• 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!

For Conservatives Only: Do You SUpport the Conservative Victory Project?

Do you support the Conservative Victory Project


  • Total voters
    11
Where do you get this silly ****? This is why no one takes you seriously. A grand jury, the man was a ****ing advisor......do you understand what that means? You people with your Rove-on-the-brain.

Failed conservatives are treated with Respect and allowed to give Very Respectful Speeches Accepting Their Loss In The Election. Successful conservatives, however, are by nature, criminal.


Duh....
 
The Buckley (pbuh) Rule is "Support The Most Conservative Candidate Who Can Win".

From what I have found this appears to be the goal of this 'new' project. What am I missing?
 
From what I have found this appears to be the goal of this 'new' project. What am I missing?

The point where their premise is that conservative candidates don't win, so you run moderate ones, like those winners, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Charlie Christ.
 
From what I have found this appears to be the goal of this 'new' project. What am I missing?

That the words and actions related to the project seem more aimed at getting "The most conservative candidate who is extremely likely to win" rather than "who can win". If there's a guy with a 50/50 chance to win and is very conservative....and a guy whose got a 75% chance but is very moderate....the position the group would seem to take is that you push the moderate guy. That doesn't really adhere to the Buckley principle.
 
I would need to look into the group.

If it's looking to try and help moderate candidates in states where a "far right" candidate has literally no realistic chance of even finishing in a respectable position, let alone winning, then I can understand and somewhat support that.

If it's looking to try and help moderate candidates in states where a "far right" (your words) candidate has a fair to good chance of winning, but the "moderate" has a better chance, then I would oppose it.

I'd rather have some of my views represented then a gaurantee that none of my views would be represented....

but I'd rather gamble on a realistic shot at having most of my views represented, over a good shot of having just some of them.

From looking into some of Rove's statements in the past...my issue with him is that often it seemed (if memory serves) he would push for "moderates" (which is generally big government republicans in Rove speak) in situations where a more conservative candidate could still realistically win.

The Buckley (pbuh) Rule is "Support The Most Conservative Candidate Who Can Win".

We have a real issue currently within the broad "conservative" movement between people who think you can cut out the second qualifier, and people who think that you have to cut out the first. Rove is no better than those who primary a Republican when their replacement can't win if his goal is simply to replace tea-party-esque candidates with more moderate ones on the argument that "moderate = victory". Republicans would be cursing Senator Christ rather than following Senator Rubio had that logic been applied.

SO what you two are saying if I understand correctly is that you support this, if and only if they support the most conservative candidates with a reasonable chance of winning?

Thank both of you for taking the question seriously and giving detailed answers.
 
The Conservative Victory Project is an effort by Karl Rove to, essentially, support more moderate republican candidates over more far right candidates(my wording). There is a ton of information on the group, and I as a democrat am probably the wrong one to try and explain what exactly it does. A quick google search will give you all the information you could want. Many republicans, notable Gingrich, are very opposed to this effort. I am curious as to whether the conservative posters here are in favor of this groups goals, or opposed, and why.

I ask that only conservatives vote in the poll please, though of course comments are welcome from every one.

It depends on how it shakes out. My hope is that he doesn't really focus on weeding out candidates based on ideology, but just trying to eliminate the candidates who can't win.. So far, from what I've seen in Iowa, where he's attacking Steve King, he's doing it the way I would. There really isn't much ideological difference, especially fiscally, between Tom Latham and Steve King, but King has almost no chance of winning. Unlike Latham, King spends his time making many provocative statements in the same manner of Akin and Mourdock. King though, is by far the favorite to win the primary it this point, assuming they both run, which seems likely. It makes sense to me to attempt to take the provocative candidate with little chance of winning out of the race.
 
King though, is by far the favorite to win the primary it this point, assuming they both run, which seems likely. It makes sense to me to attempt to take the provocative candidate with little chance of winning out of the race.

Rove is an idiot.

The conservative base responds to what I call their victimization complex. They see themselves as being at the mercy of institutional forces that, for some bizarre reason, happen to be anti-institutional. And so, equally bizarrely, they will take Rove's attacks on Representative King as vindication and vote for him accordingly.
 
Rove is smart. He is going to be getting a cut of a lot of money with this one.
 
Rove is smart. He is going to be getting a cut of a lot of money with this one.

But he's not going to accomplish anything. I'm willing to bet that at least three-quarters of the candidates he backs go on to lose their respective primaries. The psychology of the modern conservative voter is based around the view that he is victimized by institutional forces. Rove is an institutional force.
 
But he's not going to accomplish anything. I'm willing to bet that at least three-quarters of the candidates he backs go on to lose their respective primaries. The psychology of the modern conservative voter is based around the view that he is victimized by institutional forces. Rove is an institutional force.

Yes he is--he is going to get richer. He could just as easily give them targeting data and wonk stuff and let them have at it while he runs to the bank.
 
Back
Top Bottom