Posted on 05/17/2008 8:49:18 PM PDT by txhurl
If you are right, there’s a keg (or your beverage of choice) waiting for you.
What is your reasoning behind this?
Not all of them, but some of them probably will due to inertia if nothing else. So, assuming the number who doesn't switch back is anything greater than zero, was it worth it?
I occasionally hear people say "Well, I'm registered X but I vote Y" That sort of inertia may keep at least a few from changing back and I don't think that is a good thing.
I've also wondered if people who didn't vote for a Republican in the primaries will feel as emotionally invested in the process come November and if that might suppress voting somewhat. Every little bit counts, you know?
Especially at the local level.
Also, Obama is still going to be the nominee. I was watching TV Friday night & an interview on the BBC came on with Mayor Bloomberg. He said that, contrary to what many people think, he thinks that this longer process will help Obama by putting all the bad out early. He said that it could hurt McCain for the same reason - essentially that he's been largely given a pass and that if his negatives come out closer to election time, it could hurt him more.
If he is right, was it worth it to fiddle with the system?
Yes, nobody is going to WIN this election, but someone will have to LOSE it.
Whoever loses in this general election will be truly "The Biggest Loser" because it's difficult to imagine how it is possible under normal circumstances for one to lose to either McCain or Obama.
I believe that the fall election will show that the number of votes Obama got in the primary election this year will be almost the same number of votes he will get in the fall.
I have a hard time thinking anything different, myself.Read between the lines of Obama's speech about his grandmother, and you have to wonder if his own grandmother will think twice about voting for him to be president.
My tagline, "Thomas Sowell for President," is actually a plea for a black conservative VP nominee - first to provide an object lesson that a black can be a patriot, and secondly to help unify the country after the anti-Obama landslide which could be in the offing. Granted that the Republicans don't have anyone like that who has a resume which would qualify him for the top of the ticket - but if he's better than Obama, what's the difference?
Affirmative Action is entirely acceptable for the position of VP; Affirmative Action based on state is already in the Constitution, so do an Affirmative Action nomination based on race instead of only based on state of residence -the simply dismiss all criticism with a reference to the 12th Amendment and a wave of the hand.
Nobody is owed the VP nomination.
This is a no-win election, like a Super Bowl with teams you hate. The best outcome is a zero-zero tie in which someone else becomes president.
If only NY's Conservative Party would grow a pair and nominate a Republican not named McCain. I wonder if they might actually win! Not likely, but they did very nearly beat the Republicans for the second line on the ballot by coming close to outpolling the Republicans' utterly hopeless choice for governor about a decade ago. In NY it's not as if my vote for POTUS would ever mean anything; even if it was the deciding vote in a close election, if he ran so strongly as to have a chance here, the Republican would surely not need NY's electoral votes.
OH YES.. Well let me explain it to those who don’t understand the political science of planning ahead with a goal of winning.
Starting in 1952 and with one exception the presidency has changed parties every 8 years. The nation is on a 16 year cycle. Only an inept Jimmy Carter and a very good candidate named Reagan could cause the presidency to change parties after 4 years. But it got back on track in 1992 with Clinton and then stayed on its 16 year cycle with Bush in 2000.
The question McCain had to ask himself was how could he prevent that cycle from occuring in 2008?
It is obvious to most who actually study poltical science that 2008 was destined to be a Democrat year. It would take situation equivelent to a Carter/Reagan situation to change that cycle. 2008 is the peak of the 16 year liberal cycle.
But what happens in 2008 if the Democrats run a far out liberal and the Republicans run a RINO. In that case the RINO has a fair chance of winning. A true conservative would have a zero chance of wining. McCain would be 72 in 2008. If he wanted to be president he had to do it in 2008 and to win he had to become a RINO.
It was obvious to all but the non thinking observers that McCain took a sharp turn to the left in 2001. Why? He had to know that 2008 would be a lefist year ... the year of the Democrat. So McCain worked hard to change his image from a conservative to full blown RINO. McCain, a man who for many years had a high conservative rating, suddenly turned RINO. I am amazed at those who wonder why he did that. Can you imagine Liberal Democrats screaming at Clinton in 1992, “Why are you running as a NEW DEMOCRAT ... you rotten dirty traitor to the liberal cause. I will neve vote for you. Sob sob” Of course not. They knew he was just doing what it took to win.
Democrats were not fooled or even surprised when a Liberal Clinton became a “NEW DEMOCRAT” in order to win. But then Democrats are realists who want to win, while conservatives are cry babies who love to pout.
All that McCain needed to win the Republican nomination as a RINO was for the conservatives to split into groups. That was quite likely too. The Religous Right was sure to have a primary candidate in 2008. The enconomic conservatives would have another and the foreign policy conservatives might even enter a third. In 2001 there was no one on the horizon who could win even half the conservative vote in the 2008 primaries. The odds of Conservatives uniting behind one candidate in 2008 were slim and none. So if conservatives split and McCain was a certified RINO, he could win the Republican nomination. Danged if he didn’t do just that.
McCain was bright enough to know he could not have won the nomintation as just one more conservative in a long line of conservatives. Wheeeee!!!! That was a hard decision for McCain to make.. don’t you think?
McCain also had to be pretty sure in 2001 that Hillary, the leftist liberal, would run and likely even get the Democratic nomination in 2008. McCain has to reason a RINO against a leftist woman... means the RINO has a good chance at success.
McCain could not have foreseen Obama way back in in 2001.. Obama was a gift from the Gods. The media made Obama the Democratic nominee. That left thee recently minted RINO sitting tall.
McCain can in no way go after the conservative votes. It would be stupid. And McCain is not stupid. Every vote he takes away from the Obama is worth 2 conservative votes.
Let me do the math. Say Obama has 50 percent of the votes and McCain has 50 percent.. It is a tied election. But McCain loses a percent of conservative voters.. that makes it 50 percent for Obama and 49 percent for McCain. But now McCain takes one white working class percentage from Obama and now Obama has 49 percent and McCain is the winner with 50. Now McCain loses another conservative percentage.. That gives 49 and Obama 49.. But then McCain takes another white working class percent from Obama and the new totals are 50 percent McCain and 48 percent Obama.
So McCain has lost two percentage points of conservatives and gained two percentage points of DINOS and had turned a tie into a 50 to 48 win. Say it happens again McCain loses a conservative percentage and gains a white working class percentage while Obama loses that percent. Now it is 50 McCain to 47 Obama.
Perhaps that makes the McCain strategy is a bit clearer to you.
What McCain has to do is get the votes of the white working class Democrats and a decent majority of the independents and he has a landslide. To do that he has to continue to look like A RINO...
Do you really believe a person who is known as a conservative could win this year? Right!
I remember you telling me I did not understand that Conservative Ken Blackwell was going to defeat Ted Strikland. I told you what was going to happen to DeWine and Blackwell and you replied that I did not understand the situation.
McCain is what I admire most in a politican and you hate. He looks ahead and does what it takes to win. I don’t admire you as much because you look ahead and go with your emotions. It is not a way to make intelligent decisions. if Conservatives were as poltically astute as Democrats they would unite behind McCain and take back the house and senate. But then that is way too much to expect from conservatives.
McCain is just playing by the Democrat rules. Ask Bill Clinton who ran as he NEW DEMOCRAT as opposed to an OLD LIBERAL DEMOCRAT how that works.
IT IS CALLED DOING WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN RATHER THAN WHAT IT TAKES TO LOSE.
CT, John McLoser isn’t that smart to plan 7 years ahead.
If you are right, then McLoser is no better than a political chameleon whose only goal is to win. Funny how that fellow Reagan didn’t stoop that low and still won the Presidency.
In reality he is a leftist opportunist trading on his POW years, his family’s militray service and his old conservative credentials to coast to victory not on the votes of conservatives, but on the votes of non Republicans.
His vision of America is a muted free speech, amnesty filled, globaloney cap and trade strangled, and no drill/no mine energy policy, which like his two Marxist rivals, will cripple this country.
He is a disloyal Republican and the worst Republican we can run in this race, considering that the fate of America is in the balance. He is a narcissitic hothead who already is above his paygrade.
He is a George Soros lapdog. You give him far too much credit for strategic thinking.
What is truly worrisome is that all three potential candidates—McLame, Obamanation, and Her Heinous-—will cause potential harm to our country, and they are pulling the wool over people’s eyes to their true intentions.
People, even here, are desperately trying to project their own hopes and aspirations unto these three losers in a bid to justify voting for any of them.
McCain's vision of America includes a permanent ruling class -- composed of incumbents, the media and the Washington elite.
Never has a presidential candidate been so much a creature of Washington.
Otherwise, why would his signature legislation be a.) an attempt to stifle free political speech, protecting incumbents and empowering the media and b.) "comprehensive" immigration reform, designed to dilute the power of citizenship and the vote?
Good points all, okie01.
Winning with an agenda to accomplish the right thing is the goal.
McCain is what I despise in a pol. And I take it you are proud of Blackwell's defeat. I find that perverse.
Anyway, Juan can try to win OH without my money or my vote. And judging from what I've seen at two McCain fundraisers, there is no support for him, even among the "centrists." So we'll see if the DINOs in OH are more disgusted with Obama than the conservatives are with McCain. Judging from the polls in NM and IA (two states McCain, in your theory, should win easily), he's in heap big trouble.
It's an amazingly clear and profound strategy and if conservatives want to assure Obama's loss, they owe it to themselves not to vote for McCain, thus assuring him of electoral landslide. That's the reason McCain is going out of his way to tick off any remaining conservatives that are still thinking of voting for him - he wants to make sure his margin of victory over Obama is massive and that conservatives have no part in it.
We all know that "common sense conservative" John McCain "has differences with" us - we know because he proved it with his votes and his "maverick" ways in the Senate and he keeps saying it - apparently that's been his "strategery" for the last seven years. He is not asking for our vote because he knows that he'll double it with "white working class" vote, all we have to do is oblige him and he'll be sitting pretty with humongous electoral victory. Makes sense to me.
As for Bloomberg, he's Democrat despite what his tag is. What do you expect him top say about the train wreck that is the Dem primary? Getting all the dirt out early doesn't mean it has gone away. And a bloody campaign such as then libs have and are having does NOT in any way help the Party. Bloombergs statement is a classical case of someone whistling past the grave yard.
But even the Duke of Wellington said there's a time to "redeploy" behind a hill and wait out the shelling.
Historically (and I am a historian), we've seen people like McCain temporarily damage the party before. TR, for example, killed Taft's chances in 1912 and gave us Woodrow Wilson. But it can be argued that only because Wilson went overboard with taxes and Progressivism did we finally get rid of Progressivism with Harding and Coolidge, at least, temporarily.
How invested do you think those new Democrats (who didn't vote in the Republican primaries by definition) are in McCain right now? In a year where not a whole lot of Republicans are excited about the current choices, was it really a good idea to give people any reason to vote otherwise?
As for Bloomberg, he's Democrat despite what his tag is.
Oh my goodness! Someone should have told McCain then, as McCain seemed to find a whole lot to like about Bloomberg just a few months ago:
A Maverick Ticket? McCain Cozies to Bloomberg
http://www2.nysun.com/national/maverick-ticket-mccain-cozies-to-bloomberg/67964/
FTA: "In New York City today," Mr. McCain said, "there are some remarkable things happening under Mayor Bloomberg and Joel Klein, who have done marvelous work with an educational system that was clearly broken."
The Arizona senator praised Mr. Bloomberg and his education chancellor, Mr. Klein, for promoting principles that should be replicated across America: "We need more choice and competition," he said.
So, which is it? McCain is a Democrat-loving guy, or Bloomberg might know what he's talking about?
Or, ummm, both?
I think the key word here is “temporarily”, and that’s why you repeated it.
Power keeps being exchanged and every time “they” get it they enshrine in “permanent” laws and regulations and “national monuments” their ideas, while we often get “leaders” who are in it only for the sake of personal power (Nixon, Bush, McCain) and are only too content to follow a “moderate”, “liberal-lite” non-ideas model.
Liberals usually get thrown out after they show their true intentions and regular [middle class] people realize what they got and see the results of it... On the other hand, Republicans get thrown out when they lose their [conservative] ways of small[er] government and go along with the liberals’ ideas - the latest such case was in 2006.
Bottom line, we keep losing (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot) in these exchanges of power, because instead of building on overwhelming successes of conservative ideas and elections run on them (Reagan, Gingrich) and emphasizing utter failure of big government liberalism, the Republican “leaders” (and many in rank and file) get seduced by and start feeling too comfortable with power and money. “Power corrupts...” and given the choice of liberal Republican and liberal Democrat more often than not people will vote for the “real thing”. Unfortunately, quite often given the choice between conservative Republican and “conservative” Democrat people chose a “good old boy” Democrat and nobody even thinks to add up the numbers and ask who this Democrat is going to vote for House Speaker or Senate Majority Leader.
Frustrating...
BTW, was not Henry Wallace, FDR’s VP who was succeeded by Truman in 1945, a member of Progressive Party and a friend and appeaser of Stalin?
Conservatives get riled when I say this, but the fact is, we have NEVER seen government get smaller. No president, including "small government" guys like Jefferson, Coolidge, Cleveland, or Reagan actually "shrunk" government. Quite the contrary, Jefferson proposed (and congress rejected) a roads program that was EQUAL to the ENTIRE FEDERAL BUDGET! Government jobs, per capita, rose under Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, and Ronald Reagan.
Blame this on the reality of the two party system that demands candidates promise jobs (i.e., government "help") to get elected. Once this was in place in 1824, the government only briefly---twice, both times during recessions---failed to grow under every single administration.
That's why I think the only hope is to keep the economy free enough that per capita the government shrinks relative to our growth. The absolute worst enemy of freedom is a slow economy, because there is not one thing we will do about stopping government from expanding.
I never said anywhere at any time that McCain was my 1st or even 2nd choice, he is not. But he IS the candidate and with all his faults he is light years better then either of the liberals.
That is not what I said. Please do not misrepresent what I said.
I will expand upon it again: In a year when the presumptive nominee isn't wallowing in cash every month like the presumptive Democrat candidate; and when there are so many Republicans who are unhappy with McCain; and when there are so many other elections besides the presidential race in November, why ask people to leave, even temporarily?
If you lose a couple here and there, but you didn't affect the outcome of the Democratic race except to perhaps strengthen it, as Bloomberg believes, have you accomplished anything at all? In a year when things are so tight and so many races apart from the Presidency are going to be decided, how many can you stand to lose?
After not voting in the GOP primaries, they may feel that they have less invested. What if some decide to sit this one out?
How many will re-register as independents or "other"? It isn't just a Republican or Democrat choice. There are plenty of in-betweens to pick from. "Nothing at all" is also an option.
One thing that probably will be accomplished is that the Democrats will tighten up their primary system, making them less apt to be affected by things like this in the future. Is that a good thing?
Another is that AFAIK, if you aren't on the GOP rolls, they don't send you fund raising materials. Does the GOP having so much money that they don't need any anymore?
See: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/18/cash_strapped_gop_devoting_funds_for_mccain/
The RNC, which, on average, raised $108 million more than the Democratic National Committee in the four previous election cycles, is unlikely to achieve that dominance this year, but it hopes to build on its current advantage over the DNC.
Or, there's this:
See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10138.html
And in a closed-door session at the Capitol, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told members that the NRCC doesn't have enough cash to “save them” in November if they don't raise enough money or run strong campaigns themselves.
There is much more to being a party member than voting in November. Fund raising, working for campaigns locally, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc. How much of that do you want to disconnect people from, even temporarily?
There is more than one race in November; there are hundreds or thousands across the country. How many will be affected by fund raising or people deciding to simply not go to the polls, or who decide to re-register as something else, for it to have been a bad idea?
Karen, you're purdy stupid.
Chaos'08 = Warm-up.
Chaos'12 = Destruction
Close the Primaries.
It could be printed onto a small sticker.
If we're going to wreak havoc, we need to keep it up through the general.
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.