Nope. The Dems continue to operate under a big tent. You, being a conservative on 2012, may have difficulty with the concept that people within your party may disagree, even on key issues, and yet still be worthy of support.
Carter was known to be less than thrilled about the Democratic Party’s stance on the issue of legal access to abortion. Dems voted for him anyway. Carter’s position cost him some support within the party - life is unfair that way - but that one position did not derail his nomination.
Could a Dem candidate who was luke warm on the choice issue win the POTUS nomination in future years? Unlikely but possible IMO. Said candidate would have to assuage a lot of concerns about SCOTUS choices and such, but the nomination is not completely out of reach just on that.
Meanwhile the Republican Party is having a difficult time finding candidates who are against rape.
I don’t know about that. Politically he could tuck it in and say, “I’m opposed to abortion personally, but we need to keep it safe and legal, while working to reduce the number of abortions necessary through education and social programs.”
I think the biggest thing that doomed Carter was stagflation.
Inflation and growth are usually related - if you have inflation, it at least comes with growth. If you don’t have growth, at least prices aren’t going up. Carter had double-digit inflation and sluggish growth.
His best decision was deregulating beer production, which led to the creation of microbreweries and my father regularly drinking American beer for the first time in his life.
His worst decision was boycotting the 1980 Olympics.
The thing that put re-election out of reach was the failure to rescue the Iran hostages
Or they could for a superpac, call it the BRATPAC.
I think that is what he did.
I think it was the Iran Hostage Crisis, the liberal media was running the story every night for over a year. The economy was bad but a lot of it was the result of oil shocks and the federal reserve’s decision to painfully raise interest rates
No, Ted Kennedy was really that good, as shown by the whupping he gave Romney in '94. He had his personal failings, and because of his name we got to watch every example on the nightly news, but he was one hell of a politician. Maybe even better than his brothers. Jack and Bobby were never the backroom brawlers that Teddy was.
Were there any pro-choice advocates even trying to change the Republican platform? And from your cite “Robert urged the committee members to prove that Democrats are more tolerant and open-minded than their opponents across the aisle: ‘Republicans are continually telling people they are unwelcome because of who they are, what they believe or where they were born. We are not that party.’” There’s a difference between a chilly reception and being shown the door.
As to Republican Senators - let’s see what happens to the far-right candidates who defeated more moderate Republicans in this year’s primaries. The Red Team would have another Senate seat right now if they hadn’t nominated Sharon Angle. She was the one person in Nevada who could lose to Harry Reid, and she did. I think she’s gone on to hijack the heck out of this thread.
