U.S. Republican Primary

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:14 am UTC

Powell retired from the Army in 1993.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

You guys may have heard of this before, but there's a website called ElectoralVote that has tried to project the winner of the presidential election since 2000 by collating polls conducted in each state with a fair degree of accuracy in the last three elections. They've been projecting an Obama win by a margin of around 100 votes since June 22 or so and I'm looking forward to how projections change as new polls come after the announcement of Ryan for VP.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:17 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:You guys may have heard of this before, but there's a website called ElectoralVote that has tried to project the winner of the presidential election since 2000 by collating polls conducted in each state with a fair degree of accuracy in the last three elections. They've been projecting an Obama win by a margin of around 100 votes since June 22 or so and I'm looking forward to how projections change as new polls come after the announcement of Ryan for VP.

My guess is that Wisconsin flips red and the rest will mostly look the same. Florida might go darker blue.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

You know, Paul Ryan is an excellent example of almost everything wrong with the modern GOP, in my humble opinion. A lot has been said about his being a fanboy of Ayn Rand, but not much about his extremist Christian fundie voting record. Aside from the obvious things like trying to ban any funding of Planned Parenthood, allowing organized prayers in publicly-funded schools, and voting to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage, he was, for instance, co-sponsor of a bill that would have declared a fertilized egg to be a legal person, outlawing not just abortion but many forms of birth control (not to mention the legal ramifications for pregnant women as hosts of said legal persons).

If you think about it, it's really bizarre - Randian philosophy and Christianity should be largely mutually exclusive belief systems - Rand (a firm atheist) herself certainly thought so. The modern GOP seems to reconcile- which Ryan seems to epitomize- these two opposing systems by taking the absolute worst out of each and combining them. Christianity is stripped of it's teachings to be compassionate, merciful, not to judge others, that the poor and meek are blessed while it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. And no, I don't buy the supposedly Christian "charity, not government dependence" line some GOP'ers espouse, not when you hear the absolute contempt for the needy that comes from so many voices on the modern Right.

Meanwhile, the GOP's love of Rand ignores her devotion to science, rationality, and the vision of great people using their abilities to build a better world, not just obsess over profits. Her heroes are all industrialists and inventors who create things, whereas modern free market fundamentalism is concerned only wealth accumulation - hell, it seems to me that Bain Capital is an excellent example of her idea of the lowest form of life - the Looters. Shutting down businesses to sell off their assets or transfer operations to China where they make substandard products for cheap seems like classic Looter behavior to me, if you follow Randian definitions. And of course Rand explicilty said that an embryo was in no way a person and the "right to life" concept was nonsense. I allow you to imagine that extreme libertarian's reaction to government attempts to ban forms of birth control decades after its legality has been established.

So you're left with a puritanical, intolerant, anti-science, anti-labor, "big business is always right, no matter what" monstrosity. I.E. Mr Ryan.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Giant Speck » Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:50 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:You guys may have heard of this before, but there's a website called ElectoralVote that has tried to project the winner of the presidential election since 2000 by collating polls conducted in each state with a fair degree of accuracy in the last three elections. They've been projecting an Obama win by a margin of around 100 votes since June 22 or so and I'm looking forward to how projections change as new polls come after the announcement of Ryan for VP.

The problem I see with ElectoralVote is that the projections for each state seem to be based on the latest single poll, instead of a weighted average of recent polls. That said, I have it bookmarked along with RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, and The Huffington Post. I pretty much check them all daily.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

Prefanity
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:28 am UTC
Location: Reno, NV

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Prefanity » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:05 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:If you think about it, it's really bizarre - Randian philosophy and Christianity should be largely mutually exclusive belief systems - Rand (a firm atheist) herself certainly thought so. The modern GOP seems to reconcile- which Ryan seems to epitomize- these two opposing systems by taking the absolute worst out of each and combining them. Christianity is stripped of it's teachings to be compassionate, merciful, not to judge others, that the poor and meek are blessed while it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. And no, I don't buy the supposedly Christian "charity, not government dependence" line some GOP'ers espouse, not when you hear the absolute contempt for the needy that comes from so many voices on the modern Right.


