posted
Well, since I don't think the Republicans will actually win at all - much less by anyone's definition of a landslide - I think Ron will eat crow.
Not publicly, of course. A man who makes predictions as authoritatively as Ron does but who doesn't also, y'know, substantiate his authority, isn't the sort to eat crow no matter how much actually gets down his throat.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you get into the nuts and bolts of a lot of these races, I think you'll see the Senate more or less stay the same in 2010. The GOP might net a seat or two, but it's really going to depend on what gets passed in the next year. Health care? Climate change legislation? Those are really the two big ones on the burners for the legislative session. Their passage will have an effect.
As for the House, I think the GOP will net a dozen seats. Yeah, the opposition party usually makes a pickup, and yeah, something like less than 20% of Americans are willing to identify themselves as being in the GOP, so that maybe cancels that historic effect out. But, Democrats got their big majority by electing very conservative Democrats in traditionally conservative districts. There are maybe two dozen Democrats that really should be Republicans in the House, and all of them won their seats under special circumstances: Extreme Democratic turnout for Obama in 2008, and some GOP unpopularity. In 2010, those circumstances won't exist, and control will revert.
The result? Not much in the Senate. Dems don't really have the 60 supermajority right now anyway. Filibuster breakers are too much about shifting alliances anyways, not as much about party affiliation.
For the House, GOP picks up 15 seats, and is still way behind. If anything, it might hurt them. Pelosi won't be as beholden to a now weakened Blue Dog bloc, which might result in an ironically more liberal House.
Either way, won't be a sweep, won't be a landslide. People are unenthusiastic about Democrats, but they hate Republicans. We're still a year away with a lot of legislating in between, so keep that in mind, but as things stand right now, we're in for a bland 2010 midterms.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Republican candidates who emphasize how moderate to liberal they are, will not attract as many votes as real conservatives. Conservatives like Palin and Hoffman not only have a better chance of taking over the Republican Party, they also stand a better chance of winning elections.
Ron, it looks like you are saying there is no such thing as a real moderate Republican. There are only real Conservative Republicans and those that are Moderate-liberals.
Ron, if that is so you are admitting that there is no Moderate--only Liberal and Conservative. That those who are Center-Right are in fact--Liberals since they are not Right.
By that thinking, someone who is Center Right will vote for a Moderate Democrat over a Real Republican because the Moderate Democrat will be in the Center and the Real Republican will be on the Right.
Of course, calling anyone who is center of Right a Liberal may give you hopes of alienating them from that Center Right person, but the issues should solve that.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's ironic is that this is exactly the behavior that has people talking about a Republican death-spiral. "Is Candidate X conservative enough" leads inexorably to "Candidate Y is more conservative than Candidate X" and I think what you'll end up with is ideological one-upmanship. (That can't be a real word.)
That this mechanism is occurring, and that it is currently driving away a cross-section of moderates and independents seems plain to me. Whether or not it is widespread or long lasting enough to affect the long-term health of the GOP is, to me, the central question.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welp, it looks like Sarah "Kiss of Death" Palin strikes again.
Democratic candidate Owens won.
This is a Republican +31 district that the liberals have not held in over a hundred years.
There's more interesting information to be gleaned from the aftermath of this election, but it basically boils down to the fact that the Republicans chased off an electable moderate, eating their own in an internal struggle that's been sparked by an ideological purity crusade by the far right in the G.O.P. — the candidate they propped up in her place has been recently described as a clueless carpetbagger, and his disastrous television interviews sort of reinforced that fact.
More on this later as the data filters in!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: but it basically boils down to the fact that the Republicans chased off an electable moderate
Dede Scozzafava was not electable.
Yeah, right. That's the most straightforwardly untrue thing you've said in quite a while. If Hoffman hadn't run an independent protest campaign after his rejection by the G.O.P., Scozzafava would have absolutely won. She was polled at a virtual dead heat early on in the three way between her, Owens, and Hoffman.
As of October 24, Scozzafava was in second place to Owens only by virtue of the vote split between her and Hoffman, and she had the highest favorability rating of all three candidates.
The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hoffman was the one who was unelectable. Quite apart from what an excruciatingly loud, but tinsy tiny minority believes, most people in this country are not interested in candidates who are "pure" as defined by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Alcon, I wouldn't say that. There are plenty of people - such as myself - who are very much interested in who folks such as Rush and Palin define as 'pure'.
Then I know never, ever to vote or support them in even the slightest way. To the extent that if someone was unfortunate enough to share the last name with someone enthusiastically endorsed by Rush, well, they'd be a tough sell!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Doug Hoffman might not be hurting Dede Scozzafava as much as she is hurting herself, according to a new poll out Thursday.
The new poll shows Democrat Bill Owens holds a 35-30 lead over Scozzafava in a special election for New York's 23rd district. The Research 2000 poll for the liberal website Daily Kos echoes a poll from last week that showed Owens leading Scozzafava 33-29. Conservative Party candidate Hoffman was at 23 percent in both polls.
quote: Today's Siena poll of likely NY-23 voters finds GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava has a 7 point lead over her closest contender, the Democrats' Bill Owens, but the presence of the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, complicates the race.
Scozzafava leads Owens, 35-28, with Hoffman pulling 16 percent of the vote despite the fact that 71 percent of poll respondents have no idea who he is.
Months early polling means very little. Her popularity, such as it was, dropped very fast in October once things started to heat up. She would have lost to Owens even if Hoffman had not started campaigning. 71% of the people didn't even know who Hoffman was yet he got 16% of the vote early on. Owens ran a much better campaign than she did and the closer it got to election day the more people simply forgot Scozzafava in favor of anyone else.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if a handful of Republican party bosses in the NY 23rd district had allowed the people to pick their nominee, they would have allowed Hoffman to run as a Republican, instead of as an Independent. Then there is no question Hoffman would have won. Many people prefer the two-party system, and are reluctant to vote for an Independent. Since the candidate they did support was repudiated by the vast majority of the Republican Party, and since that candidate when forced by the clear direction of the polls to withdraw, then cast her support to the Democrat (thus revealing her true colors), it became clear just how wrong those party bosses had been. This is a lesson that will reverbrate throughout the Republican Party. Next time they nominate someone, he or she had better be a real Republican.
Thus even though Hoffman was narrowly defeated, Palin still made her point. Anyone who says she or other conservatives "poisoned" Hoffman's candidacy or forced away voters, are simply refusing to recognize the reality of what actually happened. It was the Republican Party bosses in NY making a wrong choice who "poisoned" their own chances to take over the NY 23 congressional seat.
And isn't it interesting how some Democrats/liberals cling to this one narrow victory for the Democrats, and conspicuously avoid facing the reality of the Republican victories--some of them landslides--in all the other races. Anyone who denies this was a referendum on the Obama Administration and on the Pelosi-led Democrat-dominated Congress, are simply not being honest. Everyone else in the country can see the truth.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hoffman was the one who was unelectable. Quite apart from what an excruciatingly loud, but tinsy tiny minority believes, most people in this country are not interested in candidates who are "pure" as defined by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.
Hoffman was not blown out like Scozzafava would have been. Owens won but it was not a complete overwhelming total victory.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Ron is overstating the case for Hoffman, he was a little more than narrowly defeated. Owens absolutely won but Hoffman fared much much better than Scozzafava. Republicans did pick a bad candidate in Scozzafava just like Democrats did with Deeds. Corzine suffered a lot from scandals and I believe a bit from "throw the incumbent bums out".
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Come on Sam, you can give DarkKnight more of the benefit of the doubt than that. You can certainly say Scozzafava was unelectable, without being a liar.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is a Republican +31 district that the liberals have not held in over a hundred years.
It's also a district that went for Obama 52-47, so you may be overstating the miraculousness of the win just a tad. It's been a persistent demographic shift, and the erstwhile incumbant McHugh was quite moderate (reflecting the moderation of the district as a whole). I imagine that's at least part of the reason he was tapped as the SecArmy, because Obama's political advisors believed the district was winnable, given his positive numbers there.
