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

[Statistikhengst]

What is ridiculous is that so many buy into the 'either left or right' argument and then immediately refer to the one they disagree with in terms of extreme (-wing, far-, etc.). This is exactly what the two party dictatorship manipulates so well. It is a malady that we would do well to be cured of.

The problem is: sometimes there really ARE ultra-extremists. Telling voters that it's ok to shoot the gubbermint and murder people in the process is truly extreme.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

I've heard this fantasy several times. The problem is, the data just doesn't back it up. The far right was a bigger percentage of the electorate in 2008 and 2012 than ever before. A higher percentage of those on the far right voted for the Republican candidates than ever before.

The GOP lost those elections because they lost the middle by a huge margin.

So if the GOP tacks even farther right, they have nothing to gain and even more to lose.

Sorry, but that's just what the data shows.

Bingo.

You win prez elections by convincing the middle that your team is the better team.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[there4eyeM]

What is ridiculous is that so many buy into the 'either left or right' argument and then immediately refer to the one they disagree with in terms of extreme (-wing, far-, etc.). This is exactly what the two party dictatorship manipulates so well. It is a malady that we would do well to be cured of.

The problem is: sometimes there really ARE ultra-extremists. Telling voters that it's ok to shoot the gubbermint and murder people in the process is truly extreme.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Wait a minute, there's a word for that, I think...it's right on the tip of my tongue...
SEDITION! That's it! Isnt that what it's called?

 

[there4eyeM]

...the 'Middle' being the half who don't vote but should have...
for a third party.

(not meant in any way to be a criticism of the poster or the post; just a comment)

 

[NYcarbineer]

In 2004, Kerry won the Moderate vote by 9 points, but still lost the election.

In 2008, Obama won the Moderate vote by 20 points, and that was the difference. That extra 11 percentage points of moderates that Obama won, generally speaking,

were voters who voted for Bush in 2004. That's how you win. That's why they call them the swing voters, and that's why they matter.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What is ridiculous is that so many buy into the 'either left or right' argument and then immediately refer to the one they disagree with in terms of extreme (-wing, far-, etc.). This is exactly what the two party dictatorship manipulates so well. It is a malady that we would do well to be cured of.

The problem is: sometimes there really ARE ultra-extremists. Telling voters that it's ok to shoot the gubbermint and murder people in the process is truly extreme.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Wait a minute, there's a word for that, I think...it's right on the tip of my tongue...
SEDITION! That's it! Isnt that what it's called?

Yepp!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[ScienceRocks]

I've heard this fantasy several times. The problem is, the data just doesn't back it up. The far right was a bigger percentage of the electorate in 2008 and 2012 than ever before. A higher percentage of those on the far right voted for the Republican candidates than ever before.

The GOP lost those elections because they lost the middle by a huge margin.

So if the GOP tacks even farther right, they have nothing to gain and even more to lose.

Sorry, but that's just what the data shows.

Bingo.

You win prez elections by convincing the middle that your team is the better team.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

And you don't do that by telling them that I'll cut infrastructure, science, r&d, education and let businesses do as they please to their workers. It just doesn't sell.

 

[edthecynic]

You can if and only if you are a Fascist like Bossy.

So you are going to join the bandwagon of slander and lies like Jake?

Note: There has still been no example offered as to HOW my views are Fascist, radical, extreme or "far" anything. I have only stated that I am a Conservative.

I gave you example after example of your CON$ervoFascism in this very thread, but you just keep lying like a typical CON$ervoFascist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss the fascist wrote "I clicked it and it took me to a maintenance page and said it wasn't available for now, Einstein" when, last night and just now, easily linked the page.

Fascists like Boss always lie and, since fascists have lower IQs, they are easy to identify like Boss.

 

[edthecynic]

By "Christian fundamentalist" he means religious people who are Conservatives.

There you go again, mindlessly obeying your MessiahRushie, who you lie about listening to like a typical CON$ervoFascist.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boss has been told quite emphatically he does not get "just once more." he is a bonehead far right reactionary.

You cannot define liberalism other it is anything you "don't like."

Fascism is a far right wing progressive ideology to which you belong and in which believe. True conservatism does not embrace fascism, so Boss is not a conservative at all but a subversive with bad intent for America.

Boss is not a Conservative in any way shape or form.

If you continue to post lies and slanderous remarks about me personally, I will submit a formal complaint to the moderators. I've had enough of this.

I asked you politely to tell me what views or positions I have stated that are extreme, far-right, radical or "fascist" in any way. You've not produced a single example. You just continue to slander me.

This board is not here for you to harass me and flood my threads with your trollery and flaming. If you can't support your statements about me, shut your fucking mouth and move on.

Boss, you may report me with my blessing. I have answered all of your complaints. I have explained why you are fascist and how you use false reasoning and conclusions. Yes, you are far right and everything you write confirms it. No, the far right can't win for the GOP. Telling you and showing you that you are full of nonsense is your tough luck, son. You don't get to run an OP without resistance. I have stayed with the OP you are fail as is your OP.

Now you have my permission to report it. This Board is here for me and others to show that your OP is full of crap. It's a non-winner. You are a non-winner. You are a rushbot as shown immediately above. Christian fundamentalists are not Conservatives; they are socon far right out of the mainstream.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The words of a fool follow: "I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats." Some may be and many will vote Republican as well. Anybody to the immediate left of the far reactionary right wing and Christian fundamentalists are mainstream Republicans. Boss, you are to the far right, and your language shows you are progressive right wing fascist. Run along.

 

[Boss]

Boss has been told quite emphatically he does not get "just once more." he is a bonehead far right reactionary.

You cannot define liberalism other it is anything you "don't like."

Fascism is a far right wing progressive ideology to which you belong and in which believe. True conservatism does not embrace fascism, so Boss is not a conservative at all but a subversive with bad intent for America.

Boss is not a Conservative in any way shape or form.

If you continue to post lies and slanderous remarks about me personally, I will submit a formal complaint to the moderators. I've had enough of this.

I asked you politely to tell me what views or positions I have stated that are extreme, far-right, radical or "fascist" in any way. You've not produced a single example. You just continue to slander me.

This board is not here for you to harass me and flood my threads with your trollery and flaming. If you can't support your statements about me, shut your fucking mouth and move on.

Boss, you may report me with my blessing. I have answered all of your complaints. I have explained why you are fascist and how you use false reasoning and conclusions. Yes, you are far right and everything you write confirms it. No, the far right can't win for the GOP. Telling you and showing you that you are full of nonsense is your tough luck, son. You don't get to run an OP without resistance. I have stayed with the OP you are fail as is your OP.

Now you have my permission to report it. This Board is here for me and others to show that your OP is full of crap. It's a non-winner. You are a non-winner. You are a rushbot as shown immediately above. Christian fundamentalists are not Conservatives; they are socon far right out of the mainstream.

I don't need your permission to report a violation of forum rules. If you want to show me something, show me the evidence to support your slanderous lies. If you want to interject your opinion conservatives can't win the GOP nomination, that's your freedom and I don't have a problem with that. What I am not going to continue tolerating is you making posts to call me names with no basis simply because you want to harass and flame me. You have not explained why you think I am a Fascist and you can't offer any examples.

This is not the Badlands forum where you can flame at will. It's a Level 2 forum and the rules say: Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads.

I am going to report you the next time you violate this rule. I will not continue to sit here and be harassed and slandered by you. You can say anything you want to about me as long as you also include content relative to the thread. Calling me names is not relevant.

You and all your buddies have not been able to define what is "far" about the right. How Conservatives are "far" anything. You just keep repeating it without qualification. When confronted about this, you pretend that you've already made your case.

Tell the lie until the lie becomes the truth. ~Saul Alinsky

 

[Boss]

The words of a fool follow: "I maintain that moderates and independents are Democrats." Some may be and many will vote Republican as well. Anybody to the immediate left of the far reactionary right wing and Christian fundamentalists are mainstream Republicans. Boss, you are to the far right, and your language shows you are progressive right wing fascist. Run along.

Again, most self-described independents are conservative and vote for the most conservative candidate. That's not my opinion but what the Gallup polling data shows.

Conservatism is not "FAR" anything until you offer some kind of evidence to support that claim. Anyone with a brain can go look up the definition of conservative and see that it doesn't mean radical or extreme. The very nature of Conservative philosophy IS moderate!

 

[Boss]

By "Christian fundamentalist" he means religious people who are Conservatives.

There you go again, mindlessly obeying your MessiahRushie, who you lie about listening to like a typical CON$ervoFascist.

October 11, 2011
RUSH: I've often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate.

Hey, Eddy... Don't know if it has dawned on you yet but it's not getting under my skin for you to point out how Rush Limbaugh agrees with the points I've made. It's actually kind of flattering to me. It's very impressive, this immediate archive you seem to have for Rush Limbaugh, ready and waiting to post whenever needed.

Still, there is nothing "extreme" or "radical" or "farrrrr" about his comment. It's the truth! It's what we're talking about here with this very thing. You can't define what makes Conservatives "far right" or "extreme" in any way. It's simply Liberals trying to control the definition of words.

 

[Boss]

In 2004, Kerry won the Moderate vote by 9 points, but still lost the election.

In 2008, Obama won the Moderate vote by 20 points, and that was the difference. That extra 11 percentage points of moderates that Obama won, generally speaking,

were voters who voted for Bush in 2004. That's how you win. That's why they call them the swing voters, and that's why they matter.

I doubt that anyone can accurately tabulate how true moderates voted. You are assuming a lot of stuff here... First and foremost, that people are honest when they identify as moderate. Second, it dismisses the fact that most Conservatives are indeed moderate because Conservative philosophy is a moderate philosophy.

Obama won the moderate vote because the moderate conservatives stayed home. Running AWAY from Conservatism is driving the "moderate" vote away from the GOP. It is a blunder of epic proportion to believe "moderate" means non-conservative.

 

[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.

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

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.

Finally made it through to the page and here is what it shows:

Survey Methods

Results are based on aggregated telephone interviews from 15 separate Gallup polls conducted in 2014, with a random sample of 16,479 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Oh, so its gallup that is wrong. And you're right. Because you say so.

Can you show us anything that backs your claim? Or is your 'because you said so' standard the best you can do? Remember, you haven't actually provided a scintilla of evidence backing anything you've said. You've merely assumed it.

While Gallup explicitly and overwhelmingly refutes you. And you dig your hold even deeper, having dismissed 'Establishment Republicans', demonstrating that you'll be dealing with a mere FRACTION of conservatives. So a part of 38% v. 58% of the electorate.

Worse, you've already conceded the point:

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.

Boss
Post 341
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 35 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I don't expect a 'conservative' candidate to win over liberals or moderates either. And liberals and moderates make up 58% of the electorate.

You've already conceded the point. There's nothing left but the crying.

 

[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.

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

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

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.

Finally made it through to the page and here is what it shows:

Survey Methods

Results are based on aggregated telephone interviews from 15 separate Gallup polls conducted in 2014, with a random sample of 16,479 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Oh, so its gallup that is wrong. And you're right. Because you say so.

Can you show us anything that backs your claim? Or is your 'because you said so' standard the best you can do? Remember, you haven't actually provided a scintilla of evidence backing anything you've said. You've merely assumed it.

While Gallup explicitly and overwhelmingly refutes you. And you dig your hold even deeper, having dismissed 'Establishment Republicans', demonstrating that you'll be dealing with a mere FRACTION of conservatives. So a part of 38% v. 58% of the electorate.

Worse, you've already conceded the point:

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.

Boss
Post 341
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 35 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I don't expect a 'conservative' candidate to win over liberals or moderates either. And liberals and moderates make up 58% of the electorate.

You've already conceded the point. There's nothing left but the crying.

TO YOU: A "moderate" is someone who isn't quite so died-in-the-wool liberal like you... They might put a bumper sticker on their car or use #handsup to support your protest in Ferguson, but they won't be out there marching and rioting. The REALITY is: Most 'moderates' have a conservative philosophy. Your Gallup poll bears this out.

The thing you should be concerned with is your "all time record high" 24% Liberal number. That means 76% of us are either moderate or conservative...or both.

Now... "Moderate" ,,,,let's take an objective look at what this means. We find that it is a very popular identifier because it seems to suggest a degree of unbiased objective opinion, non partisan, non ideological. This doesn't sound like someone who wants radical change. Another word for someone who doesn't want radical change... Conservative.

The same argument can be made for "Independent" ...it denotes neutrality, non-extreme, not defined by party or partisan politics. Again, most of these people have a conservative philosophy, even though they identify as independent.

I am a Conservative, but I identify myself as a moderate because my personal views are moderate. That is why I can confidently challenge any Bozo here who wants to claim I am "far right:" or "radical extremist wacko right" or "fascist right" because they can't back that argument up with anything I've ever posted here. I don't have extreme views and I don't want to live in a society where everyone has to do what I say. I prefer everyone having the freedom to determine our laws and customs for themselves and I will live by what my fellow citizens adopt. I might not like it, I might even exercise my right to protest it, but I respect it and appreciate it because that's what our country is all about.

I think that MOST of our social problems and issues can be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of everyone, with the exception of radicals who aren't ever going to be satisfied. I'll be happy to present my moderate position on any of these issues you'd like to discuss... but you see, we have no one who wants to engage me in such a discussion, they want to categorize me as a radical nutbag extremist teabagging righty. Along with anyone who is not a Liberal!

