The Death of Conservatism

[quote author="skek" date=1234427303]Calling IrvineRenter...



Did you see Michael Barone's <a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/2/11/republicans-trail-obama-dems-by-one-point-in-poll--anti-stimulus-push-is-working.html">analysis</a> of the latest <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot">Rasmussen generic ballot polling</a> in US News?



<blockquote>Astonishing news on the generic ballot question. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that Democrats are currently ahead of Republicans by only 40 percent to 39 percent. Given that this generic ballot question over the years has tended to understate Republicans' performances in actual elections, one gathers that if the 2010 election for House seats were held today, Republicans would win or come close to winning a majority of seats?which is to say, they would gain about 40 seats. By way of comparison, they gained 52 seats when they won their majority in 1994. This result may just be a momentary blip, which will pass away as quickly as it appeared, and we are a long, long, long way from the November 2010 elections. But if I were a Democratic member of Congress in even a marginally marginal district, I would be just a little bit worried. And if I were a conservative cheerleader against the Obama/Pelosi stimulus package, I would be concentrating less of my fire against the three Republicans who supported the Senate version and more on Democratic members of the House and (at least those who are up for reelection in 2010) the Senate.</blockquote>


And from Rasmussen:



<blockquote>The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys found that the Democrats? lead is down to just one percentage point. Forty percent (40%) of voters said they would vote for their district?s Democratic candidate while 39% said they would choose the Republican.



This marks the lowest level of support for the Democrats in tracking history and is the closest the two parties have been on the generic ballot.</blockquote></blockquote>


I am not quite sure what Republican popularity has to do with a thread about "conservatism".
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234427303] And if I were a conservative cheerleader against the Obama/Pelosi stimulus package, I would be concentrating less of my fire against the three Republicans who supported the Senate version and more on Democratic members of the House and (at least those who are up for reelection in 2010) the Senate.</blockquote>


iirc, there are no vulnerable dem senators in the next cycle, only a bunch of retiring repubs
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1226112400]I think we we finally understand one another. I think once Obama begins taking action he then owns the problem. If the economy is worse than it was when he took office, it will be directly reflected in the mid-terms both because 'the people' have a notably short memory and because Conservatives will be more than happy to offer up an alternative to the decidedly left-leaning Congress that will likely be portrayed as a rubber-stamp for Obama's 'failed' policies. On the other hand, if there is a downturn followed by signifigant progress in the next 23 months then I think the Dems gain seats in both houses or hold at current numbers.



In my opinion, the chances of of the former are better than the latter. If Obama insists on pushing through more entitlement spending like national healthcare or increases in other social programs AND the economy is worse in 2010, I think it is easily possible that the Dems lose their majorities in one or both houses of Congress.</blockquote>


What President Obama does may be a mute point since the Government of the State that drives 13% of the Nation's GDP is about to pummel it's populace with $14 Billion in new taxes. Pummel the car loving capital of the country with a doubling of the registration taxes, increase the gas tax and increase the sales tax which undoubtedly will do wonders for the rebound in auto sales...
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234442975][quote author="awgee" date=1234429438]I am not quite sure what Republican popularity has to do with a thread about "conservatism".</blockquote>


Touche, good sir.</blockquote>


Sorry, I truly am not trying to be snarky, but you know how things come across on the blog.

I was just making the point that I no longer see Republicans as fiscal conservatives.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1234447112][quote author="skek" date=1234442975][quote author="awgee" date=1234429438]I am not quite sure what Republican popularity has to do with a thread about "conservatism".</blockquote>


Touche, good sir.</blockquote>


Sorry, I truly am not trying to be snarky, but you know how things come across on the blog.

I was just making the point that I no longer see Republicans as fiscal conservatives.</blockquote>
Only in comparison to their Democratic counterparts, awgee, but I think the point of skek's link was that there is an opening... for conservative Republicans.
 
