Would a moderate Republican help Obama in the weak Republican states?

[Jacobtm]

The three strongest states for Obama which went for McCain are Missouri, Montana and Georgia. Obama got 47% in MT and GA, and 49% in MO, so there's no reason that in '12, if Obama wins, these states wouldn't be reasonable targets.

So let's say someone is nominated who is considered a moderate. It doesn't matter what a "moderate" really is, but let's assume he's someone that hardcore conservatives aren't thrilled about, and won't necessarily flock out to support. But, he's also someone that could win back Republicans who either switched over to Obama or stayed home because of Bush fatigue.

Basically, it comes down to the question of which is a bigger demographic, hardcore Conservatives or moderates who might vote Republican?

[HAnnA MArin County]

It ultimately depends on the nominee and your definition of a moderate. I'll use Mitt Romney for example. When he was Governor of Massachusetts, he was fairly moderate but when he decided to run for President he moved more to the right. If Mitt runs as a moderate, he won't excite the base of social/religious conservatives in Georgia quite as much as Sarah Palin did. Plus you may have some uneasiness among WASPs in the South and Bible Belt about voting for a Mormon (recall that Mike Huckabee won the Georgia Primary). But the rural whites in Georgia are pretty steadily Republican so I think Georgia would stay red despite the large turnout of African Americans that is ensured with Obama on the ticket. It would be different in Montana, a state that Mitt Romney carried in the GOP Primaries, and several counties in Montana gave Ron Paul around 5 percent of the vote in November 2008 so they have a thing up there about voting for the oddballs if you will, but I'm sure that with the way Obama has governed, the term "the Obama era of big government" and "tax and spend liberal" may not play very well in Montana, so I'd give Montana to Romney. As for Missouri, it was too close (less than a 4,000-vote difference) with a moderate Republican (John McCain) on the top of the ticket running with a conservative Republican (Sarah Palin), and if Obama continues to enjoy high public approval ratings and the economy continues to recover, you can expect the Show-Me State to retain its bellwether status and go blue in 2012. If something happens and Obama becomes unpopular or if the economy gets worse or we have some other big controversial crisis, Missouri may stay red. Just depends on the national winds.

[Coburn In 2012]

Every time we run a socalled moderate we lose.

2008  McCain a so called moderate who is closer to liberal loses
2004  Bush a true conservative slams the surrender monkey
2000  Bush a true conservative slams the tree hugging hypocrite
1996  Dole a moderate loses to a crooked, immoral slick willie and killary
1992  Bush, who governed as a moderate to liberal, loses to slick willie and killary
1988  Bush runs as a Reagan conservative and slams Dukaka
1984  Reagan, the greatest conservative ever, slams Mondale
1980  Reagan runs as a true conservative and wipes the floor with our pussy President
1976  Ford a so called moderate loses to Carter
1972  Nixon a conservative slaughters another cowardly surrender monkey
1968  Nixon a conservative whips Humphrey, a social liberal

The last time you see a leftist  winning over a conservative is 1964.  but even then LBJ was at least very tough on Communism. His views on social things were reprehensable but his foreign policy was okay.  And Goldwater was totally smeared by the LBJ handlers as a guy who would nuke China and Russia.  So of course LBJ won.

The facts are every time we run a true rock rib conservative, WE WIN!!!!!!!!!!  Every time we run some pussy moderate who wants to negotiate with terrorists, raise taxes and and compromise on social issues we lose.

Doesn't take a rocket scientists to see why I support Coburn in 2012 -- or any other TRUE conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stranger in a strange land]

^Nixon would probably be considered a moderate today: he supported affirmative action, established the EPA, implemented wage and price controls, and attempted to introduce a national health insurance plan that would basically have amounted to universal healthcare.

McCain was percieved as a moderate prior to 2008, but he moved significantly right in the course of his campaign, and his VP candidate, who got almost as much coverage as he got, was a "true conservative"

Also, it's worth noting that all the Democratic nominees from 1968 to 1968 were pretty sorry candidates.

[Coburn In 2012]

^Nixon would probably be considered a moderate today: he supported affirmative action, established the EPA, implemented wage and price controls, and attempted to introduce a national health insurance plan that would basically have amounted to universal healthcare.

McCain was percieved as a moderate prior to 2008, but he moved significantly right in the course of his campaign, and his VP candidate, who got almost as much coverage as he got, was a "true conservative"

Also, it's worth noting that all the Democratic nominees from 1968 to 1968 were pretty sorry candidates.

Nixon was unfortunately forced to give in to those things.

[RI]

As for the original question, I honestly do not know what is larger: the amount of moderates and moderate liberals who would be added to the Republican vote, or the amount of hard line conservatives who would be lost to either a third party or simply not voting. I think it depends on which issues the candidate is "moderate" on.

[pbrower2a]

Every time we run a socalled moderate we lose.

(Note: vile and incendiary rhetoric removed, including distortions of names)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any imaginable GOP nominee (Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Giuliani) would have lost to Obama that year because of the economic damage and other follies of the worst President in over a century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, a President who had inflicted much hidden damage upon America squeaked by against one of the weakest challengers to an incumbent President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the stealth candidate and puppet of Karl Rove defeated "Al Bore" while pretending to be a moderate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bob Dole's conservative credentials were clear and unambiguous. Bill Clinton is a superb campaigner able to rouse the usual constituencies of the Democratic Party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The elder Bush had an adequate Presidency but couldn't offer a convincing Second Act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dukakis showed that he wasn't up to the job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Churchill was the greatest conservative ever. An effective first term wins re-election so long as one can offer a Second Act. Mondale had huge weaknesses as a campaigner.

Note well: Obama seems to fit that description as well as Reagan did -- so far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1980 was the end of a political era, and Carter was a weak President anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ford was a weak President who lost to a slightly-stronger challenger.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A moderate defeats a weak challenger every time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nixon, a moderate, defeated the winner of a knock-down drag-out primary contest who then faced a defection from the segregationist wing of his own Party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now I get it -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the cause of the ruin of America -- at least in your mind. Maybe if only white people voted we would live in the fascist plutocracy that you wish we had.

At least you couldn't have been burning a cross or marching to the tune of Giovinezza or the Horst-Wessel Lied while posting such bilge as you just did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that if someone "stronger" in his so-called conservatism -- an outright fascist -- came along, you would support him quickly. 

[RIP Robert H Bork]

As for the original question, I honestly do not know what is larger: the amount of moderates and moderate liberals who would be added to the Republican vote, or the amount of hard line conservatives who would be lost to either a third party or simply not voting. I think it depends on which issues the candidate is "moderate" on.

Agree with most of this, but a moderate liberal going for the Republican candidate??

[Rowan]

MT will move strongly away from Obama in 2012. They are mostly libertarian up there and they will not like his big government actions so far.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Every time we run a socalled moderate we lose.

2008  McCain a so called moderate who is closer to liberal loses
2004  Bush a true conservative slams the surrender monkey
2000  Bush a true conservative slams the tree hugging hypocrite
1996  Dole a moderate loses to a crooked, immoral slick willie and killary
1992  Bush, who governed as a moderate to liberal, loses to slick willie and killary
1988  Bush runs as a Reagan conservative and slams Dukaka
1984  Reagan, the greatest conservative ever, slams Mondale
1980  Reagan runs as a true conservative and wipes the floor with our pussy President
1976  Ford a so called moderate loses to Carter
1972  Nixon a conservative slaughters another cowardly surrender monkey
1968  Nixon a conservative whips Humphrey, a social liberal

The last time you see a leftist  winning over a conservative is 1964.  but even then LBJ was at least very tough on Communism. His views on social things were reprehensable but his foreign policy was okay.  And Goldwater was totally smeared by the LBJ handlers as a guy who would nuke China and Russia.  So of course LBJ won.

The facts are every time we run a true rock rib conservative, WE WIN!!!!!!!!!!  Every time we run some pussy moderate who wants to negotiate with terrorists, raise taxes and and compromise on social issues we lose.

Doesn't take a rocket scientists to see why I support Coburn in 2012 -- or any other TRUE conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your points are made so much more relevant and factual by your plentiful use of exclamation points, so let me give it a try.

2008  McCain, who was elected to Barry Goldwater's seat in the Senate, who gained respect by working across the aisle earlier in the decade but moved right during the campaign and chose Sarah Palin as his VP, loses in a close race to a Democrat in the worst era for REpublicans since Watergate.

2004 Bush, boyed by his strong positions on the War on Terror, crafted a moderate conservative message in a way that was even more appealing to Hispanic voters and defeated a Massachusetts liberal wind-surfing Senator with no personality by only a few points.

2000 Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative", defeating war hero John McCain with some nasty tactics in the primary, "lost the popular vote" and won by a few hundred votes in Florida.

1996 Dole, a former leader in the conservative wing of the Party, was trounced by a popular President in a booming economy.

1992 Bush, after allowing Pat Buchannan to give his horrid Culture War Speech at the Republican National Convention, lost in a three-way race where Ross Perot siphoned off many moderate voters who were turned off by what the GOP was becoming.

1988 Bush, who once called Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics" was elected in a massive landslide.

1984 Reagan built a massive coalition including moderate Republicans, Reagan Democrats, and conservative Republicans and left the far-left Democratic nominee with no voters.

1980 Reagan, who signed the most liberal abortion laws in history as California's Governor, was elected over Jimmy Carter who was unable to free hostages from Iran.

1976 Ford lost in a close race to a moderate Governor from Georgia - the race was close even though it was only two years after Watergate, there was a divisive primary, and Ford pardoned Nixon.

1972 Nixon, a strong Republican leader with a united Party, who started the EPA and Affirmative Action, trounced a far-left Democrat.

1968 As right-wing whackos were siphoned off by Wallace and left-wing whackos were siphoned off by Humphrey, Richard Nixon led a moderate Republican base to a strong victory in a three-way race.

1964 Goldwater, the first movement conservative nominee, loses in one of the biggest landslides ever.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

It depends...........................

[pogo stick]

htmldon your Anti-Conservatism makes me  Laugh

Comrade ,without Conservatism America would be socialist or even worse communist.

I like my moderates ,but I hate Anti-Reagan ,Anti-Goldy Moderates.


Moderate Dems would get my vote before you ever do

[Stranger in a strange land]

^Nixon would probably be considered a moderate today: he supported affirmative action, established the EPA, implemented wage and price controls, and attempted to introduce a national health insurance plan that would basically have amounted to universal healthcare.

McCain was percieved as a moderate prior to 2008, but he moved significantly right in the course of his campaign, and his VP candidate, who got almost as much coverage as he got, was a "true conservative"

Also, it's worth noting that all the Democratic nominees from 1968 to 1968 were pretty sorry candidates.

Nixon was unfortunately forced to give in to those things.

Forced? How so?

[TIME MACHINE]

Every time we run a socalled moderate we lose.

2008  McCain a so called moderate who is closer to liberal loses
2004  Bush a true conservative slams the surrender monkey
2000  Bush a true conservative slams the tree hugging hypocrite
1996  Dole a moderate loses to a crooked, immoral slick willie and killary
1992  Bush, who governed as a moderate to liberal, loses to slick willie and killary
1988  Bush runs as a Reagan conservative and slams Dukaka
1984  Reagan, the greatest conservative ever, slams Mondale
1980  Reagan runs as a true conservative and wipes the floor with our pussy President
1976  Ford a so called moderate loses to Carter
1972  Nixon a conservative slaughters another cowardly surrender monkey
1968  Nixon a conservative whips Humphrey, a social liberal

Uh.....You think Nixon and George W Bush are "true conservatives" but Bob Dole is a "moderate"?   Dude ask any older hardcore conservative "who's more conservative bob dole or George W Bush"  almost all of them will tell you "Dole".  In fact I would argue that Bob Dole was the most conservative presidential nominee in the past 50 years.

[RI]

As for the original question, I honestly do not know what is larger: the amount of moderates and moderate liberals who would be added to the Republican vote, or the amount of hard line conservatives who would be lost to either a third party or simply not voting. I think it depends on which issues the candidate is "moderate" on.

Agree with most of this, but a moderate liberal going for the Republican candidate??

As a moderate liberal myself, I can say that I would vote for the right moderate Republican over a further left Democrat.

[12th Doctor]

Every time we run a socalled moderate we lose.

2008  McCain a so called moderate who is closer to liberal loses
2004  Bush a true conservative slams the surrender monkey
2000  Bush a true conservative slams the tree hugging hypocrite
1996  Dole a moderate loses to a crooked, immoral slick willie and killary
1992  Bush, who governed as a moderate to liberal, loses to slick willie and killary
1988  Bush runs as a Reagan conservative and slams Dukaka
1984  Reagan, the greatest conservative ever, slams Mondale
1980  Reagan runs as a true conservative and wipes the floor with our pussy President
1976  Ford a so called moderate loses to Carter
1972  Nixon a conservative slaughters another cowardly surrender monkey
1968  Nixon a conservative whips Humphrey, a social liberal

The last time you see a leftist  winning over a conservative is 1964.  but even then LBJ was at least very tough on Communism. His views on social things were reprehensable but his foreign policy was okay.  And Goldwater was totally smeared by the LBJ handlers as a guy who would nuke China and Russia.  So of course LBJ won.

The facts are every time we run a true rock rib conservative, WE WIN!!!!!!!!!!  Every time we run some pussy moderate who wants to negotiate with terrorists, raise taxes and and compromise on social issues we lose.

Doesn't take a rocket scientists to see why I support Coburn in 2012 -- or any other TRUE conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My God you are such an idiot.

First off, depending on the issue, Humphrey was to the right of Nixon on a whole host of social issues.

Secondly, Nixon did not govern as a conservative, a fact that is well known amongst anyone who has any clue.  The EPA, Welfare block grants, "New Federalism", price controls... all things that were more liberal than what the liberals were proposing.

Ford's loss to Carter had nothing to do with Ford.  In fact, polls taken in Sept show him as having been down by 30% to Carter.  That he pulled to within 2% by election day is a marvel.

Anyone could have beat Carter in 1980.

Bush's victory in 1988 had more to do with Willie Horton than anything Bush said.

Bush governed as a liberal?  On what planet?

Dole got stomped in large part because the Clinton people were able to successfully portray him as a radical conservative.

Bush slammed Gore?  Find better adjectives.

Bush 2004 won due in large part because the Democrats ran one of the worst campaigns, with one of the worst candidates, in history.  He should have lost.

Somewhere tonight, a village is missing its idiot.

[12th Doctor]

Nixon was unfortunately forced to give in to those things.

No he wasn't, you waste of brain matter.  Half of that stuff was part of a coordinated strategy by the White House to "out Left the Left".  The idea was that, if the Nixon Administration targeted certain issues where Liberal action was popular, and then offered a proposal more radical than what the Left was asking, then it would force the Liberals to have to take an unpopular stand on the issue, or have no platform with which to attack the White House.

I swear, you don't know sh**t.

[Mechaman]

Now I think everybody else has owned you on the whole "conservative" vs. "moderate" argument, so I'd like to bring your attention to this:

Doesn't take a rocket scientists to see why I support Coburn in 2012 -- or any other TRUE conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to also see why people think Coburn is so batsh$t insane either. Buddy, if you think Coburn would be a great candidate for president in 2012 you're crazy.

Trust me, I live in the state he represents and I've heard the things he campaigns on and views on issues. This guy called the "homosexual agenda" the "biggest threat to American freedom" during his 2004 campaign for US Senator. That means they're worse than those terrorists you're so afraid of. Really? A man running for office calls fellow American citizens who like it in the bum bum bigger threats to American freedom than guys with C4 attached to their chests? WTF?!
I understand that Oklahoma is a pretty damned conservative state, but if this next statement doesn't shock the hell out of you, nothing can:
On a bill he sponsored that would prevent the Food and Drug Administration from developing, testing or approving the abortifacient RU-486: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."
What Coburn said was pretty much: "Guys who go into abortion clinics and murder doctors are heroes." With that one statement he has vindicated every murdering bastard who ever bombed an abortion clinic or killed an abortion doctor. Those were more than abortion doctors that were murdered, those were men with familes and mouths to provide for.
Tom Coburn also favors making FRIGGIN TOBACCO illegal. FRIGGIN TOBACCO, like the kind found in Marlboros and Camels, not the kind found at rave parties in LA.
The guy complained about Schindler's List for god's sake!

There's no way in hell he could win a presidential election, even if he has the fiscal credibilities because he's that insane.

[ChrisJG777]

Now I think everybody else has owned you on the whole "conservative" vs. "moderate" argument, so I'd like to bring your attention to this:

Doesn't take a rocket scientists to see why I support Coburn in 2012 -- or any other TRUE conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to also see why people think Coburn is so batsh$t insane either. Buddy, if you think Coburn would be a great candidate for president in 2012 you're crazy.

Trust me, I live in the state he represents and I've heard the things he campaigns on and views on issues. This guy called the "homosexual agenda" the "biggest threat to American freedom" during his 2004 campaign for US Senator. That means they're worse than those terrorists you're so afraid of. Really? A man running for office calls fellow American citizens who like it in the bum bum bigger threats to American freedom than guys with C4 attached to their chests? WTF?!
I understand that Oklahoma is a pretty damned conservative state, but if this next statement doesn't shock the hell out of you, nothing can:
On a bill he sponsored that would prevent the Food and Drug Administration from developing, testing or approving the abortifacient RU-486: "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."
What Coburn said was pretty much: "Guys who go into abortion clinics and murder doctors are heroes." With that one statement he has vindicated every murdering bastard who every bombed an abortion clinic or killed an abortion doctor. Those were more than abortion doctors that were murdered, those were men with familes and mouths to provide for.
Tom Coburn also favors making FRIGGIN TOBACCO illegal. FRIGGIN TOBACCO, like the kind found in Marlboros and Camels, not the kind found at rave parties in LA.
The guy complained about Schindler's List for god's sake!

There's no way in hell he could win a presidential election, even if he has the fiscal credibilities because he's that insane.

I'm afraid you'd have a better time teaching a brick to be a gymnast that you would reasoning with Coburn in 2012 here...

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely!

Every smoker in America would vote for fellow smoker Obama or a third party candidate, no matter if they are conservative or liberal. The landslide would be bigger than Reagan in 84.
 

[pbrower2a]

Now I think everybody else has owned you on the whole "conservative" vs. "moderate" argument, so I'd like to bring your attention to this:

Doesn't take a rocket scientists to see why I support Coburn in 2012 -- or any other TRUE conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to also see why people think Coburn is so batsh$t insane either. Buddy, if (he) think(s) Coburn would be a great candidate for president in 2012 (he's) crazy.

Just a little liberal (as in liberal arts) education and knowledge of the facts, as shown below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have backed down from using the "fascist" label to describe Coburn because he hasn't gotten as much attention lately in the news media, and for good reason. It's easy to forget what a buffoon he is. Antipathy toward gays is a vile trait, and anyone who thinks that gays are more of a threat to America than are practices which make people see heroic martyrdom in strapping C4 to one's chest to blow up American soldiers in Iraq is a fool.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Contempt for gays and for a woman's right to choose reflects a concern that fascists ordinarily show: a desire for plenty of children to take heroic roles as cannon fodder if boys and baby factories if girls, and of course "pioneers" of conquered lands. Coburn showed no respect for legal precedent essential to government by law. If he isn't a fascist he is a buffoon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such behavior for which Coburn has given rhetorical support has a name: terrorism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would lose Virginia and North Carolina by huge margins!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of the most life-affirming films ever made!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I respect libertarians. I have nothing but contempt for fascists.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lovely!

Every smoker in America would vote for fellow smoker Obama or a third party candidate, no matter if they are conservative or liberal. The landslide would be bigger than Reagan in 84.
 

If he really wants to ban tobacco, not only would he then have no chance in North Carolina, he could also kiss Kentucky and Tennessee goodbye too. Of course, this position means he has no chance at all of making it out of the Republican primary.

[Edu]

2008  McCain a so called moderate who is closer to liberal loses
2004  Bush a true conservative slams the surrender monkey
2000  Bush a true conservative slams the tree hugging hypocrite
1996  Dole a moderate loses to a crooked, immoral slick willie and killary
1992  Bush, who governed as a moderate to liberal, loses to slick willie and killary
1988  Bush runs as a Reagan conservative and slams Dukaka
1984  Reagan, the greatest conservative ever, slams Mondale
1980  Reagan runs as a true conservative and wipes the floor with our pussy President
1976  Ford a so called moderate loses to Carter
1972  Nixon a conservative slaughters another cowardly surrender monkey
1968  Nixon a conservative whips Humphrey, a social liberal

LOL

But don't worry, nobody expects you to be correct about anything

[Mechaman]

I respect libertarians. I have nothing but contempt for fascists.

Thanks.
I respect anybody who respects civil liberties. Civil liberties are at the very core of my libertarianism.

[Coburn In 2012]

A lot of nastiness in this thread but all it adds up to is...

----- we want the "right" to murder babies
-------- we want people to have the right to their gloryholes and kiddie porn and nambla bathhouses.

--- we want to appease the north Koreas and Iranians and Al Quaeda

---------we want pc to be the law of the land and the thought police.  let's not offend the poor blacks because of what happen to them three hundred years ago.

_ we want to feel nice and guilty about the poor noble red man and what those devil white Christians did to them

)---- we want to tax the hard working producing classes whose wealth creates jobs and expands the economy while rewarding the welfare queens and baby daddies (could be ANY color -- not just the blacks -- I am NOT the racist here!!!!!!!) for not working, sitting on there porches, drinking and smoking crack pipes.

Yes that's what the left stands for.  Just look at the news coverage recently.  People calling a man who butchers tiny babies a martyr but spitting on a dead American soldier fighting Al Qeada for freedom and calling our brave boys war crminals.

Look, I realize Sen coburn is wrong on the smoking thing.  Maybe even he is giving in to the pc police but I sure hope not.  A ban on smoking never works, Just look at the epic fail in the comunities and states that have tryed it -- many people loosing their businesses and many restraunts closing.  I will oppose Coburn on this.

But he is RIGHT about gays...RIGHT about taxes...RIGHT about guns..>RIGHT about defenseless babies and RIGHT about fighting terror.

I want him to be right about smoking which is a civil liberty but if he persists in being wrong about that one thing I will still support him.

And to say Nixon was the liberal and Humphrey was the conservative is just pure LOLOLOL  (And you say I am the one who doesnt know politics and history!!! HAHAHAHA)