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

Moderate Republican like Christie, or conservative like Cruz?

bbert1994 said:

Moderate Republican like Christie, or conservative like Cruz?

Click to expand...

Didn't we go down this road with McCain and Romney already?
I guess I should qualify that though that conservative doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to some.
A lot of people define conservative as social conservative e.g. no abortion, no gay marriage etc..
To me conservative means stick with the principles and roles of government as stipulated in the constitution.
most social issues aren't in the constitution and government shouldn't have a role in those anyway.

The "traditional" (meaning, in the past several decades) modus operandi of American Presidential campaigning is up in the air. We believed that hitting to the poles and then coming to the center was generally the best means of running a campaign. There was plenty of reason for this. To some significant extent, it was also beneficial to pride oneself in not getting the "extremes" of the base to sign on to your candidate. The 1968 and 1972 elections showed us that, with Nixonian Republicans capitalizing on the truth that the Democratic Party at the time largely ignored (to its peril): America was not buying into the counterculture, nor was it racially colorful or impoverished. This meant "cooling one's jets" during campaign season. We rejected Goldwater, Wallace, and McGovern. Intra-party politics also stressed balance: Democrats needed the South, Republicans needed segments of the working class (including those that were unionized).

Not necessarily so anymore.

Democrats are betting on moving toward and to the Left of McGovern, Republicans are moving toward Goldwater and Wallace in a somewhat incoherent direction (perhaps a bit like Wallace's own 1968 campaign). While so-called "independents" have dramatically increased, a substantial reason for that increase was these so-called independents felt both major Parties were not becoming strident defenders of either liberal progressivism or conservatism. These "independents" are often really just populists, libertarians, constitutionalists, greens, and social democrats. They aren't necessarily moderates by any stretch of the imagination. When asked if compromise is a virtue in national politics, the American public responded resoundingly in the affirmative, but compromise needed to be something the other guy did, rather than themselves. The number of moderates in both Parties' elected offices has shrunk dramatically to the point of novelty, partly as a consequence of being bumped out of one's own primaries by a more strident ideologue or by virtue of trading a friendly foe for one of their own (a moderate Dem gets removed and a "hard" Republican steps in).

The Republican Party has tried desperately to remove any semblance of moderation (because to them that sounds like being a turncoat), but failed to make any headway in the 2012 primary because they were split between too many candidates to make a dent against Romney. Now the exact opposite problem seems to exist, but to the point where Party disarray seems like a probable outcome if either an outsider candidate or the perennial establishment candidate gets selected.

Under normal circumstances one would suggest that this would doom the Republican Party to being dangerously close to losing an election that would ordinarily be in their pocket, but this isn't quite a normal political environment. Undecided voters account for a smaller and smaller portion of the American public, and the American public's polarization is such that radicalism is rationalized as normal, and the old normal as 'wishy washy.'

But this too would be a different question than asking what happens when a Party enters an arena where it does not control at least 2/3 of the federal government (legislative, executive, and/or judiciary). On that question, I would say that without a super majority, nothing will happen at all. That is something the American public isn't quite mature enough to handle right now, though. They are too busy trying to win the argument.

The wild card is not the independent white vote but the independent Hispanic vote. If Trump is nominated, then at least 80% of Hispanic voters will go Democratic. Maybe even 90%.

Contrast that with the Hispanics' voting of the Bushes.

I actually think Trump stands one of the best chances to win the Presidency because he has appeal to some of the more conservative democrat base and black voters.

Doubtful a guy like Cruz will ever become President. Marco Rubio has an excellent shot because of inroads he has made with the Hispanic community.

I don't see any of the other candidates having any shot at winning the primary nom.

I will say of the lot, I detest Cruz the most, so far as to say that I just don't like him as a human being. The other guys like Huckabee and Santorum that I don't like are irrelevant. I'm on the fence on whether or not I'll vote for Hillary if she becomes the nom (likely) but that will change if Cruz somehow makes it past the primaries. The thought of him in the White House is sickening to me. Doubt that Independent and moderate voters will like him all that much either, especially once the general election is in full swing and people start really paying attention. The Primary season doesn't get nearly as much exposure to the general public who doesn't care too much or follow politics too much, but once the general comes around and people do start paying attention I think they'll be just as creeped out and annoyed with Cruz as I am. In fact, when I used to consider myself a conservative Republican not even two and a half years ago, Cruz was one of the primary reasons I took a good solid look at my political philosophy and shifted so far to the left as I did.

bbert1994 said:

Moderate Republican like Christie, or conservative like Cruz?

Click to expand...

How is Christie considered moderate? His foreign policy is extremely leftist/interventionist.

Bucky said:

How is Christie considered moderate? His foreign policy is extremely leftist/interventionist.

Click to expand...

since when does interventionism = leftism?

dimensionallava said:

since when does interventionism = leftism?

Click to expand...

Libya.

~~

The GOP base is too small to win without independents. Hillary is vulnerable, but not by a hard core conservative

annata said:

Libya.

Click to expand...

ummm iraq? twice

dimensionallava said:

ummm iraq?

Click to expand...

yep.which is why Clinton should have known better.
She has said Iraq was a mistake ( her vote) -yet she was the driving force ( in the US) on Libyan regime change/interventionism

annata said:

yep.which is why Clinton should have known better.
She has said Iraq was a mistake ( her vote) -yet she was the driving force ( in the US) on Libyan regime change/interventionism

Click to expand...

what the hell are you talking about? you said interventionism =leftism because of libya. Do you think hillary clinton represents all of leftism? do you feel the same way about bush?

dimensionallava said:

what the hell are you talking about? you said interventionism =leftism because of libya. Do you think hillary clinton represents all of leftism? do you feel the same way about bush?

Click to expand...

no. not all of 'leftism' /I never made such a claim. Sanders called her out on it in a feeble way in the debate.
But she clearly is a figure from the American left, at least that is how she portrays herself,

dimensionallava said:

since when does interventionism = leftism?

Click to expand...

Have you ever studied history? Further back than the GW Bush era, that is. Your communist buddies around the world and throughout history have and are still pretty interventionist in their dealings with other countries.

Beaudreaux said:

Have you ever studied history? Further back than the GW Bush era, that is. Your communist buddies around the world and throughout history have and are still pretty interventionist in their dealings with other countries.

Click to expand...

as oppose to who?

What I want is a candidate that says what they mean and means what they say. Hillary "evolves" (bends?) more often than most and simply cannot be trusted. I really don't want a POTUS that does what is popular, since that is not what leadership is about - that is simply bending with the wind. We have representation that does plenty of compromising at the state and district level who make our laws and yet may seem to wish to ignore that group of congress critters and just have the POTUS do it all with a pen and a phone. We need to fundmentally change that bizarre idea and get back to what the constitution defines as the roles of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/

We need a POTUS that understands the difference between federal and state governmment functions - if you want to call that conservative then yes, we need a conservative.

Bucky said:

How is Christie considered moderate? His foreign policy is extremely leftist/interventionist.

Click to expand...

How is an interventionist foreign policy "leftist"?

Beaudreaux said:

Have you ever studied history? Further back than the GW Bush era, that is. Your communist buddies around the world and throughout history have and are still pretty interventionist in their dealings with other countries.

Click to expand...

So did Ronald Reagan. The idea that interventionism = leftism is utterly asinine.

annata said:

Libya.

Click to expand...

Iraq. The first time.

Neither left nor right can stake any exclusive claim to "interventionism."

bbert1994 said:

Moderate Republican like Christie, or conservative like Cruz?

Click to expand...

I voted "yes, best way to attract independents" but not because of the candidates you list. At this point I am unsure there is a moderate Republican in the current field of hopefuls, as my concern is Trump has done something to the entire GOP field exactly inverse to what Sanders did to Clinton in the race for the Democrat nod.

I have argued before that Hillary expected to walk into the White House with little to no challenge relying on the media and establishment Democrats to shield her from criticism and real challenge. Literally win on name, history, and being a woman. Then Sanders happened, and as a true liberal forced Hillary to brand herself in the same regard.

Well over on the GOP side something similar happened. Trump convinced the entire field to march further right, next thing you know they all no matter if establishment Republican or otherwise tried to go after that far right, NRA supporting, xenophobic, social conservative, mostly rural, mostly without higher education and in the 4th to 3rd income quintile, and mostly white voter pool.

Some will say that is the very group that stayed home in 2008 not happy with McCain, and again stayed home in 2012 not happy with Romney. I would offer this is the very group that ensured the 2012 Growth and Opportunity Project was laughed off the stage, to the point that Independents and Moderates are now in play for 2016. I just do not see anyone on the GOP stage that can sway them once they are all done in the primary season trying to pick away at whom supports Trump. If the GOP convention ends up brokered, this could be amplified where a general election strategy to gain Independents and Moderates is more challenging.

Lastly, we cannot dismiss how much party affiliation has fallen in recent times suggesting that if the GOP wants a general election win for Presidency they will eventually have to break free from the party of exclusion thinking at some point. Just the below information tells us it is going to be close in 2016, but if the GOP cannot appeal to Independents and Moderates then Hillary wins in a landslide. That could be mitigated with a Moderate Republican, but would that set up another loss just as McCain and Romney suffered? No matter what, the GOP has some planning to do and in context they should have considered the 2012 plan more seriously to reach out to the very demographics on the increase and welcomed in by Democrats.

ttwtt78640 said:

What I want is a candidate that says what they mean and means what they say. Hillary "evolves" (bends?) more often than most and simply cannot be trusted. I really don't want a POTUS that does what is popular, since that is not what leadership is about - that is simply bending with the wind. We have representation that does plenty of compromising at the state and district level who make our laws and yet may seem to wish to ignore that group of congress critters and just have the POTUS do it all with a pen and a phone. We need to fundmentally change that bizarre idea and get back to what the constitution defines as the roles of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/

We need a POTUS that understands the difference between federal and state governmment functions - if you want to call that conservative then yes, we need a conservative.

Click to expand...

SO you do not want a president who, over the course of over 10 years, has changed their position based on changes in the country? That seems kinda silly actually.

Be wary of liberals telling us what we need to do to win (which oddly often entails looking just like them). We've already seen what happens when we try to compromise, the base stays home. Let's stop trying to pretend we're something we're not (Democrats) and put up a real choice and see what happens.

The American body politic is bifurcating - elections are no longer won by winning the middle without turning off the base, they are won by turning out your base without completely losing the middle.

Redress said:

SO you do not want a president who, over the course of over 10 years, has changed their position based on changes in the country? That seems kinda silly actually.

Click to expand...

Correct. The constitution did not change (since 1868) and marriage is still a state defined and issued privilege. The assertion that marriage is a right is still being claimed by many. I understand that the concept of equal protection was applied but there are countless laws that violate equal protection including, affirmative action, may issue 2A permits, male only draft registration, gender separation in military/public college housing and publicly funded sports teams. If some laws can have man/woman distinctions and not person then marriage (a state issued privilege) is certainly one of them.

ttwtt78640 said:

What I want is a candidate that says what they mean and means what they say. Hillary "evolves" (bends?) more often than most and simply cannot be trusted. I really don't want a POTUS that does what is popular, since that is not what leadership is about - that is simply bending with the wind. We have representation that does plenty of compromising at the state and district level who make our laws and yet may seem to wish to ignore that group of congress critters and just have the POTUS do it all with a pen and a phone. 1. We need to fundmentally change that bizarre idea and get back to what the constitution defines as the roles of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/

2. We need a POTUS that understands the difference between federal and state governmment functions - if you want to call that conservative then yes, we need a conservative.

Click to expand...

1. separation of powers 2. US federalism..I couldn't agree more

Kobie said:

Iraq. The first time.

Neither left nor right can stake any exclusive claim to "interventionism."

Click to expand...

and I'm not 100% opposed to interventionism -
but so called "nation building" is expensive, time consuming,and most likely to fail.
Go with counter-terrorism, basically Wack a Mole hit them hard, but don't get bogged down