Print

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

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[misko27]

Sorry Bachmann and Cruz, Santorum at least, err, well, actually no it's just because Bachman does her Vaccine and Muslim Brotherhood thing, and Ted Cruz does his President of Madagascar impression: "OBAMACARE IS COMING? SHUT, DOWN, EVERYTHING".


It is conceivable that Rick Santorum at some point might say something that I agree with. And since his social conservatism would be thoroughly blocked, his worst damages are blunted. Santorum for slightly less worse Presidential candidate 2016!

Everything I know about the Gulf Southerners has been shattered against the rocks of Nate Silver's cold, hard science witchery.

Extremists control so much, they really do. They just remain the ultimate enemy to everything. They can have points, but they more often then not are just, wrong.

[PTTG??]

I wonder if the republican party is going to collapse. All it would take is remotely strong Democrat to take the torch from Obama and Republicans would really have failed in their final policy goal of making Obama look like a failure.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Republican Party is most definitely going to collapse unless the Moderate-Libertarian bloc takes power back from the Religious-Tea bloc. The latter is untenable, but at least for the moment has almost all the power and are too extreme to be pragmatic about it. And even if it swings back towards the Moderate-Libertarian bloc, the Religious-Tea bloc are also extreme enough to potentially break off, thereby leaving the Republican Party destroyed anyway.

[Max White]

You say that, but then I wonder just how prevalent this supposed cult of fedora clad right wing libertarians actually is... Are they just a myth composed of a few parodies existing within the internet, or are there actually a significant number of people like this?

Darn you Ayn Rand, just die already!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you mean "are there significant numbers of people who are socially and fiscally libertine, and vote Republican"? Yes. If you mean "are the internet libertarians pushing the political compass and bitcoin a significant force in American society", then no.

I suppose I could do an overview of the five faction view of the Republican Party if anybody wants it.

[Max White]

Go for it! I'm always up for factional analysis...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Alright then, from rightmost to leftmost:

The Religious Right: Socially far-right to right-center; economically far-right to center. The Religious Right are crazy. Starting like that seems somewhat biased, I know, but it's true. They're crazy. They are the old white men of the party of old white men. They are ideologically convicted on all societal issues to the point that they are unlikely to ever budge, because these issues are brought down to them from God Himself. Cultural conservatives to the max. Powerfully anti-gay, anti-drug, anti-abortion, pro-Israel, pro-abstinence, pro-school prayer. Usually anti-gun control. Conspiracy theories prevalent, but usually based upon Biblical prophecy rather than more "contemporary" threats. Expect all Americans to live under their set standards, and very angry that they lack the singular power to make this happen. Desire a Christian Nation, essentially. Less convicted on economic issues, but their company means that they usually stay more on the right wing than the center. Prosperity gospel followers in particular connect with economic issues in the same way their fellows do with social issues. Surprisingly ecumenical amongst non-liberal denominations of Christianity, as this was essentially how they were founded. The sick man of the Republican Party demographic-wise, but ideologically convicted enough that they have inflated power. In love with the Tea Party, ambivalent about the Establishment and the more right-wing Moderates (like with their congregations, they see these two as on the right path but still not True and Pure as they are), hate the Libertarians and the more left-wing Moderates.

The Tea Party: Socially far-right to center; economically far-right to right wing. Despite the name, they've been around for much longer. The Tea Party just brought them together. Right-wing populism is the order of the day here. A lot of rhetoric is focused on "common sense" over "the liberal elite". Whether they were grassroots or astroturf is not so relevant anymore, because this beast has eaten its fill and gained a life of its own. Somewhat of a mirror of the Religious Right, in that they are more about economics than social issues, but still usually right wing on both. Reaganomics are more holy to them than the Bible. By the way, the name is supposed to be an acronym: Taxed Enough Already. Anti-Public Sector, Anti-Taxation (there are a few exceptions), Anti-Spending, Anti-Foreign Aid, Anti-Gun Control, Pro-Deregulation, Nativist. Anti-Obama in particular, the main source of the Birthers. The more extreme members take it into outright racism, as I'm sure most of you have seen. Conspiracy theorist hotbed, but more secular about it. Prefer "Obama is planning a socialist coup" to "Obama is literally the Anti-Christ". They and the Religious Right are the dark alliance which holds together the Republican Party as it exists today, and keep it firmly in the right as this causes the least strife between them. Like the Libertarians well enough. Ambivalent about the Establishment. Hate, hate, hate the Moderates.

The Establishment: Socially right-wing to center; economically right-wing to center. Poor, poor Establishment. All they wanted was to make the Republican Party powerful again, and look what happened. Neoconservative. It has representation from all groups by nature, but balances out...kind of. As previously mentioned, the Religious Right and Tea Party are the winning elements at the moment. Tries to keep everybody playing nicely and from the party entering a full civil war. Is more cognizant than anybody else how fatal that would be. Focusing on bringing immigration towards the center on the pragmatic (if flawed) grounds that it will give them a boost of Latino and immigrant support. It isn't going well. Anti-Deficit, Anti-Democrat. Tries to keep quiet otherwise, as going further than that is just too damn dangerous. Just changing immigration is making the Tea Party and Religious Right try to kill the whole party! Headache towards other factions, envy towards Democrats, blackout intoxication towards future.

The Libertarians: Socially center-right to far-left; economically far-right to right-wing. They're, well, Libertarians. Most want either a very small or night-watchmen state, except for the anarcho-capitalists, who want no state. They pull in a lot of voters through their social views, even though such candidates are rarely elected. Some will be positively libertine on social views. If you ever meet a Republican you can't make flinch by describing how you want to create a gay harem and marry them to your city, you're probably talking to one of the Libertarians. Anti-regulation, anti-government, pro-marriage privatization, pro-entrepreneurship, anti-gun control, pro-drug legalization. Pro-Ron Paul. Pro-Ron Paul. Pro-Ron Paul. ALL HAIL RON PAU- Er, sorry. Yes, they gained a lot of their energy from Ron Paul. Whatever you may think of him, he was undoubtedly the leader of the Libertarians. Rand Paul has been...a lot less impressive to them. Occasionally contemplate defecting to the Libertarian Party en mass due to their lack of size and internal allies, but it doesn't do much. Hate Religious Right, like Tea Party, dislike Establishment, like Moderates.

The Moderates Socially center-right to center-left; economically right-wing to center. Centrists and Liberals, along with all the other assorted minor groups that don't fit in anywhere else. Depressed and yelling "I told you so! You maniacs! You blew it all up!". Except the ones who are really young, and possibly only Republican because their parents were. They are the ones advocating pragmatic, ideologically blind changes to avoid the party's death. Really don't care as much about social issues, and will follow the national viewpoint on such things even if it brings them into the left wing. Most convicted on social issues, but even that isn't much. Pro-drug legalization, pro-gay marriage, anti-deficit, pro-bipartisanship, pro-immigrant, ambivalent-gun control, ambivalent-abortion. Small but growing alongside the Libertarians. Generally called out as RHINOs by everybody but the Libertarians. Unhappy and worried that the party is doomed, giving them a common ground with the Establishment. Hate the Religious Right, Tea Party, and Establishment for laughing as it all goes to hell. Alright with the Libertarians, but short of the kind of alliance the Religious Right and Tea Party have.


So, that's it. These are the factions that Nate Silver suggested for the Republican Party, and I'd link you do it if I could access the New York Times anymore. Essentially, it's like Olympic Rings. Everybody is connected to the Establishment. Religious Right is connected to Tea Party. Tea Party is connected to Religious Right and Libertarians, Libertarians are connected to Tea Party and Moderates, Moderates are connected to Libertarians.

[Max White]

So I basically read it as...
- [INSERT DEITY HERE] is the light!
- All government spending is communism!
- Just wants to get in office for the hell of it.
- Anarchy for the rich.
- Look I just don't like the Liberals, ok?

[Darvi]

Sorry Bachmann and Cruz, Santorum at least, err, well, actually no it's just because Bachman does her Vaccine and Muslim Brotherhood thing, and Ted Cruz does his President of Madagascar impression: "OBAMACARE IS COMING? SHUT, DOWN, EVERYTHING".


It is conceivable that Rick Santorum at some point might say something that I agree with. And since his social conservatism would be thoroughly blocked, his worst damages are blunted. Santorum for slightly less worse Presidential candidate 2016!

Wait, somebody actually voted for him for a reason that isn't "Sex Santorum"?

[mainiac]

I think you should categorize them by voting patterns, not beliefs:

-True believers: these people believe that left wing politics goes against Gods will/The constitution/The ghost of Rand/white pride/whatever and must be destroyed at all cost because we are on the very verge of collapse which will destroy America.  True believers, regardless of beliefs, are completely interchangeable because they will credibly accept any other republican position in order to further their belief.  Counter examples to us being on the verge of collapse mean nothing to them, we are always on the verge of collapse no matter how much things change.  These people will always vote republican, no matter what, because they will always rationalize in the end that the republican who panders to their true belief is righteous in all things while democrats have an extremely hard time pandering to their true belief due to the D next to their name.  Just being a fundementalist or a gun nut isn't enough, these people are characterized by their belief that America is on the verge of collapse.  It could be something as extremist as hating mixed raced marriages or as tame as hating a %2 tax hike on the rich but the end is nigh either way.

-Self identified establishment: These people divide the world into two kinds of people, capitalists and sheep and sheep aren't really people.  No matter how poor they are, they are convinced that they and all people like themselves are capitalists, while everyone else just doesn't get it.  They will supply however much delusion is needed, hence the popularity of Mormons loosing money, pissing away hundreds of dollars a year is a tiny price to pay for showing that you are one of the capitalists.  These people will almost always vote republican because republicans serve the needs of capitalists like them, they just wonder how much the GOP needs to promise the true believers.  The self identified establishment thinks the true believers are the rubes and never thinks of fellow self identified establishment members as rubes.  Most people running the actual party apparatus fall into this group, membership in this is why you would want to manage republican party administrative crap (that and a paycheck).

Issue voters: These guys don't trust the government about the guns/religion/the mexicans/free trade/whatever.  Because of this distrust, they tend to distrust the government on the other stuff too.  They are the most persuadable republicans, not in the sense that they change their minds on their pet issue(s) but they can sometimes trust the government despite their pet issue.  Because distrust of the government is the republican credo, they tend to be republican.  These guys are also the only ones with a non-marginal equivalent on the left, plenty on the left trust the government on some issue or other so serve as duplicates whereas left versions of true believers and self identified establishment don't remotely approach the population of these groups.  This is the most strategic group, the NRA used to endorse democrats when it served them up until the self identified establishment hijacked the NRA leadership a couple years back.  These guys most resemble typical democratic voters not necessarily in ideological position but in behavior.  This is the smallest group and is very fractured among various issues but is far away the most successful at getting their agenda done because when you know what you want and dont ask too much, you succeed more than when you want the world.

Now the way party politics works is that most stuff is sorted out by the hacks, a group that is thoroughly part of the self identified establishment.  Being a true believer or an issue voter is in fact a disqualifying condition.  The hacks are people like George Wills or Sean Hannity, uncreative, untalented and completely predictable yet bizarrely successful.  Stephan Colbert's whole gimmick is to imitate their behavior.  Even within republican circles they don't deserve their success.  They are kept around though to serve as a sounding board for the Self identified establishment to strike it's deals with the True Believers and the Issue Voters.  The hacks are testing the waters constantly, not just around elections, to see what the lay of the land is.  If a hack steps out of bounds they will get public backlash and suffer no personal consequences whatsoever, it's their job to see what kind of backlash what ideas get.

The issue voters and the true believers lack something equivalent to the hacks.  The issue voter media outlets if they exist just always say the same thing.  The true believers get vocal around elections but tend to flail in all directions when not in election session (look at Drudge and Limbaugh) and do stupid stuff like call George Zimmerman a hero.  The issue voters only make waves when they're willing to cross the aisle and strike a deal with the democrats, otherwise they're just republicans with a narrower focus.

So every election you have a "shadow primary" ahead of time where everyone discusses who is a real contender and who isn't.  The true believers have little input in this by virtue of never really participating.  The issue voters throw their support around a bit but they're positions are set so they're basically the landscape, not the actors.  So the hacks and the establishment (including the actually party leadership) kick stuff around and tell themselves that they are political masterminds strategerizing all sorts of awesome stuff as they hold a glorified popularity contest.  The result of this is that some candidates end up with a lot of free publicity and money that will make them favorites later on.  Finally the primaries draw near and the true believers look at the choices that the establishment gives them.  They are vocal but disorganized and usually end up marginalized, although less so in more recent years.  Thus the establishment runs the show by paying attention to the issue voters early on and waiting for the True Believers to fall in line.

[FearfulJesuit]

MSH, I'm not so sure the Tea Party/Religious Right have as much of a death grip on the party as you think...remember, they failed to get their way on both default attempts, and the Establishment's been taking the needed steps to ensure they can't crash the boat again (default this February is looking really unlikely, since a budget is probably going to be passed). That's not so good for our desire to watch disaster, but it's good for the country. Maybe.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Be that as it may, the Libertarians and Moderates are still ultimately very small parts of the party. How often do you see their viewpoints put up by the GOP, or even not crushed under party loyalty? The struggle we see now is between the members of the Tea Party-Religious Right bloc that are in the Establishment struggling to keep those fully dedicated to their group from breaking away, even for the Tea Party and Religious Right themselves. The Republican Party can't survive without the Moderates and Libertarians voting for them, but that doesn't mean they have power.

[mainiac]

Be that as it may, the Libertarians and Moderates are still ultimately very small parts of the party. How often do you see their viewpoints put up by the GOP, or even not crushed under party loyalty?

That's because of the way that the self identified establishment displays themselves.  When the true believers get BENGAZI some silly BENGAZI thing BENGAZI in their heads the establishment crowd panders to them.  That doesn't mean they are true believers themselves, they change their views at a moments notice if need be.  It serves them quite well to sound BENGAZI but they don't care about that stuff, they just want to win.  And this crowd has a strong track record of dominating party politics, although recent events (like Ted Cruz not getting excecuted for stupidity.) do indicate it's weaker then before.

[da_nang]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events.

And now it's confirmed. Children could be feds.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events.

For once, I'm happy to see multinational corporations illegally throwing around their influence to change the law.

And now it's confirmed. Children could be feds.

NSA confirmed for Horde scum, please ban.