tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4062491717297548821..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: On The Republicans Being NutsJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-41581748961835149792011-01-06T00:23:14.474-06:002011-01-06T00:23:14.474-06:00Coming late to this, but the word you want isn'...Coming late to this, but the word you want isn't "purist" -- it's "puristest." ;-)Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67065653828212306702011-01-05T00:12:54.719-06:002011-01-05T00:12:54.719-06:00Martin,
I disagree. Harry Reid may be a pro-life...Martin,<br /><br />I disagree. Harry Reid may be a pro-life Senator, but he's acted as a pro-choice Dem leader, and I think he'd be gone in a minute if he didn't. Granted, it's not clear a Republican could get away with that, but there are pro-choice GOP Senators, FWIW.<br /><br />Across,<br /><br />I don't really know how much to make of it. Sorry.<br /><br />Matt,<br /><br />Both Kerry and Clinton had switched by the time they ran; how is that different than Romney, who certainly might have won? And while the McCain who ran in 2008 was orthodox in his policy positions, he hadn't been orthodox from 2001-2004. Guiliani is different: he was still pro-choice in '08, and therefore had no chance, just like Holy Joe had no chance in '04 because of Iraq. <br /><br />I don't want to push it too far -- I don't want to say it's identical -- but IMO there are quite a few similarities.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49072959515600849452011-01-04T21:16:48.569-06:002011-01-04T21:16:48.569-06:00Jon,
I have to say I disagree. The GOP has been th...Jon,<br />I have to say I disagree. The GOP has been the more homogenous party for a very long time now. That homogeneity means that the window of candidates that can be nominated is narrower. <br /><br />I think there are demonstrations of this, even at the presidential level. John Kerry voted for the Iraq War before he voted against it. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, too. These positions were, essentially, apostatic amongst Dems in 2004 and DEFINTELY in 2008. While Clinton didn't win, and did move to the left, it was close.<br /><br />On the other side of the aisle, consider Dobson's threat to take his ball and go home if Guiliani won. <br /><br />I'd say, though, that 2008 provides some evidence in your favor, too. McCain, while mostly in synch with the base on most issues, was certainly not well-liked by many GOP power centers (most notably, Faux News & Limbaugh). But, after he won the nomination, they fell in line immediately.Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-9159647052887219012011-01-04T15:38:02.985-06:002011-01-04T15:38:02.985-06:00JB,
I think the method by which the two parties ex...JB,<br />I think the method by which the two parties exclude certain candidates. The GOP methodology seems to be active in operation, one based on exclusion of the candidate from meaningful discussions and opportunities to win votes (which, admittedly, do not exist in such numbers as to garner any success). <br />The Democratic method is inclusive, letting the participant generally have opportunities to make their message...fall flat, because there aren't any more votes for them there than with the GOP candidate.<br /><br />Frankly, the only system where such apostates would have a shot would require compulsory voting in primaries. Otherwise, activists from each side will naturally and inevitably dominate.Anonymous At Worknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-36507268086081456562011-01-04T12:38:22.833-06:002011-01-04T12:38:22.833-06:00I think OKCupid's data is relevant here, again...I think OKCupid's data is relevant here, against something today but supporting something from last week.<br /><br />On your point today that Republicans are further from the median voter on more unpopular issues: their data shows the median voter's social views better represented by the median Republican than by the median Democrat.<br /><br />On your speculation last week that the Democrats are more diverse, Republicans more homogeneous: their data provides some evidence.<br /><br />http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/<br /><br />Their data is from March, which is pre-tea-party. At least for that time period, do you believe their data, and do you agree with my interpretation of it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-58620946290845848152011-01-04T12:24:38.272-06:002011-01-04T12:24:38.272-06:00Why do Democrats lose so many low-income congressi...Why do Democrats lose so many low-income congressional districts?<br /><br />I have no problem myself with socially conservative Democrats running economic populist platforms in these districts, getting a foothold, bettering the lives of these voters before softening up on social issues, along with the wider cultural softening, at which point, they'll be voting pocket book.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67985694955735284082011-01-04T11:28:21.526-06:002011-01-04T11:28:21.526-06:00We'll find out as we watch the response to Sar...We'll find out as we watch the response to Sarah Palin's RT knocking homophobes as closet homosexuals!<br /><br />Mitch Daniels is another canary. He's attracting reasonable primary buzz despite calling for a truce on social issues and suggesting a potential openness to a tax increase. It got him a lot of heat and he may not run. But if he does, it'll be an interesting measure of how Jacobin the GOP is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-35059684586404842392011-01-04T11:06:02.536-06:002011-01-04T11:06:02.536-06:00It's ironic that a blogger who has spent so mu...It's ironic that a blogger who has spent so much energy arguing about the limits of the president's powers (and hence, importance) would stake so much here on ... the importance of the president. You say you cannot imagine a Democratic presidential candidate who is pro-life. But does not the existence of Harry Reid undermine this point? Reid, who is pro-life, has been the Senate Majority Leader for several years with hardly a complaint. I think it calls into question your ability to deny Waldman's premise. You more or less say it's limited to primaries in inhospitable districts but then add in a few other caveats to water down the claim. I think you need to sort out what you actually think here. Either the parties are fundamentally different, or they're not. I think right now they are, and "no they're not fundamentally different except for exception cases that bring in the entirety of political life" sort of argumentation is not adequate. I don't think you can use the presidential candidates as the big trump card -- indeed, THAT might be the exception. Not that I'm against "No, Democrats are subject to the same venal forces" reasoning per se. But the Reid case is very, very telling, I think.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18440356770947146690noreply@blogger.com