I refer to all my Pub friends as "Obstructionist Mini-Hoovers" these days, mostly because they lost their high ground claim "fiscal conservative" sometime between 9/11 and the Bush stimulus-tax rebate package from last Spring.



Frankly, I feel bad for the GOP. Circumstance has rendered what is left of their ideology obsolete and archaic. The rest of it got retired when they broke welfare and joined the Socialist collective with the Medicare prescription drug program. This isn?t 1980 where the top marginal tax rate was nearly 80% and the inner cities were filled with generations of folks stuck on pubic assistance.
 
no way, no how for the repugs to retake the senate unless almost every incumbent dem that is up for re-election in 2010 goes down in flames.



just how realistic is that?





as for the house, i'd be willing to give about 15:1 that the dems retain control.





finally, can you name one repug president that has reduced the national debt in the past 100 years? how about one that has run up less debt than any dem president in the past 50 years?





fiscal conservative, the repugs never were.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234491961][quote author="awgee" date=1234447112][quote author="skek" date=1234442975][quote author="awgee" date=1234429438]I am not quite sure what Republican popularity has to do with a thread about "conservatism".</blockquote>


Touche, good sir.</blockquote>


Sorry, I truly am not trying to be snarky, but you know how things come across on the blog.

I was just making the point that I no longer see Republicans as fiscal conservatives.</blockquote>


And I was acknowledging that it was a valid point. I often have to distinguish between the two myself. But yeah, Oscar is right. I just wanted to point out that the GOP will not be out of power for a generation. Rather, if this trend continues, the GOP could control at least the House by 2010. Whether those are fiscal conservative Republicans or RINO Republicans remains to be seen, but there is an opening.</blockquote>


I don't know if 2010 is the year where this would happen. Their move will probably be made when the administration has to raise taxes to pay for all the expenses that are being incurred right now (which is pretty much a certainty at this point). Over the next year the Democrats are lowering taxes and blowing money - the Republicans are obstructing this effort and pushing for cuts in schools and education. This becomes an emotional issue and it is easy to turn this against the Republicans.



Of course, you also have the rants that make for great sound bits. Especially Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas who claims that the Republicans need to derail Democrats with a Taliban-style insurgency. This kind of poor phrasing works against them. Add this to the rallying up of the base with incendiary language that makes it straight to You Tube. Driving a negative message is not going to get them far and 2010 is too soon to demand a change. I could see a serious challenge at the recovery of the economic downturn but only if they deliver a positive message.
 
One of my Mini-Hoover Obstructionist buddies made a comment a couple of weeks ago we should return the tax rates to what we had under Reagan. Okay............



<img src="http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/extremeinequalitychart.jpg" alt="" />



I assume he was talking about 87-88, but the average of all 8 years was still over 50%.



Tax rates are insanely too low given the upcoming structural deficits (SS and Medicare), the ongoing war on Terrorism, our involvment in Iraq, and the current Fed operations. They will quickly be raised insanely too high to pay for the discount we recieved from 2001-2010.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234498692][quote author="green_cactus" date=1234495774]I don't know if 2010 is the year where this would happen. Their move will probably be made when the administration has to raise taxes to pay for all the expenses that are being incurred right now (which is pretty much a certainty at this point). Over the next year the Democrats are lowering taxes and blowing money - the Republicans are obstructing this effort and pushing for cuts in schools and education. This becomes an emotional issue and it is easy to turn this against the Republicans.



Of course, you also have the rants that make for great sound bits. Especially Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas who claims that the Republicans need to derail Democrats with a Taliban-style insurgency. This kind of poor phrasing works against them. Add this to the rallying up of the base with incendiary language that makes it straight to You Tube. Driving a negative message is not going to get them far and 2010 is too soon to demand a change. I could see a serious challenge at the recovery of the economic downturn but only if they deliver a positive message.</blockquote>


40 seats is alot. I'm not necessarily predicting that. But I will predict that the GOP picks up seats, let's say low double digits, in the 2010 election. Keep in mind that we will know by November 2010 whether or not Obama let the tax cuts expire. If so, that will be a campaign issue (and a fundraising issue!). But most importantly, people vote their pocketbook. If things are improving in 2010, GOP gains will be nominal (the out of power party almost always picks up seats in the mid-term elections regardless). On the other hand, if we are in the midst of a recession or worse that will, by that time, be going on 2-3 years, I guarantee you the GOP will have the advantage. Voters have short memories, and it will not be difficult to point to Democrat missteps on the stimulus, tax increases and other policy gaffes.



