Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This is Ted Cruz's Plan For the Supreme Court
Fortune ^ | December 2, 2015 | Ben Geier

Posted on 01/25/2016 8:03:19 AM PST by justlittleoleme

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-284 last
To: Personal Responsibility
Disagree here. The blue and purple states haven't had to consider an actual conservative message in the voting booth since 1984. No one under the age of 50 has had an honest-to-goodness conservative Presidential candidate try to win them over. The last time it happened, he won in a landslide. Is the country different today? Absolutely. That does not mean a conservative message is a loser in blue and purple states though.

I am in the minority (on this site at least). I think Trump or Cruz would make excellent Presidents and each has a different path to victory but victory would be well within either's grasp. I also think the animosity between supporters is BS. "If I like him I have to hate the other guy" is like arguing sports in a bar. This isn't sports where Yankee fans hate the Red Sox and vice versa. You can support both up until it's time to choose in the primary.

I agree with much that you say, especially about the bullsh!t fighting between the candidates' supporters.

Having said that, I do disagree about electability. The electoral situation for traditional Americans is dire. The "blue" and "purple" states get many chances to look at conservatives in every election each one, two, or four years, and of course also in the quadrennial primaries.

They are "blue" and "purple" not from being deprived of (C) but because they reject (C). This is not a function of lack of choice, it is a product of factors ...

The burgeoning welfare state creating dense packs of "blue" city cancer cells lead to white flight middle class exodus into suburbs and southern states. The "Red" states get diluted and "Blue" states get distilled.

Note that 1983 was the first year that 18-year olds born in LBJ's great society of section 8 housing projects in fatherless households raised by mothers on the public dole began to vote. Too early to impact the 1984 Reagan landslide but present in 1988 and obvious by 1992. The 2000 election was the first time they got a (D) majority since LBJ ( whose election was less about ideology than it was about JFK ).

You and Mark Levin are offering a hypothesis that works in the demographic environment of no later than 1988. And the electoral maps are demonstrating this as we are literally down to 12 non-"red" and non-"blue" states left on the table.

These states are neither clamoring for an evangelical or a Constitutionalist. I'll cut to the chase as difficult as it may be to hear ... getting a Conservative past the electorate requires F-117 stealth capabilities. If the candidate wears abortion or gay-marriage on their shirtsleeve they will lose because not only are such issues Supreme Court firewalled and thus empty campaign promises immune from Presidential action, but it will only interest the minority of voters who are evangelical and depress many more others and quite literally inflame the liberals who would turn out in force. The same goes for Kelo eminent domain, ethanol and other boutique issues.

We are the minority now, not them. Liberals + Moderates + Independents + Know-Nothings simply out number us by 3 or 4 to 1. Ignoring this and partying like it is 1988 is suicide. The population is now +100 million over 1980 and the makeup is completely different because of vanishing WWII and Korea era people, replaced by those Imports and supplemented by immature 18-year olds. The electorate is completely different today than 1980 and it gets worse each and every day that elapses.

Here's the somewhat good news. This demographic situation only is in full force during quadrennial Presidential years when the parties are fully funded and turnout is highest. This is when the media is all hands on deck, and the PACs and think tanks are fully engaged. In off-year elections ( and on some on-year down ballot tickets ) conservatism is still viable. In a district by district basis we have strength from gerrymandering and that "Blue" city "Red" suburb distribution. But eventually even that will run dry as they defeat us through sheer numbers and redistricting catches up ( in theory, given a state, all seats but one might be assigned to cities and the lone conservative represents the outside areas ).

Here's the really bad news. If you want to kill Conservatism deader than a doornail, I mean stone cold dead, then here's the quickest and surest way how ... Nominate a bible thumping firebreathing conservative, when he gets beaten in the 12 swing states as bad or worse than RINOs like McCain or Romney, the (R)epublicrats will then have their scapegoat and hypocritically point at us as the cause and lock us out forever ( even though THEY lost all the other elections ). They will paint him ( Cruz ) as Goldwater and we begin another exile into the desert.

That's what Mark Levin has no clue about. There is no quaint selling of Conservatism to some phantom open minded electorate. And this means that issue NUMBER ONE is doing something immediately about the invasion and naturalization. Without a moratorium, even a hard population cap, this will consume us, well, our kids and grandkids, and their kids, and ...

281 posted on 01/31/2016 1:49:22 PM PST by Democratic-Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Democratic-Republican

That’s a very good analysis. And you’ll be shredded for posting it.

Every year 2.48 million (mostly white, majority R) folks die and are replaced by 2.52 million (majority non-white, heavy majority D) folks. Over decades it’s a crushing demographic tide.

There are actually posters on FR who think Reagan would be elected governor of California again.


282 posted on 01/31/2016 1:54:56 PM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Democratic-Republican
Dang, I left something out from that bullet list ...


283 posted on 01/31/2016 2:08:32 PM PST by Democratic-Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
That's a very good analysis. And you'll be shredded for posting it.

Every year 2.48 million (mostly white, majority R) folks die and are replaced by 2.52 million (majority non-white, heavy majority D) folks. Over decades it's a crushing demographic tide.

There are actually posters on FR who think Reagan would be elected governor of California again.

Thank you.

Shredded? LOL. Let them try. Not by any existing facts.

We have to at least try to save America, and I have no intention of outliving my country. So let's all commit to speak truth to ignorance, it is the very least we can do when considering what others have sacrificed.

284 posted on 01/31/2016 2:12:42 PM PST by Democratic-Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-284 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson