It Is Over, Obama Wins

[Spud147]

Women vote for the party that looks out for their best interests. Unless they're from the South, then they either are afraid they're going to hell, or they'll get a black eye from their husband if they don't vote Republican.

Thank you... We have a winner!!! Some women are smart enough to look out for themselves.

 

[Spud147]

I think the Republicans have come to a fork in the road where they have to make a choice: be the party of small government, or embrace the Christian Right? I think conservatism will never die out, because it's partially a personality type in humanity (as is liberalism), but parties and party identities can die out. Right now, the Republicans are diluting their small government message with a lot of social conservatism that, more and more, consists of issues that are political losers. In the past, being for legislating away rights to gay marriage and abortion, for example, could win you more votes. Polls show that the majority of the American people are either now against such legislating away of right or will be soon. It's also contradictory to the message of small government...it can correctly be characterized as "Small government except for the things we don't like."

I think a conservative party that ditches the deep social conservatism and sticks to fiscal conservatism will do strongly. When people say the country is "center-right," it's now important to qualify that: it's center-right on fiscal issues but more and more center-left on social issues. Democrats are probably more left of the population on fiscal issues, but Republicans are currently too far to the right of the population on social issues and trending away from the population. If they continue that path, they'll marginalize themselves. It'll still play in deep south states, but it won't win national elections.

I don't know if the Republican party will realize this in time for 2016. The GOP primary season took a guy who governed as moderate Republican in Massachusetts and forced him to run to right of every lunatic (read: Rick Santorum, Rick Perry) in the primary in order to win. If the GOP keeps doing that, they'll keep losing national elections. At some point, either the Republican party will change to focus on fiscal issues while ditching the social conservatism baggage or else a new conservative party will arise who does.

Personally, I find the current Republican party repugnant, but I don't find fiscal conservativism repugnant. While I'm obviously much to the left of the center, I think the Republicans have a similar problem, to a lesser extent, with a lot of people in the nation.

Minstrel! There you are, I was wondering where you went!!!

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel! There you are, I was wondering where you went!!!

I'm a wanderer.

That Obama is quite the dreamboat, isn't he?

 

[Spud147]

I'm a wanderer.

That Obama is quite the dreamboat, isn't he?

You bastard... See why I love you so?

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I think the Republicans have come to a fork in the road where they have to make a choice: be the party of small government, or embrace the Christian Right? I think conservatism will never die out, because it's partially a personality type in humanity (as is liberalism), but parties and party identities can die out. Right now, the Republicans are diluting their small government message with a lot of social conservatism that, more and more, consists of issues that are political losers. In the past, being for legislating away rights to gay marriage and abortion, for example, could win you more votes. Polls show that the majority of the American people are either now against such legislating away of right or will be soon. It's also contradictory to the message of small government...it can correctly be characterized as "Small government except for the things we don't like."

I think a conservative party that ditches the deep social conservatism and sticks to fiscal conservatism will do strongly. When people say the country is "center-right," it's now important to qualify that: it's center-right on fiscal issues but more and more center-left on social issues. Democrats are probably more left of the population on fiscal issues, but Republicans are currently too far to the right of the population on social issues and trending away from the population. If they continue that path, they'll marginalize themselves. It'll still play in deep south states, but it won't win national elections.

I don't know if the Republican party will realize this in time for 2016. The GOP primary season took a guy who governed as moderate Republican in Massachusetts and forced him to run to right of every lunatic (read: Rick Santorum, Rick Perry) in the primary in order to win. If the GOP keeps doing that, they'll keep losing national elections. At some point, either the Republican party will change to focus on fiscal issues while ditching the social conservatism baggage or else a new conservative party will arise who does.

Personally, I find the current Republican party repugnant, but I don't find fiscal conservativism repugnant. While I'm obviously much to the left of the center, I think the Republicans have a similar problem, to a lesser extent, with a lot of people in the nation.

Repped. Brilliant, insightful post.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

libertarians seem to fit the bill, as long as they can refrain from espousing all of their religious nonsense in an effort to gain support from the far FAR right...maybe republicans get be that party, but we need a 3rd party more than ever to get all the votes from the middle, as in...

liberal socially, conservative fiscally

many of these people are forced to vote for one or the other, when they should really have a viable candidate that can give them both

 

[Spud147]

liberal socially, conservative fiscally

many of these people are forced to vote for one or the other, when they should really have a viable candidate that can give them both

I would vote for that guy! There's a balance and we need options!!!

 

[Denny Crane]

There's a difference between socially liberal/fiscal conservative and socially liberal and economically liberal.

I don't think the former can truly exist without being really inconsistent in his positions. You can be fiscally conservative by spending 3x what we do now, as long as we tax 4x what we do now. Get it?

 

[Eastoff]

There's a difference between socially liberal/fiscal conservative and socially liberal and economically liberal.

I don't think the former can truly exist without being really inconsistent in his positions. You can be fiscally conservative by spending 3x what we do now, as long as we tax 4x what we do now. Get it?

No, I don't get it. I think most people are talking about gay rights, and abortion rights, and sex education. Those sorts of things, in reference to social liberalism. Maybe some blurring in the welfare side, but I would say that's a fiscal issue more than a social issue.

 

[Denny Crane]

Ah, that's the socially liberal part.

Social liberty is a freedom from government telling you how to be or act or pursue your happiness.

Economic liberty is similarly a freedom from government telling you how to be or act or pursue your happiness (when it comes to making money, owning property, etc.).

A fiscal conservative may love big government, but only if it's paid for.

A Libertarian doesn't love big government and sees no reason to pay for it. It's offensive, truly, to give away freedom in exchange for control by authority.