Huntsman and the future of the GOP.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:07:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Huntsman and the future of the GOP.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Huntsman and the future of the GOP.  (Read 3555 times)
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 26, 2009, 09:32:15 PM »

Politics1 said that he called for a more socially moderate party but I didn't see his calls for that in the excerpts that they posted from his interview with Politico. Anyone know if he actually said this or was he just really vague about needing a new direction?

Also, it turns out that he wanted the Stimulus Package to be bigger. Since many of his hardcore fans are the big fiscal/economic conservatives, isn't this a huge anchor around the guy's neck?

Listen, I really like the guy and, while I don't agree with the need to moderate on social issues, I don't really care if he really advocated a move to the center on certain things since the guy is clearly an overall conservative. However, the support for a bigger Stimulus Package is a tough sell.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2009, 10:04:07 PM »

If this was the direction the party would move in they might be able to win back some of the moderates which have been fleeing the party.  However, the Republican Party currently thinks they can win by being the far right party so they probably would reject this view and as a result turn those fleeing moderates into long-term Democrats.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2009, 10:06:48 PM »

If this was the direction the party would move in they might be able to win back some of the moderates which have been fleeing the party.  However, the Republican Party currently thinks they can win by being the far right party so they probably would reject this view and as a result turn those fleeing moderates into long-term Democrats.

Smash, I didn't ask for your talking points. Add something of substance next time.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2009, 10:09:50 PM »

The only way the Republican party is going to start winning presidential elections again is that they moderate heavily, both socially and economically. Fortunately for us, they still think that they lost in 2008 and 2006 because they weren't conservative enough, and if they'd just get back to their values (whatever those are) they'd really energize that base and start winning elections again.

People like Huntsman and Crist understand this, and that's why they're not going to be the candidate in 2012.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2009, 10:20:56 PM »

The only way the Republican party is going to start winning presidential elections again is that they moderate heavily, both socially and economically. Fortunately for us, they still think that they lost in 2008 and 2006 because they weren't conservative enough, and if they'd just get back to their values (whatever those are) they'd really energize that base and start winning elections again.

People like Huntsman and Crist understand this, and that's why they're not going to be the candidate in 2012.

Another person feeding us the talking points and not reading through the thread.

Huntsman really didn't even say that we have to moderate. We have to take a "second look" at gay rights and the environment (and many of us already agree with that).

By the way, to some of you, our crushing defeats were because we were too conservative. This is just as ridiculous as the idea that we weren't conservative enough. This party lost in 2006 because of an unpopular war (maybe a slight rejection of the relatively new conservative ideological position on foreign affairs) and in 2008 because of an economic crisis. I wish people would stop feeding into this myth that we lost because we're "far right" epecially on social issues...when nobody really cared about those issues in either year.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2009, 10:36:37 PM »

The only way the Republican party is going to start winning presidential elections again is that they moderate heavily, both socially and economically. Fortunately for us, they still think that they lost in 2008 and 2006 because they weren't conservative enough, and if they'd just get back to their values (whatever those are) they'd really energize that base and start winning elections again.

People like Huntsman and Crist understand this, and that's why they're not going to be the candidate in 2012.

Another person feeding us the talking points and not reading through the thread.

Huntsman really didn't even say that we have to moderate. We have to take a "second look" at gay rights and the environment (and many of us already agree with that).

By the way, to some of you, our crushing defeats were because we were too conservative. This is just as ridiculous as the idea that we weren't conservative enough. This party lost in 2006 because of an unpopular war (maybe a slight rejection of the relatively new conservative ideological position on foreign affairs) and in 2008 because of an economic crisis. I wish people would stop feeding into this myth that we lost because we're "far right" epecially on social issues...when nobody really cared about those issues in either year.


The problem the GOP is facing right now is among moderates.  The GOP got demolished among moderates, and they currently have a very negative view of the Republican Party.  Unless the GOP can fix that they are not going to do much anytime soon.  They aren't going to win back moderates by going further to the right and basically turning their backs on anyone to the left of the base.  On top of that the areas where the GOP has lost its most ground haven't been impacted as much as other areas by the economic crisis.
Logged
Nixon in '80
nixon1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,308
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2009, 11:52:49 PM »

Yeah, he said it wasn't big enough... but he also said it didn't include enough stimulus and should have included a corporate tax cut and a payroll tax exemption...

Sure, these comments will come back to haunt him in the 2012 primaries, but he's not exactly embracing Keynesian theory here.

As for his comments on "social moderation", you hit it on the head, Phil... he was just talking about gay rights and environmental matters, and it was taken as a broader statement, which may not have been his intention.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2009, 12:05:51 AM »

Before Wilkie gets his turn to be defeated, the Republicans will nominate Landon.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2009, 12:08:55 AM »

The only way the Republican party is going to start winning presidential elections again is that they moderate heavily, both socially and economically. Fortunately for us, they still think that they lost in 2008 and 2006 because they weren't conservative enough, and if they'd just get back to their values (whatever those are) they'd really energize that base and start winning elections again.

People like Huntsman and Crist understand this, and that's why they're not going to be the candidate in 2012.

Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2009, 12:16:38 AM »

The only way the Republican party is going to start winning presidential elections again is that they moderate heavily, both socially and economically. Fortunately for us, they still think that they lost in 2008 and 2006 because they weren't conservative enough, and if they'd just get back to their values (whatever those are) they'd really energize that base and start winning elections again.

People like Huntsman and Crist understand this, and that's why they're not going to be the candidate in 2012.

Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.

And Hoover won in 1928. And Carter won in 1976. What's your point?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2009, 12:19:14 AM »

Bush won in 2004 because of 9/11 and because people are ignorant of how much of the economy was a Greenspan engineered lie and fraud which was going to blow up in their faces a few years down the road.

A conservative Republican could win in 2012 if we are in a great depression at that time.
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2009, 01:12:08 AM »


Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.

Republicans in December '04:  "The Democrats really need to moderate themselves.  They're a broken party and need to reform from the ground up.  How do you expect to win when the party is led by John Kerry and Howard Dean?  America wants a President who will remain on offense in the War on Terror, not some whiney, peace-loving Democrat...The economy?  Who care's about that?  It's great!...Hey, did you hear about that new show Lost?"
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2009, 01:32:44 AM »


Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.

Republicans in December '04:  "The Democrats really need to moderate themselves.  They're a broken party and need to reform from the ground up.  How do you expect to win when the party is led by John Kerry and Howard Dean?  America wants a President who will remain on offense in the War on Terror, not some whiney, peace-loving Democrat...The economy?  Who care's about that?  It's great!...Hey, did you hear about that new show Lost?"

The comparisons are silly.  First off Bush's 04 win was one of the smallest victories an incumbent has ever had.  On top of that despite those losses the Dems were gaining ground in crucial areas (Northern Virginia, suburban Denver, Research Triangle, Columbus metro).  The Republicans aren't doing that, the areas in which the GOP is gaining ground in have very little electoral impact. 

So while it wasn't enough to win in 04, one thing the Dems had to look forward to, was the fact many of the crucial areas were moving in the Dems direction.  The Republicans don't have that, not even close to it.
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2009, 10:59:03 AM »


Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.

Republicans in December '04:  "The Democrats really need to moderate themselves.  They're a broken party and need to reform from the ground up.  How do you expect to win when the party is led by John Kerry and Howard Dean?  America wants a President who will remain on offense in the War on Terror, not some whiney, peace-loving Democrat...The economy?  Who care's about that?  It's great!...Hey, did you hear about that new show Lost?"

The comparisons are silly.  First off Bush's 04 win was one of the smallest victories an incumbent has ever had.  On top of that despite those losses the Dems were gaining ground in crucial areas (Northern Virginia, suburban Denver, Research Triangle, Columbus metro).  The Republicans aren't doing that, the areas in which the GOP is gaining ground in have very little electoral impact. 

So while it wasn't enough to win in 04, one thing the Dems had to look forward to, was the fact many of the crucial areas were moving in the Dems direction.  The Republicans don't have that, not even close to it.

My point is that the current "down" party is always perceived to "have trouble with moderate voters".  In a few years, should the GOP be in power, people will be saying the same thing about the Democrats.  It's common sense really.  Elections are won in the middle.  America has been rejecting the Republicans because they've been incompetent and untrustworthy, not because they are too conservative.  In '04 the Democrats lost because the GOP was viewed as tougher on terror, not because the Democrats were "too progressive". 

Are you gonna tell me that Barack Obama was a more moderate Senator than John McCain?  America wanted the Republicans out and the Democrats in.  Period.  Hence, Obama's "Change" theme was so simple, yet so effective. 



Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2009, 11:25:54 AM »


Wow, it's like Bush didn't win in 2004.

Republicans in December '04:  "The Democrats really need to moderate themselves.  They're a broken party and need to reform from the ground up.  How do you expect to win when the party is led by John Kerry and Howard Dean?  America wants a President who will remain on offense in the War on Terror, not some whiney, peace-loving Democrat...The economy?  Who care's about that?  It's great!...Hey, did you hear about that new show Lost?"

The comparisons are silly.  First off Bush's 04 win was one of the smallest victories an incumbent has ever had.  On top of that despite those losses the Dems were gaining ground in crucial areas (Northern Virginia, suburban Denver, Research Triangle, Columbus metro).  The Republicans aren't doing that, the areas in which the GOP is gaining ground in have very little electoral impact. 

