Conservative base and Palin ?

[IglooDame]

But, moving on, what do you mean "Sarah Palin couldn't cut it as governor of Alaska"? Are you saying that because she resigned? It's not uncommon for politicians to resign from their post in order to pursue another post (If that's indeed what she's doing). People who act as if Palin is doing something out of the ordinary are either being really disingenuous, or they have short memory span. Also, I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't name a single thing she's done for Alaska without consulting Wikipedia-- Just one. And I'd be willing to bet that you didn't, and still don't, realize just how much of a . .. .. .. . hole Alaska was before she took office (Comparatively speaking, anyway). It leads me to wonder just where people are getting their info regarding Palin and what they're basing it on.

Which leads me to wonder where you're getting your info regarding Alaska and what you're basing it on. I lived in Alaska in 1996-99, and didn't regard it as a craphole, but please elaborate on the improvements Palin is responsible for implementing in her three years as governor that dragged the state out of the proverbial craphole.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

With the so called conservative base so much in thrall of Palin I am curious how many would follow her if she decided to bail from the Republican party and form a party based on old testament type values.
How many Republican supporters who post here would follow her out of the Republican party ?

I think it's just that the Republican party has nothing left of itself, so it's clinging to just about anyone. Long gone are the days of Reagan, and many would say that the party had long since abandoned Reaganism in favor of getting in bed with right wing social issues and corporatism.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

If they did, we surely would have heard about them by now. The discussion of Palin has always been centered around the IDEA of Palin, or what Palin REPRESENTS, not the actual merits of Palin's record.

This is exactly right. What's more, it's a bizarre fantasy about what Palin represents -- the white knight riding in to electrify the nation, anger liberals, and catapult Republicans to victory. But that has nothing to do with reality. What happened was that the country was at first intrigued by this new face on the scene, then, after getting to know her, quickly recoiled in horror as they realized that Republicans were serious. It's like they're stuck on September 3, 2008, the day Palin was nominated, and nothing else has happened. She hasn't yet appeared completely incoherent* in a series of TV appearances; she hasn't yet led crowds of angry McCain supporters to proclaim Obama a traitor; she hasn't yet thrown hissy fits about every insult, real and imaginary; she hasn't contributed mightily to the electoral failure of a decorated military veteran running against a black man named "Hussein;" and she hasn't yet quit her job because of the "politics of personal destruction" after she spent months claiming her electoral opponent "pals around with terrorists."

But, then again, they can't seem to find anyone else to lead the party, so they might as well make up some fantasy Sarah Palin to do so.

Cleo

*Why is incoherence such a sought-after trait in the Republican Party? Dubya, Palin, Romney . . . it's so weird.

 

[Coral]

I think it's just that the Republican party has nothing left of itself, so it's clinging to just about anyone. Long gone are the days of Reagan, and many would say that the party had long since abandoned Reaganism in favor of getting in bed with right wing social issues and corporatism.

IMHO, the Republican Party would do well to split itself apart. They try too hard to be conservative on such a broad range of issues, from religion to foreign policy to the economy and government, while it quickly becomes clear that these ideas are too conflicting to be held by a single party. E.g. Bush, who expanded the government tremendously and embarked on a policy of rampant fiscal irresponsibility. A more socially liberal while economically conservative party composed of moderate Republicans would do very well and take a very large chunk of the independent vote. That's why Romney won in Massachusetts and why Republican governors tend to do well in blue states--a lot of people want both fiscal responsibility and social progressivism.

 

[Cutlass]

*Why is incoherence such a sought-after trait in the Republican Party? Dubya, Palin, Romney . . . it's so weird.

They must figure that anyone smart enough to speak coherently is too smart to stick with their game plan.

 

[El_Machinae]

In all honesty, I think this would be more awesome than people realise. If the Republican party splits, the Democratic party could also 'afford' to split. If the US could rapidly become a four party State instead of a two-party State, I think things would be much better.

And I have to agree that Pelosi seems vacuous as well. I can't stand the woman.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't really see a possibility of 3 or more parties continuing for any length of time. If Palin or someone split off the extreme right from the Republicans, it would very quickly eliminate both form usefulness as national parties. If they both had members of Congress they would still both mostly be voting as one block. Yet neither could elect a president. It's not that there's any rules against a 3rd party, it's that the nature of our elections simply means that narrow and far out of the mainstream parties are just not going to gain enough electoral success to remain a going concern.

 

[GoodGame]

I doubt any party could 'afford' to split unless it held about 70% of the popular and electoral vote, thanks to the all or nothing method of the USA's system.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, far-sighted Democrats would really need to take the opportunity to split their party.

 

[Cutlass]

Into what and to what purpose? The liberals don't gain anything by splitting off except to have less influence with the moderates and conservatives. So that's shooting themselves in the feet. The conservatives have nothing to gain except to have less influence in picking presidential candidates and influencing policy. So they stand to gain nothing. One way or the other they are stronger working mostly together than they are working entirely apart. That's why it evolved into a 2 party system in the first place.

 

[GoodGame]

There'd really be no reason for a split in an all-or-nothing system except for some bean-counting influence for particular ideologies/geographies in the primaries. Something like that might happen behind the scenes anyways, so a split would only serve to make it public and enumerated that faction A of party X was more significant to party X than faction B of party X.

 

[holy king]

Into what and to what purpose? The liberals don't gain anything by splitting off except to have less influence with the moderates and conservatives. So that's shooting themselves in the feet. The conservatives have nothing to gain except to have less influence in picking presidential candidates and influencing policy. So they stand to gain nothing. One way or the other they are stronger working mostly together than they are working entirely apart. That's why it evolved into a 2 party system in the first place.

it evolved into this because of how the voting system works.
the president becoming more and more powerful didnt help plurality either.

 

[Coral]

The conservatives have nothing to gain except to have less influence in picking presidential candidates and influencing policy. So they stand to gain nothing

Socially progressive fiscal conservatives have everything to gain. The Republican Party has steadily moved far right on many issues and tried to force other moderate Republicans right with them, while Democrats have moved further left economically. This leaves a gap between the two parties that is not filled: a party that is socially liberal while economically conservative. There are a lot of Democratic, Independent and Republican votes to be had for sure by a party with that platform, and that is why Massachusetts has repeatedly voted for Republican governors despite being one of the bluest states.

There'd really be no reason for a split in an all-or-nothing system except for some bean-counting influence for particular ideologies/geographies in the primaries

I would venture that the electoral college was introduced by the founding fathers in anticipation of a country with many parties and many candidates for office rather than a simple two-party state. The electoral college was meant to pick the candidate with the broadest appeal across the country out of the many candidates who would hypothetically run for office instead of a single candidate who managed to win big in his home region.

 

[Bill3000]

The Republican Party has steadily moved far right on many issues and tried to force other moderate Republicans right with them, while Democrats have moved further left economically.

No they haven't.

 

[Cutlass]

Socially progressive fiscal conservatives have everything to gain. The Republican Party has steadily moved far right on many issues and tried to force other moderate Republicans right with them, while Democrats have moved further left economically. This leaves a gap between the two parties that is not filled: a party that is socially liberal while economically conservative. There are a lot of Democratic, Independent and Republican votes to be had for sure by a party with that platform, and that is why Massachusetts has repeatedly voted for Republican governors despite being one of the bluest states.

As Bill correctly said, no they haven't. In fact one of the core causes of the current economic crisis is that the Democratic party has moved substantially to the right on economic issues. Had they moved to the left the crisis might have been averted.

It's extremely confusing to that some people would think that they had moved to the left.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Yeah, isn't the "party that is socially liberal while economically conservative" already called "the Democratic Party?" Sure, there are Dennis Kuciniches, but there are a lot more Rahm Emanuels, and they've been running the party for quite some time.

That highlights a big difference, actually. The leaders of the Democratic Party are moderate, and the radicals are marginalized. The Republicans, on the other hand, are led by the most conservative members, while the moderates follow or are driven / kicked out.

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

Which would seem to open the door to a 3rd party, a socially moderate fiscally and economically moderate to conservative party. But I don't see it happening.

 

[Bill3000]

Which would seem to open the door to a 3rd party, a socially moderate fiscally and economically moderate to conservative party. But I don't see it happening.

It doesn't open the door to a third party because moderate parties are doomed to failure in a first-past-the-post party system.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In all honesty, I think this would be more awesome than people realise. If the Republican party splits, the Democratic party could also 'afford' to split. If the US could rapidly become a four party State instead of a two-party State, I think things would be much better.

Yes, things would be much better. But I think it will never happen. The US is destined to remain a one-party-better-than-the-Soviets/Chinese/Cubans system. If the Republicans ever split the party, the Democrats wouldn't lose another presidential election until one of the groups became large enough to threaten it, or until an entirely different party became big enough. And then we would be back to the same thing again. There are a lot of historical precedents.

In And I have to agree that Pelosi seems vacuous as well.

I don't see that at all. You don't get elected to be the Speaker of the House if you aren't a good leader, a good negotiator, and reasonably intelligent. Whenever I've seen her on TV, I've only been less-than-impressed with her once. And that was during the CIA news conference where she let that Fox News reporter get to her with his loaded question.

And you really have to like the way she put that Army Corps of Engineer general in his place. Well, I did anyway...

 

[Cutlass]

It doesn't open the door to a third party because moderate parties are doomed to failure in a first-past-the-post party system.

That's the theory, anyways. Yet American is a centrist nation. The Democrats are a centrist party. Why would another centrist party not work?