"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Liminal]

No amount of web based, politically motivated, pop culture, historical revisionism, can alter the facts of history.

 

[Skylar]

You started with a true statement. There are nowhere near enough 'elite republicans' to win a presidential election. Mitt Romney and John McCain are the proof. They are also proof that there are enough 'elite republicans' to win the nomination. This is because the Conservative vote is divided between several candidates while the "establishment" settle on one guy and that's their guy.

The so-called "Big Tent" is facilitated by the message of a Conservative philosophy because Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Establishment republicans are the same kind of ideologues as liberals, they just want to control the power and they try to conceal the fact they are ideologues.

Most Establishment republicans are far more pragmatic than the 'elite conservatives' you've imagined. They're willing to deal with folks that don't necessarily hold their exact views on every issue, but fall under the 'Big Tent'. You have to be pragmatic to be inclusive. The exclusionary impulse of the 'elite conservatives' is far more ideologically driven. As it makes no sense pragmatically. As it grossly limits their effectiveness.

Conservatism doesn't need sympathy. It resonates with people who are philosophically conservative no matter what party they've supported in the past.

It really doesn't. As people most often belong to parties because that party more closely aligns with their own values. And the values of 'elite conservatives' doesn't match the majority of people. Its inherently exclusionary. It tends toward uncompromising positions. It rarely takes consequence into account, running most often on ideological absolutes regardless of the outcome.

These don't resonate with folks who don't already share the 'elite conservative' perspective.

Which is why you don't see play within the republican party. And you certainly don't see play outside of it. The entire concept is a predictable and elaborate fiction that 'elite conservatives' tell themselves to balm their spectacular record of failure at convincing people to vote for them. The reality is far simpler:

Most folks don't share the 'elite conservative' view points. I

A solid conservative voice can win a plurality and will win a landslide in the general.

I don't expect them to win over liberals or moderates because I don't live in Narnia and rainbow ponies don't exist. Most of the so-called independent voters (defines myself) are Conservatives.

Nope. Given that liberals and moderates make up 58% of the electorate (24% Liberal, 34% Moderate) with liberal self identification being at an all time high, your math doesn't work. Especially with conservative self identification is 1 point off a 22 year low.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

As I said, you simply don't have the numbers. And you imagining you do is simply the pleasant fiction you tell yourself to balm the dissonance between what you want to be true and what reality actually demonstrates. A comforting 'if only' that isn't going to happen, and wouldn't turn out the way you imagine if it did.

 

[Flopper]

You started with a true statement. There are nowhere near enough 'elite republicans' to win a presidential election. Mitt Romney and John McCain are the proof. They are also proof that there are enough 'elite republicans' to win the nomination. This is because the Conservative vote is divided between several candidates while the "establishment" settle on one guy and that's their guy.

The so-called "Big Tent" is facilitated by the message of a Conservative philosophy because Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Establishment republicans are the same kind of ideologues as liberals, they just want to control the power and they try to conceal the fact they are ideologues.

Most Establishment republicans are far more pragmatic than the 'elite conservatives' you've imagined. They're willing to deal with folks that don't necessarily hold their exact views on every issue, but fall under the 'Big Tent'. You have to be pragmatic to be inclusive. The exclusionary impulse of the 'elite conservatives' is far more ideologically driven. As it makes no sense pragmatically. As it grossly limits their effectiveness.

Conservatism doesn't need sympathy. It resonates with people who are philosophically conservative no matter what party they've supported in the past.

It really doesn't. As people most often belong to parties because that party more closely aligns with their own values. And the values of 'elite conservatives' doesn't match the majority of people. Its inherently exclusionary. It tends toward uncompromising positions. It rarely takes consequence into account, running most often on ideological absolutes regardless of the outcome.

These don't resonate with folks who don't already share the 'elite conservative' perspective.

