• 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.

The Limbaugh Rule

AaronMic22

Critical Thinker
A
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
347
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw_Yazp0Kk4

Rush Limbaugh is promoting the idea that Republicans should always vote for the most conservative candidate and not necessarily the most electable one.

Do you think this is a good idea for the upcoming election? Also, whether you think his idea is foolish for November or not, could it be useful in the future? Someone said that the more right the Republicans go, the more the Democrats have to shift right to maintain the "moderate" stance.
 
It's an exceptionally stupid idea, but of course bound to be popular with his audience. This is a 40-20-40 nation; 40% of the people will vote for the Democrat no matter what, and another 40% of the people will vote for the Republican. The 20% in the middle decides the election, and they will not be attracted to the most liberal or most conservative candidates except on very rare occasions.

I prefer the Buckley rule. Go with the most conservative electable candidate. In Massachusetts that may not be what would be considered conservative in Utah.
 
Brainster said:
It's an exceptionally stupid idea, but of course bound to be popular with his audience. This is a 40-20-40 nation; 40% of the people will vote for the Democrat no matter what, and another 40% of the people will vote for the Republican. The 20% in the middle decides the election, and they will not be attracted to the most liberal or most conservative candidates except on very rare occasions.

I prefer the Buckley rule. Go with the most conservative electable candidate. In Massachusetts that may not be what would be considered conservative in Utah.
Click to expand...

The mistake that hard line ideologues on both sides make is they ignore the 40/20/40 rule,with the idea there is some vast hidden group of voters that agrees with their ideas.
The other mistake that a vote for a candidate is a blind endorsement of a Party's entire agenda. The GOPers who win from the Blue Dog Democrats will find themselves in the same dilemna:How to be loyal party members while putting the breaks on Party Policies that might turn off the voters in their districts.
The GOP will win big in November because of the Economy, stupid. If you look at polls that are not about this specific election, the GOP is only more marginally more popular then the Dems. If the GOP is taking their win as a huge mandate for the GOP in general they are making a big mistake. They have to avoid the hubris they showed after the 1994 win. I think a lot of the older GOP leadership knows this, the problem is can they make the Young Turks relize this.
I think, BTW,we are entering a period where control of the Congress..the House in particular, might swing back and forth much more frequently then we have seen in the past. The GOP 12 year tenure 1994-2006 might be the last long tenure we see for a while.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
It's an exceptionally stupid idea, but of course bound to be popular with his audience. This is a 40-20-40 nation; 40% of the people will vote for the Democrat no matter what, and another 40% of the people will vote for the Republican. The 20% in the middle decides the election, and they will not be attracted to the most liberal or most conservative candidates except on very rare occasions.

I prefer the Buckley rule. Go with the most conservative electable candidate. In Massachusetts that may not be what would be considered conservative in Utah.
Click to expand...

I must agree with my esteemed colleague from across the aisle. This is dead on accurate, and I see both sides making a mistake about wanting to weed out centrists & moderates. Of course, this mentality is particularly virulent on the conservative side with the Frankensteinian monster called the Tea Party. It's obvious now that the purge of moderates from the GOP is in full swing.

When Howard Dean got in control of the DNC, he instituted a policy very similar to the Buckley rule, but for liberals... and it worked well. If the Dems are wise, they will continue the same policy.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Basil Marceaux.com is the most conservative candidate.
Click to expand...
Hmmm....

It could suck for a while, but I can see how the Rushblob's idea might, in the long run, work out well for America...

Nah. They can do too much damage in the time it takes for the people to realize what a pack of jerks they are.
 
Hmmm...

Both parties seem to consider the middle ground decided? So they are each appealing to their own extremes?

Downside is that going towards the extremes will lose the middle.

So, perhaps they will get more funding from the extremes, but shift towards the middle when actual elections near, attempting to gain both ends of their particular spectrum?
 
MattusMaximus said:
I must agree with my esteemed colleague from across the aisle. This is dead on accurate, and I see both sides making a mistake about wanting to weed out centrists & moderates. Of course, this mentality is particularly virulent on the conservative side with the Frankensteinian monster called the Tea Party. It's obvious now that the purge of moderates from the GOP is in full swing.

When Howard Dean got in control of the DNC, he instituted a policy very similar to the Buckley rule, but for liberals... and it worked well. If the Dems are wise, they will continue the same policy.
Click to expand...

THe GOP is in a unusual situation: They are on the verge of a huge victory, but might suffer fatal wounds in doing so.
I don't think moderates are gone from the GOP; they are lying low for a while ,having decided that the Tea Party is going to have to self destruct before they can come back.
Behind closed doors the GOP leadership is concerned; because they now a GOP purged of Moderates is a GOP that might win some elections but in the long term will lose.
What is really ironic is that THe Tea Party claims to worship ROnald Reagan, but Reagan would be considered a RINO in today's atmosphere.
Mark my words, a lot of voters who now back the Tea Party....senior citizens in particular...will desert it when they see what they propose to do to Medicare and Social Security.
One concern I have is the more militant wing of the Democratic party..for lack of a better time I will call it the people who want to bring back the 1960's...will try Tea Party Tactics.IF the Dems begin a moderate purge...and you already seeing some anger on the left toward "BLue Dog Democrats" then this country will face a real crisis with the middle excluded, and the rise of a Stron Third Party is a real possibility.
 
Last edited:
"I think, BTW,we are entering a period where control of the Congress..the House in particular, might swing back and forth much more frequently then we have seen in the past. The GOP 12 year tenure 1994-2006 might be the last long tenure we see for a while."

dudlab has an excellent point!

Party has long stopped being the most important issue in governing. Finally we have realized that our problems have grown to a point where "the people" are angry. But "the people" created this mess and are no where near admitting it to themselves. So we are likely to enter a period of "changing the deck chairs on the Titanic while ignoring the iceberg" while the icebergs get larger and the watercraft gets weaker.

"The people" listen to mindless political rants, advertising, positioning, etc and consider themselves to make good decisions in the voting booth.

Example - We, for some time now, have seen Congress in a negative way but consider our own representative in a positive light. Consider the stupidity.

The most important question now is whether we can get out of the political loop we have entered? I have limited hope on this issue. Will "the people" even be aware that the heros of this election were the idiots of the last.

There is some humor here. Two years ago the Democrats were given a chance to make a difference. Polls show that "the people" are not pleased.
Now it appears the Republicans will be given another chance. Does anyone think that "the people" will be happier two years from now? Elected office is the prize and the burden.
 
AaronMHatch said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw_Yazp0Kk4

Rush Limbaugh is promoting the idea that Republicans should always vote for the most conservative candidate and not necessarily the most electable one.

Do you think this is a good idea for the upcoming election? Also, whether you think his idea is foolish for November or not, could it be useful in the future? Someone said that the more right the Republicans go, the more the Democrats have to shift right to maintain the "moderate" stance.
Click to expand...


If you don't want guys like Bushes, Sr. & Jr., or "next in line senators" like Dole and McCaine, none of the four who are particularly conservative economically, then yes.

The only reason these people get to the top is via their manipulations, which they're skilled at (as are people at the top of either party.) But, since you know they're gonna be just fine with massive spending increases, and, in the case of Bush, Sr., massive tax increases, leading to the predictable recessions, which causes harm to the Republican party by subsequently losing the elections due to the recessions, you should do something about it preemptively.


There's a belief, which I think is accurate, that restraining government from it's apparently inexorable growth (usually slow, but gigantic these last few years, sigh) is very popular as a political position.

In America?!?!? Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
There's a belief, which I think is accurate, that restraining government from it's apparently inexorable growth (usually slow, but gigantic these last few years, sigh) is very popular as a political position.

In America?!?!? Go figure.
Click to expand...
And of course, the problem is that everyone wants to restrain growth of the government except when it affects them.

We should cut spending!

Let's cancel this bogus airplane that the military doesn't want. Hold on there, that will cause plant shutdowns and layoffs in my state, can't have that.

Let's cut back on road project. Can't do that, we need the highway built so we can expand.

Let's cut agricultural subsidies. Can't do that....
Let's cut medicare. Can't do that...
Let's cut whatever. Can't do that..
 
Sadly, if the left doesn't fight well, this strategy will result in overall rightward shift
 
wufwugy said:
Sadly, if the left doesn't fight well, this strategy will result in overall rightward shift
Click to expand...

I agree. It will force the Dems further right, which is not bad in my view.

It will also result in GOP wins as the extremes of the parties will show up for extreme choices at the polls and the middle of America will just stay home.
 
dudalb said:
One concern I have is the more militant wing of the Democratic party..for lack of a better time I will call it the people who want to bring back the 1960's...will try Tea Party Tactics.IF the Dems begin a moderate purge...and you already seeing some anger on the left toward "BLue Dog Democrats" then this country will face a real crisis with the middle excluded, and the rise of a Stron Third Party is a real possibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think if the Dems are smart they won't go down the same road. Given time, the Tea Party types are going to alienate a lot of people - just look at how they've already done so with Hispanics. If the Dems play their cards right, all they need to do is pick up those folks purged out of the GOP/TP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom