Jeb Bush?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

But is Jeb’s race over before it begins? He would be running, after all, to lead a party he seems to disdain, a party that has become so fragmented and pulled to the right that it would rather lose the election than be led by someone as moderate as Jeb Bush. Even W. is considered a liberal in today’s fire-breathing G.O.P.

“I do think we’ve lost our way,” Jeb said in an interview on stage with a Fox News reporter, urging Republicans to move out of Crazy Town: “We need to elect candidates that have a vision that is bigger and broader, and candidates that are organized around winning the election, not making a point.” [...]

Jeb thinks Republicans have lost their way. He may soon learn that a lot of conservatives think they have found their way — and it’s not the joyful, loving, government-can-be-a-force-for-good way. It’s the mean, cruel, gut-the-government way.

-- Maureen Dowd at The New York Times

Comments

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.