Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 27 Nov '12 06:54 / 1 edit
    Go to the link to see the entire article and the supporting results.

    The Tea Party vs. Math: A Detailed Look at the 2012 Results

    The Religious Right and Tea Party groups are making the case that Romney could have won if he had more clearly and unambiguously embraced their policies. They are determined to force the Republican Party to stop nominating “moderates,” on the shaky premise that compromise has cost the party at the polls. Election results from across the country tell the opposite story. By comparing Romney’s winning percentage to the margins of other Republican races it is clear that the far right, especially hardline religious conservatives, were a drain on the GOP ticket in almost every corner of the nation. The party’s most stubborn ideological core is unlikely to coaxed back to reason by anything as flimsy as numbers, but the results still deserve a look.

    Romney out-polled the Republican Senate field by a national average of four points. The story gets even clearer with a look at specific races. Candidates who were able to break completely from the party’s religious conservative base were consistently more competitive than the Romney/Ryan ticket. There was not a single Republican Senate candidate with opposition who outperformed Romney by embracing Tea Party or religious conservative priorities. Not one. Of the 33 Republican Senate candidates, only eight of them gathered a higher percentage of the vote than Romney . . . three ran essentially unopposed (in Tennessee, Wyoming, and Mississippi). The other five all ran centrist campaigns at maximum distance from the Tea Party and they pointedly rejected culture war themes. The rest of the GOP Senate field under-performed Romney/Ryan by an average of seven points. . . . . If a deeply evangelical Tea Party fantasy candidate [Ted Cruz] can’t outpoll Romney in Texas then perhaps the Republican far right is not the force they think they are.

    The ideological fringe was no more popular farther down the ballot. Some surprisingly tight Congressional races and outright losses from prominent Tea Party candidates . . . . In Gubernatorial races pragmatic Republicans who avoided Tea Party rhetoric again outperformed the field. In the eleven campaigns, only four Republicans gained a larger percentage of the vote than Romney/Ryan. All of them ran toward the center. Clearly, “moderation” was not a drag on the Romney campaign. . . .
  2. 27 Nov '12 06:55
    The Republican Party is instead catering to shrinking geographic strongholds in the south and rural west, trending farther and farther to extremes in those bolt holes while becoming less competitive nationally. In the Northeast, Republicans lost every major state and Federal race. New England hasn’t had a Republican Congressman since 2008. California, which gave the country Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, is now run by a Democratic supermajority.

    Christian Right donor and activist Richard Viguerie claims that “Tea Partiers will take over the Republican party in the next four years.” That would be great news for Democrats. A hardline base strategy might allow Republicans to hold their own in low-turnout elections. Over time, though, the fundamental unpopularity of far right politics will take its toll. The math is relentless, but the Tea Party is too pure to be swayed by failure. When a decision boils down to math vs. ideology, which choice is the modern Republican Party most likely to make?


    http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2012/11/the-tea-party-vs-math/
  3. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    27 Nov '12 07:04
    Why not simply ditch the far right? (And Israel, while you're at it.)
  4. 27 Nov '12 09:05
    Originally posted by moon1969
    They are determined to force the Republican Party to stop nominating “moderates,” on the shaky premise that compromise has cost the party at the polls.]
    So they claim that some far right voters voted Democrat because Romney was too moderate, or do they claim the far right voters simply did not vote at all?
  5. 27 Nov '12 09:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Why not simply ditch the far right?
    In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a Communist grouping within the Labour Party known as the Militant Tendency. Its members were expelled from the party starting in 1983. This was probably one of the preconditions for moving Labour, which lost the 1983 election by a landslide on a fairly far-left platform, to a more electable posture. But leading militant Peter Taaffe used Tea Party logic to explain how Labour needed to become more left-wing to win.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_tendency

    "Without the attack on the Liverpool Militant supporters, and a subsequent witch-hunt against others on the left, the right wing leadership would not have been able to carry through a massive revision in party policy in the period 1985-7. The attack on Liverpool paved the way for the defeat of Labour in the 1987 general election."
  6. 27 Nov '12 09:35
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The math is relentless, but the Tea Party is too pure to be swayed by failure. When a decision boils down to math vs. ideology, which choice is the modern Republican Party most likely to make?
    If they hate science, why would they like maths?
  7. 27 Nov '12 10:19
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    So they claim that some far right voters voted Democrat because Romney was too moderate, or do they claim the far right voters simply did not vote at all?
    Good question. It must be an issue of turnout.
  8. 27 Nov '12 10:20
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    If they hate science, why would they like maths?
    True
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Nov '12 13:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Why not simply ditch the far right? (And Israel, while you're at it.)
    (Yeah, "ditching" Israel is a real recipe for success in American politics.

    )
  10. 27 Nov '12 14:18
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Go to the link to see the entire article and the supporting results.

    [b]The Tea Party vs. Math: A Detailed Look at the 2012 Results

    The Religious Right and Tea Party groups are making the case that Romney could have won if he had more clearly and unambiguously embraced their policies. They are determined to force the Republican Party to st ...[text shortened]... toward the center. Clearly, “moderation” was not a drag on the Romney campaign. . . .
    [/b]
    Na, I think the GOP is doing a swell job, just stay on course, no reason for change seen here.

    Now if they can just find the next "W", McCan't or Romney.......
  11. Standard member vivify
    rain
    27 Nov '12 14:21 / 1 edit
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxVGw22SVFA&feature=related
  12. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    27 Nov '12 14:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    (Yeah, "ditching" Israel is a real recipe for success in American politics.

    )
    You might find a surprise turn-out of silent supporters

    The Israel jibe was a flippant aside (although what would ditching entail? Surely the massive spend could be better spent elsewhere. I mean, you have dingbats whinging about pizza inflation, when the billions squandered on Israel could go a long way toward fixing up your sucky education system). Seriously: wouldn't you do well to ditch the far-right?
  13. 27 Nov '12 14:41
    Originally posted by sh76
    (Yeah, "ditching" Israel is a real recipe for success in American politics.

    )
    I have always wondered how real the support for Israel is in the US. It is said that the apparent support for Israel is disproportionate to the number of Jews. So is the support from Christians, or is it simply a 'bubble' where everyone believes everyone else is supporting it and so plays along?
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Nov '12 14:42
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    You might find a surprise turn-out of silent supporters

    The Israel jibe was a flippant aside (although what would ditching entail? Surely the massive spend could be better spent elsewhere. I mean, you have dingbats whinging about pizza inflation, when the billions squandered on Israel could go a long way toward fixing up your sucky education system). Seriously: wouldn't you do well to ditch the far-right?
    Well, ditching the far right sounds nice in theory, but it's too large a part of the Republican coalition to just ignore. I would certainly like to see a moderating of the GOP platform though, that I will certainly agree to.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    27 Nov '12 14:43 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have always wondered how real the support for Israel is in the US. It is said that the apparent support for Israel is disproportionate to the number of Jews. So is the support from Christians, or is it simply a 'bubble' where everyone believes everyone else is supporting it and so plays along?
    Yes, the support is mainly from Christians. That doesn't make it any less real. Christians count too, you know.

    I also think a lot of support for Israel is a legacy from the cold war where in the middle east, Israel was our rep and the Arabs were the Soviet reps. I have little doubt that Hawkish Americans in the cold war got a few vicarious thrills when Israel, using to a large extent American arms, cleaned the clocks of the MiG and Russian tank wielding Egyptians. If we couldn't beat the Russians, at least our proxy could beat their proxy.