Sessions' comment was inappropriate. In another time, the word "insurgecy" would carry no negative connotations, and perhaps that's the context in which he meant it. But today, "insurgents" are killing Americans and the word shouldn't be used as a point of positive comparison for anyone. But the long term effect of his comment? Nada.</blockquote>


"But most importantly, people vote their pocketbook". This is actually not the case. People end up voting against their own interests fairly often. If things go really sour I could see a reactionary movement to dethrone the democrats. The effectiveness of it will depend on the message - at least that is how they can win the more moderate voters. At this point, the republicans are seen as antagonists. If this attitude persists, I don't see much of a gain in 2010. If the GOP is the party of Drudge, Malkin, Limbaugh and Hannity, they will only alienate themselves further and truly become a regional party of the deep south (only part of the country with republican gains in 08). If they provide a message that is appealing to the socially liberal/moderate but economically conservative they could become serious contenders - but it probably means that they need to abandon the pandering to the extreme-right.
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234503106]Only Daily Kossacks believe that.</blockquote>


Hey, translate that to english please? I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
oh, and skek, i'm still waiting for you answer to this question from a while back:



"finally, can you name one repug president that has reduced the national debt in the past 100 years? how about one that has run up less debt than any dem president in the past 50 years?"
 
[quote author="skek" date=1234503106]Cactus, I think you've lathered your analysis up with your own biases. People do vote their pocketbook, and voting "against their own interests" is a simplistic canard that liberals invented to explain why working class people don't vote for government handouts and soak-the-rich tax policies. No one's interests are going to align perfectly in a two party system, and so in every election you vote both for and against your interests.



The GOP is not a party of Drudge, Malkin, Limbaugh and Hannity. Only Daily Kossacks believe that. Right now the GOP doesn't have a dominant face, but it won't be any of those four. It will be Romney or McConnell or Steele or Cantor or someone of that ilk. In California, it might be Poizner or Whitman. You'd like Michelle Malkin to be the face of the GOP, but I doubt most people even know who that is.



The GOP did offer alternatives to the stimulus plan and were widely rebuffed through the new parliamentary rules. They are both criticizing and offering alternatives, and I think it's working well for them, as the Rasmussen results showed. Did you have a problem with Pelosi and Reid, et al, when the entire Democrat platform consisted of "George Bush is baaad, mmm-kay." Seemed to work out OK for them, too.



Pandering to the extreme right? Another liberal bogey-man. In any event, I suspect your definition of "extreme" right is anyone who votes GOP. But who exactly on the extreme right is getting pandered to these days? GOP isn't exactly instituting much social policy right now. I saw a bunch of bank CEOs lynched by a bipartisan House committee on TV yesterday. Where's the pandering, or are you just dreaming of a two party system consisting of Democrats and Democrats-Lite? You got close there for a while, but frankly, I'd like to see more pandering to the "right" and less pandering to the big government bailout crowd.</blockquote>


Of course my view is going to be biased - I don't claim otherwise and just voiced my take on the 2010 election. I welcome the disagreement. But I wouldn't rush to chalking things off as "simplistic canards" and liberal boogy-men. Even my (moderate) republican friends were somewhat scared at watching Palin and Giuliani speak and the way the audience would react to their rants.



To me, the threatening group on the extreme right are those who want to impose their religion on me and those who advocate for a more authoritarian state (usually mixed in with an unhealthy dose of xenophobia).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top