Really, I think this demonstrates a tactical error on the part of the NY GOP. They failed to recruit a candidate that reflected the ideological values of the party.
I don't think Hoffman would have won if he'd been selected initially as the GOP candidate; too much of his appeal was as a third-party outsider (which is why his support dried up at the last minute, just like the more moderate Daggett in NJ; people like to flirt with "statement" votes in polls, but they seldom bring it home).
I also doubt that Dede Scozzafava stood a great chance of being elected. There was very little ideological room between Owens and Scozzafava, and I would guess the enthusiasm quotient would have favored the Dem. I think it would have been close, but I still think Owens would likely have won.
My interpretation is that the local GOP got so spooked by Obama's numbers in the district that they reached too far to the middle with Scozzafava, leaving their right flank unprotected. I think a solidly Republican candidate (which wasn't Scozzafava or Hoffman, both of whom are ideological outliers within the party locally and nationally) would have walked away with the race.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Paul. I don't see this day as a referendum for Liberal victory.
I see it as a Moderate victory.
Virginia was won by a Moderate Republican who spoke not of Conservative Lifestyle issues, but on business and pro-business issues. His victory speech was a job application and his victory promise was not to promise a new Christian Era or a return to Old Family Values. It was a promise to help increase the Free Market values.
New Jersey--another moderate Republican won.
New York--a Conservative was defeated by a Moderate.
The lesson to be learned, Ron, is not that only true Lock Step Conservative Republicans will rejuvenate the party. It is that such conservative dogma will stop the Republicans from winning.
Look at what you said Paul. You give explanations and long complicated reasons for the Conservative loss, but chalk up the Democratic loss to an overly simplified, "They hate Obama." You are trying to have it both ways as long as it benefits your cause.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The math of your own first link actually suggests otherwise.
But you aren't even making a case that she was "unelectable" anyway.
The math shows where she was before the campaigns really started. Once they started she got buried fast. Scozzafava can't even decide if she is a Republican or a Democrat, she ran an awful campaign and was humiliated. If she had run the same campaign against Owens without Hoffman the results would have only been slightly better for her and vastly better for Owens. In early polling 16% of the people chose Hoffman when 71% of them never heard of him.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is a Republican +31 district that the liberals have not held in over a hundred years.
It's also a district that went for Obama 52-47, so you may be overstating the miraculousness of the win just a tad.
I don't think this was a miraculous win. I think it was a retarded loss. The district should never have been competitive.
quote:I don't think Hoffman would have won if he'd been selected initially as the GOP candidate; too much of his appeal was as a third-party outsider (which is why his support dried up at the last minute, just like the more moderate Daggett in NJ; people like to flirt with "statement" votes in polls, but they seldom bring it home).
I also doubt that Dede Scozzafava stood a great chance of being elected. There was very little ideological room between Owens and Scozzafava, and I would guess the enthusiasm quotient would have favored the Dem. I think it would have been close, but I still think Owens would likely have won.[/QB]
Hoffman stood at least a chance of winning on his own as the initial pick, just not a pleasant margin. As for Scozzafava, I will reiterate for everyone here (Hi, DarkKnight, you listening?) that she had by far the highest approval ratings of all three candidates and is consistently the winner in all two-party estimates with the most comfortable margins.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary:
quote:The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Come on Sam, you can give DarkKnight more of the benefit of the doubt than that. You can certainly say Scozzafava was unelectable, without being a liar.
Okay, I'll make sure to clarify that if he thinks that, it's probably not because he's lying.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samprimary:
quote:The notion that she was not electable is a flat-out lie.
Come on Sam, you can give DarkKnight more of the benefit of the doubt than that. You can certainly say Scozzafava was unelectable, without being a liar.
Okay, I'll make sure to clarify that if he thinks that, it's probably not because he's lying.
quote: Hoffman stood at least a chance of winning on his own as the initial pick, just not a pleasant margin. As for Scozzafava, I will reiterate for everyone here (Hi, DarkKnight, you listening?) that she had by far the highest approval ratings of all three candidates and is consistently the winner in all two-party estimates with the most comfortable margins.
Early polls like that are pretty useless. High approval ratings when you are not the incumbent months out from the campaign don't mean much as evidenced by the clear results of this election. Please explain her plummeting loss of support from the voters weeks before the election and her utter humiliation on voting day. It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser. Hoffman went from a virtual unknown to close to winning. Owens won the election. Scozzafava went from the most known with a comfortable marging to a laughing stock.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think there are four obvious lessons to draw from tonight's election returns:
1. For [Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the "R" category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well.
2. For Moderate Republicans: The American people obviously want old-fashioned economic conservatives who are moderate on social issues. McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey won by downplaying social issues; Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme.
3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception. But obviously there is no sign of any substantial shift in public opinion from the election of 2008.
4. For Liberal Democrats: NY-23 was the race to watch this year, given that right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck threw all their support behind Hoffman. But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism.
quote: I think there are four obvious lessons to draw from tonight's election returns:
1. For [Conservative Republicans: The America people reject Barack Obama and obviously want true conservative leadership. The Governorships of two states have switched to the "R" category, showing a grassroots conservative movement that is alive and well.
2. For Moderate Republicans: The American people obviously want old-fashioned economic conservatives who are moderate on social issues. McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in New Jersey won by downplaying social issues; Hoffman in New York-23 lost because he was too extreme.
3. For Moderate Democrats: The party out of power usually does well in off-year elections like this, and this year was no exception. But obviously there is no sign of any substantial shift in public opinion from the election of 2008.
4. For Liberal Democrats: NY-23 was the race to watch this year, given that right-wing extremists like Palin and Beck threw all their support behind Hoffman. But the district voters rejected the right-wing candidate, sending a Democrat to Congress for the first time in one hundred years. Obviously this shows that the American people reject right-wing extremism.
Obviously.
That was awesome Jhai.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: It makes no sense to say that Scozzafava was going to be the clear winner when she was the clear loser.
Are you even listening to what I'm saying? The only way that it "makes no sense" if one completely disregards the compound effect of Hoffman's rebellion as a very significant variable.
What you're saying is equivalent to someone looking at the bull moose debacle and saying "It makes no sense to say that Taft was going to be the clear winner when he was the clear loser."
You're either not getting what I'm transmitting at all, or you don't get game theory, or both.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you even listening to what I'm saying? The only way that it "makes no sense" if one completely disregards the compound effect of Hoffman's rebellion as a very significant variable.
Or it could be you are not listening to what I am saying. Scozzafava ran a terrible campaign. She didn't win a primary. She wasn't chosen by the local voters. She was a very poor pick by the Republican party heads and should never have been placed there. Owens would have easily trounced her even if Hoffman had not entered the race. I would have voted for Owens and not Scozzafava.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And isn't it interesting how some Democrats/liberals cling to this one narrow victory for the Democrats, and conspicuously avoid facing the reality of the Republican victories--some of them landslides--in all the other races. Anyone who denies this was a referendum on the Obama Administration and on the Pelosi-led Democrat-dominated Congress, are simply not being honest. Everyone else in the country can see the truth.
Mmmm, no, not so much. True, there are always landslides on both sides- but there's a difference between a landslide and an "upset." Upsets are important- they tell us something important. A landslide in a traditionally Republican district in favor of a republican signifies little that is not already known. An *upset* though, for any party in any district, is important and notice worthy. Can you point out any *unexpected* landslides in favor of either party? Can you point out a Republican favored upset? Because you impress no one by pointing out the obvious- there are always landslides. I suppose to you, a seasonal storm is nature's referendum on humanity, instead of an expected event.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you even listening to what I'm saying? The only way that it "makes no sense" if one completely disregards the compound effect of Hoffman's rebellion as a very significant variable.
Or it could be you are not listening to what I am saying. Scozzafava ran a terrible campaign. She didn't win a primary. She wasn't chosen by the local voters. She was a very poor pick by the Republican party heads and should never have been placed there. Owens would have easily trounced her even if Hoffman had not entered the race. I would have voted for Owens and not Scozzafava.
It really isn't possible to predict what might have happened had Hoffman not entered the race. It is, however, fairly difficult to dispute the following.
1. Scozzafava was in the lead before Hoffman entered the race. 2. Fighting within any political party, has a very strong tendency to lead to lost elections. 3. Scozzafava, even after dropping out of the election, got 6% of the vote. If one republican candidate could have garnered all the votes cast for Scozzafava and Hoffman, they would have won. Add in any Scozzafava supporters who voted for Owen's after she endorsed him, and the republicans would have won by a landslide.
None of that is a guarantee that Scozzafava would have won if the national right wing hadn't targeted her or if the republicans had united behind her.
It does however very strongly suggest that the democrats won this election because of republican infighting.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a broader note, Presidential politics has very limited influence on gubernatorial elections even in presidential election years. Local issues are simply far more important for Governors. In an off year election like this one, I'd be shocked if it had any influence at all in on Governor's races.
I would expect it would have a bit more influence in a legislative race, and given the high profile issues in Congress right now that influence would likely be much greater than a typical off election year.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama did make several campaign visits on behalf of the doomed Democratic candidates. Since he won both Virginia and New Jersey in 2008, these votes represent a radical shift in the opposite direction in voter choices. That makes the landslide victory in Virginia an even bigger landslide. Add 6 to 18 for a 24 point reversal.
If anyone is the "Kiss of Death" to a political candidate right now, it appears to be Obama.
The Omananites of course are claiming that these votes somehow were not a referendum on the administration, and try to make noises about how governor's races are not really affected by presidential politics. But we all know that if the Democrats had pulled out victories, the Obamanites would have trumpeted loudly about Obama's "coattails." Alas, he has none. Rather than coattails, he now appears to have concrete galoshes.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Are you secretly Sarah Palin in disguise?
All this talk about this somehow being a referendum on Obama's administration, about Americans not liking Obama is a load of horse shit.
Your clearly out of your depth and been proven wrong time and again, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell about someone like you who claims otherwise.
I pity you poor bastard, you have no idea of whats going on.
IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Scozzafava was in the lead before Hoffman entered the race.
Completely meaningless as evidenced by Clinton\Obama. Polls showed that Clinton was the de facto, can't lose, already has it locked up, nominee before Obama even started to run. Obama was not really even on the map before the campaign had started. In this case, Scozzafava had a lead before the campaigns started. Once started, Owens had a very successful campaign against her and Republicans flocked to Hoffman because he was a much better candidate than Scozzafava.
quote: 2. Fighting within any political party, has a very strong tendency to lead to lost elections.
The fight was quick and swift, a lot like when Lieberman was ousted by the Democrat heads. As exit polls have shown, Scozzafava was almost irrelevant when people voted.
quote: . Scozzafava, even after dropping out of the election, got 6% of the vote. If one republican candidate could have garnered all the votes cast for Scozzafava and Hoffman, they would have won. Add in any Scozzafava supporters who voted for Owen's after she endorsed him, and the republicans would have won by a landslide.
She got 7000 votes as opposed to 62,500ish for Owens and 57,500ish for Hoffman. She took herself out. I have linked to article above which talks about that
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne. This seems pretty typical of your kind of responses. Absolutely every statement you made is completely wrong. You just compensate by pounding and shouting vulgarities. If you didn't give "a hoot in hell" as you claim, then you wouldn't do this.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A fair percentage of people that polled as approving of Obama voted for the Republican candidate. There isn't really a correlation between the outcome of these elections and approval of Obama.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Wall St Journal during the campaign. No one was vetted as much as Palin, although in attempt to dig up dirt. She was smeared but nothing came of anything legally, other than a smear. Unfortunately Obama's background wasn't investigated by the main stream media. Which is odd considering he had less experience than Palin and a whole litany of corrupt associates.
I understand the desire to paint the GOP as being taken over by the extreme right because when the GOP puts up McCain's, they lose. There is a shifting towards the GOP of twenty years ago, a return to core principles. In fact the only party that has been taken over by extremes is the Democratic party, controlled by the extreme left. The current Republican party would probably be to the left of JFK.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne. This seems pretty typical of your kind of responses. Absolutely every statement you made is completely wrong. You just compensate by pounding and shouting vulgarities. If you didn't give "a hoot in hell" as you claim, then you wouldn't do this.
Every part of this statement, except the vulgarities, is also true about you, Ron.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne. This seems pretty typical of your kind of responses. Absolutely every statement you made is completely wrong. You just compensate by pounding and shouting vulgarities. If you didn't give "a hoot in hell" as you claim, then you wouldn't do this.
I don't need a counter argument, you counter yourself.
IP: Logged |
posted
The left is very adept at playing word games. They've rebranded themselves and their bills numerous times in an attempt to twist and market the truth. Scozifava is a "moderate" now. I suppose Pelosi is a moderate as well. The true "moderates" like McCain and Leiberman are now considered Conservatives and true conservatives are labeled extreme. When's the last time you heard the media brand any Dem as an extreme left candidate? In their minds, in that direction, there is no extreme, only progress, ie progressive. The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The current Republican party would probably be to the left of JFK.
From the "Should there be additional qualifications for the right to vote?" thread: Originally posted by malanthrop: JFK was a tax cutting conservative in comparison todays Dems and GOP. The defenitions have shifted. -------------------------------------------
What's your justification for these claims? [I have asked you before, btw]. When making these claims, did you consider the tax rates during JFK's presidency versus current rates?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The left is very adept at playing word games.
No... we're really not. That's why we suck at selling legislation. I'm a pretty liberal fellow, and I'll concede that our ads for Health Care reform and other legislative priorities suck. We haven't mastered the sound-bite like the right has. We think too much and try giving too much information. (Or misinformation, if you must.)
I can't attack this tactic too much because, let's face it, it works. While I'd like for us to get away from soundbite politics, it's not going to happen.
quote: They've rebranded themselves and their bills numerous times in an attempt to twist and market the truth. Scozifava is a "moderate" now.
She is. At least relative to Hoffman and many who're active in the GOP. These labels are all relative to who you put them up against.
quote:I suppose Pelosi is a moderate as well.
Nope. Ultra liberal.
quote:The true "moderates" like McCain and Leiberman are now considered Conservatives and true conservatives are labeled extreme.
McCain was a moderate for sure. But his campaign tactic was to invigorate the conservative base and he swung to the right to try to appeal. He stopped being a moderate/maverick when he decided he needed to pander to his own party.
Leiberman is a moderate. I can't stand the guy being the liberal that I am and feelings of betrayal, but I admit he's a moderate. On a host of issues he's a fairly good liberal. On others, he goes to the other side. That balances out to be fairly moderate.
quote: When's the last time you heard the media brand any Dem as an extreme left candidate? In their minds, in that direction, there is no extreme, only progress, ie progressive.
Eh, they call Pelosi liberal fairly often, and with the upsurge in importance the blue-dog democrats have gained, they'll often call senator Schumer liberal. While that's not many democrats, there are some. So I contest your challenge of 'any dem.' And like it or not, FoxNews is mainstream media (given their dominance in market share) and they happily call anyone who breaks from the lockstep of the Republican party a liberal.
quote: The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
I'm going to take issue with this statement on the grounds that I do support the constitution. This includes the fourth, sixth, fourteenth, and eighth amendments. I am also a fan of the tail-end of Article IV in combination with the first amendment that makes our country a secular state by definition.
My point here is (That I have made poorly because I am, afterall, a liberal) that I don't buy into the monopoly on founding principles that people try to claim. (Whether from the right or left)
And when we call someone extremist, it's because in our current political environment, they are far removed from the center of current political attitudes. This goes for the left or the right. Looking at any time other than the present for definitions of extremism seems kind of arbitrary to me.
quote:You gave no counter-arguments at all, Blayne.
Ron, your response to repeated requests for a verification of your own much-exhibited prognostication abilities was met with: I don't have to back up my own words, you're too much of a carping sniveling liberal to be persuaded by the truth.
quote:The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
What founding principles are you talking about? We had several founding fathers who favored loose confederacy amongst the states if not total independence from each other, and founding fathers who wanted the states to forge the strong link we have today. This fundamental difference of opinion was not even remotely resolved until the Civil War. The founding fathers agreed on so little I think it's ridiculous we ever say, "The founding fathers said this..." The fact the United States of America today is fundamentally different from the confederated states of the past should be obvious evidence that some things change with the times and circumstances we live in.
Some people feel that a huge chunk of available power should be centralized in the government, and run by the elite and intelligent citizenry. People like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and even George Washington favored that direction. Were they tyrannical? No, they were federalists. Look at Shay's rebellion, it was an armed uprising of farmers who felt crippled by their taxes, sound like today's TEA parties minus the arms (So far). The federalists said the government had the right to disperse the protesters as they were in rebellion, just a few years after their own armed rebellion against Great Britain.
Limited government is NOT a founding principle, if there are really any. Our government started small, and while there are times it has shrunk, the overall trend is more and more power in the hands of the government. Is it possible we may pass a threshold, if we haven't already, and need drastic action to wheel everything back? Maybe. But those who think the government should take over health care, or invest in infrastructural developments, and intervene in the economy, etc, are not imperialists or supporters of tyranny who hate our founding fathers.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Owens would have easily trounced her even if Hoffman had not entered the race. I would have voted for Owens and not Scozzafava.
See, you're saying this, and it's not evidenced at all by the actual outcome of the data. You're just continually repeating 'oh, that doesn't prove anything' and 'no, she would have lost.'
What are you backing this up on? That you individually would have voted to Owens? Great! Now, do you have something stronger than individual anecdote? I do!
The Siena, CFG, R2000 and McLaughlin groups each did tabulations both running up to and after the election that showed that in all likelihood, had there not been a Republican schism, Dede was favored above a margin of error. These are not 'early polls,' you don't get to wave them away in order to continue backpedaling on your original and indefensible sentiment that she was "unelectable."
We also know that Hoffman would have most likely won had Scozzafava not 'spoiled' by vetting for Owens.
tl;dr — you're wrong, she wasn't unelectable.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I'm very glad malanthrop has come to visit this humble thread.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The left is very adept at playing word games. They've rebranded themselves and their bills numerous times in an attempt to twist and market the truth.
Ah, such as the "Clean Air Act." Sure. I'm sure this is primarily a "left" trait.
quote:Scozifava is a "moderate" now. I suppose Pelosi is a moderate as well. The true "moderates" like McCain and Leiberman are now considered Conservatives and true conservatives are labeled extreme.
No, Pelosi isn't a moderate. And McCain is absolutely a conservative. The American Conservative Union consistently vets him at 50+, and his voting record overall is highly conservative. If you don't believe McCain is a conservative, you're an example of the right-shifting-right you refuse to believe exists. One that would hyper-sensitively react to interparty 'dissent' by labeling your own moderates and Newly Unfavored as non-conservatives.
So, go ahead and tell me McCain isn't a conservative.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The followers of our founding principles of individual liberty and limited government may be extremely far to the right of Obama and Pelosi but it isn't the conservatives who have done the shifting. Strange world we live in when people who believe in our founding principles and the constitution are labeled extremists.
Heh. I'm curious, what violation of individual liberties do you lay at the doors of liberals and not conservatives? Taxation I suppose is one, but then conservatives today - even fiscal conservatives - wanna tax ya a helluva lot more than the Founding Fathers would've even imagined was feasible too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