Which is why you don't see play within the republican party. And you certainly don't see play outside of it. The entire concept is a predictable and elaborate fiction that 'elite conservatives' tell themselves to balm their spectacular record of failure at convincing people to vote for them. The reality is far simpler:

Most folks don't share the 'elite conservative' view points. I

A solid conservative voice can win a plurality and will win a landslide in the general.

I don't expect them to win over liberals or moderates because I don't live in Narnia and rainbow ponies don't exist. Most of the so-called independent voters (defines myself) are Conservatives.

Nope. Given that liberals and moderates make up 58% of the electorate (24% Liberal, 34% Moderate) with liberal self identification being at an all time high, your math doesn't work. Especially with conservative self identification is 1 point off a 22 year low.

U.S. Liberals at Record 24 but Still Trail Conservatives

As I said, you simply don't have the numbers. And you imagining you do is simply the pleasant fiction you tell yourself to balm the dissonance between what you want to be true and what reality actually demonstrates. A comforting 'if only' that isn't going to happen, and wouldn't turn out the way you imagine if it did.

Of all the "isms", pragmatism is probably the most important philosophy at this point in time. The lofty goals of both the Right and the Left are just impractical. There was a time in America when the two sides would come together and craft legislation based on what will work rather than pie in the sky dreams.

 

[Boss]

Boss, you are dangerously uninformed bonehead who cannot defend his OP.

The far right reactionaries, to which you belong, though you deny it, cannot win an election for the GOP. We will keep nominating candidates to your left. That will never stop. You are just bitching like a fishwife with no power.

You can't use uninformed opinions. Fascism has always been a progressive right wing political philosophy that melds the Leader's will through fusion of party and state. That is exactly what Cruz would do if he could get the power to do it. He won't.

The fact is, you've not described or defined what "my left" is yet. Other than not being Conservative or rooted in Conservative philosophy. So far, that seems to be the only criteria present for "far right" or "tea baggers" or "radical righties" or whatever tag you want to label Conservatives with.

Now, if you want to create some imaginary "ideology" to attach all sorts of social liberal stereotypes to and attack that.... I suppose you can do that! You've been trying this for the past 10 years or so and it has yet to work out for you, but you can keep doing it. The Liberal ideology will keep winning the elections and you will remain their little bitch. Some people prefer that role! It's their thing! I applaud you for standing up for your right to be the Liberals little bitch if that's what you want to be.

Billary Clinton and Hussein Obama are Fascists. So are most of the Democrat party. When the President says he is going to use his pen and phone to bypass Congress and enact his own laws... When the President refuses to obey laws Congress passed... this is Fascism.

Conservative philosophy is not Fascism in the least, it is the actual antithesis of Fascism. It is the empowerment of human spirit and embracing of freedoms established in our Constitution. Most paramount, to be free from Federal Fascism!

There is nothing "extreme" or "far" about Conservatism. At the very core, conservative simply does not mean radical. You surely have enough common sense to understand that, regardless of what you've been told to believe by your brainwashers.

 

[Boss]

Most Establishment republicans are far more pragmatic than the 'elite conservatives' you've imagined.

I didn't say a thing about "elite conservatives" but we can see that within the very first sentence of your reply, you are already telling lies and distorting what I've said. So we can dismiss the remainder of your post and assume that you can't answer my question honestly.

Establishment Republicans are no different than Liberal Democrats, they simply want to be able to control the purse strings. It's the same Big Money corporate interests and Crony Corporatist "Capitalists" running BOTH shows! The Establishment GOP has no intention of pursuing a Conservative philosophy, other than to pay lip service to that notion while capitulating to the Liberals in the same breath. They hope that when the Liberals are in power, they will at least have a seat at the table... to share in the money pie.

They will continue to yammer about how we need to "track to the middle" or we can't win with a "far right" (conservative) candidate.... because they have abandoned Conservative philosophy and are no longer Conservatives. When you turn Conservatism into an ideology and apply all the Liberal boogie-men stereotypes to it, then it can't prevail over Liberalism.

