Political Cartoons

Jeb probably believes Christie is forever screwed by the bridge fiasco and sees room for a moderate on the stage.

Good luck with that. We've done that the last four presidential cycles now, with one popular vote victory.

From:

The bridge thing does seem to be only heating up. Though,
even if Christie is out, yeah, I don't see a moderate tearing
through the GOP primaries, talking about immigrants and
acts of love.

Rick Perry would be so perfect
for the role, and it would be the Democrats' best chance,
minus a Sarah Paliin resurrection! :p

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

Conservatism never fails, it is only failed.

From:

It seems to be succeeding well enough
in the Supreme Court these days.

From:

the-rukh.livejournal.com

And yet you keep losing because you can't appeal to the rest of the country. So keep fucking that ever right-leaning chicken and good luck with that!

One of these days the Republicans may realize that "never right-wing enough" is actually not the answer to every single problem.

Edited Date: 2014-04-09 04:52 pm (UTC)

From:

Which conservative are you thinking of when you say this?

From:

catlin.livejournal.com

Oh dear god, look at the list from the last election! All the idiots who got to talk...

From:

His comment implies the person who won the primaries was too far right.

From:

Never mind that every Republican since Eisenhower has been conservative, or that the last unequivocal(by your fringe standards) conservative nominated by the Republicans only won 12% of the electoral college...

How exactly is it that the Republican primary voters(more conservative by nature) are pragmatic and go for a moderate in their primaries and then ideological to the point of ceding elections when it actually matters? You'd have to be profoundly stupid/lazy to hold such a strategy.

From:

Never mind that every Republican since Eisenhower has been conservative

Nixon and both Bushes would like a word...

or that the last unequivocal(by your fringe standards) conservative nominated by the Republicans only won 12% of the electoral college...

...as would Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole.

How exactly is it that the Republican primary voters(more conservative by nature) are pragmatic and go for a moderate in their primaries and then ideological to the point of ceding elections when it actually matters?

They're not. The problem has been that they're more concerned with conventional wisdom than smart electioneering in the establishment, and that means guys like McCain and Romney get a boatload of support while the remaining conservative candidates swap support and struggle to gain a foothold. Does Romney win the primary if there's simply one conservative option as opposed to 4 or 5? Probably not, he barely got 50% of the primary vote even when everyone else had dropped out.

You'd have to be profoundly stupid/lazy to hold such a strategy.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the Republican establishment.

From:

Nixon and both Bushes would like a word...

How are they not conservative? They ran on reifying the status quo, and delivered that in spades.

...as would Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole.

Bob Dole supported an individual insurance mandate and Reagan ran huge deficits. Both showed they were capable of bipartisanship. Obviously they aren't 'conservative'. 'Conservatives' don't run huge deficits, or interfere with lifestyle choices like being poor, and they certainly don't allow for compromise.

They're not. The problem has been that they're more concerned with conventional wisdom than smart electioneering in the establishment, and that means guys like McCain and Romney get a boatload of support while the remaining conservative candidates swap support and struggle to gain a foothold

Why would Republicans pick someone who won't act in their interests, nevermind that they have no intention of voting for them in the general. As I said that is an incredibly stupid/lazy strategy. You seem to agree that large swaths of your political compatriots are morons who don't know what they're doing... which is strange for a free marketer.
. Does Romney win the primary if there's simply one conservative option as opposed to 4 or 5? Probably not, he barely got 50% of the primary vote even when everyone else had dropped out.
First, Romney faced 2 'conservative' challengers and a lunatic. You're still left needing to explain why ANY Republican would vote for Romney in the primary.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the Republican establishment.

You mean the people that (by your logic) get their choice year in, year out, regardless of the popular opinion of their constituents? I wouldn't go so far as to call them 'smart', but of the idiots, they are the smartest of the bunch. Wait, did you mean all of those oafish conservative voters who can be counted on to prefer the establishment candidate over and over again, but not counted on to vote in the general?

Edited Date: 2014-04-09 10:44 pm (UTC)

From:

How are they not conservative? They ran on reifying the status quo, and delivered that in spades.

It's an ideological right wing point of view that they lacked. They were right of center, but not by much.

Bob Dole supported an individual insurance mandate and Reagan ran huge deficits. Both showed they were capable of bipartisanship. Obviously they aren't 'conservative'.

I don't think you understand what conservatism is.

Why would Republicans pick someone who won't act in their interests, nevermind that they have no intention of voting for them in the general.

Because, fortunately or unfortunately, everyone gets a say in the matter.

You seem to agree that large swaths of your political compatriots are morons who don't know what they're doing... which is strange for a free marketer.

Okay?

First, Romney faced 2 'conservative' challengers and a lunatic. You're still left needing to explain why ANY Republican would vote for Romney in the primary.

Because too many Republicans believe that they need to race to the center to win.

Wait, did you mean all of those oafish conservative voters who can be counted on to prefer the establishment candidate over and over again, but not counted on to vote in the general?

You don't understand the ideology or the electorate.

From:

It's an ideological right wing point of view that they lacked. They were right of center, but not by much.

