Massachusetts Republicans For McClintock!
Posted on 07/31/2006 7:47:24 PM PDT by FairOpinion
With the California Democratic Party drifting leftward, Republicans had an opportunity this year to claim the decisive political middle by fielding a slate of centrist candidates for statewide office, led by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Curiously, however, Schwarzenegger did not lift a finger to help moderate Republicans in their duels with conservatives for party nominations...
The same dynamic that will make it difficult, bordering on the impossible, for Parrish, Strickland, Poochigian and McClintock to win their offices in November is also working against Angelides in his contest with Schwarzenegger. A major party nominee for statewide office can count on party loyalists _ conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats _ for, at most, around 40 percent of the general election vote. Even if a nominee consolidates that base, he or she still must attract at least half of the independent voters to win.
The last time the Republicans fielded a moderate slate for statewide office, in 1994, they won half of them and scared Democratic leaders. That won't happen this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at scrippsnews.com ...
Yep. And Howard Dean & Pelosi is the picture of mederation?
Reagan was Reagan. Bush was Bush. Both won two terms without pandering.
Standard Neanderthal Media b.s. The Democrat are "drifting leftward", so the solution is for Republicans to also "drift leftward".
And in 1994, conservative Republicans would have won, including the senate seat.
What makes you think the author of this article, DAn Walters is a Republican?
As the DNC goes further left, it makes no SENSE for Republicans to move left ("more moderate"). More RINOs in office?
What's the point? The political football just moves the "center" more to the left. That is no WIN.
Oh, I'm sorry. I though you were advocating this article and thought this was truly a "jump-the-shark" post.
"...decisive political middle... "
Hilarious!
I think this is the real message:
"A major party nominee for statewide office can count on party loyalists _ conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats _ for, at most, around 40 percent of the general election vote. Even if a nominee consolidates that base, he or she still must attract at least half of the independent voters to win. "
CALIFORNIA VOTER AND PARTY PROFILES
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/JTF_VoterProfilesJTF.pdf
"The Democratic Party currently has an advantage of 1.4 million voters over the Republican Party (7.1 million to 5.7 million) or 9 percentage points (43% to 34%), according to the Secretary of State.
Among those most likely to vote in this year’s elections, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 7-point margin (44% to 37%), while 15 percent of likely voters are registered as independents.
... the fact that independents are more likely to lean toward Democrats than Republicans (42% to 28%) tends to work to the disadvantage of the GOP in statewide elections."
I merely thought this article was amusing.
Specifically I found amusing how this author is talking about the CA GOP is not going sufficiently to the center, while people here are complaining 24/7 that the GOP has gone too far to the center and beyond.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.
The one thing I do agree with, is that in CA, with only 34% registered Republicans, no Republican can win statewide office without appealing to moderates and independents beyond the base.
whats not moderate?
Has been true for a long time.
There are yellow dog Democrats who cannot vote for anything other than a Democrat, let they upset Granpappy's ghost.
And then there are people who are deathly afraid of casting a ballot for a Republican; who wants major figures in the media to brand you a "nazi"?
That is the public image hurdle that must be challenged. Like revealing the communist and hard core socialist ties of Democrats and "grass roots" organizations.
It isn't a smear because it isn't a lie. Reveal that commies have been lying about their intentions all along and it is easier to convince people that they have been lying about the opposition party and their supporters for decades.
Rathergate was just scratching the surface of the political smears. Much of what people think they know is false.
Divide and conquor. Let the barking moonbats continue to vote for Socialist, Worker's World, Socialist Workers, and the Green Party candidate.
In Florida EVEN WITHOUT THE GREEN votes, it meant the difference between winning and losing Florida for Al Gore in 2000.
They have to appeal to the left fringe element but as they go left, the Democrats who grew out of Mao and Che and Marx realize that this isn't the Democrats of their childhood.
I thought it wass established that it is turnout that determines the outcome. Many "moderates" who vote for Schwartzennegger will vote Republican out of sheer laziness. Ticket-splitting takes dedication.
Why is it always that the conservatives are the ones that have to drift over to the moderates? Why not let the moderates drift a little more to the conservative side?
And maybe it's time we stop triangulating ourselves and actually stick to our views because we believe in them? Let's stop talking democrat here and if they decide that our views are better than the left, we can welcome them and say, "Glad you decided to agree with us."
Compromise may be necessary in certain cases when you're not the majority party because you don't control the agenda, but not because you're backing down from your morals or ethics or philosophy just to get a few fence-sitters.
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.