• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Tea Party upset in Delaware GOP primary?

Except that Democrats could see victories by default. The further to the right GOP candidates are, the less likely they are to attract swing voters.
Click to expand...
Possibly. The other possibility is that, the further to the right a candidate is, the higher their chances of winning, for two reasons:

1). The Democrats overuse "extremist" so much it lost all meaning; so-and-so is an "extreme candidate" usually means something like "he disagrees with us".

2). The corollary to this is that Democrats have a Mary-Antoinette-like contempt of the American people, considering them, in effect, children who must be educated in the ways of the correct (atheist, socialist, pro-abortion, anti-nativity-scenes, etc.) manner of thinking. I am not knocking atheism or socialism; the problem isn't support of those views, but the deep contempt towards those who happen to hold another view.

In many cases (1) and (2) means that the democrats view as a sure win for them any situation where an "extremist candidate" is chosen by the GOP, but are often surprised, since their definition of "extremist" is actually someone who "strongly as opposed to weakly disagrees with the Democrats", which at this time is likely to be an election asset, not a liability.

Then, they are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that such an "extremist" is so popular (e.g., Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan), and instead of seeing anything wrong with their policies that leads people to support such "extremists", decide it's all a matter of the stupid and bigoted American public which must be "educated" to see the light about how dangerous / stupid / evil the "extremist candidate" is, and run the election campaign based on that strategy.

But self-important finger-waving isn't likely to attract many voters, especially swing voters. It often has the opposite of the intended effect, especially on dissatisfied voters, who are the bulk of swing voters: e.g., "if the bums who are screwing up the country hate this guy so much and keep lecturing us about him..."

In short, the more "right wing extremist" a candidate is (using the democrats' definition of the word above, as opposed to someone who is really an extremist) it seems, right now, that they are more electable.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
2). The corollary to this is that Democrats have a Mary-Antoinette-like contempt of the American people, considering them, in effect, children who must be educated in the ways of the correct (atheist, socialist, pro-abortion, anti-nativity-scenes, etc.) manner of thinking. I am not knocking atheism or socialism; the problem isn't support of those views, but the deep contempt towards those who happen to hold another view.
Click to expand...

Contempt? What Democrat is so contemptuous of the people as to suggest, like that guanophrenic twit Angle that, should the people not vote right, it may be time to take up arms and correct the problems in this country.

That is extreme. It is stupid. It is anti-American.
 
Skeptic said:
Possibly. The other possibility is that, the further to the right a candidate is, the higher their chances of winning, for two reasons:

1). The Democrats overuse "extremist" so much it lost all meaning; so-and-so is an "extreme candidate" usually means something like "he disagrees with us".

2). The corollary to this is that Democrats have a Mary-Antoinette-like contempt of the American people, considering them, in effect, children who must be educated in the ways of the correct (atheist, socialist, pro-abortion, anti-nativity-scenes, etc.) manner of thinking. I am not knocking atheism or socialism; the problem isn't support of those views, but the deep contempt towards those who happen to hold another view.

In many cases (1) and (2) means that the democrats view as a sure win for them any situation where an "extremist candidate" is chosen by the GOP, but are often surprised, since their definition of "extremist" is actually someone who "strongly as opposed to weakly disagrees with the Democrats", which at this time is likely to be an election asset, not a liability.

Then, they are shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that such an "extremist" is so popular (e.g., Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan), and instead of seeing anything wrong with their policies that leads people to support such "extremists", decide it's all a matter of the stupid and bigoted American public which must be "educated" to see the light about how dangerous / stupid / evil the "extremist candidate" is, and run the election campaign based on that strategy.

But self-important finger-waving isn't likely to attract many voters, especially swing voters. It often has the opposite of the intended effect, especially on dissatisfied voters, who are the bulk of swing voters: e.g., "if the bums who are screwing up the country hate this guy so much and keep lecturing us about him..."

In short, the more "right wing extremist" a candidate is (using the democrats' definition of the word above, as opposed to someone who is really an extremist) it seems, right now, that they are more electable.
Click to expand...

And you think the GOP definition of extremist when used to label Democrats is any different?
 
Spindrift said:
And you think the GOP definition of extremist when used to label Democrats is any different?
Click to expand...
Since the way Dems get their favorite position changes accomplished is by judicial fiat, or by having absolute majorities in congress who vote against their constituents' wishes, yes I do. As apparently do more and more voters. And the left-wing loons who council that Republicans need to 'move left' are insane. Well, not insane since that's the only to further their far-left agendas in congress.

McCain for example typifies useless-to-Conservatives RINOs as do too many "Republicans" currently in congress.
 
AlBell said:
And the left-wing loons who council that Republicans need to 'move left' are insane. Well, not insane since that's the only to further their far-left agendas in congress.
Click to expand...
I am sincerely hoping that Republicans move as far to the right as possible. Please vote fro the Tea Party candidates in the primaries. Please!
McCain for example typifies useless-to-Conservatives RINOs as do too many "Republicans" currently in congress.
Click to expand...

Oddly, Republicans voted for him yet again so it appears Republicans either don't share your opinion of McCain as a RINO or they have no problem with him being one.
 
AlBell said:
Since the way Dems get their favorite position changes accomplished is by judicial fiat,
Click to expand...
Like when campaign finance reform was struck down?
Or Bush vs Gore?

Is it only judicial activism when you disagree with the decision?

AlBell said:
or by having absolute majorities in congress who vote against their constituents' wishes, yes I do.
Click to expand...
What absolute majority? The Senate Democrats include Lieberman and Specter who can't exactly be counted on.

AlBell said:
As apparently do more and more voters. And the left-wing loons who council that Republicans need to 'move left' are insane. Well, not insane since that's the only to further their far-left agendas in congress.

McCain for example typifies useless-to-Conservatives RINOs as do too many "Republicans" currently in congress.
Click to expand...

Left wing loons? Is that anyone left of the way far right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom