Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FearfulJesuit]

So 2016 is a wrap, then.

I simply can't see any Republican who could win the general election also making it past the primaries. Christie's name is mud.

...Maybe Martinez, though?

[mainiac]

Yeah, politics don't work that way.  Just because you think a politician is extremist doesn't mean they can't be viable in a general election.  Political science shows that moderation or extremism makes a difference but it's hardly going to decide an election to the same extent as the economy or a war.

It matters more at the congressional level where not every race is competitive so looking unelectable becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  But every presidential race is fought to the end so no matter who the nominee is race fundamentals are going to be the most important thing.

[FearfulJesuit]

Yeah, politics don't work that way.  Just because you think a politician is extremist doesn't mean they can't be viable in a general election.  Political science shows that moderation or extremism makes a difference but it's hardly going to decide an election to the same extent as the economy or a war.

Man, I hate democracy.

[mainiac]

No, you hate that not everybody agrees with you.

[misko27]

No, you hate that not everybody agrees with you.

This is true, it's part of why I also hate democracy.The other reason Is those other people are damed crazy.

[GreatJustice]

To a point, extremism can be helpful if it motivates their supporters to go 110%, donate piles of cash, and bring out all their apathetic relatives. A moderate might attract a small amount of crossover, but that won't make a difference if they alienate the base enough. Really, the amount of Americans who aren't already decided on a candidate, aren't completely apathetic, and actually decide based on the issues is pretty small and not even necessarily aimed towards centrism.

[mainiac]

Got any historical examples to go with that theory?  Because I can offer you some counter examples pretty easily.  Eisenhower was famously moderate, Goldwater famously conservative.  Eisenhower ran as a challenger while the economy was booming.  Goldwater ran as a challenger against a middling economy.  Eisenhower ran while the democrats were doing a popular winding down of the Korean war, which was recently started while Goldwater ran while the democrats were doing an unpopular escalation of the long Vietnam war.  But Eisenhower was president while Goldwater did worse then Hoover. 

Eisenhower and Goldwater are pretty much the exceptions that created the rule.  Goldwater drove home the vital importance of branding your candidate as a moderate no matter how much it pisses off the base.

[GreatJustice]

Got any historical examples to go with that theory?  Because I can offer you some counter examples pretty easily.  Eisenhower was famously moderate, Goldwater famously conservative.  Eisenhower ran as a challenger while the economy was booming.  Goldwater ran as a challenger against a middling economy.  Eisenhower ran while the democrats were doing a popular winding down of the Korean war, which was recently started while Goldwater ran while the democrats were doing an unpopular escalation of the long Vietnam war.  But Eisenhower was president while Goldwater did worse then Hoover. 

Eisenhower and Goldwater are pretty much the exceptions that created the rule.  Goldwater drove home the vital importance of branding your candidate as a moderate no matter how much it pisses off the base.

Eisenhower was a famous war hero running during a period of dissatisfaction against a lot of New Deal policies (see the congressional elections, the overturning of war economic controls, etc). Goldwater, meanwhile, was running against the VP of an extremely well liked, recently assassinated president with a fairly significant disadvantage in fundraising. Both elections were pretty heavily stacked before the race even began.

In terms of the opposite being true, well, in the US you could make a pretty good argument that Reagan didn't do much compromising and he basically swept the map, though that was a different time and his actions didn't match his words. Otherwise, Tommy Douglas on the left and Mike Harris on the right basically ran on comparatively radical platforms versus their opponents and ended up winning their elections in Canada.

[RedKing]

Got any historical examples to go with that theory?  Because I can offer you some counter examples pretty easily.  Eisenhower was famously moderate, Goldwater famously conservative.  Eisenhower ran as a challenger while the economy was booming.  Goldwater ran as a challenger against a middling economy.  Eisenhower ran while the democrats were doing a popular winding down of the Korean war, which was recently started while Goldwater ran while the democrats were doing an unpopular escalation of the long Vietnam war.  But Eisenhower was president while Goldwater did worse then Hoover. 

Eisenhower and Goldwater are pretty much the exceptions that created the rule.  Goldwater drove home the vital importance of branding your candidate as a moderate no matter how much it pisses off the base.

Eisenhower was a famous war hero running during a period of dissatisfaction against a lot of New Deal policies (see the congressional elections, the overturning of war economic controls, etc). Goldwater, meanwhile, was running against the VP of an extremely well liked, recently assassinated president with a fairly significant disadvantage in fundraising. Both elections were pretty heavily stacked before the race even began.

In terms of the opposite being true, well, in the US you could make a pretty good argument that Reagan didn't do much compromising and he basically swept the map, though that was a different time and his actions didn't match his words. Otherwise, Tommy Douglas on the left and Mike Harris on the right basically ran on comparatively radical platforms versus their opponents and ended up winning their elections in Canada.

Never thought I'd say this, but I agree with GJ here. Eisenhower was seen as the guy who beat Hitler. That's pretty solid electoral cred. And post-war, there was a massive swing away from wartime economy and wartime policies (see Churchill getting trounced by Clement Attlee in 1945). And there's the issue of Korea, which Truman had gotten us into, and Eisenhower promised to get us out of. Coming just five years after WWII, most folks weren't that interested in another overseas war to fight something that still hadn't quite gotten ingrained in the public fear yet.

Goldwater really wasn't that big of an extremist, other than on defense issues. Dude was actually anti-corporatist, pro-environment, pro-choice, and a secularist. Hell, he basically disavowed the Republican party by 1987, with the rise of the Moral Majority.

It's kind of an insight into the modern Republican party that Barry-freakin'-Goldwater would be too liberal to run as a Republican now.

[mainiac]

None of those positions puts him in the liberal wing of the republican party of his day.  On the issues that actually divided the republican party, attacking the new deal, McCarthyism, jingoism, Civil Rights Act of 1964, he was solidly conservative at the time.

I'm not saying that Goldwater was extremist in absolute terms.  That's in fact the exact opposite of what I'm saying.  I'm saying that he fell into the wing of his party not the center block.  That's the whole point, it doesn't matter at all how extreme a polician is in absolute terms.  It only matters a little bit where they fall on the spectrum of the day.

[RedKing]

I guess I feel like it's more accurate to term him a "hawk" than an extremist. I don't feel that his views were that polarizing across the board even for the time period, other than when LBJ *made* them polarizing by equating a vote for Goldwater with a vote for nuking little girls.

Compare and contrast that with a true extremist like Santorum or Bachmann, who are so completely out in right field on pretty much everything.

[Owlbread]

When a vote for LBJ turned out to be a vote for napalming little girls, destroying ancient forests and over 58 thousand dead GIs. All for nothing.

[Zangi]

Guns don't enable murder either.

Humans enable murder.  100% of the time.  Ban humanity. 

[mainiac]

Compare and contrast that with a true extremist like Santorum or Bachmann, who are so completely out in right field on pretty much everything.

I'm sorry but they are tame compared to segregation and witch hunts against communists.

[RedKing]

Compare and contrast that with a true extremist like Santorum or Bachmann, who are so completely out in right field on pretty much everything.

I'm sorry but they are tame compared to segregation and witch hunts against communists.

Yeah, becuase it's not like Bachmann is being a modern-day McCarthyist. Except when she is.

Goldwater himself wasn't a McCarthyist, although he voted against McCarthy's censure. He wasn't a segregationist in the sense of being an avowed racist, but on the issue of "states' rights" (and yes, I'm aware that phrase is now a dog-whistle for the former). Moreover, segregationism wasn't exactly extremism at the time. If there was anywhere where he was extreme, it was on labor rights and foreign policy.

I'm pretty sure Goldwater wouldn't have uttered a statement like "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is." I mean, Goldwater wasn't an environmentalist because of some inner hippy peace child, he saw it as a national defense issue -- polluted water and air meant sick citizens who couldn't fight off the Russians. But hey, whatever the reason, he doesn't strike me as a guy who was utterly disconnected from reality, unlike the current crop. He was a staunch, unapologetic conservative. But he was a sane one.