• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney doesn't just draw swing voters, he draws swing senators...

IndepCentristMA said:
Actually not... Spare me the Good Will Hunting mantra... I've been to 5 different Universities, and Harvard outranks all of them in quality. There is a reason they continually are ranked at the top of the list of colleges in the US and Worldwide. Also, they arent nearly as expensive as other private schools, and the 4 major Boston schools are right in the same area for annual tuition for full-time students. I go as a part-time through the Extension School, and only pay $1000 per course. It's still the same Harvard professors, and I will end up with a Harvard degree. So I am doing the poor man's Harvard... anything else incorrect you'd like to mistake? You are aware both Obama and Romney went to Harvard, too... right?
Click to expand...
I see, so you support mittens so much because you just want to be ignorant like that. Alright.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
:lamo Im a history major from Harvard... the place you attributed to being a top rate university when discussing Obama... keep talking though...

His Democratic opponent in 72 was the white supremacist George McGovern.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes...George McGovern was a white supremacist!

You just can't make this stuff up, you learn it at Harvard.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, yes...George McGovern was a white supremacist!

You just can't make this stuff up, you learn it at Harvard.
Click to expand...

Yup... got me there, I meant George Wallace... name recollection = not my strong point... ( I also messed up Kerri Healey and Nikki Haley's name to create Kerri Haley in that same post... thought someone would've picked up on that, too... pfff I even mess up my daughter's names, even my own name... )

but if you think McGovern put up a fight you'd be wrong there, too...

1972prescountymap2.PNG

That's the result per county... Don't buy into the liberal hype that Nixon was a bad president... that's as overwhelming support as you can get...

Wallace and McGovern split the party, much like in 68 after RFK's death... Nixon moved into the south with the Republican message, and they've been parked there since...
 
johnny_rebson said:
Obama and Romney have way too much in common.
Click to expand...

LMFAO... that they were educated at Harvard? More Presidents have gone to Harvard than any other school...

Guess who else went to Harvard? John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B Hayes, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, George W Bush, Obama...

So that just makes Mitt Romney more like a president... ;)

It's no surprise being at a perennial top 5 university worldwide will lead to you being considered for president...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Yup... got me there, I meant George Wallace... name recollection = not my strong point... ( I also messed up Kerri Healey and Nikki Haley's name to create Kerri Haley in that same post... thought someone would've picked up on that, too... pfff I even mess up my daughter's names, even my own name... )[

but if you think McGovern put up a fight you'd be wrong there, too... That's the result per county...
Click to expand...
Uh....he did put a "fight", he had 37% of the vote, you are graphing electoral votes which are winner take all, not indicative of the popular vote count......but then I was not arguing about any "fight"...at all, you just need to say this to boost your ego, creating your own straw man points.


ICMA said:
Don't buy into the liberal hype that Nixon was a bad president... that's as overwhelming support as you can get...
Click to expand...
Wow, you think that electoral vote counts are an indicator of the "goodness" of a POTUS? That is such a weird viewpoint, especially coming from a Harvard student. Nixon was a paranoid maniac with a serious need for revenge going back to his days running for office in CA. He nearly destroyed the office of the Presidency with his lies and deviant behavior, his direct involvement in Watergate and its cover-up was disgusting enough, not to mention the needless extension of Vietnam (with the illegal invasion of Cambodia and the war crimes in his bombings of the North) with Kissinger as his right hand man also involved with the overthrow of Allende. To think that the election of 72 somehow showed Nixon as "not bad" is just beyond the pale of intellectual honesty.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Wallace and McGovern split the party, much like in 68 after RFK's death... Nixon moved into the south with the Republican message, and they've been parked there since...
Click to expand...
Again, for a Harvard history student, you are making a poor showing. Humphrey actually won the primary vote count over McGovern, but McGovern was able to gain more delegate support at the convention. What caused the collapse for the Dems was the trouble in selecting a VP.

