|
Post by Douglass on Nov 23, 2008 18:13:20 GMT -8
In my view the reason this election was lost was due to the Progressive republicans voting for Barrack. The conservatives stayed true to their base
|
|
|
Post by googoodan on Nov 28, 2008 11:40:45 GMT -8
The problem with your theory is that McCain and most of the other Republicans denied McCain's conservatism. I think one of your answers should be "stupid people" Its amazing how many celebrate Obama's victory, yet if you ask what issues they agree with, they have no idea. However, I can understand what you're saying about the progressives. I don't see myself as a conservative using the current description of a conservative. I see myself as a Pat Buchanan-type, and that type doesn't exist anymore. Obama was smart in comparing McCain to Bush, though the two had hardly any like minded ideas. The entire mainstream media was Obama's campaign team.
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Nov 28, 2008 13:41:56 GMT -8
The problem with your theory is that McCain and most of the other Republicans denied McCain's conservatism. I think one of your answers should be "stupid people" Its amazing how many celebrate Obama's victory, yet if you ask what issues they agree with, they have no idea. However, I can understand what you're saying about the progressives. I don't see myself as a conservative using the current description of a conservative. I see myself as a Pat Buchanan-type, and that type doesn't exist anymore. Obama was smart in comparing McCain to Bush, though the two had hardly any like minded ideas. The entire mainstream media was Obama's campaign team. Pat Buchanan is the perfect example of the conservative type love reading his articles I believe we have 3 major factions if that is the correct word on the right side you have republican, conservative and then the religous right Then to a lesser degree some independant parties. Here is where it gets confusing the conservatives and the religous right go hand in hand on a lot of things. Now it seems there are a new group of progressive republicasn that want nothing to do with conservatism or the religous right and they are pulling the republicans with them and to a major degree the indies that tend to vote republican with them.
|
|
|
Post by googoodan on Nov 28, 2008 16:36:37 GMT -8
I think the Republican Party should split - one group, the paleocons should unite with the Libertarians. The other group, the neocons, are large enough to support themselves. The religious right should split between those two factions, after they choose: If they go with the paleocons, they'll be labeled racists. If they go with the neocons, they will continue to be shown for the nutjobs that many are.
Don't get me wrong. I am spiritual, not religious. Religion really has no place in politics. The middle east is a perfect example why.
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Nov 28, 2008 17:22:34 GMT -8
I think the Republican Party should split - one group, the paleocons should unite with the Libertarians. The other group, the neocons, are large enough to support themselves. The religious right should split between those two factions, after they choose: If they go with the paleocons, they'll be labeled racists. If they go with the neocons, they will continue to be shown for the nutjobs that many are. Don't get me wrong. I am spiritual, not religious. Religion really has no place in politics. The middle east is a perfect example why. The republican party splitting would in my best estimate give the liberals an almost unbeatable odds at the presidency and in some cases the Senate and congress, As much as the left would liek to dominate politcs for another 50 or so years i dont think it would be a good idea for the country
|
|
|
Post by andyr78 on Nov 28, 2008 19:23:04 GMT -8
McCain was definitely not my first choice for the Republican nominee. But after he won, I knew I would rather have him over Obama. I didn't follow the primaries as much as I probably could have. I was fairly surprised when I seen that McCain had won. That being said, McCain was not the conservative that most conservatives were looking for.
I will have to look up a few things. But I think I remember hearing about how people who were not registered as Republicans were being allowed to vote in the republican primary. I don't know that much about that portion of the election. But has it always been that way? Is that how McCain won the nomination?
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Nov 28, 2008 19:57:55 GMT -8
McCain was definitely not my first choice for the Republican nominee. But after he won, I knew I would rather have him over Obama. I didn't follow the primaries as much as I probably could have. I was fairly surprised when I seen that McCain had won. That being said, McCain was not the conservative that most conservatives were looking for. I will have to look up a few things. But I think I remember hearing about how people who were not registered as Republicans were being allowed to vote in the republican primary. I don't know that much about that portion of the election. But has it always been that way? Is that how McCain won the nomination? He wasnt my first choice either but i voted for him in the presidential election. I hgadnt heard about that about non republicans being able to vote in the primaries Unless it was an outside the box thinking group like Acorn who persuaded people to do that then vote a different way come the general election
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Dec 15, 2008 11:15:43 GMT -8
I didn't vote, because I didn't see my choice represented.
Let's face it. We lost because of GWB.
I've defended him passionately for 7 years. Because he had a ton of slop dumped in his lap when 9-11 struck. As POTUS, he was the guy ultimately responsible for "allowing the attacks to happen". By that I mean, it happened on his watch.
From there, I could understand EVERYTHING he did in his approach to Afghanistan, Iraq, privacy incursions, spying, renditions, all of it including waterboarding and "torture"... with one exception. They - he as "the guy" - screwed the exit strategy in Iraq.
But let's face it. The guy was horrible at presenting a confident, well-informed, reassuring presence to the American people. And that just MAGNIFIED every screw up they made (as screw ups are bound to happen). It made it almost impossible for The Administration to get a bulk of the country behind ANYTHING controversial they did (i.e. wiretapping, Guantanamo, etc.). It led to an erosion of confidence in Republican leadership.
Combine that vaccum of leadership with a sudden dive in the economy and the "perfect" foil in Obama, and you have the Perfect Storm.
|
|
|
Post by floyd on Dec 24, 2008 12:39:15 GMT -8
We lost because of the economy. We had no chance.
|
|
|
Post by joseph0501 on Dec 26, 2008 13:40:06 GMT -8
We lost because of the economy. We had no chance. I think Floyd is right. While it wasn't entirely the economies fault, it certainly played a very large role in how things turned out. If it were better economic times, I think McCain would have won handily.
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Dec 26, 2008 19:32:35 GMT -8
Eh .... I'm not so sure. I think the economic meltdown sealed the deal. But I have mucho doubts about McCain winning even in an upbeat economy.
The electorate was simply fed up with the status quo.
|
|
richard
Republican
Bacon!
Posts: 1,412
|
Post by richard on Dec 27, 2008 8:53:32 GMT -8
Eh .... I'm not so sure. I think the economic meltdown sealed the deal. But I have mucho doubts about McCain winning even in an upbeat economy.
The electorate was simply fed up with the status quo. I tend to agree there. Add Obama's ability to mesmerize the masses to the mix, and you can see how this was pretty much a lock from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by floyd on Dec 28, 2008 0:56:01 GMT -8
Eh .... I'm not so sure. I think the economic meltdown sealed the deal. But I have mucho doubts about McCain winning even in an upbeat economy.
The electorate was simply fed up with the status quo. I tend to agree there. Add Obama's ability to mesmerize the masses to the mix, and you can see how this was pretty much a lock from the beginning. It didnt hurt that the MSM was in the tank for the Messiah!
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Dec 28, 2008 7:55:19 GMT -8
I tend to agree there. Add Obama's ability to mesmerize the masses to the mix, and you can see how this was pretty much a lock from the beginning. It didnt hurt that the MSM was in the tank for the Messiah! But of course ...
|
|
|
Post by george1861 on Dec 28, 2008 10:28:29 GMT -8
I will have to look up a few things. But I think I remember hearing about how people who were not registered as Republicans were being allowed to vote in the republican primary. I don't know that much about that portion of the election. But has it always been that way? Is that how McCain won the nomination? Some States have Open Primaries, you can vote for either, Michigan is 1 I think. I also believe the Dems did a secret Operation Chaos before Rush did his.
|
|