Posted on 11/10/2008 12:33:31 PM PST by BlueStateBlues
If Barr's votes had gone to Palin and her running mate they would have won North Carolina and Indiana. North Carolina: Obama 49.9%, Palin 49.5%, Barr 0.6$ Indiana Obama 49.9%, Palin 49%, Barr 1.1% This would have been more important in a closer election, but it caught my interest when I looked the figures up.
I hope so. I'll be pushing.
Barr took a lot more than Nader, but the Catholics crossing over to vote for pro-death Obama eclipse them both.
Any version of Republicanism extant today is clearly superior to Marxism. That is my point in a nutshell.
You simply keep repeating that the GOP is not a party of limited government.
Again, what evidence do you have that people WANTED to vote for limited government in this election?
If, as you posit, voters actually want limited government, there is no logic to them voting not only for unlimited government in Obama, but for a clear redistributionist.
It's nutty to think people who voted for free cotton candy actually would have wanted to vote for broccoli, even though it's much healthier for them.
As I said, the problem here is not the candidate or the message. The Republican message was clearly superior to Obama's message. If that didn't attract people, then we have a lot of work to do in educating our fellow citizens.
But continuing to focus on the party and the candidate as if that will magically make people not vote for "free cotton candy" when it's offered is absurd.
Until the masses accept that there is no such thing as "free" cotton candy---that everything they receive from the government comes at the price of liberty---AND they dedicate themselves to preserving liberty, rather than being willing to trade it for bread and circuses----there is NOTHING ANY candidate or party can do to make limited government attractive to them.
You're just repeating your wishful thinking that "if only the GOP offered true limited government," voters would flock to it.
NOT HARDLY.
Until we grow the mindset changes I set out above, "free" candy will now continue to win every time.
WARNING, WARNING, LOGIC ALERT.
BTTT.
At least the Republicans actually have a chance to win an election. That’s the difference. Like it or not, we are a two party nation. Third parties like the Losertarians do nothing except dilute the conservative opposition to the Democrats. They act like spoiled children whenever a political party is not 100% pure in their eyes.
Had the GOP run a real conservative, he would have lost just as badly if not worse than McCain.
Because it wasn't about McCain. It was about Obama and the gimme segment being out in force.
When a majority of voters vote for a known redistributionist and radical, there's no way it matters what stripe of Republican he was running against.
Well, yeah... excepting private property Rights, Second Amendment Rights, taxation, freedom of religion, smaller more limited government...
Wrong.
The Republican-held congress struggled to get a “welfare to work” bill passed. It was considerd a “huge” step in the right direction even though it did essentially nothing or lasting.
You’re military. So, you understand when one guy in a platoon screws up, the whole platoon is punished. Well, almost 60 million Americans voted for Obama. We get the government we deserve.
One McCain-Feingold does more damage to the GOP than a dozen Bob Barr's ever could.
I won’t waste another vote on the piece of garbage if he’s stupid ebough to inflict another run on us.
Maybe. There’d need to be a detailed analysis and comparison to 2004 looking at all sorts of demographics to see how decisive it actually was.
I don’t have the words to describe how strongly and absolutely I agree with you. Yes, we need to recruit and nominate prinicpled conservatives, but the reason is PRECISELY because they have a better chance of winning than RINOs. Losertarians are losertarians precisely because they don’t care about winning elections, only about not voting for someone with whom they don’t agree 100% or thereabouts. They then go around being perpetually miserable and insufferable regarding the national political situation. They remind me of Philadelphia Flyers fans. Not good.
I’ll agree with you that McCain lost a step on the economy because of the myth that Rats are “better on the economy” and because the crisis happened on Bush’s watch.
That said, that goes nowhere near far enough to explain the outcome of this election. Many people DID process Obama’s redistributionist message and ran to it. It clearly boosted turnout. Think about that: Americans running to vote for socialism. Yes, it happened and there’s not a damn thing any Republican, with any kind of even sort of Republican message, could have done about it.
Besides “spreading the wealth,” there were plenty of reasons to be concerned about Obama as President. But people either wanted “mo money” from the government (explicitly wanted the enlargement of the welfare state) or they were scared by the economy and explicitly wanted the government to take care of them.
IOW, this was more than simply thinking the economy was Bush/McCain’s failure of management.
On some level, people did process the idea that they wanted government control of the economy, either because they believe in socialist ideas or because they were scared and threw caution to the wind in exchange, in their minds, for saving their own behinds.
People knew, or had every opportunity to know, that Obama was a Marxist (shorthand for all his views). Nevertheless, they chose to vote for that.
How could any message of limited government, by any candidate, possibly have dissuaded them from their desire to have the government “do more” in these times?
Bob Barr didn’t matter. Jeremiah Wright did. As in McCain’s refusal to bring Wright up in each debate as Exhibit A in Obama’s defective character.
If only Democrats had all stayed home, we would have won!
Thanks a lot to you and your brother for helping elect Obama.
Using one’s vote as a protest is about as dumb as it gets.
Also even if your state’s EC vote was going for Obama, wasting your vote helped increase Obama’s margin in the national popular vote.
The “Republican Party”?
Who is the Republican Party?
Did they hold a gun to your head and force you to not vote to defeat Obama?
Times were worse in 1979 and Reagan did it. He not only espoused Conservatism, be believed in it. That's how you do it.
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.