Liberalism is a radical ideology, Conservatism is a moderate philosophy.

 

[Boss]

There was a time in America when the two sides would come together and craft legislation based on what will work rather than pie in the sky dreams.

Yes, when about 75% of the country was Conservative.

 

[Flopper]

There was a time in America when the two sides would come together and craft legislation based on what will work rather than pie in the sky dreams.

Yes, when about 75% of the country was Conservative.

I doubt this country has ever been 75% conservative.

 

[edthecynic]

Now, if you want to create some imaginary "ideology" to attach all sorts of social liberal stereotypes to and attack that....

Billary Clinton and Hussein Obama are Fascists. So are most of the Democrat party.

Hypocritically spoken like a true Far Right extremist.

 

[Skylar]

Most Establishment republicans are far more pragmatic than the 'elite conservatives' you've imagined.

I didn't say a thing about "elite conservatives" but we can see that within the very first sentence of your reply, you are already telling lies and distorting what I've said. So we can dismiss the remainder of your post and assume that you can't answer my question honestly.

Laughing...yeah, because ignoring my post is magically gonna change the fact that Liberal and Moderates make up 58% of the electorate, with self proclaimed liberals at an all time high. And self proclaimed conservatives 1 point off an all time low.

Dude, you're scrambling here. The math for your fantasy just doesn't add up. You can't get your candidates through the GOP, the party most sympathetic to your beliefs. You certainly aren't going to find better support among liberals, moderates and independents.

Especially when you've already dismissed 58% of the electorate. Even assuming that all conservatives would vote for your candidate (which they won't, by your own admission), you're still 20 points short. Math is not a respecter of your fantasies.

Establishment Republicans are no different than Liberal Democrats, they simply want to be able to control the purse strings. It's the same Big Money corporate interests and Crony Corporatist "Capitalists" running BOTH shows! The Establishment GOP has no intention of pursuing a Conservative philosophy, other than to pay lip service to that notion while capitulating to the Liberals in the same breath.

So you've dismissed Moderates. Liberals. And Establishment Republicans. You do realize that the group of people that you can lay claim to just keeps getting smaller and smaller. And was no where near enough to elect a president BEFORE you started tossing republicans into the discard pile.

Sorry, but the math doesn't work. And the reason the math doesn't work is simple: the overwhelming majority of people don't agree with you.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, to start with... I take considerable exception to the left-wing incarnation of "the far right" because it essentially means "conservative." In a political context, the "far right" would be fascists or neo-confederates like Tim McVeigh. These radicals make up about .02% or less in the US, they are not a factor in any election because most of them don't vote. But the left has campaigned to instill this image of conservatives as "far right" when that simply isn't the case. So right off the bat we need to clarify that "far right" means hard core conservatives.

Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Unlike Liberalism, Conservatives have a wide range of personal beliefs on various issues of social and foreign policy nature, and perhaps even a little bit on economic issues. Most are pro life and believe in God. Most are believers in the Constitution and original intent of the founders. It's not a prerequisite to be a Conservative, you can oppose any of these and still be one.

The "debate" raging among the Republicans at this time is between what the left calls "far right" and the GOP establishment elite. In fact, the elites are even adopting the leftist rhetoric and calling conservatives "far right" in an attempt to marginalize them. So we keep coming back to this "far right" tag which simply refers to people who are passionately committed to conservative philosophy.

In 2008 and 2012, the establishment pushed the idea that only a "moderate" could defeat the Democrats. Both times, the moderate got clocked. Once again, we have the same elite establishment pushing the rhetoric that we need to nominate someone who isn't "far right" because they just can't win the general election. I say BULLSHIT!

The last "far right" conservative was Ronald Reagan... he won two of the largest landslides in political history. There is no evidence that a "far right" candidate cannot win the general election.... NONE! To the contrary, when nominated, they win by landslides.

Now the Elites are very powerful and have influence in the media, so they are pointing to all these polls showing how 47% of America is "politically independent" ...so we have to 'run to the middle' and be more 'moderate' which simply means, less conservative or less committed to conservative principles. The major flaw with this thinking is, most "politically independent" voters are Conservatives! A Conservative (far right) candidate is going to appeal to most of those voters. This is precisely what happened with Reagan and we called them "Reagan Democrats" because they represented the Conservatives who has previously voted Democrat.

What has been missing for Conservatives is a voice. Someone who believes in Conservative philosophy passionately and can articulate what it's all about to the masses. We've allowed people like John McCain and Mitt Romney to carry the water for Conservatism and along with the left, morph it into some backward ideology that must be defeated, or at the very least, apologized for! Conservatives have an uphill battle to change this dynamic but it can be done, it has been done before.

To the GOP Elites: You better get on board with a solid Conservative or the Democrats will win in 2016. This idea that we have to nominate someone "more moderate" is simply surrendering to the liberal left. It is telling every "independent voter" out there that you stand for absolutely nothing and will do whatever you can to capitulate to the left on every issue. You will not win with that strategy!

Actually, according to our politics, the far right is Libertarians.....even less government than conservatives, and the farthest right....anarchists of the no government type........

and how did moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney do when they ran for office....?

 

[Skylar]

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

The actual MEANING of fascism is;

{
Full Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition}

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Which fails to support your fiction\

Laughing! So dictatorship, state sanctioned racism, severe economic and social restrictions and forcible suppression of opposition, huh? Where have I heard that before. Its on the tip of my tongue.......ah yes!

My description of Fascism:

Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.

Post 308
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You just abandoned your 'fascism is socialism' idiocy and are now scrambling to adopt my definition.

Good boy! You can be taught.

Fascist care is a few well connected corporations (including George Soros' Blue Cross) with state sponsorship to exclusively sell products which the public must buy, by law, with the government acting as sales force and collection agent, but it 'isn't fascism?"

A few connected corporations, huh? How many companies are selling insurance on the ACA market place...specifically. I mean, if you're talking out of your ass, offering us an argument you can't possibly support then we'll get excuses for why you have no idea what the number is.

And can you back the claim that Blue Cross belongs to George Soros? OR is this another one of your 'fire and forget' accusations, where you make a claim you can't possibly back up and then run as fast as you can from it?

Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.

Cato is one of the most respected think tanks in the world.

The CATO institute is an openly, flagrantly, whorishly libertarian organization, promoting libertarianism for the hopes of spreading libertarianism.

And every single source you've offered us backing the absurd 'fascism is socialism' idiocy that you've abandoned is a professional libertarian. Which is exactly my point. You can't find support for your argument outside the CATO institute or professional libertarians. Even Mussolini described Fascism as right wing. But you'll ignore anyone...including your own sources, if it doesn't match your libertarian narrative.

But why would a rational person ignore what you must to cling to your Cato Institute narrative?

You didn't bother to read the definition you posted.

Of course I did. We don't have dictatorship. We don't have forcible suppression of opposition and criticism. We don't have regimentation of all industry and commerce. We don't have aggressive nationalism. And we don't have state sanctioned racism.

Once again, the actual definition of fascism doesn't match your 'lets call people names' pejorative usage. Words have meanings. And you trying to apply the definition of fascism to the US demonstrates that you really don't get the meaning of fascism.

Which you just demonstrated again.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us any mention of Lenin in the entire Doctrine of Fascism. As you said that 'in context' that Mussolini was criticizing Lenin. When in reality, he never mentions Lenin in the entire Doctrine. Why make up bullshit like that? Its not like its going to slip past me. And its not like I'm going forget to mock you mercilessly for your flagrant lies and inept attempts to deceive.

 

[edthecynic]

and how did moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney do when they ran for office....?

If they were "moderates," why did they all run as CON$?

 

[2aguy]

and how did moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney do when they ran for office....?

If they were "moderates," why did they all run as CON$?

They lied......

 

[2aguy]

Fascism is socialism......your definition simply shows that socialism has different flavors but at it's heart it is the state control of every aspect of life.....

According to your definition Roosevelt was a fascist....I know that means he was simply a socialist.....

 

[Boss]

Laughing...yeah, because ignoring my post is magically gonna change the fact that Liberal and Moderates make up 58% of the electorate....

Not counting about 100 million Conservatives who don't vote.

 

[2aguy]

Laughing...yeah, because ignoring my post is magically gonna change the fact that Liberal and Moderates make up 58% of the electorate....

Not counting about 100 million Conservatives who don't vote.

They didn't vote for the moderates who "reach across the aisle" while they hold their nose when they talk to the party base.....

 

[2aguy]

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

The actual MEANING of fascism is;

{
Full Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition}

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Which fails to support your fiction\

Laughing! So dictatorship, state sanctioned racism, severe economic and social restrictions and forcible suppression of opposition, huh? Where have I heard that before. Its on the tip of my tongue.......ah yes!

My description of Fascism:

Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.

Post 308
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You just abandoned your 'fascism is socialism' idiocy and are now scrambling to adopt my definition.

Good boy! You can be taught.

Fascist care is a few well connected corporations (including George Soros' Blue Cross) with state sponsorship to exclusively sell products which the public must buy, by law, with the government acting as sales force and collection agent, but it 'isn't fascism?"

A few connected corporations, huh? How many companies are selling insurance on the ACA market place...specifically. I mean, if you're talking out of your ass, offering us an argument you can't possibly support then we'll get excuses for why you have no idea what the number is.

And can you back the claim that Blue Cross belongs to George Soros? OR is this another one of your 'fire and forget' accusations, where you make a claim you can't possibly back up and then run as fast as you can from it?

Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.

Cato is one of the most respected think tanks in the world.

The CATO institute is an openly, flagrantly, whorishly libertarian organization, promoting libertarianism for the hopes of spreading libertarianism.

And every single source you've offered us backing the absurd 'fascism is socialism' idiocy that you've abandoned is a professional libertarian. Which is exactly my point. You can't find support for your argument outside the CATO institute or professional libertarians. Even Mussolini described Fascism as right wing. But you'll ignore anyone...including your own sources, if it doesn't match your libertarian narrative.

But why would a rational person ignore what you must to cling to your Cato Institute narrative?

You didn't bother to read the definition you posted.

Of course I did. We don't have dictatorship. We don't have forcible suppression of opposition and criticism. We don't have regimentation of all industry and commerce. We don't have aggressive nationalism. And we don't have state sanctioned racism.

Once again, the actual definition of fascism doesn't match your 'lets call people names' pejorative usage. Words have meanings. And you trying to apply the definition of fascism to the US demonstrates that you really don't get the meaning of fascism.

Which you just demonstrated again.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us any mention of Lenin in the entire Doctrine of Fascism. As you said that 'in context' that Mussolini was criticizing Lenin. When in reality, he never mentions Lenin in the entire Doctrine. Why make up bullshit like that? Its not like its going to slip past me. And its not like I'm going forget to mock you mercilessly for your flagrant lies and inept attempts to deceive.

We have safe guards that were built in that have inhibited the worst attempts by the socialists in this country....in Europe..their socialists murdered 12 million people in death camps....our socialist...roosevelt...simply put our minorities in relocation camps...he was a man raised in America...so he had safeguards implanted from an early age....but he still liked hitler and mussolini when they came on the scene....

Both hitler and mussolini read marx....mussolini was a member of the communist party....

Socialism and fascism are the same thing....you guys can't stand to think that all of the great mass murderers in history....stalin, hitler, mao, pol pot....and the b listers, the castros and others.....were all left wing socialists..........

 

[2aguy]

The actual meaning of fascism isn't a 'strawman'. Its an indictment of your claims. As the word's meaning and your usage don't match. You can't get around that.

