Obama has some serious clout.

[Dolla Bill]

Obama raised $25 million and puts a crimper on Clinton's plans to run away with the nomination. Only serve 2 years in Congress and you get $25 million? He's doing pretty good thus far....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/

[CNYSkinFan]

Obama has done a pretty good job this week of building up suspense on his dollar amount as well. However I believe Dean had the money lead on Kerry going into NH as well. Alot of Obama's techniques are taken from Dean when it comes to money raising. Now if he can avoid having a crazy woife and screaming at the top of his lungs after a loss then perhaps he can give her a real run.

[Keino]

Obama has done a pretty good job this week of building up suspense on his dollar amount as well. However I believe Dean had the money lead on Kerry going into NH as well. Alot of Obama's techniques are taken from Dean when it comes to money raising. Now if he can avoid having a crazy woife and screaming at the top of his lungs after a loss then perhaps he can give her a real run.

I still to this day don't really understand why that cost Dean so dearly. He displayed that he was human...I thought it a refreshing change from the mindless opinion poll result canidates we get.

[Spence]

The media is predictably focusing only on the $25 million Obama raised. More impressive to me is the 100K donors he raised it from -- double the number of donors Hillary had in the first quarter. That matters because Obama's donors gave him an average of $250, which qualifies as a small donation. Donors are permitted to give a candidate $2300 for the primaries and $2300 for the general election. Many of HRC's donors have already given the maximum and she cannot go back to them for more cash. Obama can go back to almost all of his donors for more cash. That'll give him an advantage going forward.

Another interesting thing is that both Clinton and Obama raised more than any Republican candidate. In fact, the Dems raised $78 million compared to $51 million for the GOP candidates. That's unusual, of course, since Republicans traditionally raise a ton more cash than Democrats do.

[fent]

I still to this day don't really understand why that cost Dean so dearly. He displayed that he was human...I thought it a refreshing change from the mindless opinion poll result canidates we get.

his campaign was almost completely unravelled at that point anyway. his poll numbers were artificially high to begin with, then when his actual level of support became evident in Iowa and NH, his money dried up as well.

[fent]

Another interesting thing is that both Clinton and Obama raised more than any Republican candidate. In fact, the Dems raised $78 million compared to $51 million for the GOP candidates. That's unusual, of course, since Republicans traditionally raise a ton more cash than Democrats do.

that is definitely interesting. definitely indicative of a party whose donors don't feel like they know what the party stands for. you have to figure those numbers will start to even out soon, though. we're still VERY early in the process.

[Spence]

that is definitely interesting. definitely indicative of a party whose donors don't feel like they know what the party stands for. you have to figure those numbers will start to even out soon, though. we're still VERY early in the process.
It'll even out. Let's face it: How often is the GOP outspent by anybody? What it indicates is the regard each party's donor base has for the announced candidates. Dem donors appear pleased with their choice of candidates. GOP donors do not.

Who can blame the GOP donors for being a little grumpy? Giuliani is a thrice-married, homo-lovin', gun-hatin', New Yorker with a funny last name who never met an illegal immigrant he didn't like. Mitt Romney [Multiple Choice Mitt, as I call him] favored unlimited abortion and gay marriage...until he didn't, and belongs to a sect of Christianity that the GOP's most reliable voters don't even consider geniunely Christian. And John McCain couldn't decide until recently whether he wanted an R or a D after his last name.

[CNYSkinFan]

I still to this day don't really understand why that cost Dean so dearly. He displayed that he was human...I thought it a refreshing change from the mindless opinion poll result canidates we get.
I can only tell you why it effected me soo much as I was an undecided voter at that time, but definitely a prime voter. I wanted to see what Dean did with adversity. Before that his campaign was the behemoth that could not be stopped, but once he hit actual campaigning he made just about every wrong choice he made. The yell was the cherry on the desert of his defeat.

Not that Kerry was a great choice either. All in all the Democratic field was less then stellar, but in 2003 when the field was starting to form Bush's numbers were higher then God's. The big names like Hillary, Biden, and Gore stayed out of the race because of that and decided to wait until 2008.

[fent]

Who can blame the GOP donors for being a little grumpy? Giuliani is a thrice-married, homo-lovin', gun-hatin', New Yorker with a funny last name who never met an illegal immigrant he didn't like. Mitt Romney [Multiple Choice Mitt, as I call him] favored unlimited abortion and gay marriage...until he didn't, and belongs to a sect of Christianity that the GOP's most reliable voters don't even consider geniunely Christian. And John McCain couldn't decide until recently whether he wanted an R or a D after his last name.

sounds about like my reasons for hoping another candidate jumps in the ring...especially Mitt.

[shally]

Obama raised $25 million and puts a crimper on Clinton's plans to run away with the nomination. Only serve 2 years in Congress and you get $25 million? He's doing pretty good thus far....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17946727/

considering that romney has raised nearly that much, it is astounding the amount of money that is pouring in..

so much for campaign finance reform.. money talks

[shally]

his campaign was almost completely unravelled at that point anyway. his poll numbers were artificially high to begin with, then when his actual level of support became evident in Iowa and NH, his money dried up as well.

his craziness quotient finally started to rub people wrong.

it was a little of the same as when ed muskee cried when his wife was attacked by loeb in a vicious attack piece.. the raw emotion put people off
and it all went downhill from there

[lakewinola]

sounds about like my reasons for hoping another candidate jumps in the ring...especially Mitt.

Its a shame Mitt refuses to be who he is. Unfortunately that'll cost him, the latest is his claim to be a lifelong hunter in order to appease the NRA and to back away from his Pro-gun control stance. Only problem - He has only ever gone hunting twice, in his entire life!!!

[fent]

Its a shame Mitt refuses to be who he is. Unfortunately that'll cost him, the latest is his claim to be a lifelong hunter in order to appease the NRA and to back away from his Pro-gun control stance. Only problem - He has only ever gone hunting twice, in his entire life!!!

unless he's said he's only been twice, that's a stat i'd be hesitant to throw out there because it's unprovable, but that general idea is why i'm not the biggest fan. i could support a more moderate candidate as long as i knew that those views were actually his views. my opinion on Mitt is that he doesn't even know where he stands, if he doesn't, i don't, and if i don't know where he stands now, i have no clue where he's going to stand when the **CBS** hits the fan. basically, he has the same "flip-flop" problem that kerry did. and mark it down now, if he gets the nomination, we'll be living with ANOTHER 9 months of flip-flop analogies, just from the other side of the aisle.

[WarEagle]

I'd give Mitt a break. We all change our minds about things over time. He's very competent and honest.

[BurgundyNGold]

Obama has done a pretty good job this week of building up suspense on his dollar amount as well. However I believe Dean had the money lead on Kerry going into NH as well. Alot of Obama's techniques are taken from Dean when it comes to money raising. Now if he can avoid having a crazy woife and screaming at the top of his lungs after a loss then perhaps he can give her a real run.
And Graham had the money lead on Dole. The moneyt is important, but the message is what will carry the day. I believe Dole's message was, "I'm a hero, I'm old, I clean up well, I'm old and I've waited my turn. Did I mention I'm super old?".

[Spence]

my opinion on Mitt is that he doesn't even know where he standsMitt knows exactly where he stands: Wherever you want him to. Until someone with more money wants him to stand somewhere else.

[WarEagle]

Mitt knows exactly where he stands: Wherever you want him to. Until someone with more money wants him to stand somewhere else.

I've voted for Mitt twice. He came very late to politics and has made some amatuer gaffs. But his core values remain solid and I declare that he isn't politcally calculating enough to purposely mess anyone over.

[CNYSkinFan]

And Graham had the money lead on Dole. The moneyt is important, but the message is what will carry the day. I believe Dole's message was, "I'm a hero, I'm old, I clean up well, I'm old and I've waited my turn. Did I mention I'm super old?".
That and the damn flag burning amendment.

[lakewinola]

unless he's said he's only been twice, that's a stat i'd be hesitant to throw out there because it's unprovable, but that general idea is why i'm not the biggest fan. i could support a more moderate candidate as long as i knew that those views were actually his views. my opinion on Mitt is that he doesn't even know where he stands, if he doesn't, i don't, and if i don't know where he stands now, i have no clue where he's going to stand when the **CBS** hits the fan. basically, he has the same "flip-flop" problem that kerry did. and mark it down now, if he gets the nomination, we'll be living with ANOTHER 9 months of flip-flop analogies, just from the other side of the aisle.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070405/ap_on_el_pr/romney_hunting;_ylt=Alva.Yfh4GivMGtQt4qFSLfMWM0F

[Spence]

Game reserve hunting is pathetic. I have a gun nut friend from northern Wisconsin who calls people who hunt quail in those reserves a word that begins with p and is a vulgar reference to female genitalia.

[fent]

I'd give Mitt a break. We all change our minds about things over time. He's very competent and honest.

really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

edit: and another site...not sure how completely accurate it is, but it's pretty damning from a standpoint of pointing out that he doesn't stand for what he claims to.

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/

[akhhorus]

really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Crikey, he has a big skull. He's the mormon John Kerry.

[RedskinsDave]

That and the damn flag burning amendment.

I hate when injured war vets try to tell us how we should treat the flag they defended.

[Ibleedburgundy]

really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

edit: and another site...not sure how completely accurate it is, but it's pretty damning from a standpoint of pointing out that he doesn't stand for what he claims to.

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/

The good news for Romney is that the Republican base has the most incredible double standard so it will be OK for a guy with an R beside his name to flip flop.

[CNYSkinFan]

I hate when injured war vets try to tell us how we should treat the flag they defended.
see I knew we agreed on something.

It's funny how this particular vet only brought up this amendment in even years.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I hate when injured war vets try to tell us how we should treat the flag they defended.

yeah I think each one of them should get 13 votes.

[Spence]

Well, Romney has denounced the flat tax as unfair. He's right, of course, but only Democrats are allowed to say such things publicly. If you're a Republican and you know the flat tax is unfair, you either lie and say that it is a good idea or you just avoid discussing it altogether. Attacking it on fairness grounds makes good Republicans check under their beds for Bolsheviks. Not sure why Romney did such a thing. Normally, he's quite happy to lie for political gain. Definitely won't help him in the primaries.

[CNYSkinFan]

I am going to have to stay out of this thread because I have a horrible bias against mormons since that South Park episode.

[Spence]

I am going to have to stay out of this thread because I have a horrible bias against mormons since that South Park episode.Dumb duh dumb dumb dumb!

[Fathead]

I am going to have to stay out of this thread because I have a horrible bias against mormons since that South Park episode.



:rolleyes:

[CNYSkinFan]

Dumb duh dumb dumb dumb!
Joseph Smith: I have, in my possession, an ancient book written on gold plates that tells of Jesus Christ's second coming. Here, in America.
Martin Harris: In America? Really? That sounds kind of -
Chorus: Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

[Spence]

Multiple Choice Mitt Romney has clarified his hunting history:The former Massachusetts governor has called himself a lifelong hunter, yet his campaign acknowledged that he has been on just two hunting trips -- one when he was 15 and the other just last year.

Campaigning in Indianapolis on Thursday, Romney said he has hunted small game since his youth.

"I'm not a big-game hunter. I've made that very clear," he said. "I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then. More than two times."
Which made me think of this particular quote, one of my all-time favorites:License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations. Man, free to kill gophers at will. To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit - ever. They're like the Viet Cong - Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that's all she wrote.

Probably a better president [and hunter] than Mitt
http://images.dawgsports.com/images/admin/Bill_Murray_Caddyshack.jpg

Source (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-romney-hunting,0,7588952,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)

[shally]

Multiple Choice Mitt Romney has clarified his hunting history:
Which made me think of this particular quote, one of my all-time favorites:

Probably a better president [and hunter] than Mitt
http://images.dawgsports.com/images/admin/Bill_Murray_Caddyshack.jpg

Source (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-romney-hunting,0,7588952,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)

pathetic... reminds me of dukakis riding in the tank

forget it, mitt.. just say you are not a hunter, but not anti-gun ownership.. that is really all the NRA crowd would want to hear.. it is not necessary
to be "blooded"

[dj_stouty]

I'm really surprised the Republicans don't have any really good candidates for President other than retreads like McCain and Rudy. During the '96 Repub Convention, I thought there were a good number of younger repubs that were shoe-ins for '08. Where did they all go?

(I personally liked Susan Molinari...but she jetted for TV, and lobbying.)

[shally]

I'm really surprised the Republicans don't have any really good candidates for President other than retreads like McCain and Rudy. During the '96 Repub Convention, I thought there were a good number of younger repubs that were shoe-ins for '08. Where did they all go?

(I personally liked Susan Molinari...but she jetted for TV, and lobbying.)

i think that the religous right has snuffed out many of the centrist gop candidates in favor of the true believers

it is much the same as what happened to the centrist dems.. that is why southern dem senators just about do not exist any more

the problem is that you have to move so far right or so far left to get a party nomination that you become un electable to the general population

[dj_stouty]

i think that the religous right has snuffed out many of the centrist gop candidates in favor of the true believers

it is much the same as what happened to the centrist dems.. that is why southern dem senators just about do not exist any more

the problem is that you have to move so far right or so far left to get a party nomination that you become un electable to the general population

Too bad...its killing moderate republicans who are strong on social as well as fiscal. The fact is that the (extreme) religious right doesn't make up the majority of the party. Not sure why the Republican party doesn't just push them back for once. Truth is...when presented with a moderate republican or Hillary...the religious right will vote for the moderate republican 100 times out of 100.

[shally]

Too bad...its killing moderate republicans who are strong on social as well as fiscal. The fact is that the (extreme) religious right doesn't make up the majority of the party. Not sure why the Republican party doesn't just push them back for once. Truth is...when presented with a moderate republican or Hillary...the religious right will vote for the moderate republican 100 times out of 100.

that is not true.. they can sit it out, which will elect a dem.

it is the same thing that the dems face with their choices.. if the candidate is not attractive enough to the far left, enough will sit it out or vote for marginal candidates and you get W

it is a real problem for both parties.. plus it is a real problem for libertarians like me who feel abandoned by both parties and have to hold my nose at every election and decide which candidate is the least offensive

[dj_stouty]

that is not true.. they can sit it out, which will elect a dem.

it is the same thing that the dems face with their choices.. if the candidate is not attractive enough to the far left, enough will sit it out or vote for marginal candidates and you get W

it is a real problem for both parties.. plus it is a real problem for libertarians like me who feel abandoned by both parties and have to hold my nose at every election and decide which candidate is the least offensive

I disagree. I believe the religious right would believe abstaining from voting would equal a vote for the dem. They put too much stock in their own vote to believe it means nothing. I think this is the group in America that will pull their party lever more often than any other group. I think in the end...their hatred for Hillary will overpower any problems they have with a moderate Republican.

[shally]

I disagree. I believe the religious right would believe abstaining from voting would equal a vote for the dem. They put too much stock in their own vote to believe it means nothing. I think this is the group in America that will pull their party lever more often than any other group. I think in the end...their hatred for Hillary will overpower any problems they have with a moderate Republican.

maybe... but how do they distinguish between a "pro abortion" rudi and a "pro abortion" hillary ? in the end, i think many of them DO vote, but it does not take a lot of votes to change an election.. maybe 500 in florida in 2000 and 20,000 in ohio in 2004.

that is not a lot of people on either side deciding to stay home or go to the polls.

in washington state we had an elction that came down to about 100 votes a few years ago.. that is razor thin

[dj_stouty]

maybe... but how do they distinguish between a "pro abortion" rudi and a "pro abortion" hillary ? in the end, i think many of them DO vote, but it does not take a lot of votes to change an election.. maybe 500 in florida in 2000 and 20,000 in ohio in 2004.

Honestly...Hillary is the devil to them, so I think their choice would be easy. Plus, Rudy was the hero behind 9/11...and he does stand for other conservative platforms other than abortion and gay rights.