And that's different from ideological inconsistencies that Reagan and Dole exhibited how?

I don't think you understand what conservatism is.

You've yet to exhibit an understanding yourself. Go ahead, give an internally consistent definition of 'conservatism' that exists in the real world. At the very least, you could explain how the ideological inconsistencies of one pair Republicans are different than the ideological inconsistencies of another, rather than resorting to ad hominems.
Because, fortunately or unfortunately, everyone gets a say in the matter.

Which should mean that conservatives, who make up the majority of the Republican party, are speaking and failing at making an argument for their case. No wonder you identify as one!

Because too many Republicans believe that they need to race to the center to win.

So they don't understand what is in their best interest despite being educated on the results of their choices for decades...
Otherwise, they would choose the conservative. They are apparent idiots.
You don't understand the ideology or the electorate.

Says the dude who has yet to ever convince anyone that his ideology has any value whatsoever.
I understand conservatism quite a bit more than you do apparently. Ad hominems don't help your case either.

From:

And that's different from ideological inconsistencies that Reagan and Dole exhibited how?

It's about a complete look at the ideological positions.

Which should mean that conservatives, who make up the majority of the Republican party, are speaking and failing at making an argument for their case.

Or, conversely, if there are 60 conservatives, 40 moderates, and 5 candidates with 1 moderate, the moderate will probably win.

So they don't understand what is in their best interest despite being educated on the results of their choices for decades...

Correct. This has been a persistent problem.

I understand conservatism quite a bit more than you do apparently. Ad hominems don't help your case either.

There's no helping the case when you've got a point of view on conservatism that doesn't even begin to come close to what conservatives believe. I don't even know where to start.

From:

When it comes to arguing over what is a conservative, aren't you really a little compromised yourself, in that you are more driven by libertarian ideals than, say, the classic conservativism of an Edmund Burke? Have you not said that you are all for increasing 'freedom' at the expense of precedents of law? Today, I suppose you are a party with those we commonly call conservative today - such as Limbaugh and Fox News people - but this is really a turn away from what we have always known conservatism to be. Aren't you really more of a radical libertarian?

From:

Sure. I'm not talking about "I am the model of a conservative," however, but rather "there are certain things that make people conservatives ideologically."

This is opposed to the point of view from someone who still thinks the word "conserve" is relevant to conservatism in 2014.

From:

Sure. I'm not talking about "I am the model of a conservative," however, but rather "there are certain things that make people conservatives ideologically."

No. You aren't talking about anything. You've yet to identify any one particular certain thing.

This is opposed to the point of view from someone who still thinks the word "conserve" is relevant to conservatism in 2014.

Learning basic reading comprehension and logic would help your case. Pro-tip: Me saying that the fundamental basis for conservatism is primarily aimed at the maintenance of established social orders (commonly known as the 'status quo') is not at all equivalent to saying that conservatism is premised on the 'conserving' of things.
Failing like it is your job.

From:

It's about a complete look at the ideological positions.

Orly?
That doesn't answer much of anything.
Or, conversely, if there are 60 conservatives, 40 moderates, and 5 candidates with 1 moderate, the moderate will probably win.

Yeah no. Not by your logic. If the primary reason were a lack of authenticity, the most authentic conservative would win. Assuming your voting bloc are capable of rational thought.

Correct. This has been a persistent problem.

A persistent problem that you have no answer for... which explains why you say what you say next.

There's no helping the case when you've got a point of view on conservatism that doesn't even begin to come close to what conservatives believe. I don't even know where to start.

Right. You apparently don't know where to start because you have no clear ideological basis for defining what is and is not conservatism. Hence why you won't answer a simple question like what 'conservatism' is.

From:

Yeah no. Not by your logic. If the primary reason were a lack of authenticity, the most authentic conservative would win. Assuming your voting bloc are capable of rational thought.

I agree, assuming there is agreement about who is "authentic." When arguments can be made for different people, and the more moderate bloc stays with the one moderate, what happens? This is basic.

A persistent problem that you have no answer for

The answer has to do with how to deal with the establishment Republicans. It's not really an issue of ideology as much as an issue with the people in power having no clue.

From:

I agree, assuming there is agreement about who is "authentic." When arguments can be made for different people, and the more moderate bloc stays with the one moderate, what happens? This is basic.

It is pretty basic. You often harp that the largest bloc of political affiliation in the US identifies as conservative,
If bloc a. has no clear ideological consistency, it isn't at all clear why you would call it a bloc, and b. if it does have ideological consistency, it apparently is incapable of garnering anything more than some plurality of the plurality. In EITHER case, it clearly can't come close to winning you a national election.
When you actually break down the numbers of nation wide, 47% of the population consistently leans Democratic(Romney was right in that those people will likely never vote for him, just for the completely wrong reasons), and 41% consistently lean Republican, 10% are variables that are negatively to ideology in general and particularly strong social positions.
http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608 (http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608)
And kudos for not even attempting to come up with some kind of definition of 'conservatism', despite being prompted!

