# Do the Republicans actually want to win elections this year? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-republicans-actually-want-to-win-elections-this-year/375765 "2006-10-09T02:30:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-republicans-actually-want-to-win-elections-this-year/375765/61 "2006-10-11T16:34:29Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] So Karl Rove is therefore not a political genius. A political genuis embraces popular polices, and figures out ways to sell unpopular policies and make people love them. Political geniuses create political dynasties. They create lasting coalitions. They accomplish great things. Karl Rove is not a political genius, he’s a talented but stupid hack. [/quote] I don’t agree with your assumption that geniuses are necessarily focused on the long term. Nor should we imagine geniuses to be without flaws even in their particular area. Einstein famously refused to consider the possibility that chance was such an important part of the foundation of the universe as the modern theories posit. > [@](#): > > But Rove? Karl Rove got George Bush elected by the slimmest of margins, both times. Well, all that counts is getting elected, right? No, because what are you going to accomplish while you’re in office? George Bush has squandered his time in office and eviscerated the Republican party for a generation. ## Rove got Bush elected. And got him reelected with only minor sops to popular opinion: NCLB and the Medicare prescription drug benefit. And their superwealthy clients got plenty in return. Billions. Do you imagine they will just give that money back if the Dems win control? [QUOTE=Marley23] Republicans control both houses of Congress, so if your theory is true, they are alienating members of their own party, both in office and out. I’d call that “stupid” (unable and unwilling to compromise), not “principled.” The kind of bipartisanship you’re attempting to describe as populist and unprincipled is actually necessary in creating legislation - unless you’re a party that actually feels compromise is bad. Then you end up with exactly what we have today: a party that has done little to reach out to the other side, and thus isn’t even able to share the blame for its screwups. [/quote] I find this mostly incomprehensible. Would you care to try to reword it? For myself, I’m not admiring the principles of the GOP but rather their willingness to stand on them even if it costs them electoral support. > [@](#): > > What have the Republicans done that was unpopular-but-principled? Invading Iraq was very popular when it happened, and Iraq is their biggest problem. Maybe you could argue that staying there is unpopular, but I’d say there’s more to that than principle. The tax cuts were also popular, and I’m sure they still are (although the defecit isn’t). Opposing gay marriage is popular. Letting the assault weapons ban expire certainly popular with Republicans. The Katrina fuckups weren’t a policy decision, so they don’t count. I can’t think of anything Bush has done that he knew would be unpopular ahead of time. Maybe the Dubai thing, but that lasted about 15 seconds and has been totally forgotten. Congress alienated people with the Terri Schiavo fiasco, and Bush went along with it, but I don’t know if they thought people would hate that - certainly they thought they could keep her around to show to their base. I would say that the GOP has done plenty of things that will become unpopular indeed once the results are in though for now it is merely the war and Katrina that have come home to roost. The Katrina disaster certainly was a policy decision. They decided disaster relief wasn’t all that important and it came back to bite them on the ass. I predict there will be plenty more of that in the future as America finds out how much damage the Bushies have done to our government. Hopefully it won’t be on the same scale. ## But really, I was actually looking at it the other way around. That is, if the Republicans had done things that were popular then they would have more credit with the electorate. Things like fighting to keep American manufacturing jobs at home and immigration reform. [QUOTE=Renob] It actually applies quite nicely. There is no evidence to back up either of the above assertions. [/quote] Certainly there is evidence. Elections aren’t exactly sacrosanct in America. We have a long history of electoral shenanigans including the ( nonelectronic ) GOP efforts in Florida and Ohio in the last 2 presidential elections. We have seen that the electoral systems are vulnerable despite the claims of their Republican-sympathizing builders. This isn’t proof but that doesn’t mean there is no evidence. > [@](#): > > No, if someone is going to assert a theory, then that person must provide evidence of that theory. Exactly. You have put forth the theory that the theories in question are ridiculous. We are still waiting for you to produce evidence to back that up. > [@](#): > > Pointing out that there is no evidence to support a theory is simply illustrating that this theory is groundless. If there is no evidence to back up a theory, then it must be rejected. The first sentence is true but the second is not. There is no reason to abandon a theory unless there is evidence to the contrary. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And the first sentence might be construed as an attempt to “move the bars”. You have not asserted that the theories are groundless; you have said they are ridiculous. Simply because there is no proof does not make something implausible. > [@](#): > > Just because some people on this board think the GOP is so evil it could steal elections, manipulate gas prices, kidnap and torture judges, does not mean that these things actually happen. If you are going to tell me this does happen, then show me some evidence. Until someone does, then it’s ridiculous to put forward such theories. Just because you think otherwise does not mean these things do not happen. And stop trying to shift the burden of proof. I have not claimed either of the conspiracies were true. It is you who have made the positive assertion that they are ridiculous. Please stick to the point. > [@](#): > > Having worked with voting machines, the means aren’t as simple as Kennedy and his ilk claim. The motive is also not there. Republicans – just like Democrats – want to win elections. That does not mean they want to win them illegally. Do you honestly doubt that both parties have been guilty of electoral fraud many times in the past? > [@](#): > > Even if your assertion were true, until there is a crime, it means nothing. Hell, I have means, motive, and opportunity to kill my neighbor’s dog that is constantly barking. According to your logic, I should be investigated. The police, however, may want to know one key part of the story – is the dog dead? Since it lives and barks as we talk, there is no crime. When the dog is dead, they will tell you, then they’ll investigate. Similarly, when an election is hacked, then we’ll investigate. Since that hasn’t happened, it’s ridiculous to claim it has happened. ## How convenient for wannabe cheaters. There is no way to know if an election was hacked without an investigation and yet no investigation is warrented unless we know an election was hacked. [QUOTE=Evil Captor] Yeah, that’s what I meant! I’d never be dumb enough to confoozle the skullduggery of the statehouse Republicans with the Congressional Republicans. Never! [/QUOTE] ## 😃 Well, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. And it was plausible. You might have just kept quiet and no one would have known the difference. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] !!! Cite? [/QUOTE] ## _“The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; **but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations** , except as to the places of choosing Senators.”_ Just my 2sense ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-republicans-actually-want-to-win-elections-this-year/375765/62 "2006-10-11T16:41:43Z")
[QUOTE=2sense] I find this mostly incomprehensible. Would you care to try to reword it? For myself, I’m not admiring the principles of the GOP but rather their willingness to stand on them even if it costs them electoral support. [/quote] I would say that the GOP has done plenty of things that will become unpopular indeed once the results are in though for now it is merely the war and Katrina that have come home to roost. The Katrina disaster certainly was a policy decision. They decided disaster relief wasn’t all that important and it came back to bite them on the ass. I predict there will be plenty more of that in the future as America finds out how much damage the Bushies have done to our government. Hopefully it won’t be on the same scale. But really, I was actually looking at it the other way around. That is, if the Republicans had done things that were popular then they would have more credit with the electorate. Things like fighting to keep American manufacturing jobs at home and immigration reform. [/quote] What don’t you understand? You said the GOP is being principled. If the whole party was united behind those principles, they would not be having so many problems. It seems to me that they are alienating Republicans, which is stupid, not principled. > [@](#): > > I would say that the GOP has done plenty of things that will become unpopular indeed once the results are in though for now it is merely the war and Katrina that have come home to roost. I am talking about actions that were unpopular at the time they took them. Sometimes popular programs become unpopular, but it doesn’t take any principles to do something that is already popular - like invading Iraq. > [@](#): > > The Katrina disaster certainly was a policy decision. They decided disaster relief wasn’t all that important and it came back to bite them on the ass. Appointing Michael Brown and ignoring the situation, I think, could not be described as policy. > [@](#): > > But really, I was actually looking at it the other way around. That is, if the Republicans had done things that were popular then they would have more credit with the electorate. Things like fighting to keep American manufacturing jobs at home and immigration reform. Then, again, they’ve been stupid. They managed to get most of the electorate to support them by making promises about what they would do and how they would do it. Since the Republicans are pretty unpopular now, I would say the public feels they haven’t delivered. Why would they choose to be principled all of a sudden, when they already had popular support? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-republicans-actually-want-to-win-elections-this-year/375765/63 "2006-10-11T17:35:28Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] What don’t you understand? You said the GOP is being principled. If the whole party was united behind those principles, they would not be having so many problems. It seems to me that they are alienating Republicans, which is stupid, not principled. [/quote] Political parties in America are so diverse that there simply aren’t any principles that virtually everyone in them can agree on. Or at least, none that the opposition party can’t agree on as well. The principle that I am mainly talking about here is the desire to make the rich richer. > [@](#): > > I am talking about actions that were unpopular at the time they took them. Sometimes popular programs become unpopular, but it doesn’t take any principles to do something that is already popular - like invading Iraq. Yes, I know. You missed the point. > [@](#): > > Appointing Michael Brown and ignoring the situation, I think, could not be described as policy. Do you really believe that the directorship of FEMA was the only dumping ground for unqualified cronies? The Republicans don’t believe in much government so it is less important to them to make sure it works properly. They don’t expect it to work and their policies reflect that. > [@](#): > > Then, again, they’ve been stupid. They managed to get most of the electorate to support them by making promises about what they would do and how they would do it. Since the Republicans are pretty unpopular now, I would say the public feels they haven’t delivered. Why would they choose to be principled all of a sudden, when they already had popular support? ## Again you seem to have missed the point. I’m saying that they did what they wanted to do all along even though they knew if they kowtowed to public pressure they could be in a much better position going into these elections. Just my 2sense [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-republicans-actually-want-to-win-elections-this-year/375765.md?page=3)