I think an argument could be made that this reconciliation between Christianity and the modes of thought that engendered Objectivism dates back to at least 1890 when Russell H. Conwell first had his speech "Acres of Diamonds" published. We Americans appear to have a long history with not only believing that greed is good, but that it is also mandated by God.

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:44 pm UTC

Prefanity wrote: We Americans appear to have a long history with not only believing that greed is good, but that it is also mandated by God.


Well, that's true; it certainly dates back to the Puritans and some of their philosophies - wealth being a sign from god that you're doing it right, etc, though by no means all of them agreed on that point.

Christians have been coming up with ways to totally ignore what Jesus said for 2,000 years, so it's really no surprise that the modern GOP does the same. I still find it kind of amazing how folks like Paul can be Rand fans and yet so utterly ignore all her philosophy of personal liberty that doesn't directly relate to wealth accumulation, though. I mean jeez, she's only been dead for a few decades.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:15 am UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:If you think about it, it's really bizarre - Randian philosophy and Christianity should be largely mutually exclusive belief systems - Rand (a firm atheist) herself certainly thought so. The modern GOP seems to reconcile- which Ryan seems to epitomize- these two opposing systems by taking the absolute worst out of each and combining them.

It makes sense if you get down to the root values of modern conservatism. Christianity is about restraining the personal passions--it's meant to be a check on the decadence that the space age and the information age has brought. Capitalism in the Rand school is about channeling economic passion into production. The reconciliation is an attempt to create, or recreate, or maintain such as it exists, the sort of man who existed in the 1950s. Forged by privation and war, he was eager (and able) to work long and hard, climb the corporate ladder, and spend what he earned prudently on life improvements and status symbols.

The only ways that would seem to be the "absolute worst" of the two competing schools is if you believe that such a man was a fiction, or if you think him undesirable. But to the conservative, he existed and represented the highest point of our history.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Zamfir » Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:44 am UTC

Steroid, that might well be an accurate view of what conservatives consider important, but it doesn't much to explain why they would pick Rand as guru. They don't have much choice with Christ, that's part of the tradition.

But why Rand, if God-fearing salarymen are the goal? There are a million management and self -help gurus they could have chosen from. Let's say, the guy who wrote "The 7 habits of highly effective people", or his counterpart from the 1950s.

Why pick an atheist who lived in a sex and drugs sect, and who writes about your ideal men as cowardly suck ups?

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:31 am UTC

Well, think about it this way: a movement needs two books. One says, "Here's what you have to do," and the other says, "Here's what you get out of it." If, for conservatives, the bible fills the first role, then Seven Habits or How to Win Friends and Influence People or any of the works of the people you're talking about can't fill the second, because those are just as prescriptive as the bible. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged tell you exactly what you get out of conservatism: the chance to tell those who disagree with you to fuck off, which is a sine qua non of that 1950s man.

If you wanted to reverse the roles, and still get something conservative, you would need to replace the bible with something more like the Quran as it's popularly thought of, or perhaps the Art of War if it had better stories. Something with a lot of smiting of enemies and descriptions of the paradise to come. If you had that, then you wouldn't need Rand.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:02 am UTC

Steroid wrote: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged tell you exactly what you get out of conservatism

No, they tell you what Rand would like to get out of conservatism. They are works of fiction, and basing your policies on fiction is dumb. On top of that, there are plenty of verses in the bible that tell you what you will get out of a biblical lifestyle - they don't use Rand to tell them these things, they use Rand to hate on poor people.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:13 am UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Steroid wrote: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged tell you exactly what you get out of conservatism

No, they tell you what Rand would like to get out of conservatism. They are works of fiction, and basing your policies on fiction is dumb. On top of that, there are plenty of verses in the bible that tell you what you will get out of a biblical lifestyle - they don't use Rand to tell them these things, they use Rand to hate on poor people.


The bible also has parables, and that supports conservatism too. But the biblical rewards are less palatable. They don't appeal to the modern conservative as much as Rand's virtuous selfishness does.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:15 am UTC

Well then, you've made your way back to the original question. How do they reconcile biblical values with selfishness?
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:47 am UTC

By keeping them in different spheres. The biblical ascetism comes through in their rejection of sexual licentiousness and their condemnation of showy entertainment. The selfishness comes in the economic sphere where success is a good thing, since it you have a lot of money, you've successfully convinced others to give it to you. Hence the virtue.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:02 pm UTC

There are also prosperity churches that preach God wants, and in fact makes, good Christians materially wealthy. There are no logical contradictions in theology, at least not according to the brains of religious folks.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby yurell » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:36 pm UTC

They have linguistic gymnastics that defy the strongest topology.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:42 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Steroid wrote: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged tell you exactly what you get out of conservatism

No, they tell you what Rand would like to get out of conservatism. They are works of fiction, and basing your policies on fiction is dumb. On top of that, there are plenty of verses in the bible that tell you what you will get out of a biblical lifestyle - they don't use Rand to tell them these things, they use Rand to hate on poor people.

For what its worth Rand wrote much more nonfiction than fiction, most of it on morality, politics and economics.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:51 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:By keeping them in different spheres. The biblical ascetism comes through in their rejection of sexual licentiousness and their condemnation of showy entertainment. The selfishness comes in the economic sphere where success is a good thing, since it you have a lot of money, you've successfully convinced others to give it to you. Hence the virtue.

So, in other words, avoid the question.

Iulus Cofield wrote:There are also prosperity churches that preach God wants, and in fact makes, good Christians materially wealthy. There are no logical contradictions in theology, at least not according to the brains of religious folks.

There are a significant number of verses though about acceptable business behaviour, as well as how one should treat the poor. Additionally there's the whole "those who wish to become rich are falling into a trap, because the love of money is the root of all evil" thing (1 Tim 6:10). So while being successful is not anti-Christian, the way you get there, what motivates you, and what you do when you do get rich are very important and completely contradictory of Rand.

Dark567 wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
Steroid wrote: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged tell you exactly what you get out of conservatism

No, they tell you what Rand would like to get out of conservatism. They are works of fiction, and basing your policies on fiction is dumb. On top of that, there are plenty of verses in the bible that tell you what you will get out of a biblical lifestyle - they don't use Rand to tell them these things, they use Rand to hate on poor people.

For what its worth Rand wrote much more nonfiction than fiction, most of it on morality, politics and economics.

But do we expect the modern GOP to have actually read any philosophy? But still, the same thing applies to philosophy - it only tells you how the author wants the world to be, not how it is.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:01 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:spend what he earned prudently on (...) status symbols.

Wait, what?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:49 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:
Steroid wrote: The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged tell you exactly what you get out of conservatism

No, they tell you what Rand would like to get out of conservatism. They are works of fiction, and basing your policies on fiction is dumb. On top of that, there are plenty of verses in the bible that tell you what you will get out of a biblical lifestyle - they don't use Rand to tell them these things, they use Rand to hate on poor people.

For what its worth Rand wrote much more nonfiction than fiction, most of it on morality, politics and economics.

But do we expect the modern GOP to have actually read any philosophy? But still, the same thing applies to philosophy - it only tells you how the author wants the world to be, not how it is.
Philosophy and economics are both prescriptive and descriptive. Your criticism of philosophy could be used against everyone from Plato to Rawls. The former's philosophy created the foundation of our modern western governments.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

And that's fine... I'm not saying people can't make good points philosophically, but pointing to it as truth (i.e. if you're going to point at Rand and say "this is how it will be if we go all out capitalism") without facts is silly and should be treated as such.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Puppyclaws » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:05 pm UTC

I don't know how a guy who was considered a front-runner for the VP for months could be called a "bold" pick. But anyway.

Garm wrote:I think Ryan is a poor pick because he doesn't add anything to the ticket (except he might be better looking than Mitt). Romney has a budget plan that was modeled (or seems that way) off of Ryan's budget so there's no gain there. Romney is running largely off his business experience and says that he can parley that into "turning the economy around." Ryan is largely known as a "policy wonk" who works on budgets and the economy. Not only that, Romney has explicitly stated that he's not running on the Ryan budget. So we have a couple of white guys whose perceived strengths overlap. There's really nothing to generate excitement from Ryan. The Press LOOOOOOOOOVVESS him. Thinks he's dreamy. He's really just another boring white guy. One of the reasons why Obama picked Biden is that he was a boring white guy (whereas, obviously, Obama was not, but Romney is) but he also has a good personal backstory. Biden also was seen as shoring up Obama's weak foreign policy cred. Ryan does.... nothing.


The problem is that you are thinking about this from your perspective, not his. Ryan is a brilliant pick, strategically. All the talk about The Ryan Plan takes attention away from Romney's moderate positions as governor of MA. Romney has been hammered on his business experience-- having a running mate who counterbalances his real world experience with the ability to say "here is what is possible politically," without the faces of people who (supposedly) lost their jobs as a result of his actions, is a strong gain for him. Also, he's running as a Republican, so there is no gain to having somebody who is not a white male on his ticket (as McCain learned). The fact that the Press loves him and that he is a genius at hyper-conservative soundbites...I don't see how you can see this as anything but a positive for Romney's campaign? Plus, dude's Catholic, which could get you a huge group of voters that have a tendency to vote the other way because of social issues.

His only real hole is with the senior vote, but I don't think his position on that is enough to drive conservative seniors (the majority of all senior voters) away from voting for Romney.

To be clear: I really don't like this dude. But there is nobody they could have selected that I would have liked. Strictly in terms of making the right choice to help him win, this was right on target. Republicans and Democrats are trying to court different types of voters, and the kind of people that the Republicans are going for these days love this guy.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tirian » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:28 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:Republicans and Democrats are trying to court different types of voters, and the kind of people that the Republicans are going for these days love this guy.


Yeah, Obama is courting the independent voters and Romney evidently still needs to court fiscal neoconservative.

There's something else that frightens me about the Romney/Ryan ticket. Neither of them have foreign policy experience, and if elected there's a good bet that we'll be talking about nothing except the United States declaring war on Iran.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:53 pm UTC

Garm wrote:My personal take on it is that it's a stupid pick. Ryan gives even more fuel to Obama to attack Romney on the economy and healthcare.

And more specificity. Up until this point, Romney's been sufficiently vague. He's promised "everything Obama's done, I'll do the opposite." Ryan, on the other hand, is specific to a fault. So now the Obama campaign can target line-item budget cuts and run ads and make them into talking points.

I fully expect in the next few days to start seeing ads on how Paul Ryan wants to cut white-tipped canes for blind Korea veterans.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10547
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:06 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:Also, he's running as a Republican, so there is no gain to having somebody who is not a white male on his ticket (as McCain learned).


Not true at all. Palin did wonders for McCain's popularity initially, and then she started speaking...

Look, everyone with half a brain knew that the 2008 election was between Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. The republicans weren't likely to win no matter who they chose as their candidate. Why? Because people are stupid, and vote the party rather than the person. Russ Feingold, the greatest senator we had, lost his seat in 2010 because he was a Democrat. In 2006, when people were fed up with the Iraq war, Lincoln Chafee, the most anti-Iraq-war Republican, was voted out for belonging to the wrong party (he's now governor though).

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:Also, he's running as a Republican, so there is no gain to having somebody who is not a white male on his ticket (as McCain learned).


Not true at all. Palin did wonders for McCain's popularity initially, and then she started speaking...

Look, everyone with half a brain knew that the 2008 election was between Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. The republicans weren't likely to win no matter who they chose as their candidate. Why? Because people are stupid, and vote the party rather than the person. Russ Feingold, the greatest senator we had, lost his seat in 2010 because he was a Democrat. In 2006, when people were fed up with the Iraq war, Lincoln Chafee, the most anti-Iraq-war Republican, was voted out for belonging to the wrong party (he's now governor though).


It's not just voting the party line, though. I don't belong to either party, but could not convince myself to vote republican on account of palin. She was...utterly terrible. And her being picked as veep called McCains decision-making into question.

That said, I suspect that neither Palin's initial popularity wave nor the backlash was particularly related to her gender. The first was due to her popularity with the hardline republicans and the image of her as a reformer. The latter was basically her own fault, and was mostly everyone else's reaction.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby bentheimmigrant » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote: Ryan is a brilliant pick, strategically. All the talk about The Ryan Plan takes attention away from Romney's moderate positions as governor of MA.

The majority of independents actually want moderate policies. That tends to be why they're independent. Making Romney look less moderate worked in the primary, but for the general election that is completely counter to basic logic.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Puppyclaws » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:24 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:Also, he's running as a Republican, so there is no gain to having somebody who is not a white male on his ticket (as McCain learned).


Not true at all. Palin did wonders for McCain's popularity initially, and then she started speaking...

Look, everyone with half a brain knew that the 2008 election was between Hillary and the rest of the Democrats. The republicans weren't likely to win no matter who they chose as their candidate. Why? Because people are stupid, and vote the party rather than the person. Russ Feingold, the greatest senator we had, lost his seat in 2010 because he was a Democrat. In 2006, when people were fed up with the Iraq war, Lincoln Chafee, the most anti-Iraq-war Republican, was voted out for belonging to the wrong party (he's now governor though).


...? No, not really. They said it did a whole lot for him on the news, but before she said a word it sunk the election for him. It was a bad choice. The fact that she was a woman did not sway women to vote for McCain, because ultimately her politics were that of the Republicans. That she also had a penchant for saying stupid things didn't help, but the fact is her gender was in itself just not at all helpful to the campaign even before she opened her mouth. Also, the current Republican non-white or non-male candidates for this job (Jindal, Ayotte, Bachmann) all also have severe cases of foot-in-mouth disease.

And if the election was between Hillary and the rest of the Dems, why did she not even have a spot on the ticket? I'm really not even sure what you mean. The Republicans weren't likely to win, sure, but they could have if they had done a better job campaigning and if McCain had chosen a more middle-of-the-road running mate. They weren't likely to win in 2004, either, but their campaign strategy worked out beautifully for them.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Puppyclaws » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:28 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote: Ryan is a brilliant pick, strategically. All the talk about The Ryan Plan takes attention away from Romney's moderate positions as governor of MA.

The majority of independents actually want moderate policies. That tends to be why they're independent. Making Romney look less moderate worked in the primary, but for the general election that is completely counter to basic logic.


As I said, Republicans are not courting the same people Democrats are. Republicans are courting people on the Far Right who may not come out to vote at all, or may vote for extreme political parties, if the Republican candidate is too centrist. Democrats are courting independent voters.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Dark567 » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote: Ryan is a brilliant pick, strategically. All the talk about The Ryan Plan takes attention away from Romney's moderate positions as governor of MA.

The majority of independents actually want moderate policies. That tends to be why they're independent. Making Romney look less moderate worked in the primary, but for the general election that is completely counter to basic logic.
From what I've seen, that's not actually true. Most independents seem to be pretty firmly entrenched in voting for one party, that most are in fact, "closet partisans". Most recent elections have been about which side can get more base voters out.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2009/12/1 ... itical_in/
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Diadem » Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:31 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote: Ryan is a brilliant pick, strategically. All the talk about The Ryan Plan takes attention away from Romney's moderate positions as governor of MA.

The majority of independents actually want moderate policies. That tends to be why they're independent. Making Romney look less moderate worked in the primary, but for the general election that is completely counter to basic logic.

But Romney is not trying to win moderate votes. He's trying to win conservative votes. Aren't they already voting for him? Well, no. They certainly won't be voting for Obama, that's true. But they'll only vote for him if they vote at all.

Voter turn out in the US is ridiculously low. So elections are often won, not by swinging the independents in the middle, but by energizing your base, getting them to vote at all. If 30% of liberals vote for Obama (the other 70% not voting), but 40% of conservatives vote for Romney (the other 60% not voting), then he'll win the elections no matter what way the independents swing.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:37 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:The fact that she was a woman did not sway women to vote for McCain, because ultimately her politics were that of the Republicans. That she also had a penchant for saying stupid things didn't help, but the fact is her gender was in itself just not at all helpful to the campaign even before she opened her mouth.

Wait, what? Are you saying that no women ever vote Republican?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:The fact that she was a woman did not sway women to vote for McCain, because ultimately her politics were that of the Republicans. That she also had a penchant for saying stupid things didn't help, but the fact is her gender was in itself just not at all helpful to the campaign even before she opened her mouth.

Wait, what? Are you saying that no women ever vote Republican?


I suspect that her being a woman and Obama being black were both rather less significant than the media made them out to be.

Yes, much was made of black voters voting for Obama. And surely, they did. They've also swung pretty hard democrat in basically every election in recent times. So, while voting did swing a little more democrat, it was only a few percent. Among that minority demographic. So, in the overall population, kind of a minor swing.

Put another way, Palin happening to be female was vastly less important than the words she said and who she appealed to.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:21 pm UTC

Times wrote:In last year’s presidential election, younger blacks voted in greater proportions than whites for the first time and black women turned out at a higher rate than any other racial, ethnic and gender group, a census analysis released Monday confirmed.
Image

Obama's blackness almost certainly had a huge effect on voter turnout. Palin, or Clinton for that matter, could've had a similar effect on women if she hadn't revealed herself to be crazy, stupid, and entirely unrelatable.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Puppyclaws » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:29 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:The fact that she was a woman did not sway women to vote for McCain, because ultimately her politics were that of the Republicans. That she also had a penchant for saying stupid things didn't help, but the fact is her gender was in itself just not at all helpful to the campaign even before she opened her mouth.

Wait, what? Are you saying that no women ever vote Republican?


No. I am saying that having a female candidate on the ticket is not going to help the Republicans with women voters as a group. Women and minority groups tend to vote for Democrats, and the only way that is going to change is if there is a major change in the Republican policies. Nominating a female candidate who is pro-life is not going to sway the majority of woman voters to vote R is what I was saying.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:36 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:The fact that she was a woman did not sway women to vote for McCain, because ultimately her politics were that of the Republicans. That she also had a penchant for saying stupid things didn't help, but the fact is her gender was in itself just not at all helpful to the campaign even before she opened her mouth.

Wait, what? Are you saying that no women ever vote Republican?


No. I am saying that having a female candidate on the ticket is not going to help the Republicans with women voters as a group. Women and minority groups tend to vote for Democrats, and the only way that is going to change is if there is a major change in the Republican policies. Nominating a female candidate who is pro-life is not going to sway the majority of woman voters to vote R is what I was saying.


Oh yes it will, and did.

I remember visiting a website called "HillaryClintonForum.net" after the RNC convention, and you might as well have called it "JohnMcCainForum.net" during the general election.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:44 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Times wrote:In last year’s presidential election, younger blacks voted in greater proportions than whites for the first time and black women turned out at a higher rate than any other racial, ethnic and gender group, a census analysis released Monday confirmed.
Image

Obama's blackness almost certainly had a huge effect on voter turnout. Palin, or Clinton for that matter, could've had a similar effect on women if she hadn't revealed herself to be crazy, stupid, and entirely unrelatable.


Look at those stats. All of them increase, not just black voters. Well, all except white voters, which was relatively static(minor swings of a percent or two happen every year, and thus, cannot reasonably be attributed to color). In addition, the swings aren't that big. A 4.7% turnout increase in black voters aged 25-44, for instance, is not that crazy.

Note additionally that we've been on a steadily rising voter turnout trend since the mid-nineties, and the overall turnout boosts appear to be...pretty much on target for the rising trend. I won't claim that color/gender has no effect, but certainly the amount of trend attributable to either of these factors appears minor relative to other factors, and thus, media attention to these attributes seems wildly disproportionate.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby omgryebread » Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:50 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Puppyclaws wrote:The fact that she was a woman did not sway women to vote for McCain, because ultimately her politics were that of the Republicans. That she also had a penchant for saying stupid things didn't help, but the fact is her gender was in itself just not at all helpful to the campaign even before she opened her mouth.

Wait, what? Are you saying that no women ever vote Republican?
Or maybe he's saying that women don't vote for a person just because they have a vagina? I vote Democratic (partly) because Democrats have better policies for women. I'd rather vote for a man with policies that are good for me as a woman rather than a woman with policies that would fuck women over.


sam_i_am wrote:Oh yes it will, and did.

I remember visiting a website called "HillaryClintonForum.net" after the RNC convention, and you might as well have called it "JohnMcCainForum.net" during the general election.
Obama won a higher percentage of women than any candidate in recent history. 84% of Clinton supporters voted for Obama. Clinton is also married to a political demigod who had strong cross-party appeal.


Conventional wisdom is that Republican women can't really affect turnout too much, because non-voting women are probably leaning liberal.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Look at those stats. All of them increase, not just black voters. Well, all except white voters, which was relatively static(minor swings of a percent or two happen every year, and thus, cannot reasonably be attributed to color). In addition, the swings aren't that big. A 4.7% turnout increase in black voters aged 25-44, for instance, is not that crazy.

Yes it is. It's crazy. And the 8.7% increase among young black voters is FUCKING INSANE. There's no way two crusty white guys would've seen a voter turnout like that.
omgryebread wrote:Conventional wisdom is that Republican women can't really affect turnout too much, because non-voting women are probably leaning liberal.
That doesn't seem very wise at all. Unlike blacks, who favored Obama over McCain 95% to 4%, the women split 56% to 43%. So there's almost certainly a large contingent of non-voting women who would vote Republican if sufficiently motivated. Given the race numbers, they're probably mostly white. So it's entirely reasonable to think that putting someone on the ticket who is also white and also a woman might help motivate those voters.

Thankfully, we found out what a loon Sarah Palin is before the election. That doesn't change the fact that white female conservatives may want to vote for a white female conservative.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: U.S. Republican Primary

Postby IcedT » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:46 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Steroid, that might well be an accurate view of what conservatives consider important, but it doesn't much to explain why they would pick Rand as guru. They don't have much choice with Christ, that's part of the tradition.

But why Rand, if God-fearing salarymen are the goal? There are a million management and self -help gurus they could have chosen from. Let's say, the guy who wrote "The 7 habits of highly effective people", or his counterpart from the 1950s.

Why pick an atheist who lived in a sex and drugs sect, and who writes about your ideal men as cowardly suck ups?

My understanding is that Rand is really only embraced by a minority of Republicans, and generally not by the same people who are Christian fundamentalists. Paul Ryan is a bit of an outlier in this case. But Rand's popularity is high because Objectivism is a fairly comprehensive economic philosophy that doesn't take much specialist study to understand and promises to keep taxes low, growth high and government power at a minimum. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how these match the preferences and prejudices of the average voting Republican. Its focus of rights even gives it a bit of a Founding Fathers vibe, and since it was founded by a Russian fleeing Communism it reinforces the idea of American exceptionalism. Really, it's perfect for them besides all the atheism and personal weirdness, but since it's built on dogma far-righters can find ways to make it fit into the other dogmas they base their worldview on, particularly Christianity. These tend to be "follow the rules and don't go to Hell" Christians more than "be charitable, kind and honest and God won't sweat the small stuff" Christians anyway, so concern for the poor wasn't a big deal for them to begin with.

Basically, the extreme-right voter in America lives in a siege mentality. They imagine a past when everything was awesome and they see "progress" as just the steady erosion of the things they valued from that time. They get their sense of religious decline from the combination of declining religiosity and churches becoming more liberal, and Rand gives them a way to feel that the perfect, morally right economic system was invented here and has since been steadily worn down by moochers, looters, corrupt politicians and stupid commoners. It's a worldview based strongly on rules, just rules that the government doesn't get to make. They're God's rules.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armanant and 13 guests