This speaks to people caring more for being entertained than in being governed Constitutionally. Pretty much the end result of Kardashians vs. the educational system. They both work to dumb down the populace. Pretty faces and being entertained are what people value.
I agree with this, but then that goes back to this being the fault/choice of the voters, not the "party elites". And more importantly,
that isn't going to change just because we try to "send a message" by not voting for the nominee in the general election.There aren't may of us left and that's for sure. Why we are not electing them is my entire point. Guys like Cruz are there. In the overwhelming number of elections there is a far more conservative option available. Perhaps not 'the ideal' conservative. But a 'more conservative' option that ALWAYS gets tanked because people want to WIN and do not give a tinkers dam what they win with.
I certainly wouldn't try to speak for everyone, but I think a lot of people say they support "the strongest conservative they believe has a good shot at being elected." So they do give a tinkers damn who they win with, but they do want to win. Kasich, who ended up polling much better than anyone other Republican for the general election, is Exhibit A that a lot of GOP voters really do care who they win with, and they weren't willing to let Kasich be that guy.
In any case, nominating "the most conservative person who can win" is just the flip side of what the Democrats also do. Otherwise, they'd have been nominating Ted Kennedy in every race from 1976 through 2000, because he was every liberal's wet dream. But they knew he was unelectable, so they didn't nominate him. Do you think that a
mistake on their part?
I think Cruz might have had a chance against Hillary, but even I had a hard time listening to that alternating preacher/appellate lawyer cadence he constantly employed. The dude had all the personal charisma of a block of moldy cheese, and that has mattered heavily since 1960. There's simply no way around the modern day charisma requirement.
In 12, EVERY GUY on that primary stage was more conservative than Romney. When you compare the records directly of Romney and Obama, there is solid evidence that the more conservative guy actually DID WIN. Obama at least gave lip service to traditional marriage at one point. But that aside, EVERY GUY on stage was the more conservative choice.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but the point isn't worth quibbling about. The 2012 race exemplifies one of the problems Republicans have, and that is that we have too many "splinter" issues/preferences that disqualify candidates in the minds of too many people. You can run down each of those 11 other candidates, and I can guarantee there was a block of people who found that guy unacceptable for one reason or another. Romney won because he was the least unacceptable to the most people.
In 16, every guy on that stage was the more conservative choice than Trump. Likewise, every one. Now that is far from saying that most of them were WORTH voting for. But Trump, like Romney, has a record of their life and actions. There is no conservatism in them. There is a metric ton of liberalism.
I agree. But why? It wasn't because the elites forced him down our throats. And the losses of McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 should have "sent the message" that a more conservative person should be nominated. But it didn't happen because the voters thought differently. That's my point -- "sending a message" by the nominee failing to win the general doesn't send a message at all.
And who is perpetuating that state if not for the people we elect? How are these people getting to power if not without our votes to put them into office? As I said, they did not suddenly appear by magic. The situation perpetuates exactly BECAUSE of our choices as voters through the people we elect. If we collectively did not do OUR PART, they would simply not be there.
I called those structural problems because they are going to creep even if you have conservatives who don't enact a single piece of liberal legislation. To reverse the ratchet effect of the Administrative state would require solid majorities in Congress and the Presidency, plus the will to do it. That's extraordinarily difficult. And the judicial activism also is structural for a lot of sort of technical legal reasons having to do with standing and precedents.
What logical outcome can be expected when the literal premise of electing someone is that they are not 'as evil' as someone else? Clearly the objective is not fixing the problem. It's minimizing the damage compared to what some random other' would inflict.
Well, yes and no -- the "lesser of two evils" phrase
is not always meant literally by those who use it. It's often used just as a dramatic-sounding phrase to illustrate that you don't agree with some of the things that candidate supports. To me personally, an "evil" choice is one who will make things
worse than they already are, without regard to the opponent against whom you are running. So I didn't classify Romney as a "lesser evil" because though I disagreed with him on a number of issues, those were all issues that were part of the status quo anyway, so he wasn't going to make those things
worse. And I did think there were some areas in which he might improve things substantially. On the flip side, I think that Trump is quite likely to make things worse than they are now, so he is an "evil". Perhaps a lesser "evil" than Hillary, but a political evil nonetheless.
First, the nature of a political party is to elect the people the party offers. The party, not the people provide support to who they choose to.
Again, I disagree with this, and I don't think the facts support you. Trump won the plurality while spending very little of his own money. Cruz, who came in second, was heavily disliked by the party establishment, and only obtained their grudging, default support when he was the only non-Trump remaining. He had a pure grass-roots campaign. On the Democratic side, the "Establishment" supported Hillary from the get-go, and wanted Bernie to go away as fast a possible. But voters disagreed, and turned it into a real race. The only reason Hillary won was because of rock-solid, heavily majority support from black voters. And the Establishment's preferred candidate, Jeb, was perhaps the worst candidate I've seen in decades. His $100M+, and support from half the elected Republicans in the country, didn't mean squat because voters rejected him.
Reagan had the charisma. Thats a once in a lifetime event.
But if we're actually seeking a transformational conservative, we can't expect that guy to come along very often. I actually thought we were close this time with Rubio -- he was the best communicator we've had since Reagan. But he was basically destroyed because he upset too many people on a single issue -- immigration. And again, that was the voters that rejected him, not the "Establishment".
Then how does a party that is not in existence supposed to do anything at all? If you do not vote for liberal GOP and they keep losing, the money stops funding them, all the things that go with it, what is this ghost party going to do to force their liberals on anyone?
First, I don't think you actually disagreed/disputed the points I made about the "message" not getting through. You're just saying "if that is not correct, what else should we do?" Or am I misreading you?
Second, I'm not quite following this argument, unless you are saying that we should stop voting for Republicans in the general election in the hopes of destroying the party.
My entire argument/recipe for action has never once been tried. EVER. Not once has the electorate done anything but ....repeat their mistakes.... and elect/reelect the very people that have totally hosed this country.
Here, you seem to be speaking of "the electorate" as a whole, which includes everyone to the left of us who is not interested in advancing conservatism anyway. So what you and I see as "the country getting hosed" is stuff that much of the electorate actually supports.
But if that's not what you mean, then I'm assuming your "recipe for action" is to simply stop supporting nominees who aren't sufficiently conservative in the general election. That will then -- according to your argument -- force the party to nominate more conservative people. Is that a fair summary? Because if it is, I'd say that may indeed have been tried in both 2008 and 2012, when a lot of conservatives stayed home. But conservatives staying home in 2008 got us Romney in 2012, and staying home in 2012 got us Trump in 2016. So I'd say it has been tried, and has been utterly ineffective.
The only way to get a more conservative nominee is to do our utmost to have them win in the primaries. That's it. There is no other shortcut or tactic that is going to succeed.
What was Bhoner? 70% approval? People WANTED his leftism. So the GOP gave it to them."
I agree with that because I think that actually states the causation correctly. It wasn't the party shoving it down the throat of the voters -- it's the voters shoving it down the throat of the party.
There's only one message that matters. Your vote. When you give it, you give full consent and permission. These people have records. There is ZERO excuse. There is no "But". There is no takeback. You vote for Joe Smith, you get everything he is and your vote empowers all he does in office.
Norm, I think this kind of ducks the entire point I made about no clear "message" being sent when a candidate loses the general election. I don't see any evidence of a message being sent or received, nor do I think it is generally -- except in rare cases -- even possible to ascribe a clear single cause for a defeat. I do agree with you that you're responsible for the consequences of your votes, but I don't see what that has to do with "the message".
Of course thats what happened. We did not vote for a liberal. We voted elswhere or stayed home. They did not get our vote because he was not only not a strong 'enough' conservative, he was not remotely conservative AT ALL.
How do you know that's why he lost, and how do you know that the party agrees with you that's why he lost? Sure, I'm sure we could all agree that had he been more conservative, he'd have gotten more votes from conservatives. But there are an awful lot of people who believe (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter) that moving to the right (or being more to the right) would have cost him even more votes in the middle.
The GOP was not unaware of Romneys record. They like his voters WANTED that record leading them. Am I to believe that the GOP and electorate put up a candidate that neither wanted to lead America? Am I to believe that 60+ million Americans are so uncaring of their country they simply did not know what that record was?
First, I'll again point out that you're acknowledging this is actually
voter driven.
Second, I don't think either the GOP or the party electorate was happy about Romneycare. It was his biggest weakness, and openly acknowledged as such by just about everyone. Unfortunately so, in my opinion, because I think there was a very good argument to be made about why Romneycare was easily distinguishable from Obamacare. I think they just judged the argument too complicated (wrongly so, in my opinion), so they never made it.
Third, I believe we've had prior conversations in which you've stated that abortion is an absolute core issue for you, and that you cannot support a candidate with a pro-choice record. That's perfectly fine, but not all conservatives share the opinion that a candidate with a pro-choice history should be rejected absolutely.
Fourth, I think you are overlooking (perhaps because of the abortion issue) that Romney was perceived by voters and the party as possessing some distinctly
conservative positive attributes. Foremost among those was his record as a very successful businessman (not just a deal guy like Trump), record with the Olympics, and repeatedly stated support for reduced regulation, lower taxes, and stronger immigration enforcement. But I think the reality was that he was very few people's idea of a dream candidate. It was just that the other guys all had flaws as well. One candidate who is very popular with social conservatives is someone I've met on a couple of occasions, and with whom I've had some extended discussions. And he's just not a very bright guy (no names, obviously). So he was out for me. I was supporting Newt for awhile, then he started getting all weird, and there was the global warming, etc., stuff in his background. I wasn't thrilled with any of them, to be honest.
No, people made excuses as to why they lost with a hard leftist running as a conservative that was easily taken apart because his entire mythos was a lie. And they will go to the end of the earth to excuse their role in it. His record exists. History exists. No excuse about %%%% alters the fact the guy lied faster than his heart beat. All those memes with a hundred mouths on his face didn't get their basis in fantasy.
You are taking your view of what happened and assuming that everyone else saw it that same way you did. I think that's incorrect, and honestly, I don't know how you can possibly know that. Whether you or they ultimately are correct as to why he lost is immaterial -- it is their perceptions that will control the lessons they draw from Romney's defeat.
The problem is the voter does not think at all. They feel. At best.
Look, I largely agree with you on that. But if we both are correct on that, don't you see that the idea of "sending a message" by not supporting a nominee in the general election is doomed to failure? I'm
not saying that you or anyone else should vote for a candidate with whom they disagree simply because he's the party's nominee. Trump is a bridge too far for me as well. All I'm saying is that if the purpose of abstaining is to send a message, that's not a very good reason because the message is neither clearly sent, nor clearly received.
Every negative there results directly from continuing to empower the party that brings it all to the table.
I do not see a nominee losing the election as empowering the party.