Wallace was only a player in the South, he trailed Jackson in the delegate count......and yes, Nixon did win over a lot of the conservative Southern vote, the "Southern Strategy" did pay off in the general.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, for a Harvard history student, you are making a poor showing. Humphrey actually won the primary vote count over McGovern, but McGovern was able to gain more delegate support at the convention. What caused the collapse for the Dems was the trouble in selecting a VP.

Wallace was only a player in the South, he trailed Jackson in the delegate count......and yes, Nixon did win over a lot of the conservative Southern vote, the "Southern Strategy" did pay off in the general.
Click to expand...

What's more, the groundswell of southern democrats moving to the Republican Party occurred under Johnson, not Nixon, and it was the result of the Civil Rights Act. But we're talking about a guy who claims that Nixon was a conservative. :lol:
 
AdamT said:
What's more, the groundswell of southern democrats moving to the Republican Party occurred under Johnson, not Nixon, and it was the result of the Civil Rights Act. But we're talking about a guy who claims that Nixon was a conservative. :lol:
Click to expand...

Nixon was a moderate conservative.

Liberals are just trying to "adopt" Richard Nixon (a thought almost unfathomable thought every couple of years when another memo surfaces that is meant to be red meat to liberals) merely to trash the current conservative opposition. It's hardly anything more than a false sense of degradation of the conservative movement, and the posts of many liberals here illustrate that the swell of journalistic comparisons of Nixon filtered to the masses (just as it had with Eisenhower). It's a selective viewing of history to be self-serving for the present. Disingenuous to the core.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Nixon was a moderate conservative.

Liberals are just trying to "adopt" Richard Nixon (a thought almost unfathomable thought every couple of years when another memo surfaces that is meant to be red meat to liberals) merely to trash the current conservative opposition. It's hardly anything more than a false sense of degradation of the conservative movement, and the posts of many liberals here illustrate that the swell of journalistic comparisons of Nixon filtered to the masses (just as it had with Eisenhower). It's a selective viewing of history to be self-serving for the present. Disingenuous to the core.
Click to expand...

Today, Nixon would be regarded as a raging liberal socialist. Let's recap again: he opened relations with Communist China; he created the Environmental Protection Agency; he attempted to get universal health care that wasn't much different from Obamacare; he signed the Clean Air Act; he created OSHA; he supported the Equal Rights Amendment; he created the first significant federal affirmative action program; he supported school desegration and busing; he instituted price controls -- direct government control of the oil industry. Need more?
 
Please. The implication is that American liberals find that they like Richard Nixon, which is a falsification. Much of this is an example of the past being a circumstance of the times, not immediately applicable toward the present. Nixon's policies did exist in a great deal of cuts for federal programs that liberals at that time had greatly supported such as social programs, scientific investment, and education, had an ethnic and racial animus that makes both current liberals and conservatives uncomfortable. For one thing, he wasn't regarded as a socialist then (instead, cracking the joke that, "We Are All Keynesians Now"---something that many conservatives still largely accept), and many of these polices that have been instituted today still exist and are not being fought against existing. Furthermore, arguments for or against certain policies continues to exist in conservative circles, like the immigration reform Bush pushed through. He was still a conservative. Encouraging the divide between the Soviet Union and the Chinese was something supported by both Democratic Hawks and conservatives. It doesn't have an automatic analogousness situation today. He did established the EPA, it still exists, it is still supported by conservatives. Has there been much in the way of wanting to remove the OSHA? Many moderate conservative supported the ERA. Have you heard people wanting to remove the ERA? Again, school desegregation, something that has become a universal platform comes into conflict with busing, a problem which people on the left and the right continue to debate. Price controls would make current conservatives uncomfortable as would direct control of the oil industry.

It's not so simple as saying, "he's with us!" He was and remains part of conservatism, with pieces that will be both comfortable and uncomfortable for current-era conservatives due to being perceived as "too liberal" or far too conservative or far too racist.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Please. The implication is that American liberals find that they like Richard Nixon, which is a falsification. Much of this is an example of the past being a circumstance of the times, not immediately applicable toward the present. Nixon's policies did exist in a great deal of cuts for federal programs that liberals at that time had greatly supported such as social programs, scientific investment, and education, had an ethnic and racial animus that makes both current liberals and conservatives uncomfortable. For one thing, he wasn't regarded as a socialist then (instead, cracking the joke that, "We Are All Keynesians Now"---something that many conservatives still largely accept), and many of these polices that have been instituted today still exist and are not being fought against existing. Furthermore, arguments for or against certain policies continues to exist in conservative circles, like the immigration reform Bush pushed through. He was still a conservative. Encouraging the divide between the Soviet Union and the Chinese was something supported by both Democratic Hawks and conservatives. It doesn't have an automatic analogousness situation today. He did established the EPA, it still exists, it is still supported by conservatives. Has there been much in the way of wanting to remove the OSHA? Many moderate conservative supported the ERA. Have you heard people wanting to remove the ERA? Again, school desegregation, something that has become a universal platform comes into conflict with busing, a problem which people on the left and the right continue to debate. Price controls would make current conservatives uncomfortable as would direct control of the oil industry.

It's not so simple as saying, "he's with us!" He was and remains part of conservatism, with pieces that will be both comfortable and uncomfortable for current-era conservatives due to being perceived as "too liberal" or far too conservative or far too racist.
Click to expand...

Do you actually read the newspapers or watch TV? The EPA is a huge Republican boogeyman -- to the extent that all of the GOP candidates tried to make hay by bashing it, and in several instances, by proclaiming that it should be abolished altogether. Likewise, affirmative action, equal rights, and workplace safety regulations. Bush did not "push through" immigration reform. In fact his immigration reform program got slapped back in his face due to virtually no support from Republicans (though Democrats supported it). And of course the ERA was never ratified, so it would be odd if someone was lobbying to have it removed. It was done in largely by grass-roots opposition by southern whites, evangelicals, Mormons, orthodox Jews, and Catholics. In 2009 Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which helped women and minorities get relief for disciminitory wages. It passed Congress with near-universal support by Democrats and near-universal opposition by Republicans.

My point is not that Nixon was considered a liberal in his day, but rather that he would certainly be considered one today.
 
Fiddytree said:
Please. The implication is that American liberals find that they like Richard Nixon, which is a falsification. Much of this is an example of the past being a circumstance of the times, not immediately applicable toward the present. Nixon's policies did exist in a great deal of cuts for federal programs that liberals at that time had greatly supported such as social programs, scientific investment, and education, had an ethnic and racial animus that makes both current liberals and conservatives uncomfortable. For one thing, he wasn't regarded as a socialist then (instead, cracking the joke that, "We Are All Keynesians Now"---something that many conservatives still largely accept), and many of these polices that have been instituted today still exist and are not being fought against existing. Furthermore, arguments for or against certain policies continues to exist in conservative circles, like the immigration reform Bush pushed through. He was still a conservative. Encouraging the divide between the Soviet Union and the Chinese was something supported by both Democratic Hawks and conservatives. It doesn't have an automatic analogousness situation today. He did established the EPA, it still exists, it is still supported by conservatives. Has there been much in the way of wanting to remove the OSHA? Many moderate conservative supported the ERA. Have you heard people wanting to remove the ERA? Again, school desegregation, something that has become a universal platform comes into conflict with busing, a problem which people on the left and the right continue to debate. Price controls would make current conservatives uncomfortable as would direct control of the oil industry.

It's not so simple as saying, "he's with us!" He was and remains part of conservatism, with pieces that will be both comfortable and uncomfortable for current-era conservatives due to being perceived as "too liberal" or far too conservative or far too racist.
Click to expand...

Do you actually read the newspapers or watch TV? The EPA is a huge Republican boogeyman -- to the extent that all of the GOP candidates tried to make hay by bashing it, and in several instances, by proclaiming that it should be abolished altogether. Likewise, affirmative action, equal rights, and workplace safety regulations. Bush did not "push through" immigration reform. In fact his immigration reform program got slapped back in his face due to virtually no support from Republicans (though Democrats supported it). And of course the ERA was never ratified, so it would be odd someone was lobbying to have it removed. It was done in largely by grass-roots opposition by southern whites, evangelicals, Mormons, orthodox Jews, and Catholics. In 2009 Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which helped women and minorities get relief for disciminitory wages. It passed Congress with near-universal support by Democrats and near-universal opposition by Republicans.

My point is not that Nixon was considered a liberal in his day, but rather that he would certainly be considered one today. Far more so than Obama.
 
My point is that even during his time his policies alienated conservatives and drew in support from others...but we knew that because he was a mixture of real politik and moderate conservatism. With time, after his presidency, he continued to regain attraction from conservatives through his writings-some of which stay, other viewpoints are seen as controversial today. Through time you see some portions of the platform become taboo, and others remain strong.
 
Last edited:
Bump........
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, for a Harvard history student, you are making a poor showing. Humphrey actually won the primary vote count over McGovern, but McGovern was able to gain more delegate support at the convention. What caused the collapse for the Dems was the trouble in selecting a VP.

Wallace was only a player in the South, he trailed Jackson in the delegate count......and yes, Nixon did win over a lot of the conservative Southern vote, the "Southern Strategy" did pay off in the general.
Click to expand...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
It really doesnt... It suggest that Obama has a more unified support from his party, at a time when Romney is still battling other republicans.

It says Obama has 70% support from Women to Romney 30% (likely because Santorum's nonsense, which will die down... Romney had a woman lt. governor, Kerry Healey, and has a female spokesperson, Andrea Saul, I have no doubt he can make up votes there).


Demo- Indep- Repub- Lib- Mod- Conser-
Total crat endent lican eral erate vative
----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ----- -------
Obama/Lean Obama 56% 93% 55% 8% 87% 66% 22%
Romney/Lean Romney 40% 5% 40% 90% 9% 31% 75%
Neither 3% 2% 4% 1% 3% 3% 2%
Other * * * 1% * * 1%
No opinion * * 1% * 1% * *
Sampling Error +/-3.0 +/-5.5 +/-4.5 +/-6.0 +/-6.5 +/-5.0 +/-5.0


This says 55-40 with an error of +/- 4.5 (which is a large error margin, likely indicating small target sample size). This is with Obama unoposed right now, and Romney battling for his party. Once Romney IS the nominee, and has a VP, expect that to change.

The thread is also on swing voters in the senate. Obama has no support among Republicans, and Romney worked with a highly liberal legislature. One has significant

Centrist has nothing to do with support of a Party, it's got to do with political leanings. Since Obama is far left, of course any true centrist would be opposed to that. Centrists are against divisive social issues, and Obama is all about them (since it distracts people from his lousy handling of the economy). Centrists subscribe to most of the policies that Romney does.
Click to expand...

Obama is near the center. He certainly is not far left. If you think he's far left how far to the right are you?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Obama is near the center. He certainly is not far left. If you think he's far left how far to the right are you?
Click to expand...

Obama is pretty far from the center... he ran on being in the center... and has sold people like you on thinking that... but he's FAR left... he's a black liberation thoelogist... who also wants government to force adverse conditions, such as high gas prices, high unemployment, etc. to then force you to buy into government corrective behavior programs, so you can fall in line with his liberal ideologies...

He doesn't believe in free choice... he believes in government mandates
He doesn't believe in entreprenuership and innovation... he beliefs in union organization to battle the wealthy and redistribute wealth
He doesn't believe in racial equality... he believes in conditions which favor the uprising of minorities...
He doesn't believe in American examples of economic success... he believes in borrowing from European and Chinese models for improvement...
etc.

You do see how since it's no longer a complete democratic party rule he is completely ineffective and can't get anything done, right? Does that strike you as something which would happen to someone in the center, who could work with both sides and get something done? No... it's the result of a partisan hack, whose time was up in 2010...

I am in the center... and have voted for Republican, Democrat, Third Party, Independent, and write-in candidates... and am a huge supporter of someone who both his advocates and critics all accuse of being too close to the center (where most of us are)... and who has worked with people on all sides of the aisle throughout his lifetime to make real achievement not only a possibility, but the probability when he's in the leadership position...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom