The Republican Party is a coalition of groups that have believe in the same policies, but have different world views. The Democratic Party on the other hand is a coalition of people with a similar world view, but who believe in different policies.
Not sure what that tells me, except that is explains Republicans' cycle of boom and bust in terms of popularity. When all their wings rally around the same policy they can do very well, but when the sides are distrustful enough of each other that they can completely collapse as well. Democrats tend to bicker amongst each other more consistently, but rarely fall out on the level of the current Republican primary.
Paradoxically, this leads to Republican primaries being more policy driven, as even the slightest difference in policy can break the fabric of their coalition. Democrats are more accepting of policy differences however, as they know they they all are meant to result in the same end game.
--
My bracket wasn't good enough to beat SuperNiceDog's in the GameFAQS Rivalry Rumble. Congrats! This is Yesmar.
Obama isn't a gay basher per se. He just doesn't believe in gay marriage because it's convenient for getting the black vote and he has the gay vote locked down anyway. What are they gonna do, vote Republican? Mwahaha.
TomNook7 posted... There is no difference. Obama and Bush are both gay bashing war mongers.
Well yeah, but there are plenty of people in both parties that aren't gay bashing war mongers. Sure, it's more likely that those particular people are Democrats, but people will often find an issue that they truly care about, and decide their party lines based on that. Some times it's a matter of priority.
The Republican primary is actually turning into a microcosm of the party's various wings, with some social/cultural overlaps in the last two categories.
Santorum: Social Conservatives Romney: Country Club Republicans Paul: Libertarians Gingrich: Angry White Men (Even if he's not necessarily getting their votes)
Basically in the 1970's, the Social Conservatives and the Republican Establishment made a deal. Despite the South and its social/cultural brethern's claims to only resent and hate the industrial titans of Wall Street and the North, on some level they're deeply jealous of them and feel an aspiration and hope to someday become them. In return for the Country Club Republicans giving the Social Conservatives something to aspire to, the Social Conservatives have their vote, albeit Carter and Clinton were able to steal some of them away as they temporarily presented more aspirational models against Ford and Bush/Dole. With Romney, the Social Conservatives are not entirely convinced that they have someone they want to aspire to being, which isn't necessarily anything new, but all of a sudden Santorum has provided them with a clear alternative.
The Libertarians/Angry White Men have differences in several areas, but are united in the sense that they are more opportunistic Republicans, supporting the party more because they hate Liberals and Democrats then because they love the party itself. They have many of the same social and cultural resentments as more traditional Social Conservatives do, but come to them in a different way. AWM's religiosity varies from state to state and in fairly irreligious parts of the country, someone like Ron Paul is able to get both Libertarians/AWM on his side, while in the religious South they remain more traditionally Socially Conservative and Newt has done a better job in peeling some of them away for himself
--
My bracket wasn't good enough to beat SuperNiceDog's in the GameFAQS Rivalry Rumble. Congrats! This is Yesmar.
Yes, the Republican Party is indeed divided into those wings. However, the Republican Party is very very good at falling in line, and you will see this come fall once a nominee has been chosen.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Also, other than Ron Paul, I haven't noticed any major policy differences among the candidate. It's been a lot of posturing about who is more conservative. That's Romney's weak point because of his past history, so he has to compensate by making it appear that he's smarter/not crazy and can beat Obama. Of course he can't just come out and say he is smarter than Santorum/Gingrich or that they are crazy, which is the challenging part.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Well, I mostly meant the final 4. The others sort of got forgotten about.....
I mean, it's true that Santorum, Perry, or Bachmann would likely implement very different policies from Romney as president, and Romney's policies would likely be very similar to Obama's. But on the campaign trail, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney favor basically identical policies, just with different rhetoric.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Yes, the Republican Party is indeed divided into those wings. However, the Republican Party is very very good at falling in line, and you will see this come fall once a nominee has been chosen.
I agree generally, as the reason the Republican Party tends to fall in line in the best of times is because they rally around specific policies. In the worst of times however, they could really fall apart. A Tea Party candidate would probably steal more votes away from the Republicans in the general than an Occupy candidate would for the Dems. Part of that is due to conservatives having more numbers than liberals, but I think there's something more there as well. I'm not saying that anything like this will happen, or that the Republicans won't fall in line in the fall, but it's just a difference in makeup of the parties.
Also, other than Ron Paul, I haven't noticed any major policy differences among the candidate.
I agree, but because the Republican Party is more policy driven, even miniscule differences in policy can seem dramatic.
--
My bracket wasn't good enough to beat SuperNiceDog's in the GameFAQS Rivalry Rumble. Congrats! This is Yesmar.
A legit Tea Party candidate (or perhaps Ron Paul) entering the general election would guarantee Obama victory, yeah. But I doubt anyone will actually decide to run, knowing the consequences (4 more years of Obama).
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is that Democrats think we shouldn't have any morals. They rebel against decades old social norms just for the sake of rebelling, like they never grew out of the rebellious phase. They're like hippies in suits. Their problem is since their entire platform is "morals are bad and we shouldn't have any," they don't have any beliefs of their own to stand on, and so they can never actually accomplish anything. All they can do is ruin what's already established.
You may not agree with the Republicans when it comes to economics, but you have to at least see that they're the only ones holding the moral fabric of America together. That alone is enough to get me to look past any questionable ideas they have on the financial system.
-- Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police http://barbershopwindow.com/IMAGES/HASHTAG%20HEEL%20SHIRT%20SOLD.jpg
From: RL5 | #018 The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is that Democrats think we shouldn't have any morals. They rebel against decades old social norms just for the sake of rebelling, like they never grew out of the rebellious phase. They're like hippies in suits.
what is this i dont even
--
"The people who play Final Fantasy 7 actually have lives and dont NEED polls" ~MajinUltima SuperNiceDog: Bracket: Good, Taste: Bad
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is that Democrats think we shouldn't have any morals. They rebel against decades old social norms just for the sake of rebelling, like they never grew out of the rebellious phase. They're like hippies in suits. Their problem is since their entire platform is "morals are bad and we shouldn't have any," they don't have any beliefs of their own to stand on, and so they can never actually accomplish anything. All they can do is ruin what's already established.
no, its more democrats dont believe in shoving your morals down other's throats.
Most democrats wouldn't use abortions as their primary means of birth control. Hell many democrats don't even like the concept of an abortion. But they also believe that they don't have the right to say "you cant have one", and that banning them would cause more problems than making them legal.
I really dont see how anyone can be against almost all the popular opinions democrats have on social issues.
Economic and foreign policy are different. Id argue that the ideal economic structure is 50% capitalistic/50% socialist. Which is much more in common with what democrats think. But there are some economic and foreign policies that could potentially work that the republicans tend to talk about. And potential corruption without a just legal system (which we haven't had in years) can make my 50/50 capitalistic/socialist ideal fail.
--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II
I really dont see how anyone can be against almost all the popular opinions democrats have on social issues.
Spoken like a true Democrat. Just about every Republican, on the other hand, can understand why people would disagree with them on social issues, even if they emphatically believe they are right.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
From: red sox 777 | #023 I really dont see how anyone can be against almost all the popular opinions democrats have on social issues.
Spoken like a true Democrat. Just about every Republican, on the other hand, can understand why people would disagree with them on social issues, even if they emphatically believe they are right.
Uh, I have an extremely liberal Aunt who understands the conservative side of issues.
I think its just people on B8 being arrogant IMHO
--
Why is plum the smartest player in the topic today? Truly this is a landmark moment in Board 8 Mafia - Luis_Sera89 http://i.imgur.com/uTK2o.jpg
As an outsider who gets basic American news over the past few years the way I see it is that Republicans are the only true party in that they stick together while Democrats seems to come under the banner as "not-Republicans" and after that they share little similarites.
--
BOP Results: http://www.freewebs.com/charmander6000/Rivalry%20BOP.xls Congrats to SuperNiceDog for winning the guru contest.
Oh, there are definitely liberals who understand the conservative side of issues, but there also exist liberals who can't understand how someone could possibly take the other side. You almost will not find that among conservatives.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
Spoken like a true Democrat. Just about every Republican, on the other hand, can understand why people would disagree with them on social issues, even if they emphatically believe they are right.
i completely disagree on you there. I dont see many republicans understanding why people would disagree with them on social issues. They start calling them immoral hippie stoners. At least among the loudest conservatives.
--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II
i completely disagree on you there. I dont see many republicans understanding why people would disagree with them on social issues.
Have you talked to any? Conservatives tend to be very understanding and accepting of individuals. Very harsh on groups. Conservatives are often willing to think horrible things of large groups of people (poor people, gay people, people receiving welfare, people who live in New York City, people who go to elite schools, etc.) but will treat individuals from any of those groups that they hate very well.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
they are both lapdogs of corporate powers and way out of line with what Americans actually want. if there are differences between them they are minute. there's a lot of difference in their rhetoric I guess.
Have you talked to any? Conservatives tend to be very understanding and accepting of individuals. Very harsh on groups. Conservatives are often willing to think horrible things of large groups of people (poor people, gay people, people receiving welfare, people who live in New York City, people who go to elite schools, etc.) but will treat individuals from any of those groups that they hate very well.
Lol have i talked to any. I live in one of the most conservatives regions of the country in alpharetta/woodstock, georgia. You know, the area that sells obama curious george stuffed animals and obama is a monkey t-shirts at bars?
Maybe its region related. Whatever is the dominant party is in your region will appear as ass hats. I haven't lived in pittsburgh since i was 13, and im sure there is plenty of people there that can't stand republicans or what not, and are generally asses to differing views.
But this "conservatives tend to be very understanding and accepting of individuals" is somewhat accurate. But hardly to the point where you could say they are way more accepting of individuals than democrats. At least through my experience
From: red sox 777 | #017 A legit Tea Party candidate (or perhaps Ron Paul) entering the general election would guarantee Obama victory, yeah. But I doubt anyone will actually decide to run, knowing the consequences (4 more years of Obama).
This isn't neccessarily true.
The closer an election is the less likely people are to vote for a third party.
It appears people care more about someone losing than someone winning.
Colegreen_c12 posted... From: red sox 777 | #017 A legit Tea Party candidate (or perhaps Ron Paul) entering the general election would guarantee Obama victory, yeah. But I doubt anyone will actually decide to run, knowing the consequences (4 more years of Obama). This isn't neccessarily true.
The closer an election is the less likely people are to vote for a third party.
It appears people care more about someone losing than someone winning.
Of course, in an election you aren't trying to convince the people who are going to vote Dem/Rep no matter what, you're trying to convince the people who still haven't decided, and those people tend toward the most milquetoast candidate in terms of promises and ideals. Things like Hope and Change are what got Obama elected, not because he convinced either side, but because he convinced the middle. A tea partier is all about extreme positions, which are not what people in the middle tend to like. Mitt Romney is the king of not taking extreme positions, which is why people call him the most likely to beat Obama.
From: charmander6000 | #025 As an outsider who gets basic American news over the past few years the way I see it is that Republicans are the only true party in that they stick together while Democrats seems to come under the banner as "not-Republicans" and after that they share little similarites.
This is exactly the opposite of what is happening right now.
--
"The people who play Final Fantasy 7 actually have lives and dont NEED polls" ~MajinUltima SuperNiceDog: Bracket: Good, Taste: Bad
red sox 777, i see you in a lot of political topics and respect your opinion. Id like your response to my post about it being region related and if the link i posted is offensive to an individual.
--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II
It could be region related. It might be more of a South thing than a majority is mean thing though. And I've noticed liberals often have contempt for others' views even in areas where liberals are the minority.
In relation to this, both Christians and liberals in the USA have a persecution complex, where they believe society is persecuting them, even when it clearly is not.
The link shows something that is offensive towards a group of people, but not specifically to individuals. I daresay most of the people buying those shirts would not wear it if they knew they were going to be around a black person in person. And I doubt most of them have that kind of animosity toward black individuals, if they speak with them long enough to see them as an individual and not just a faceless member of a group.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
The link shows something that is offensive towards a group of people, but not specifically to individuals. I daresay most of the people buying those shirts would not wear it if they knew they were going to be around a black person in person. And I doubt most of them have that kind of animosity toward black individuals, if they speak with them long enough to see them as an individual and not just a faceless member of a group.
do you think that shirt would be offensive to obama? an individual?
Also id argue that the south IS the majority of conservatives, but i could be wrong on that.
--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II
It is offensive to Obama as an individual, but these people actually do hate Obama as an individual, so that's not surprising.
There's plenty of conservative majority areas outside the South. I'll try to list them:
Alaska The eastern 80% of Washington The eastern 90% of Oregon Northern California east of I-5 Southern California minus Los Angeles County Idaho Montana Wyoming Utah Northern 95% of Nevada Arizona New Mexico Colorado Oklahoma Kansas Nebraska South Dakota North Dakota Iowa Southern 90% of Illinois New Hampshire Middle 80% of Pennsylvania Northern 80% of New York Northern half of Maine Indiana
And of course, around every major city there tends to be a suburban/exurban area that leans Republican. For example, the northwest suburbs of Boston, the eastern suburbs of Seattle, etc.
Democrats get by in elections by dominating the 1/3 of the population that lives in the cities themselves to the tune of 80-90% of the votes.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
oh dont get me wrong, plenty other than the south is republican. But lets face it, the south is the hub of the republican party today.
My definition of south kinda includes the southwest of zona/new mexico/texas as well, which you may not include. I mean places like the dakotas and alaska have what? 1 million people each? Metro atlanta is like 6 mill alone.
--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II
I think I was trying to use the 11 Confederate states as my definition of South, but looking back at that list, I realized I actually used the 16 slave states.
As for a majority.....
Electoral votes of slave states in 1860: 199 Electoral votes of free states + states that were not states in 1860: 329
So. the South makes up 37% of the nation as a whole. Republicans tend to win around 60-40 or a bit less in presidential elections across the South, so that would give Southern conservatives around 22% of the national electorate. Assuming the electorate is split 50/50, that gives the South 44% of all conservative voters.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
The thing is that Democrats probably win Metro Atlanta, or at least get pretty close. Republicans win by similar margins in rural Georgia and rural South Dakota or Alaska, except that those states have no big cities, so there is nothing to act as a counterwieght to lower the percentage.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
The thing is that Democrats probably win Metro Atlanta, or at least get pretty close. Republicans win by similar margins in rural Georgia and rural South Dakota or Alaska, except that those states have no big cities, so there is nothing to act as a counterwieght to lower the percentage.
Sorry to say, but dems dont win metro atl. And they dont come close. Atlanta's population is like 400k. Metro area is 5.5 to 6 mill last time i checked.
Obama won downtown atl. Not gonna disagree with you on downtown atl. But metro area? He got taken to the slaughterhouse
--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II
I covered all the counties relatively close to Atlanta. You could count some further out counties as Metro Atlanta (not where where that extends to), but all the further out ones have relatively small populations and aren't going to be able to overcome that 133k lead. McCain doesn't jump into the lead until we get well into rural Georgia.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link.
I covered all the counties relatively close to Atlanta. You could count some further out counties as Metro Atlanta (not where where that extends to), but all the further out ones have relatively small populations and aren't going to be able to overcome that 133k lead. McCain doesn't jump into the lead until we get well into rural Georgia.
Downtown Atlanta is in fulton and dekalb county........
Look at alpharetta and roswell georgia for metro fulton county. Not fulton in general.
--
Pride. Passion. Excellence. Metal_DK Currently playing: Sengoku Rance, Starcraft II