[shally]

Honestly...Hillary is the devil to them, so I think their choice would be easy. Plus, Rudy was the hero behind 9/11...and he does stand for other conservative platforms other than abortion and gay rights.

what conservative platforms are enough to make up for gay rights and abortion ??
i am not from the RR so i cannot give you any kind of definitive answer, but what is the difference if that is your litmus test ?

[dj_stouty]

what conservative platforms are enough to make up for gay rights and abortion ??
i am not from the RR so i cannot give you any kind of definitive answer, but what is the difference if that is your litmus test ?

I'm NOT a member of the religious right either, so I'm only making assumptions here. No proof...

Fact is...Rudy does not support Gay Marriage. He believes in equal rights for domestic partnerships. He is 100% on track with the RR's notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The RR hasn't seen any changes in abortion even with GW in office, so its probably moot that Rudy differs in their opinion. Electing a uber-conservative President isn't really going to change that either, IMO.

Couple that with the fact that Rudy is also a fiscal conservative and that is about all it will take for the RR to at least vote for Rudy. Putting "Rudy '08" signs in their yard is another thing...

[Spence]

Here's the thing, DJ: If the religious right votes for a moderate Republican then it consigns itself to irrelevancy. The only real threat any major interest group constituency has over a political party is the threat of depriving that party of election victories. If the religious right cooperates in electing a Giuliani-type of Republican, then they will have told the GOP that the religious right does not need to be taken seriously. Their demands can be rejected without fear of reprisal. Thus does the religious right lose all its power over the GOP and, by extension, the entire political process in the United States. Catastrophe.

Much more sensible to stay home on election day or support a third party candidate like Gary Bauer. The result is to kneecap the GOP on election day and ensure the victory of the Democrat. But it is not like the Democrat gets to keep the White House indefinitely. Another election will be held in four years, another opportunity to take back the White House. In the meantime, as a result of the religious right sitting out the election or supporting a third party candidate, the GOP will have been reminded of the awesome power the religious right has over the party. The religious right would be as strong as ever, or stronger, in the party. The party would have to choose between continuing to lose election after election or adjust its policies and candidates to suit the religious right. What do you think the GOP would do? Parties exist to win elections.

For the religious right, it is an absolute no-brainer. You help destroy the GOP candidate in 2008, re-establish your position within the party in 2009, take another crack at the White House in 2012. That's what the religious right would do. That's what any sizable interest group would do. Insane to do anything else. Suicide. And you know what the religious right thinks of suicide.

[akhhorus]

I'm NOT a member of the religious right either, so I'm only making assumptions here. No proof...

Fact is...Rudy does not support Gay Marriage. He believes in equal rights for domestic partnerships. He is 100% on track with the RR's notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The RR hasn't seen any changes in abortion even with GW in office, so its probably moot that Rudy differs in their opinion. Electing a uber-conservative President isn't really going to change that either, IMO.

Couple that with the fact that Rudy is also a fiscal conservative and that is about all it will take for the RR to at least vote for Rudy. Putting "Rudy '08" signs in their yard is another thing...

Rudy killed himself with the social conservatives this week when he said he would support public money for abortions, then tried to claim that he was bound by the constitution to do that. And then he repeated it the same day in South Carolina. He should just fire half his advisors on principle for allowing him to say that.

[dj_stouty]

Here's the thing, DJ: If the religious right votes for a moderate Republican then it consigns itself to irrelevancy. The only real threat any major interest group constituency has over a political party is the threat of depriving that party of election victories. If the religious right cooperates in electing a Giuliani-type of Republican, then they will have told the GOP that the religious right does not need to be taken seriously. Their demands can be rejected without fear of reprisal. Thus does the religious right lose all its power over the GOP and, by extension, the entire political process in the United States. Catastrophe.

Much more sensible to stay home on election day or support a third party candidate like Gary Bauer. The result is to kneecap the GOP on election day and ensure the victory of the Democrat. But it is not like the Democrat gets to keep the White House indefinitely. Another election will be held in four years, another opportunity to take back the White House. In the meantime, as a result of the religious right sitting out the election or supporting a third party candidate, the GOP will have been reminded of the awesome power the religious right has over the party. The religious right would be as strong as ever, or stronger, in the party. The party would have to choose between continuing to lose election after election or adjust its policies and candidates to suit the religious right. What do you think the GOP would do? Parties exist to win elections.

For the religious right, it is an absolute no-brainer. You help destroy the GOP candidate in 2008, re-establish your position within the party in 2009, take another crack at the White House in 2012. That's what the religious right would do. That's what any sizable interest group would do. Insane to do anything else. Suicide. And you know what the religious right thinks of suicide.

See...I would have a hard time believing the RR would not show up to the polls if they knew their lack of support would certainly get Hillary elected. Even if they have another shot 4 years later, these are still general conservatives outside of religious issues who now have to deal with 4 years of liberal changes.

But if this is all true...then i question just how large this group really is.

[dj_stouty]

Rudy killed himself with the social conservatives this week when he said he would support public money for abortions, then tried to claim that he was bound by the constitution to do that. And then he repeated it the same day in South Carolina. He should just fire half his advisors on principle for allowing him to say that.

I'd prefer to have a more moderate Republican President, than one who is bound to religious right. Wishful thinking, I know...but there is no other way for this party to make an acceptable change, IMO. Otherwise, its back to status quo for the party whose stock is at a major low right now.

[akhhorus]

I'd prefer to have a more moderate Republican President, than one who is bound to religious right. Wishful thinking, I know...but there is no other way for this party to make an acceptable change, IMO. Otherwise, its back to status quo for the party whose stock is at a major low right now.

Actually, I think the only way to accomplish that is for us to run Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum as our ticket in 08, let them just get slaughtered in the election, and then use that as the moment to break the RR's power in the party.

[dj_stouty]

Actually, I think the only way to accomplish that is for us to run Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum as our ticket in 08, let them just get slaughtered in the election, and then use that as the moment to break the RR's power in the party.

I believe in putting your best foot forward and really trying to win it in '08.

If you lay down in '08 and lose...its very possible that the new President's 4-year term quickly becomes an 8-year term. I'm sure the democrats would have loved to have a mulligan on GW.

[akhhorus]

I believe in putting your best foot forward and really trying to win it in '08.

If you lay down in '08 and lose...its very possible that the new President's 4-year term quickly becomes an 8-year term. I'm sure the democrats would have loved to have a mulligan on GW.

Maybe, maybe not. Right now it looks like we're laying down anyways. I don't think any of our current candidates have much of a chance right now.

[Spence]

Actually, I think the only way to accomplish that is for us to run Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum as our ticket in 08, let them just get slaughtered in the election, and then use that as the moment to break the RR's power in the party.
I can see, Akhh, that you understand perfectly what I was getting at.

It's a difficult dance both major parties do with their powerful interest groups. They have to find a way to keep them placated, but not give away the store. The Dems have had a similar conundrum with African-Americans. There is no way the Dems can win national elections [or most state elections] without the 90%+ support they currently get from blacks. The party is dead without blacks and in the south, there is no party without blacks. However, the mass migration of blacks to the Dems had enormous and negative consequences for the party in the south. The Dems lost a huge chunk of the working class white vote in the south and lower midwest. Nixon rode those people to power in 1968 and so did Reagan in 1980. The Dems seemed powerless to do anything about it.

Then along came Clinton. He impressed working class whites with his "Sister Souljah" moment and got some, though not most, of those votes back. Yet his policies and his personal charisma allowed him to retain and increase the loyalty of African-Americans. [The fact that he was the first President who seemed just as happy to be in a room full of blacks as a room full of whites helped a lot.] Ever since then, the Dems have been obsessed with threading that Clintonite needle [no jokes, please] of peeling off some of those working class whites from the GOP while still holding on to more than 90% of the black vote. Dems win elections when they can do that. They've had a number of statewide politicos who could do it, but no national politico who could do it since Clinton. A lot of Dems think they've found a worthy successor not in Clinton's wife, but in Obama -- the guy a lot of Dems think is Clinton's true political heir. We'll see.

Anyway, my point is that neither party can ever walk away from a big interest group constituency like blacks or the religious right. The Dems simply cannot find the votes in the rest of the country to make up for what they'd lose if blacks abandoned the party. Likewise, the GOP cannot walk away from the religious right because there simply are not enough votes out there to replace them.

The solution for the GOP is to find another Ronald Reagan. They thought they had in W, but it turned out President Kookoobananas was a disappointment in that area, too. Reagan was able to command the absolute loyalty of the religious right despite the fact that he gave them almost nothing. Two of his three Supreme Court appointments [O'Connor, Kennedy] favor abortion rights and Kennedy wrote the decision that tossed out every anti-sodomy law in the nation. [Absolute red meat to the religious right because the only thing they hate as much as dead fetuses are live homos.]

It's no surprise Reagan gave the religious right so little. He was never one of them. He was a divorced actor known for his many, many extramarital dalliances in Hollywood. He wasn't a churchgoer. He didn't instill religious values in his kids because he didn't have strong religious values himself. Half his friends in Hollywood were homosexuals. [It was an open secret in the GOP about the "pink mafia" Reagan brought with him from California to DC after winning the election.] But Reagan had a special power, even moreso than Clinton did. Reagan could make people support him even if he gave them little more than symbols and the scraps from his table. His personality and his gift for public speaking made people who believed completely different things think that Reagan shared their beliefs and values. It's a rare, rare gift.

The GOP can't do without the religious right. They're too dependant on them. What they need is someone like Ronald Reagan, who can control them, give them the occasional symbolic victory, and keep them writing checks and tramping out to the polls on election day.

[dj_stouty]

Likewise, the GOP cannot walk away from the religious right because there simply are not enough votes out there to replace them.

If you had to put a number to it...In you opinion what % of the Republican Party would consider themselves to be part of the "Religious Right".

[akhhorus]

I can see, Akhh, that you understand perfectly what I was getting at.

It's a difficult dance both major parties do with their powerful interest groups. They have to find a way to keep them placated, but not give away the store. The Dems have had a similar conundrum with African-Americans. There is no way the Dems can win national elections [or most state elections] without the 90%+ support they currently get from blacks. The party is dead without blacks and in the south, there is no party without blacks. However, the mass migration of blacks to the Dems had enormous and negative consequences for the party in the south. The Dems lost a huge chunk of the working class white vote in the south and lower midwest. Nixon rode those people to power in 1968 and so did Reagan in 1980. The Dems seemed powerless to do anything about it.

Then along came Clinton. He impressed working class whites with his "Sister Souljah" moment and got some, though not most, of those votes back. Yet his policies and his personal charisma allowed him to retain and increase the loyalty of African-Americans. [The fact that he was the first President who seemed just as happy to be in a room full of blacks as a room full of whites helped a lot.] Ever since then, the Dems have been obsessed with threading that Clintonite needle [no jokes, please] of peeling off some of those working class whites from the GOP while still holding on to more than 90% of the black vote. Dems win elections when they can do that. They've had a number of statewide politicos who could do it, but no national politico who could do it since Clinton. A lot of Dems think they've found a worthy successor not in Clinton's wife, but in Obama -- the guy a lot of Dems think is Clinton's true political heir. We'll see.

Anyway, my point is that neither party can ever walk away from a big interest group constituency like blacks or the religious right. The Dems simply cannot find the votes in the rest of the country to make up for what they'd lose if blacks abandoned the party. Likewise, the GOP cannot walk away from the religious right because there simply are not enough votes out there to replace them.

The solution for the GOP is to find another Ronald Reagan. They thought they had in W, but it turned out President Kookoobananas was a disappointment in that area, too. Reagan was able to command the absolute loyalty of the religious right despite the fact that he gave them almost nothing. Two of his three Supreme Court appointments [O'Connor, Kennedy] favor abortion rights and Kennedy wrote the decision that tossed out every anti-sodomy law in the nation. [Absolute red meat to the religious right because the only thing they hate as much as dead fetuses are live homos.]

It's no surprise Reagan gave the religious right so little. He was never one of them. He was a divorced actor known for his many, many extramarital dalliances in Hollywood. He wasn't a churchgoer. He didn't instill religious values in his kids because he didn't have strong religious values himself. Half his friends in Hollywood were homosexuals. [It was an open secret in the GOP about the "pink mafia" Reagan brought with him from California to DC after winning the election.] But Reagan had a special power, even moreso than Clinton did. Reagan could make people support him even if he gave them little more than symbols and the scraps from his table. His personality and his gift for public speaking made people who believed completely different things think that Reagan shared their beliefs and values. It's a rare, rare gift.

The GOP can't do without the religious right. They're too dependant on them. What they need is someone like Ronald Reagan, who can control them, give them the occasional symbolic victory, and keep them writing checks and tramping out to the polls on election day.

I disagree with your final point here. The GOp can do just fine without the RR, they would just have to go back to the Rockafeller/Nixon style of party, and undermine the libertarian pandering in the Dem party. They can only do that if they let the RR write the full platform for a presidental election and we get flat out killed like GOldwater was in 64. Then the moderates can start expelling the ralph reeds and such and get the party back on track.

[Spence]

If you had to put a number to it...In you opinion what % of the Republican Party would consider themselves to be part of the "Religious Right".It varies, but most Republicans I've talked to put the number at about 25-35 percent. It's not nearly that high in Delaware or northern Virginia, DJ, but head out into other parts of the country -- deeply red parts -- and it's way over 50 percent.

[akhhorus]

It varies, but most Republicans I've talked to put the number at about 25-35 percent. It's not nearly that high in Delaware or northern Virginia, DJ, but head out into other parts of the country -- deeply red parts -- and it's way over 50 percent.

In South Carolina, self-identifying RRers are probably over 65-70%, but they're mostly drunk. So, its hard to get the truth lmao

[Spence]

I disagree with your final point here. The GOp can do just fine without the RR, they would just have to go back to the Rockafeller/Nixon style of party, and undermine the libertarian pandering in the Dem party. They can only do that if they let the RR write the full platform for a presidental election and we get flat out killed like GOldwater was in 64. Then the moderates can start expelling the ralph reeds and such and get the party back on track.Akhh, you're talking about writing off a huge chunk of the party -- the most reliable voting bloc the party has -- in the hope that it can be made up by adding people who ditched the party 25 years ago. [My kind of people, actually, since the Episocopal Church used to be known as 'the Republican party at prayer.'] I don't think you're correct about that, but even if you are, it's a huge gamble. How many politicians do you know willing to take a gamble like that? I don't know any.

I don't see it happening. I think the GOP will muddle onwards and hope for another Ronald Reagan type. It's not like the party will die in the mean time. The GOP still wins a lot of elections. True, a lot of long-term demographic changes look threatening for the present GOP coalition, so some changes, of necessity, will eventually be made. Not quickly, though. In general, that's just not the way politics works in this country. Change in the party will be evolutionary and will depend in part on demographics weakening the religious right. [Which I think will happen during the first part of this century.]

[shally]

Actually, I think the only way to accomplish that is for us to run Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum as our ticket in 08, let them just get slaughtered in the election, and then use that as the moment to break the RR's power in the party.

it didnt break the conservatives power to have goldwater get slaughtered.. they just reformed eventually under reagan.

there is no way the conservative wing is ever going to feel comfortable with "rockefeller" eastern republicans.. and judging fromthe results this year the eastern republican is about as dead as the southern democrat.. at least in the senate

plus, the real fear for the gop is the demographics of this country.. 2008 may be the last real shot they have of winning the presidency for the forseeable future-- barring a democrat debacle.. the surge in immigrant population which is mostly hispanic and which votes (except for cubans) overwhelmingly democratic is a huge obstacle for the gop to overcome.. and it will get progressively worse decade by decade because of the relative birth rates..

[shally]

I can see, Akhh, that you understand perfectly what I was getting at.

It's a difficult dance both major parties do with their powerful interest groups. They have to find a way to keep them placated, but not give away the store. The Dems have had a similar conundrum with African-Americans. There is no way the Dems can win national elections [or most state elections] without the 90%+ support they currently get from blacks. The party is dead without blacks and in the south, there is no party without blacks. However, the mass migration of blacks to the Dems had enormous and negative consequences for the party in the south. The Dems lost a huge chunk of the working class white vote in the south and lower midwest. Nixon rode those people to power in 1968 and so did Reagan in 1980. The Dems seemed powerless to do anything about it.

Then along came Clinton. He impressed working class whites with his "Sister Souljah" moment and got some, though not most, of those votes back. Yet his policies and his personal charisma allowed him to retain and increase the loyalty of African-Americans. [The fact that he was the first President who seemed just as happy to be in a room full of blacks as a room full of whites helped a lot.] Ever since then, the Dems have been obsessed with threading that Clintonite needle [no jokes, please] of peeling off some of those working class whites from the GOP while still holding on to more than 90% of the black vote. Dems win elections when they can do that. They've had a number of statewide politicos who could do it, but no national politico who could do it since Clinton. A lot of Dems think they've found a worthy successor not in Clinton's wife, but in Obama -- the guy a lot of Dems think is Clinton's true political heir. We'll see.

Anyway, my point is that neither party can ever walk away from a big interest group constituency like blacks or the religious right. The Dems simply cannot find the votes in the rest of the country to make up for what they'd lose if blacks abandoned the party. Likewise, the GOP cannot walk away from the religious right because there simply are not enough votes out there to replace them.

The solution for the GOP is to find another Ronald Reagan. They thought they had in W, but it turned out President Kookoobananas was a disappointment in that area, too. Reagan was able to command the absolute loyalty of the religious right despite the fact that he gave them almost nothing. Two of his three Supreme Court appointments [O'Connor, Kennedy] favor abortion rights and Kennedy wrote the decision that tossed out every anti-sodomy law in the nation. [Absolute red meat to the religious right because the only thing they hate as much as dead fetuses are live homos.]

It's no surprise Reagan gave the religious right so little. He was never one of them. He was a divorced actor known for his many, many extramarital dalliances in Hollywood. He wasn't a churchgoer. He didn't instill religious values in his kids because he didn't have strong religious values himself. Half his friends in Hollywood were homosexuals. [It was an open secret in the GOP about the "pink mafia" Reagan brought with him from California to DC after winning the election.] But Reagan had a special power, even moreso than Clinton did. Reagan could make people support him even if he gave them little more than symbols and the scraps from his table. His personality and his gift for public speaking made people who believed completely different things think that Reagan shared their beliefs and values. It's a rare, rare gift.

The GOP can't do without the religious right. They're too dependant on them. What they need is someone like Ronald Reagan, who can control them, give them the occasional symbolic victory, and keep them writing checks and tramping out to the polls on election day.

the black vote is going to become less critical to the dems in the future as the hispanic vote increases exponentially.. this country will never become majority black, but it will likely become majority brown in decades to come.

as it stands now the gop has little hook to entice these voters

[CNYSkinFan]

It varies, but most Republicans I've talked to put the number at about 25-35 percent. It's not nearly that high in Delaware or northern Virginia, DJ, but head out into other parts of the country -- deeply red parts -- and it's way over 50 percent.
but more significant then the amount of self identifying RRers are the $$ and volunteer forces the RR brings to any race. I don't think the analogy to the black vote is apples to apples with the Dem. The union vote though is. IF you go through a local Democratic caucus, even in NY, you may get about 305 of the individuals that are union members. But unions provide the phone banks $$ and volunteers on election day and before. Though it is not an absolute, union preference is weighed heavily by local committees in the Dems. Just as RR preference is with the GOP.

[akhhorus]

Akhh, you're talking about writing off a huge chunk of the party -- the most reliable voting bloc the party has -- in the hope that it can be made up by adding people who ditched the party 25 years ago. [My kind of people, actually, since the Episocopal Church used to be known as 'the Republican party at prayer.'] I don't think you're correct about that, but even if you are, it's a huge gamble. How many politicians do you know willing to take a gamble like that? I don't know any.

I don't see it happening. I think the GOP will muddle onwards and hope for another Ronald Reagan type. It's not like the party will die in the mean time. The GOP still wins a lot of elections. True, a lot of long-term demographic changes look threatening for the present GOP coalition, so some changes, of necessity, will eventually be made. Not quickly, though. In general, that's just not the way politics works in this country. Change in the party will be evolutionary and will depend in part on demographics weakening the religious right. [Which I think will happen during the first part of this century.]

The regular churchgoers will still come back, but not the firebrands and closeted meth using colorado ministers. And thats who we need to really get out. If they can steal away the Libertarians(which was one of the hearts of the party), we can survive any short terms problems.

[shally]

I disagree with your final point here. The GOp can do just fine without the RR, they would just have to go back to the Rockafeller/Nixon style of party, and undermine the libertarian pandering in the Dem party. They can only do that if they let the RR write the full platform for a presidental election and we get flat out killed like GOldwater was in 64. Then the moderates can start expelling the ralph reeds and such and get the party back on track.

i do not see that happening any more than i see the dems pushing out the far left from their tent

[shally]

Akhh, you're talking about writing off a huge chunk of the party -- the most reliable voting bloc the party has -- in the hope that it can be made up by adding people who ditched the party 25 years ago. [My kind of people, actually, since the Episocopal Church used to be known as 'the Republican party at prayer.'] I don't think you're correct about that, but even if you are, it's a huge gamble. How many politicians do you know willing to take a gamble like that? I don't know any.

