Could the Republicans win a national election without appealing to their very socially conservative base?

 

I think there are enough candidates in on the fringes of both parties to make a viable candidate. Perfect example, I bet Ron Paul would have done a much better job in this election cycle than Mitt did. He's a bit crazier economically than I care to be, but a guy like that would have had a much broader appeal.

I think there are enough candidates in on the fringes of both parties to make a viable candidate. Perfect example, I bet Ron Paul would have done a much better job in this election cycle than Mitt did. He's a bit crazier economically than I care to be, but a guy like that would have had a much broader appeal.

 

Not candidates on the fringes... people on the fringes.

I gotta disagree with that. Ron Paul doesn't shy away from social conservatism himself, anyway.

I gotta disagree with that. Ron Paul doesn't shy away from social conservatism himself, anyway.

 

I wouldn't expect you to think anything different.

Isn't Ron Paul a social conservative? Strong pro-life and against gay marriage.

 

 

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Garry Johnson.

Well I asked if the Republicans could win without their social conservative base and you pointed out a socially conservative candidate so...

Well I asked if the Republicans could win without their social conservative base and you pointed out a socially conservative candidate so...

 

Compared to the rest of the party? Not really.

Strong pro-life, anti-marriage equality, and a whole host of nutty economic ideas to boot. Not exactly a broad-reaching "out of my bedroom" candidate.

Americans don't have the stomach for a real libertarian's economic policy

Marriage equality won on the ballot in three states. Progressive champion Warren is in the Senate. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay Senator, was elected. Obama won with a strong electoral vote margin. This was a pretty solid night for liberals.

Edited November 7, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Americans don't have the stomach for a real libertarian's economic policy

Austrian economics iz bad

Brandon McCarthy ‏@BMcCarthy32

 

So wait, do the GOPers who are moving to Canada now just swap houses with the dems that moved there when Bush was re-elected?

Love.

 

The worst part is, from what I know of him, Reddy is a good guy...as are most people here. But this attitude that unless you vote for a D or R (or a winner), is wasting your vote is absurd to me...and unless he was kidding, I find it kind of sad.

I've been having this debate with Jill Stein supporters for a while. what it comes down to is what's more important? your ideological principles, or the greater good. I would absolutely LOVE to get out from the two party system, but the only way for that to happen, is if a third party candidate is someone like Ron Paul who has a huge personality, is loud, and forces his or her way into the national discussion. the problem with most third party candidates is that theyre too damned reserved and nice, and play by the rules.

 

As for your vote not mattering, essentially, a vote for a third party candidate is, at this point, a vote for the candidate who you disagree with the most. a libertarian vote is a vote for Bam and a Green vote for Romney. Thems just the facts.

Strong pro-life, anti-marriage equality, and a whole host of nutty economic ideas to boot. Not exactly a broad-reaching "out of my bedroom" candidate.

 

On same sex marriage you are mixing up his personal and governmental points of view.

Forgot to post this before I went to bed...

 

Love.

at least it made sense for liberals to want to go to a more-liberal country.

I've been having this debate with Jill Stein supporters for a while. what it comes down to is what's more important? your ideological principles, or the greater good. I would absolutely LOVE to get out from the two party system, but the only way for that to happen, is if a third party candidate is someone like Ron Paul who has a huge personality, is loud, and forces his or her way into the national discussion. the problem with most third party candidates is that theyre too damned reserved and nice, and play by the rules.

 

As for your vote not mattering, essentially, a vote for a third party candidate is, at this point, a vote for the candidate who you disagree with the most. a libertarian vote is a vote for Bam and a Green vote for Romney. Thems just the facts.

 

What does that even mean? That doesn't really make any sense. The Libertarian party has very little in common with Obama. The Greens have even less in common with Romney.

Someone on my Facebook wants to move to Europe now that Obama won. Uh..

 

I just don't have the heart to tell them.

On same sex marriage you are mixing up his personal and governmental points of view.

Mr. States Rights supports DOMA and is a perennial cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act.

 

edit: He also opposed the ruling in Lawrence that we have a constitutional right to privacy in sexual matters.

Edited November 7, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

[/b]

 

What does that even mean? That doesn't really make any sense. The Libertarian party has very little in common with Obama. The Greens have even less in common with Romney.

It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out.

[/b]

 

What does that even mean? That doesn't really make any sense. The Libertarian party has very little in common with Obama. The Greens have even less in common with Romney.

 

e.g. A vote for Nader in Florida in 2000 was a vote for Bush.

It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out.

 

No it means that since libertarians overwhelmingly would support Republicans before Democrats, voting for Libertarians means you're not voting for the Republican and are therefore increasing the Democrats' chances.

Mr. States Rights supports DOMA and is a perennial cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act.

 

Its no where that simple, but soundbyte away.

at least it made sense for liberals to want to go to a more-liberal country.

 

Well, there are more conservative countries out there. Most are majority-Muslim.

 

It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out.

 

Which is silly.

 

You can't out of one side of your mouth say you want out of the two-party system, and say out the other side that a vote for a 3rd party is wasted. If you want other parties or independents to have greater voice, then you need to support them when a candidate appears that better matches your beliefs.

 

It means you're "supposed to" vote for Obama so when you vote Libertarian you might as well vote for Romney since you just helped him out.

 

That is the same kind of simple interpretation of election that lead people to believe that Steve Bartman cause the Cubs to lose the World Series.