• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would a moderate Republican be better than a conservative to beat Hillary?

Would a moderate Republican be better than a conservative to beat Hillary?


  • Total voters
    41
I would think that a Moderate could could win on either side of the aisle, if the candidate were experienced enough, untainted and charismatic.

In a general election yes, but in the primary circus I do not think that a moderate republican would be chosen by the hardcore primary voters. At least not in this electoral cycle.
 
In a general election yes, but in the primary circus I do not think that a moderate republican would be chosen by the hardcore primary voters. At least not in this electoral cycle.

You are certainly right that this crop is devastating on both sides of the aisle.
 
The real issue is whether or not a so called moderate stands an snowballs chance in hell of winning the primary cage fight? And I do not think that is possible, the republican party (when looking at the biggest presidential candidates in percentages) has moved so far to the right that I think they will have a real issue of getting enough of the independents to win the presidency.

It was just 4 years ago that they overwhelmingly elected Romney. I don't think the party has changed that much in 4 years. In fact, there are less Tea Partiers now than in 2008 when McCain was nominated, probably 2012 as well. So, I think a moderate all by itself isn't really a disadvantaged candidate, although it seems to be true so far that the moderates running have certainly not gotten any traction (so far). I think Trump has really thrown a monkey wrench into the whole process. You're assuming that the eventual nominee will indeed be a far right candidate before even one vote has been cast. Don't forget that the last few times around the far right candidates were ahead before the primaries started and even after Iowa. The same will be true this time around. I agree with you that if they field a nominee who is too far right then that might favor the Democrats in the general election but let's not also forget that in 2008 Hillary was a shoe in at this point and anything can happen on that side as well. It wouldn't surprise me if Hillary did get charged with something and it derailed her campaign. If that were to happen I don't see the Dems just handing over the nomination to Bernie. If that were to happen I predict a huge fight with the Democratic establishment eventually giving the nomination to Joe Biden. I also think that viable third or even fourth parties (not Gary Johnson) might enter the race. This may wind up being the weirdest election ever.
 
Last edited:
well the conventional wisdom is yes but sadly, lots of bible thumpers, purists and others who are rather dim witted often stay home if they don't get a candidate who wants to burn abortion doctors at the stake and make Gays personas non gratis in America
 
Where are all of those darn Reagan Democrats when you need them?
 
Where are all of those darn Reagan Democrats when you need them?

What is a Reagan Democrat anyway? I mean which policies did Reagan have that a Democrat would vote for him over a Democrat or did he just have that likable patriotic charisma about him?
 

Hmmm how about Grenada, Panama, Beirut, Nicaragua, Somalia, Iraq, Eastern Europe...

Libya is a half truth at the VERY best. A crap storm unleashed by BushII's Arab Spring the Rabid Right both demanded and denounced intervention... let the crap fest play out without attempting to support moderates and the Rabid Right would blame Obama for 'allowing' militants a safe haven... nice try though... :peace
 
What is a Reagan Democrat anyway? I mean which policies did Reagan have that a Democrat would vote for him over a Democrat or did he just have that likable patriotic charisma about him?

Google is your friend.
 
What is a Reagan Democrat anyway? I mean which policies did Reagan have that a Democrat would vote for him over a Democrat or did he just have that likable patriotic charisma about him?

He was at the watershed movement of southern social conservatives from the democratic party to the 'Party of Lincoln'.. The Dixie-crats didn't like the new focus on equal rights. The GOP, which really never wandered too far into social issues, used nostalgia to draw the regressives out from a 'silent majority' to a vocal social conservative movement. The myth of 'Ozzie and Harriet' life before 'hippies' struck quite a cord with conservative democrats. Oh to return to the 'Good Ol' Days'...

Note that now the South is a GOP stronghold when it used to shun the 'Party of Lincoln'.
 
He was at the watershed movement of southern social conservatives from the democratic party to the 'Party of Lincoln'.. The Dixie-crats didn't like the new focus on equal rights. The GOP, which really never wandered too far into social issues, used nostalgia to draw the regressives out from a 'silent majority' to a vocal social conservative movement. The myth of 'Ozzie and Harriet' life before 'hippies' struck quite a cord with conservative democrats. Oh to return to the 'Good Ol' Days'...

Note that now the South is a GOP stronghold when it used to shun the 'Party of Lincoln'.

Are you trying to say that Reagan Democrats aren't Democrats anymore? In other words, there aren't currently many Democrats who would be called Reagan Democrats.
 
Are you trying to say that Reagan Democrats aren't Democrats anymore? In other words, there aren't currently many Democrats who would be called Reagan Democrats.

Reagan Democrats tend to be Democratic voters if there's still moderates or blue dogs left. Otherwise they tend to keep we registration out of habit than belief. Jim Webb was a good candidate for them, but as you saw, the numbers just aren't there anymore.
 
Reagan Democrats tend to be Democratic voters if there's still moderates or blue dogs left. Otherwise they tend to keep we registration out of habit than belief. Jim Webb was a good candidate for them, but as you saw, the numbers just aren't there anymore.

It's my personal opinion that there aren't many Reagan Democrats left. Both sides have become quite polarized and the middle has all but disappeared. I would like to think though that Hillary could turn some people into voting for a moderate Republican, but so far it seems that that is unlikely to happen.
 
Are you trying to say that Reagan Democrats aren't Democrats anymore? In other words, there aren't currently many Democrats who would be called Reagan Democrats.

Thought that's what i said. the term Reagan Democrats defines a transitional period in the balance of power between the two major parties. Before the rise of racial equality the Democratic Party had a bipolar membership- Traditional 'east coast' liberals and highly conservative southern whites. Former Secretary of State Dr. Rice tells the story of how restrictive the Southern Democrat voter registration teams were and how 'liberal' the GOP registrars were when it came to darker looking folks.

Now thanks to the shift in membership the GOP has a bipolar personality- 'traditional' big business east coast Republicans with little interest in social issues and the massive new comer base of strongly active social conservatives demanding the GOP focus on 'protecting' American heritage.

I doubt you can find three Democrats who would call themselves Reagan democrats- i'd opine most of the former Reagan Democrats call themselves TPs or some such now... :peace
 
Are you trying to say that Reagan Democrats aren't Democrats anymore? In other words, there aren't currently many Democrats who would be called Reagan Democrats.
If that's indeed what he's saying, then he is wrong. There are still moderate Dems who fall into this category. These were basically "swing voters".......right-leaning Democrats who carried Reagan over the top in "80 and '84. They're the moderates now. Many are Centrists and others Moderate Republicans.
 
Thought that's what i said. the term Reagan Democrats defines a transitional period in the balance of power between the two major parties. Before the rise of racial equality the Democratic Party had a bipolar membership- Traditional 'east coast' liberals and highly conservative southern whites. Former Secretary of State Dr. Rice tells the story of how restrictive the Southern Democrat voter registration teams were and how 'liberal' the GOP registrars were when it came to darker looking folks.

Now thanks to the shift in membership the GOP has a bipolar personality- 'traditional' big business east coast Republicans with little interest in social issues and the massive new comer base of strongly active social conservatives demanding the GOP focus on 'protecting' American heritage.

I doubt you can find three Democrats who would call themselves Reagan democrats- i'd opine most of the former Reagan Democrats call themselves TPs or some such now... :peace
I believe you're wrong. Reagan Democrats never labeled themselves as such....it was a term coined by the media. There are still many who fit the description.
 
Last edited:
If that's indeed what he's saying, then he is wrong. There are still moderate Dems who fall into this category. These were basically "swing voters".......right-leaning Democrats who carried Reagan over the top in "80 and '84. They're the moderates now. Many are Centrists and others Moderate Republicans.

But how many are actually still registered as Democrats?
 
I'm really, really afraid that all of the partisanship that has led to a totally disfunctional congress is about to spill over into the 2016 election, with a partisan left choice vs a partisan right choice and no moderates to be found anywhere.

Been like this many times.

Demographics are different today but usually benefits the Republicans...Nixons Silent majority...Reagan's namesake Democrats.

Trump currently has support of 61% of the white population head to head against Clinton. In 2016 that isn't sufficient to win an election. He needs 63% if Blacks, Hipanics vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Trump needs up to 65% white vote in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio.
 
But how many are actually still registered as Democrats?

Among the folks I researched-those who were closer to being lobbyists, researchers, etc., a small minority doggedly held on to their Democratic Party registration.

This may also interest you, but Richard Perle is still a registered Democrat.
 
Back
Top Bottom