So while it wasn't enough to win in 04, one thing the Dems had to look forward to, was the fact many of the crucial areas were moving in the Dems direction.  The Republicans don't have that, not even close to it.

My point is that the current "down" party is always perceived to "have trouble with moderate voters".  In a few years, should the GOP be in power, people will be saying the same thing about the Democrats.  It's common sense really.  Elections are won in the middle.  America has been rejecting the Republicans because they've been incompetent and untrustworthy, not because they are too conservative.  In '04 the Democrats lost because the GOP was viewed as tougher on terror, not because the Democrats were "too progressive". 

Are you gonna tell me that Barack Obama was a more moderate Senator than John McCain?  America wanted the Republicans out and the Democrats in.  Period.  Hence, Obama's "Change" theme was so simple, yet so effective. 





The fact is that the ideological center has shifted while the Republicans remained static.

Ten years ago the ideas of universal health care or civil unions for gays were considered leftist.
Now they are considered mainstream. That's why the moderates are gravitating towards the Democrats.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2009, 12:20:51 PM »

Thanks for talking sense, Paul. It's amazing how they conveniently forget.
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2009, 02:22:04 PM »


The fact is that the ideological center has shifted while the Republicans remained static.

Ten years ago the ideas of universal health care or civil unions for gays were considered leftist.
Now they are considered mainstream. That's why the moderates are gravitating towards the Democrats.

Exactly.  The ideological center will always shift according to external circumstances.  Eventually, it will shift toward the right and the Republicans will win.  Then it will swing the other way, and so on.  Like it always has. 

Simply "moderating" the party's general principles won't solve any problems.  They just need a combination of better circumstances and better candidates. 
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2009, 03:08:19 PM »

I've read some of the things that Huntsman has written and I don't think I've been more excited about a candidate's message in my life.  This is incredible!  I mean.. wow... just wow!!!!
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2009, 03:10:43 PM »

Simply "moderating" the party's general principles won't solve any problems.  They just need a combination of better circumstances and better candidates. 

Uh, I don't think the circumstances are coming back where Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchannan need to be the image of the Party, but good luck with all that...
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2009, 03:18:12 PM »


The fact is that the ideological center has shifted while the Republicans remained static.

Ten years ago the ideas of universal health care or civil unions for gays were considered leftist.
Now they are considered mainstream. That's why the moderates are gravitating towards the Democrats.

Exactly.  The ideological center will always shift according to external circumstances.  Eventually, it will shift toward the right and the Republicans will win.  Then it will swing the other way, and so on.  Like it always has. 

Simply "moderating" the party's general principles won't solve any problems.  They just need a combination of better circumstances and better candidates. 

The problem is when the party basically refuses to accept the fact that changes have been made in regards to the American public.  Thoughts on Universal Health care, gay rights among other things are very unlikely to swing back toward the right.   By not adapting to the changes, putting themselves into a bubble and just waiting for things to shift back toward the right they will make themselves into a more regional party than they already are.  

Do you honestly think continuing to be as conservative as they are will help the GOP rebound in Arapahoe & Jefferson Colorado??  Fairfax, Loudon, Prince William & Henrico VA??  Wake, Chattam & Mecklenburg NC?   Franklin OH?

How does the GOP rebound in these areas?   If they can't, then what?

By all means I want the current direction of the GOP to continue it will keep Democrats in power for a very long time.  I just don't understand the reluctance to believe the party is in deep trouble and the problems go well beyond the current economic issues.
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2009, 03:24:10 PM »

Simply "moderating" the party's general principles won't solve any problems.  They just need a combination of better circumstances and better candidates. 

Uh, I don't think the circumstances are coming back where Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchannan need to be the image of the Party, but good luck with all that...

When I say "better circumstances" I mean:
- not during an mishandled and unpopular war
- not on the heels of a presidency with 20% approval ratings
- not in the midst of a global financial meltdown
- not when your team is leading the other team in federal indictments

Uh, I don't really undestand what your post was implying, but good luck with all that.  
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2009, 03:34:31 PM »
« Edited: February 27, 2009, 03:36:15 PM by paul718 »


The problem is when the party basically refuses to accept the fact that changes have been made in regards to the American public.  Thoughts on Universal Health care, gay rights among other things are very unlikely to swing back toward the right.   By not adapting to the changes, putting themselves into a bubble and just waiting for things to shift back toward the right they will make themselves into a more regional party than they already are.  


Social issues won't swing toward the right.  They always progress, and the more conservative party at the time must always play catch-up.  With that being said, I don't think social issues matter to swing voters.  Did the Republicans get killed in the last two elections cycles because of gay marriage?  Wasn't Obama's position identical to McCain's? 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know.  Has there been a study on why voters in those cities went Democrat?  How have they been trending?  Did any of them go Republican in '04?  If so, I doubt those voters had a sudden epiphany regarding gay marriage. 


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

How did the Democrats rebound after 2004? 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'd be hard-pressed to find many Repulicans who doubt that the party is in deep trouble.  But I'm sure they would all agree that the problem is with "Republicanism", rather than "Conservatism". 
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2009, 04:00:36 PM »


The problem is when the party basically refuses to accept the fact that changes have been made in regards to the American public.  Thoughts on Universal Health care, gay rights among other things are very unlikely to swing back toward the right.   By not adapting to the changes, putting themselves into a bubble and just waiting for things to shift back toward the right they will make themselves into a more regional party than they already are.  



Social issues won't swing toward the right.  They always progress, and the more conservative party at the time must always play catch-up.  With that being said, I don't think social issues matter to swing voters.  Did the Republicans get killed in the last two elections cycles because of gay marriage?  Wasn't Obama's position identical to McCain's? 

Well the Republicans tried to position McCain as much further to the right on the issue than Obama  On top of that its more than just the gay marriage issue itself, but many of the areas I am referring to have had a large amount of those Rockefeller type Republicans who have become increasingly unhappy with the GOP

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


I don't know.  Has there been a study on why voters in those cities went Democrat?  How have they been trending?  Did any of them go Republican in '04?  If so, I doubt those voters had a sudden epiphany regarding gay marriage.   [/quote]

Some Bush won in 04, others Kerry won.  Bush won all of these in 2000, some by double digit margins.   All of them went solidly towards Obama.  These are all areas which have been moving in more of a Democratic direction even before the war & economic issues.

 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]

All of these crucial areas were already trending Democratic.  They were able to continue picking up more & more ground on areas moving in their direction.  The GOP doesn't have that, at least in areas which will help them win anything.  That I think is one of the biggest differences between the Democrats after 04 and the GOP now.  Despite the Dems loses they were picking up ground in important areas, the GOP isn't.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]

And that is basically one of the reasons they are in as much trouble as they are in.   Many believe the problem is because they aren't conservative enough.  You don't get your asses kicked in among moderates because the party isn't conservative enoigh

Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2009, 04:11:26 PM »


The problem is when the party basically refuses to accept the fact that changes have been made in regards to the American public.  Thoughts on Universal Health care, gay rights among other things are very unlikely to swing back toward the right.   By not adapting to the changes, putting themselves into a bubble and just waiting for things to shift back toward the right they will make themselves into a more regional party than they already are.  


Social issues won't swing toward the right.  They always progress, and the more conservative party at the time must always play catch-up.  With that being said, I don't think social issues matter to swing voters.  Did the Republicans get killed in the last two elections cycles because of gay marriage?  Wasn't Obama's position identical to McCain's? 


Don't you think that Sarah Palin and her gutter rhetoric alienated many suburban voters?
Don't you that the fact that James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh have become de facto leaders of the Republican party has turned away many moderate voters?
Don't you think that Tom DeLay's shenanigans made many Rockefeller Republicans to recoil and abandon the party?
Logged
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2009, 04:32:59 PM »
« Edited: February 27, 2009, 04:37:00 PM by paul718 »


Well the Republicans tried to position McCain as much further to the right on the issue than Obama

How so?


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
 

What other issues are you talking about?  Universal health care?  Everyone wants universal health care.  It's just that most Republicans haven't found a fiscally responsible to make it happen.  And I would venture to say that most Rockefeller-types are unhappy with GOP because they've been incompetent, not because of social issues. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
[/quote]

All of these crucial areas were already trending Democratic.  They were able to continue picking up more & more ground on areas moving in their direction.  The GOP doesn't have that, at least in areas which will help them win anything.  That I think is one of the biggest differences between the Democrats after 04 and the GOP now.  Despite the Dems loses they were picking up ground in important areas, the GOP isn't.
[/quote]


Okay.  You might have a good argument there. 


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right, but they also didn't get there asses kicked in for being "too conservative".

War + Recession + Corruption = disaster

None of those factors are based on conservatism.  The post-Clinton Republicans didn't really govern conservatively, anyway.



Social issues won't swing toward the right.  They always progress, and the more conservative party at the time must always play catch-up.  With that being said, I don't think social issues matter to swing voters.  Did the Republicans get killed in the last two elections cycles because of gay marriage?  Wasn't Obama's position identical to McCain's? 


Don't you think that Sarah Palin and her gutter rhetoric alienated many suburban voters?
Don't you that the fact that James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh have become de facto leaders of the Republican party has turned away many moderate voters?
Don't you think that Tom DeLay's shenanigans made many Rockefeller Republicans to recoil and abandon the party?

Okay.  You just named four personalities, who many Republicans don't even like, and nothing that has to do with American rejection of conservatism.  You didn't even address my post that you quoted. 
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 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.