth more conservative candidates who had little chance of winning?
(Obviously there will always be local people who support candidates who have less chance of winning than other candidates. I’m talking about the type of effort that was put forth here, with outside agitators making a federal case out of it, and/or rebelling against the actual nominee.)
Sure, NY-23. I know you don’t like that example, but it’s there. And in 2010, if the GOPers don’t get control of their party from the Palinists, it will likely happen a bunch.
Watch for the Crist takedown when he runs for Senate.
