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

To: neverdem

Unless I read it wrong, what this article seems to presume is that libertarians and conservative evangelicals abandoned republicans to vote for democrats. This makes no sense at all. I presume what happened is that libertarians voted libertarian and "conservative evangelicals" stayed home.

While both the actions were, objectively, votes for dims and terrorists, they still indicate a need for more, not less conservatism from the republican party.


8 posted on 12/10/2006 10:11:19 PM PST by prov1813man (While the one you despise and ridicule works to protect you, those you embrace work to destroy you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: prov1813man
PROV1813MAN WROTE: "While both the actions were, objectively, votes for dims and terrorists, they still indicate a need for more, not less conservatism from the republican party."

EXACTLY!!!!!

If REPUBLICAN candidates would run on the REPUBLICAN Platform, they would get REPUBLICAN voters to vote for them instead of staying home!!!

It's such a NO-BRAINER, I do not understand why President Bush and the RNC don't "get it." President Bush has an MBA from Harvard. He has had marketing. He, of ALL people in his administration, should understand it.

21 posted on 12/10/2006 10:24:33 PM PST by Concerned (My Motto: It's NEVER wrong to do what's RIGHT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: prov1813man

Ronald Reagan perfectly brought together social conservatives, fiscal libertarian Republicans, and pro-defense patriots.

Seems the GOP has forgotten how to do that.

Paging Mr. Newt. Are you available to assist us?


148 posted on 12/11/2006 7:49:23 AM PST by RockinRight (Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. He's a Socialist. And unqualified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: prov1813man
Unless I read it wrong, what this article seems to presume is that libertarians and conservative evangelicals abandoned republicans to vote for democrats.

The article states that libertarians, in at least two cases, voted for Libertarian Party candidates by margins large enough to ensure Democratic victory. This assumes that the Republican Party is the natural home of libertarians, and if the candidate in Montana had not got nearly 3% of the state vote, most of those votes would have gone to Burns, the Republican.

It is hard to imagine a committed Libertarian 'punishing' the Republicans by voting Democratic. Less so by voting Libertarian, though the outcome of either is close to the same. (Donkeys in Charge.)

150 posted on 12/11/2006 7:53:32 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: prov1813man
I presume what happened is that libertarians voted libertarian and "conservative evangelicals" stayed home.

I heard this a lot after the election, but looking at the numbers in CA, there's the obvious third option. Turn out in traditionally republican counties was about the same as in 2002, the last midterm election. Turnout in dem strongholds, however was up 5-10%. They simply beat us at the GOTV tactics that was supposed to be Rove's strong suit.

I also think that the GOP needs to concentrate less on absentee ballots, and more on driving up the election day voting: those are the numbers that get reported, and perception is reality. Even if the GOP is up 30% in pre-election absentee votes, those numbers don't get tallied in until way after all the election day drama that depresses turnout.

257 posted on 12/11/2006 9:02:32 PM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

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