The answer has to do with how to deal with the establishment Republicans. It's not really an issue of ideology as much as an issue with the people in power having no clue.

Lolz, jeff you are so preciously naive that this statement is just too much, I'm done here, but please do keep up this 'principled' bullshit.

Edited Date: 2014-04-10 08:27 pm (UTC)

From:

If bloc a. has no clear ideological consistency

...which is your assertion that you're claiming with no information or apparent knowledge...

if it does have ideological consistency, it apparently is incapable of garnering anything more than some plurality of the plurality.

...which is true to a point where you're assuming people always vote intelligently, that campaign strategy and tactics are nonexistent, and that there are no other considerations.

Seriously?

When you actually break down the numbers of nation wide, 47% of the population consistently leans Democratic(Romney was right in that those people will likely never vote for him, just for the completely wrong reasons), and 41% consistently lean Republican, 10% are variables that are negatively to ideology in general and particularly strong social positions.

As a national point (which is of varying use given the lack of national elections), this is true and also a problem the Republicans are equipped to solve if they pursue it. That we can have 47% of the electorate voting one way when nearly that many consider themselves conservative is certainly evidence of a Republican problem. Sort of like the Republican problem of get out the vote efforts and nominating electable conservatives.

From:

oslo.livejournal.com

Does Romney win the primary if there's simply one conservative option as opposed to 4 or 5? Probably not, he barely got 50% of the primary vote even when everyone else had dropped out.

So if - as seems likely - the deregulation of campaign finance means that wealthy donors will be able to finance more candidates, for longer campaigns, this is going to be a continuing problem for the Republican party, no?

I mean - in other contexts you celebrate the seedy Adelson/Gingrich connection as having given Americans more choices. But here you seem to be worried that more choices is incompatible with "smart electioneering." You somehow seem to think it's possible to have it both ways: get the conservative candidates that the establishment doesn't favor, but with the oversight and discipline that only the establishment can provide.

Seems to be a conundrum!

From:

I know Jeff hand-waves the DN-Nominate scores from previous experiences, but I thought you'd find this interesting. I wrote Dr. Keith Poole (Department of Political Science, The University of Georgia one of the professors who developed this statistical tool and Vote View) about Eisenhower and the other Republican presidents since 1950. And he showed me this.
(http://voteview.com/blog/?p=1073)
Ike was one of the more moderate Republicans, and Bush II was one of the most conservative. " Obama has moved very slightly leftward (-0.363) and is now just to the left of LBJ (-0.346) and right of Truman (-0.368), though this trio is virtually ideologically indistinguishable. President Eisenhower is the most moderate president (0.302) of the post-war era.

From:

That is neat! Though, I have a hard time
imagining Carter to be the most liberal of all,
if I have a good enough handle on that chart.

From:

Yeah, it's an extremely cool statistical analysis tool.

And I think Jimmy Carter is the most conservative Democrat on that chart, which blows the conventional wisdom out the front door. LBJ and Obama are the most "liberal" compared to the other presidents there (and with members of their own party) Remember too: Carter got into a lot of hot water with the FDR coalition Liberals in the Democratic party, that's why Ted Kennedy nearly won the nomination in 1980, (he ran such a shitty campaign, and Carter's team's Hamilton Jordan was one hell of a campaign strategist).

From:

It's a key problem with DW-Nominate - it compares against elected officials, not ideology of the electorate. If we assume that those who are elected reflect the ideology of those who elect them, it has some value, but we all know that isn't true.

From:

Well, there has to be some value in comparing, say, presidents against each other. I'm not even going to try to look at the study, but I imagine it must be tricky to compare a president from the 1960s and the 2000s. As for getting at the ideology of the electorate, I'm not sure how we would do that except to survey most likely voters with a battery of questions on the conservative-liberal scale.

From:

There is to a point, sure. But it's also worth putting them against the actual electorate. It's why the whole "Reagan wouldn't be conservative enough for the Tea Party/JFK would be a Republican" mentality isn't sensible. It's why saying "I wish the Republicans were more like Eisenhower" is tone deaf.

As for getting at the ideology of the electorate, I'm not sure how we would do that except to survey most likely voters with a battery of questions on the conservative-liberal scale.

It's been done (http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/pe52/EnnsKoch_SPPQ.pdf). It's not surprising that the Republicans have moved rightward (even if the people they're electing generally have not until very recently), it's more surprising that the Democrats have still got the institutional advantage they do.

From:

It's extremely valuable since its relational to Congress and the Presidents . And it's based on a specific data set: roll call votes in Congress. The center is based on the center of Congress at any snapshot in time. Nate Silver used it in his analysis Romney's picking Ryan in 2012. Silver said Ryan was a pretty bad choice for a general election and noted what Voteview's data which showed "Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900."

Edited Date: 2014-04-12 12:55 am (UTC)

From:

Ah, i can see the value in using Congress as a whole as an anchoring to determine the center of the liberal-conservative divide when it comes to those who were in Congress. Though, I wonder how they do it for presidents who were never in congress, such as when comparing Carter with Obama.

From: