Possible but unlikely. Don’t get me wrong, people do vote for lower taxes and Republicans champion that, but emotional issues get people far far more riled up. So voting Republican solely based on economics is probably rarer than a hot-button issue or a combination of a hot-button issue and taxes.
(I am leaving out the reality on the ground, just talking about perceptions. IMO the reality is that it’s not about rich vs poor. Rather, it’s getting pretty Randian up in 1% - the good 1% who produce vs the bad 1% who mooch.)
Anything to get votes. Republicans have played the “Obama = socialist, black, Kenyan, Muslim” card often enough to identify them as the party of angry white Christians. Opposition to minimum wage and equal pay for women identify them as party for men (and stay-at-home married women.) They have smartly given up trying to attract blacks and single women - they are never going to succeed. They ARE however courting Latinos - the macho Catholic culture should fit in well with their narrative.
For the Canadians and Koreans- the basic identity in American politics is unchanged for the last 20 years since Clinton. If you are unsure how the administration or the Congress is going to behave, just keep in mind
Perhaps they were “ultra conservative” relative to your worldview, but none of the candidates were “ultra conservative” relative to the general population of the US.
And Romney didn’t alienate “moderate voters”. He received a sizeable chunk. Most of those “moderates” who ultimately voted for Obama now regret it. So it’s not like Romney was some sort of foregone conclusion.
Well, consider who else was running for the Republican nomination: Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich - others? Maybe Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin? Let’s assume Ron Paul is an outlier. All of these are less moderate than Mitt Romney. I will not argue about the definiton of “ultra” conservative, but my point is that the Republican field is more to the right than the overall field, and this creates a bias towards right wing candidates.
I don’t know what you mean by “sizeable chunk” of moderate voters that Mitt Romney won (as in, your definition is not well defined). Sure, he won some voters in the center, but he did not win enough of them to defeat Obama. By “alienate”, I mean Romney did not win some votes that he could have. If Mitt Romney had not alienated some moderate voters, he would have won. In fact, had Mitt Romney just been normal and not weird, he might have won.
Yeah. Uhhhhh… The Republican Party is conservative so candidates are going to be conservative. The Democrat Party is liberal, so their candidates will be liberal. I think most agree that Obama was far more to the left of the general population that any Republican candidates were to the right of it.
I just think it’s rather dumb when I hear terms like “far right” or “ultra conservative” to describe candidates that have a broad general appeal and whose politics are largely in line with the body politic. Romney didn’t hold any opinions that the typical American would find “extreme”. Only extremists might find some of his positions “extreme”.
I never described Romney’s positions as “extreme”. In fact, I have repeatedly said that he was a moderate candidate. However, some of his campaign promises did not go over well with some moderate voters, such as those related to abortion, immigration, and other social issues. These promises were not “extreme” and in fact, he probably would not have even carried through with these, had he won the election. However, these promises were just a bit too far to the right than many moderate voters wanted. Thus, Mitt Romney lost some moderate votes.
A position that is just a little bit right from the center is not “extreme”. It is just a little bit to the right. Romney lost because he was like 2% too far to the right, not because he was 1000% too far to the right.
Romney’s positions were motivated by the extreme right; he had to cater to people who go to Tea Party rallies, who helped choose him as their candidate. However, this does not mean that he adopted their views; he just moved a tiny bit too much to their side.
As for the other Republican candidates - if Rick Santorum is too far to the right such that he would have lost the center with 90% certainty, I would regard that as an extreme right position. Again, it’s just a definition (which I have defined here).
Many AF discussions have been derailed by people arguing about what they mean by “extreme”, “liberal”, “sculpted abs”, “hot chicks”, or other terms that could mean many things. To avoid this, I am happy to explain my definition of any term. Do not be the guy that gets hung up on terminology and loses sight of the argument.
True. This also happened to John McCain. He used to be well-liked by the moderate left. Had he just stayed the same guy during his run he would have been president. Instead, he shifted further to the right and got stuck with that milf from Alaska.
What abortion/immigration/social issues are you referring to? According to Gallup, about 70% of Americans believe that abortion should be restricted in whole or in part. Romney believed that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother. That’s in line with “moderate” opinion. He was in favor with cracking down on illegal immigration while increasing legal immigration. According to Gallup about 75% of Americans think that immigration (legal/illegal not specified) should remain the same or be decreased, so he was in line with the majority there.
The logic that being 2% to the right is too much is nonsensical when you look at Obama. On every major issue, he is significantly left of the general population. Are you saying that a candidate can’t win if he’s more conservative than the general population, but that reasoning doesn’t apply in the other direction? For example, in 2008, 64% of Americans believed that it was not the Government’s responsibility to ensure universal access to healthcare. Obama was clearly far left on that central issue, but he won. Regarding abortion, Obama expressed that he was supportive of late-term (partial birth) abortion, but according to Gallup, 80% of Americans oppose it. And Obama catered to illegal immigration in each of his elections, but Americans are strongly opposed to his proposed action on that.
And the whole Tea Part-as “extreme right” nonsense is a joke. The Tea Party is primarily composed of middle aged suburbanites opposed to expansive government. There was nothing “extreme” about that movement.
^ i’m pretty sure Obama gets a pass on this issue as he is black (and a minority) and his support in the minority voting contingent was extraordinarily high. though minorities tend to vote democrat anyway, 93% support from blacks, 73% asian and 71% hispanic is pretty high. compare this to the 2004 election of 88% black, 56% asian and 53% hispanic support for Kerry. i think many minority voters put aside their more conservative beliefs to vote for a minority in hopes that it changes their lives and the lives of their family/friends for the better. this is rational.
also, there are stats that show that people who identify themselves as moderates tend to vote democrat. this means that moderates are more sensitive to right wing ideas than left wing ideas (i.e. 2% to the right and 3% to the left may offset; terrible example but you get the jist).
^^ If Mitt was so in-line with the the majority of Americans, why did he get his ass handed to him by the most defeatable incumbent president in 32 years?
The point is that people in general were not happy with Obama. This Romney an advantage, which he somehow squandered. Had Romney been less weird, had he made certain policy promises which were not carried over from the Republican primary, or if he had chosen Marco Rubio as a running mate instead of Tea Party friendly Paul Ryan, he might have won the election.
McCain/Palin is another poignant example. Palin was chosen because she would reinvigorate the right (bring out the vote and all that). However, since she is crazy, she scared away many normal people who would have voted for McCain.
On election day, Gallup polled Obama with a 52% approval rating and he got 51% of the popular vote. Your theory that conservatives are unelectable is pretty nonsensical. Especially coming off the heels of 8 years of Bush.
People are very unhappy with Obama *today* (his approval sits at 42%). That was not the case in 2008 as international failures had not yet become evident, Bin Laden was recently killed, and he made a case that he had fixed the economy.
ohai, you seem like a chill bro, but this is some asinine political analysis. Do you really think people vote based on who the VP candidate is? Even on the margins, there were probably five people in the US in 2008 who would’ve voted for McCain instead of Obama if he picked Tim Pawlenty instead of Palin. Just saying nonsense like that does not make it true.
Palin was an anomaly, kind of like cancer of the foreskin. VP candidates shouldn’t matter that much, but, particularly with an old dude like McCain, you don’t even want the possiblity of batshit crazy running the country.