I don't see it happening. I think the GOP will muddle onwards and hope for another Ronald Reagan type. It's not like the party will die in the mean time. The GOP still wins a lot of elections. True, a lot of long-term demographic changes look threatening for the present GOP coalition, so some changes, of necessity, will eventually be made. Not quickly, though. In general, that's just not the way politics works in this country. Change in the party will be evolutionary and will depend in part on demographics weakening the religious right. [Which I think will happen during the first part of this century.]

i am totally in agreement with you on this line of thought

[dj_stouty]

It varies, but most Republicans I've talked to put the number at about 25-35 percent. It's not nearly that high in Delaware or northern Virginia, DJ, but head out into other parts of the country -- deeply red parts -- and it's way over 50 percent.

LOL...I'm in Richmond now, so I've already seen the difference. ;)

I always figured it to be around 20%. Obviously not all voting republicans who go to a Christian church are part of the Religious Right. My wife and I certainly are not.

Its amazing that a group that makes up only 1/5th to 1/4 of a party has so much clout. But as I've been saying to Shally...I really think the majority of the RR will still come out and support the Republican candidate for no other reason that they would rather drink poisoned Kool-Aid or pray to a wilted head of lettuce than have Hillary as their president. This group may not condone swearing, but I'm pretty sure this group would make an exception and use the "c word" for her. They hate her that much.

[CNYSkinFan]

it didnt break the conservatives power to have goldwater get slaughtered.. they just reformed eventually under reagan.

there is no way the conservative wing is ever going to feel comfortable with "rockefeller" eastern republicans.. and judging fromthe results this year the eastern republican is about as dead as the southern democrat.. at least in the senate

plus, the real fear for the gop is the demographics of this country.. 2008 may be the last real shot they have of winning the presidency for the forseeable future-- barring a democrat debacle.. the surge in immigrant population which is mostly hispanic and which votes (except for cubans) overwhelmingly democratic is a huge obstacle for the gop to overcome.. and it will get progressively worse decade by decade because of the relative birth rates..
I agree with Shally (damn first geraldo now Shally). What we saw in this last election was the death of the Northeastern moderate republican. The Dems did not take the house and Senate with a sea change in the South, No. The y went out and made blue states bluer. NE GOp who were forced to vote with their party on social matters like schiavo combined with the stigma of the Iraq war put many long time GOP seats in Dem hands. Most of those were locatedi in the North and midwest. Those voters feel abandoned by the GOP and if the Dems can effectively govern, as they have, then they arent going to switch back to the GOP overnight.

[shally]

LOL...I'm in Richmond now, so I've already seen the difference. ;)

I always figured it to be around 20%. Obviously not all voting republicans who go to a Christian church are part of the Religious Right. My wife and I certainly are not.

Its amazing that a group that makes up only 1/5th to 1/4 of a party has so much clout. But as I've been saying to Shally...I really think the majority of the RR will still come out and support the Republican candidate for no other reason that they would rather drink poisoned Kool-Aid or pray to a wilted head of lettuce than have Hillary as their president. This group may not condone swearing, but I'm pretty sure this group would make an exception and use the "c word" for her. They hate her that much.

it will come down to which drives them more... fear of hillary or loathing of a more "liberal" gop nominee. it would not take a whole lot of them just sitting it out to make a major swing in the election.

for all the noise coming from the dem camp over this past election, swap 20,000 votes here and there and the senate would have remained in gop hands.. it was not the landslide in terms of raw votes that some would have you believe even though the number of seats did changes hands

if future national elections remain tightly contested, that is all it would take to swing things

[shally]

I agree with Shally (damn first geraldo now Shally). What we saw in this last election was the death of the Northeastern moderate republican. The Dems did not take the house and Senate with a sea change in the South, No. The y went out and made blue states bluer. NE GOp who were forced to vote with their party on social matters like schiavo combined with the stigma of the Iraq war put many long time GOP seats in Dem hands. Most of those were locatedi in the North and midwest. Those voters feel abandoned by the GOP and if the Dems can effectively govern, as they have, then they arent going to switch back to the GOP overnight.

i love you too, man...
:)

some of it has to do with whether the next gop candidate comes across as honorable and not tied to the oil interests the way W is.. the gop needs another reagan, otherwise they are simply dead for the forseeable future.

the wild card is going to be terrorists. that is the one thing that could bring the gop roaring back. the dems have to prove they can be trusted on nat security--regardless of what the short term polls might show

[redskin_rich]

It's nice being non-partisan. I just vote for whoever I agree with the most, regardless of which party they belong to. I couldn't imagine being compelled to vote for one side, no matter how bad their candidate was.

[CNYSkinFan]

It's nice being non-partisan. I just vote for whoever I agree with the most, regardless of which party they belong to. I couldn't imagine being compelled to vote for one side, no matter how bad their candidate was.
In all fairness to those of us who are considered "partisan" on both sides of the aisle it is not that simple for us either. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am a Democrat and work for democratic candidates and volunteer on campaigns because I agree with their issues MOST of the time. The Democratic party tends to be left leaning and so am I. The people who run for the Democratic ticket tend to be left leaning as well. I am playing the odds that this candidate will represent my views more then a candidate with an r next to their name because of the general views of the GOP.

This does not mean I always vote straight ticket. I will admit that I do most of the time, but I am also informed on every candidate and actively go out and not only find out what their view is, but where warrented inform them of my view and try to change their mind. I have on occasion voted on the other ticket when I foudn the person on my side of the aisle the least appealing.

It just does not happen that often.

So rich, I vote for whoever I agree with most too, it just bhappens to always be on my side of the aisle, which is afterall why I work so hard to get them elected in the first place.