I am not a registered Republican, I am a registered Independent. I will not vote for a Republican "moderate" because they are not Conservative. I will not make the mistake of voting for a fiscal liberal who is a social conservative ever again. I don't need Conservatism repackaged into something kinder, gentler, and/or more compassionate. When Conservative philosophy is articulated correctly and with passion, it stands alone, it sells itself. Ideologies can't defeat it.

 

[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.

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

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.

Finally made it through to the page and here is what it shows:

Survey Methods

Results are based on aggregated telephone interviews from 15 separate Gallup polls conducted in 2014, with a random sample of 16,479 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Oh, so its gallup that is wrong. And you're right. Because you say so.

Can you show us anything that backs your claim? Or is your 'because you said so' standard the best you can do? Remember, you haven't actually provided a scintilla of evidence backing anything you've said. You've merely assumed it.

While Gallup explicitly and overwhelmingly refutes you. And you dig your hold even deeper, having dismissed 'Establishment Republicans', demonstrating that you'll be dealing with a mere FRACTION of conservatives. So a part of 38% v. 58% of the electorate.

Worse, you've already conceded the point:

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.

Boss
Post 341
Far Right can t win for GOP ...BS Page 35 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I don't expect a 'conservative' candidate to win over liberals or moderates either. And liberals and moderates make up 58% of the electorate.

You've already conceded the point. There's nothing left but the crying.

TO YOU: A "moderate" is someone who isn't quite so died-in-the-wool liberal like you...

Yeah, I didn't say that. You did. Pretending to be me. You citing yourself seems to be your primary motiff for this entire discussion. Can you see why anyone who isn't you might find your source more than a little inadequate to carry your argument?

Now... "Moderate" ,,,,let's take an objective look at what this means. We find that it is a very popular identifier because it seems to suggest a degree of unbiased objective opinion, non partisan, non ideological. This doesn't sound like someone who wants radical change. Another word for someone who doesn't want radical change... Conservative.

So your argument is when someone self identifies as a Moderate, what they *really* mean is that they are a conservative? Can you back any of that nonsense with more than your ability to type it? Remember, the actual definition of 'moderate' isn't what you made up:

Moderate:

a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.

Moderate Define Moderate at Dictionary.com

That's the relevant 'objective' meaning. Or Miriam Webster if you like:

Moderate:

: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme

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

No mention of 'unbiased', or non-ideological, non-partisan, or 'objective'. Merely not extreme. And in any contest between you and the dictionary on the meaning of words, the dictionary wins.

So you've tried to support an imaginary argument using an imaginary definition to cling to an imaginary belief that when someone self identifies as a moderate, what they really mean is 'conservative'.

Nope. What they really mean when they self identify as Moderate is Moderate. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The same argument can be made for "Independent" ...it denotes neutrality, non-extreme, not defined by party or partisan politics. Again, most of these people have a conservative philosophy, even though they identify as independent.

Not even close. Independent means not affiliated with a political party. You're literally just making up definitions as you go, pulled sideways out of your ass. And your imagination doesn't mean a thing.

Back in the evidence based world:

Among republicans, 70% self identify as conservative, 24% as moderates, 5% as liberal
Among democrats, 44% self identify as liberal, 33% as moderates, 19% as conservative
Among independents, 41% self identify as moderate, 33% as conservative, and 21% self identify as liberal.

Meaning that among Independents, 62% are liberal or moderate. That's a higher rate than the general public, where 58% are liberal or moderate.

As has been pointed out again and again, you simply don't have the numbers to support your 'what America really wants is a conservative' fantasy. As you're not going to woo moderates, liberals or enough independents with a conservative message. You need liberals and moderates to win. And you don't have them in sufficient numbers

Math, ain't it a bitch?

 

[Billy000]

Who is your "solid conservative" for 2016?

A "Reagan" wouldn't win the 2016 GOP primary.

Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul.

Reagan would mop the floor with today's Liberal just like he did back then.

If you want to believe the world has dramatically changed and there aren't a lot of conservatives anymore, that's up to you. I can't do anything about your mental illness. I realize the last few elections have given you a false sense of security and you think the political momentum is just not stoppable. You've got a rude awakening ahead and I can hardly wait.

Don't you think it's kind of pathetic you're indulging this fantasy about Reagan kicking ass in 2016? It sounds like you have more faith in this fantasy then the actual candidates lol.

Cruz has NO CHANCES of becoming president. Accept it.