Santorum: Reagan Would Be "Appalled" By To-Day's GOP
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:59:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Santorum: Reagan Would Be "Appalled" By To-Day's GOP
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Santorum: Reagan Would Be "Appalled" By To-Day's GOP  (Read 2476 times)
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2014, 04:27:25 PM »

Calvin Coolidge wouldn't even support today's conservatives. He was against free trade and believed the rich should bear all of the tax burden.

And we all know Barry Goldwater hated the GOP by the time he was put in the grave, much less what he'd think now.

Protectionism was the pro-business, neoliberal position on trade in Coolidge's age, so let's not act like this was some position comparable to modern Democrats.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2014, 04:29:28 PM »

Calvin Coolidge wouldn't even support today's conservatives. He was against free trade and believed the rich should bear all of the tax burden.

And we all know Barry Goldwater hated the GOP by the time he was put in the grave, much less what he'd think now.

Protectionism was the pro-business, neoliberal position on trade in Coolidge's age, so let's not act like this was some position comparable to modern Democrats.

Well that probably has to do with the fact that American business interest is now defined by the FIRE sector rather than manufacturers.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2014, 04:36:58 PM »

Right-wing populism solidifies the Democratic vote north of the Potomac and Ohio, north and east of the Missouri, and west of the Yakima-Reno-Las Vegas line.
Logged
GaussLaw
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,279
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2014, 04:41:29 PM »

Sometimes it feels like this forum is writing an obituary for the GOP, which is ironic considering that the party is poised to do quite well in the elections this year.  Even Upshot gives them a 56 percent chance of retaking the Senate, and that outfit leans a bit Dem compared to 538.  

Coolidge would definitely be a Republican today.  Government was WAY smaller back then and he would like to keep it that way.  

I may not like the GOP, but as a rural Missouri resident, most of the folks around here are just fine with it.  They do not like Congressional Republicans, but they would prefer them vastly over the Dems.  

Right wing populism would help in the Midwest but hurt in more libertarian areas IMO. 
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2014, 05:20:55 PM »

Sometimes it feels like this forum is writing an obituary for the GOP, which is ironic considering that the party is poised to do quite well in the elections this year.  Even Upshot gives them a 56 percent chance of retaking the Senate, and that outfit leans a bit Dem compared to 538.

I am not so convinced that the GOP is going to do well enough to take the Senate in 2014; it will almost certainly gain open D seats in MT, SD, and WV. Senate incumbents Pryor in Arkansas, Landrieu in Louisiana, and Hagan are all more likely than not (they are ahead in polling) to win than lose re-election. Add to that, the Republican Senator from Kentucky is in deep trouble, and the open Senate seat is very much up for grabs. In view of how unpopular "your Congressman" is according to a Gallup poll, more Republicans than Democrats are vulnerable in the House.  It is now below 50%, and the last times the approval for "your  Congressman" has been close to that low (2006, 2010), the House switched majorities.



44% approval is good enough early in a campaign season for an incumbent Governor or Senator, but it has to be near 50% for an incumbent Representative because the talent for defeating a sitting Representative is easier to find.

If the GOP could survive the Great Depression it is not on its way to political oblivion. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


That's asking for a lot. With ideas like those of Calvin Coolidge in the 1930s one could never go far in either Vermont or Massachusetts politics.  Right-wing Republicans no longer get elected to statewide office in either Massachusetts or Vermont. Vermont used to be one of the most conservative states in the Union, actually voting for Alf Landon in 1936. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

Right-wing populism well exploits xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. That works in some parts of the country, but it offends multitudes elsewhere. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right-wing populism is inherently authoritarian. People don't fall for right-wing authoritarianism if they see themselves as possible scapegoats of right-wingers. Just look at the Asian vote.
Logged
GaussLaw
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,279
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PM »

pbrower, Landrieu is trailing in most head to head polls, Cotton looks to be regaining momentum, and Tillis vs Hagan is a clear tossup, with Civitas, Rasmussen, and PPP giving 3 different results. 

The NYTimes said that Landrieu has an extremely narrow path to victory, and Upshot has the GOP as the favorite in Kentucky fairly heavily. 

I do not see how both 538 and UpShot could be so far off as you assert. 
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2014, 07:40:46 PM »

Voted for him in 2012 (Even after he dropped out), and I will happily do it again. He's my guy!

Ew, why?  The anti-gay fiscal liberal has no place in this party.

I know "populist" is a dirty word for "moderate" Republicans, but it's worth considering that populist policies are popular. Clue is in the name.

I would never endorse Santorum, because he's gross; but the GOP is more appealing to a wider base as socially conservative (by which I don't mean the religious right) then as a bland neoliberal unit.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,838
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2014, 12:22:25 PM »

The thing is that this kind of economic populism really isn't needed in the GOP. It would help them in areas like Western PA and West Virginia, but for the rest of the country they've already convinced a swath of middle-to-working class citizens that true economic populism is anti-government, free market policy. That's why they were out on the streets campaigning to "get your government hands off my Medicaid."
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2014, 01:45:15 PM »

Calvin Coolidge wouldn't even support today's conservatives. He was against free trade and believed the rich should bear all of the tax burden.

And we all know Barry Goldwater hated the GOP by the time he was put in the grave, much less what he'd think now.

Protectionism was the pro-business, neoliberal position on trade in Coolidge's age, so let's not act like this was some position comparable to modern Democrats.

This.

1920s Republican Trade Policy: Don't make my American factories compete with British and German factories.

2010s Republican Trade Policy: Let me keep my American factories in the Philippines and Vietnam without any tariffs or penalties.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2014, 09:02:55 PM »
« Edited: June 26, 2014, 09:09:17 PM by Mechaman »

Calvin Coolidge wouldn't even support today's conservatives. He was against free trade and believed the rich should bear all of the tax burden.

And we all know Barry Goldwater hated the GOP by the time he was put in the grave, much less what he'd think now.

Protectionism was the pro-business, neoliberal position on trade in Coolidge's age, so let's not act like this was some position comparable to modern Democrats.

I would hardly call it the "neoliberal" position, but yeah it was definitely favored by business types.  It is important to remember that the Democrats were those who largely held the "liberal" line on trade, which would've been opposition to competition stifling tariffs that forced the American workingman to pay more.  Hell, the "populists" were actually some of the more pro-free trade elements of the Democratic Party, arguing that protectionism led the way to monopolies and other consequences of crony capitalism.

And as for the whole part about how the rich should pay most of the taxation, it's worth noting that in Coolidge's day the richest of the rich only paid about 25% income tax, though the poor barely paid 1% of their income.

No, I'm not making that up.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.034 seconds with 14 queries.