Studies show that mostly it’s a matter of conservatives’ brains just being wired differently.
See the studies at:
2 Likes
Thanks to Fred C. Koch’s legacy, there is a sanitized version of Red dawn already. The Party Bosses at SCOTUS are trying to make sure of that. Interesting that Koch’s paranoia, has morphed into what he feared most.
The principle you’re talking about still operates IMHO but the GOP years ago hounded from the party anyone who is truly moderate in a way most of us would recognize. Name an issue—global warming, taxation, evolution, for fuck’s sake—and a viable GOP candidate has to have the most extreme position on it. There are no moderate Republicans any more. You seem like a reasonable person but you can’t reasonably argue that this radical, nihilist party has room for moderation.
I’ll take exception to the principle. As stated, it fails to take into account the rightward shift of both parties in the past 30 years. The Democrats will not nominate a moderate-left candidate, but a moderate-right one. Obama is right of center and Hillary is right of Obama. The Republicans will nominate a far-right candidate because the far right is no longer the extreme in the Republican Party. After a far-right primary campaign (the only way to get the nomination), the Republican candidate will try to pivot back to the center and disavow the far-right rhetoric of the primary campaign (“Etch-a-sketch” reset). However, he will still be to the right of the Democratic candidate. The Democrat will appear to be a leftist only by comparison with the Republican.
Why do only three replies show in the actual reply section, followed by “Loading” forever?
Why does this crap reply system keep being used with no fixes to all the stupid things that don’t work or were just bizarre in the first plalce?
“Those comments briefly commanded the news cycle,”
wash, Reince, repeat
I might not have been clear; what I meant by “principle” was that there are powers in both parties who recognize that you need a candidate with broad appeal if you want to win the general. That’s why the Republicans backed Romney: He’d been elected governor of Massachusetts and so forth. Of course that was two years ago and the radicalization has continued. There are other elements in both parties who want purity more than anything and tell themselves the purity will win. Moderation among the Republicans now is limited to moderating your rhetoric, nominating a slightly less threatening figure than the worst bomb-throwers, but still insisting on very extreme positions.
So do I, and I also have pundit fatigue.
Jimtoday - Meg Whitman announced her candidacy for the 2010 governor’s race in California in Feb., 2009. She poured tons of her own money ($144 million) into the race, and in late August 2010 she led Jerry Brown in the polls. She had managed to keep it close in the months before that as well. Brown began to campaign in earnest in September and beat her by 13 points. That is why you do not remember Meg Whitman but Clinton should.
I’m a long-time Democrat and I would vote for Hillary over any of the crazy Republican candidates. But I’d rather have Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren! I am afraid Hillary will continue all the policies we hate so much and, just like most politicians, she’s a lackey for Wall Street.
1 Like
How touching.
Your half-baked insinuations are always amusing.
I asked you a legitimate question, which you seem reluctant to answer. Or perhaps you haven’t seen it. It’s here in this thread.
Post it again and I’ll see if I can help you out.
Fascinating series of studies.
Thanks
I think that there is more than this and that is the gut reaction of just hating on their rivals, considering winning before damaging themselves and the black v white hatred.
Jurassic Park taught us that you can’t suppress 65 million years of gut instinct. And dishonesty disqualifies logic or the ability to honestly negotiate fair outcomes.
I’m so sick of Hilliary I’m ready to lock her up inside the White House.
2 Likes
While I appreciate the offer, Darcy, I’m a little confused. Do you speak for UnfadingGreen? Are you one of UnfadingGreen’s alternate screen names? What would prompt you to stand in for UnfadingGreen?
That’s a fair question - and this answer is “I don’t know”. And not knowing who doesn’t mean that I can’t be critical of shitty corporate candidates like Hillary Clinton.
She may be the “best” the Democratic Party can do. Which will suck.
Not sucking on the level of Jeb Bush suckery or Ted Cruz suckery, of course. But sucking none the less.
Hopefully a better candidate will emerge - I kinda doubt that Liz Warren has the stomach for the role, so …who?
Fair enough. But if you can acknowledge that Hillary “may be the ‘best’ the Democratic Party can do” (and I understand that you believe, and may well be right, that “that will suck”), do you feel any obligation, or just plain human compunction, to prevent one of the other less acceptable choices – and I think you’d agree that less acceptable is a generous description for the likes of Bush or Cruz – from reaching the heights they so desperately desire?
In other words, does it help in the long run to destroy Hillary?
I’m not sure what you mean by “prevent”. By what means?