As the actual characteristics of fascism don't exist here, nor are being proposed by anyone of significance of either party. There's no dictatorship. There's no state sanctioned racism. There's no belligerent nationalism. There's no violent suppression of opposition and the press. There's no stringent controls on the economy or society.

The actual MEANING of fascism is;

{
Full Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition}

Fascism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Which fails to support your fiction\

Laughing! So dictatorship, state sanctioned racism, severe economic and social restrictions and forcible suppression of opposition, huh? Where have I heard that before. Its on the tip of my tongue.......ah yes!

My description of Fascism:

Fascism is a system that uses a dictator with complete power, belligerent aggressive nationalism, state sanctioned racism, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, forcible suppression of the press, and strict regimenting all industry and commerce.

Post 308
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You just abandoned your 'fascism is socialism' idiocy and are now scrambling to adopt my definition.

Good boy! You can be taught.

Fascist care is a few well connected corporations (including George Soros' Blue Cross) with state sponsorship to exclusively sell products which the public must buy, by law, with the government acting as sales force and collection agent, but it 'isn't fascism?"

A few connected corporations, huh? How many companies are selling insurance on the ACA market place...specifically. I mean, if you're talking out of your ass, offering us an argument you can't possibly support then we'll get excuses for why you have no idea what the number is.

And can you back the claim that Blue Cross belongs to George Soros? OR is this another one of your 'fire and forget' accusations, where you make a claim you can't possibly back up and then run as fast as you can from it?

Gee, I wonder which its gonna be.

Cato is one of the most respected think tanks in the world.

The CATO institute is an openly, flagrantly, whorishly libertarian organization, promoting libertarianism for the hopes of spreading libertarianism.

And every single source you've offered us backing the absurd 'fascism is socialism' idiocy that you've abandoned is a professional libertarian. Which is exactly my point. You can't find support for your argument outside the CATO institute or professional libertarians. Even Mussolini described Fascism as right wing. But you'll ignore anyone...including your own sources, if it doesn't match your libertarian narrative.

But why would a rational person ignore what you must to cling to your Cato Institute narrative?

You didn't bother to read the definition you posted.

Of course I did. We don't have dictatorship. We don't have forcible suppression of opposition and criticism. We don't have regimentation of all industry and commerce. We don't have aggressive nationalism. And we don't have state sanctioned racism.

Once again, the actual definition of fascism doesn't match your 'lets call people names' pejorative usage. Words have meanings. And you trying to apply the definition of fascism to the US demonstrates that you really don't get the meaning of fascism.

Which you just demonstrated again.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to show us any mention of Lenin in the entire Doctrine of Fascism. As you said that 'in context' that Mussolini was criticizing Lenin. When in reality, he never mentions Lenin in the entire Doctrine. Why make up bullshit like that? Its not like its going to slip past me. And its not like I'm going forget to mock you mercilessly for your flagrant lies and inept attempts to deceive.

And all the people saying facsism is right wing are lefties......or people educated by lefties in college......

 

[Skylar]

Laughing...yeah, because ignoring my post is magically gonna change the fact that Liberal and Moderates make up 58% of the electorate....

Not counting about 100 million Conservatives who don't vote.

Says you. Oddly, Gallup makes no mention of your fantasy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

Moderates are 34%. Liberals are 24% (an all time record). Conservatives are 38% (one point off an all time low).

That's 58% of the electorate you've already written off. And only 38% left for you to draw from. And you've already dismissed the 'Establishment Republicans'. Which exist in large enough numbers to do what you obviously can't: nominate their candidate in the GOP primary.

So you're dealing with a fraction of 38%. Math is not your friend. Nor does it care much about your fantasies. You simply don't have the numbers. You need moderates. You need liberals. And you don't get them by running far right candidates.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The gop can't win without Florida, Virginia, Nev and Co. If they can win Pa or Ohio then they can give one of the big ones up but only if they do....

They won't do it with slash, cut and burn!