CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 And what makes them even more dangerous than the liberals is that they're business oriented which typically makes them better focused and better organizers. The liberals are too overly idealistic to ever organize to the extent the right does. Well, yes, except for the vast left wing global warming conspiracy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 the guy's personal faith (or anybody else's personal faith, for that matter) doesn't really bother me much. what i personally worry about is the people voting for him gaining control over ever greater swaths of the republican party, and american politics as a whole. this is a movement that is "conservative" in the true, reactionary sense -- as opposed to "conservative" in the classical liberal (less government and to each his own) sense. the people who prop up a candidate like huckabee are people who want more government intrusion into peoples' lives, in the name of protecting some ideal they feel we should all aspire to. they are just like liberals except that they have a different vision of the utopia they want the government to lead us toward. Agreed that the current administration is a good example of what you outline, but keep in mind that conservative Christians were the ones who put Reagan and Bush 41 into office. Reagan was a borderline Libertarian. I'm not convinced that Huckabee is in the same "big government" mold as Bush 43/Cheney. On the other side of the "government intrusion" coin, you have the three major Dem candidates pushing for socialized healthcare. IMO, that would do a lot more damage to the average person (higher taxes ---> a general higher cost of living and, most importantly, fewer jobs available --> high unemployment) than what Bush/Cheney have done. I actually like Obama quite a bit, but this one issue alone will keep me from voting for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Agreed that the current administration is a good example of what you outline, but keep in mind that conservative Christians were the ones who put Reagan and Bush 41 into office. Reagan was a borderline Libertarian. I'm not convinced that Huckabee is in the same "big government" mold as Bush 43/Cheney. i am convinced he is even more so. in any case, the thing about reagan is that he brought all the evangelicals into the fold, but did so behind a goldwater agenda. that coalition is now dissolving as the evangelicals now want someone who pushes THEIR agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 i am convinced he is even more so. in any case, the thing about reagan is that he brought all the evangelicals into the fold, but did so behind a goldwater agenda. that coalition is now dissolving as the evangelicals now want someone who pushes THEIR agenda. Interesting. I'll keep your comments in mind as I continue to watch the debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Agreed that the current administration is a good example of what you outline, but keep in mind that conservative Christians were the ones who put Reagan and Bush 41 into office. Reagan was a borderline Libertarian. I'm not convinced that Huckabee is in the same "big government" mold as Bush 43/Cheney. On the other side of the "government intrusion" coin, you have the three major Dem candidates pushing for socialized healthcare. IMO, that would do a lot more damage to the average person (higher taxes ---> a general higher cost of living and, most importantly, fewer jobs available --> high unemployment) than what Bush/Cheney have done. I actually like Obama quite a bit, but this one issue alone will keep me from voting for him. That was quite the run up in the national debt by a borderline libertarian. Must be voodoo economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Is that really worse than a President who doesn't believe in marital fidelity? jebuss you are a tool If Jesus and Chuck Norris were to fight...who wins? and the evangelicals didnt vote in RR or GW's daddy.... they voted in carter and GW... RR and GW were voted in buy the real republicans not religious nuts voting on one or 2 items .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) and the evangelicals didnt vote in RR or GW's daddy.... they voted in carter and GW... RR and GW were voted in buy the real republicans not religious nuts voting on one or 2 items .... As usual, you're wrong. Reagan/Bush ran on a pro-life platform in '80/'84 (Bush was previously pro-choice and had to change when they teamed up) and got a ton of Evangelical support because of it. They also teamed up with John Paul II in liberating Poland from Communist (atheist) rule, garnering even more support from conservative Christians. This trend continued with Bush/Quayle in '88. jebuss you are I am a tool Edited for accuracy Edited January 5, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Agreed that the current administration is a good example of what you outline, but keep in mind that conservative Christians were the ones who put Reagan and Bush 41 into office. Reagan was a borderline Libertarian. I'm not convinced that Huckabee is in the same "big government" mold as Bush 43/Cheney. On the other side of the "government intrusion" coin, you have the three major Dem candidates pushing for socialized healthcare. IMO, that would do a lot more damage to the average person (higher taxes ---> a general higher cost of living and, most importantly, fewer jobs available --> high unemployment) than what Bush/Cheney have done. I actually like Obama quite a bit, but this one issue alone will keep me from voting for him. No, very moderate democrats put reagan in office...which is why the term Reagan Democrats was coined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) No, very moderate democrats put reagan in office...which is why the term Reagan Democrats was coined. Most of those "very moderate Democracts" were Christians from the South, which became overwhelmingly Republican by the '90s. While quite a few of these people may have identified themselves as "Democrats" in 1980, a very large proportion of them voted Republican by '88. Edited January 5, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 No, very moderate democrats put reagan in office...which is why the term Reagan Democrats was coined. Didn't Reagan lose like 1 state? It's gonna be hard to make generalizations about who elected him. Who the hell didn't? And Reagan was clearly a critical thinker when it came to his belief system. Lets hold him up as a shining example of Christian Fundamentalism only if we also acknowledge that he was into Astrology, Psychics, and Alzheimers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Didn't Reagan lose like 1 state? It's gonna be hard to make generalizations about who elected him. Who the hell didn't? And Reagan was clearly a critical thinker when it came to his belief system. Lets hold him up as a shining example of Christian Fundamentalism only if we also acknowledge that he was into Astrology, Psychics, and Alzheimers. That was in 1984 in his re-election campaign against Mondale. He lost Minnesota and DC. Mondale ran on the platform that if elected he would have to raise taxes because the national debt under Reagan was out of control. This was a reality voters didn't want to accept and voted for 4 more years of mortgaging the future of the country instead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I'll believe in the ressurection of the McCain campaign when I see it. The republicans are fractured along ideological lines and there doesn't appear to be any republican candidate who sufficiently crosses over enough of the demographics. Romney is clearly finished. The only reason he ever appeared viable at all is that he was the only apparent "faith candidate" Huckabee simply better filled that vacuum, but he'll get no love from fiscal conservatives. Bush Jr effectively alienated all of the republican subsets with the exception of the neocons. Now they all have their own candidates, and I see McCain as the odd man out. The Democrats, for the most part, are all on message i.e. change, but Hillary obviously has a more difficult case to make, hence her struggles in Iowa. Obama's ability (so far) to bring new faces into the tent may be a harbinger of continued success. I heard a stat on the radio that the Obama camp was hoping for 150-165K turnout in Iowa. 220K showed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 As usual, you're wrong. Reagan/Bush ran on a pro-life platform in '80/'84 (Bush was previously pro-choice and had to change when they teamed up) and got a ton of Evangelical support because of it. They also teamed up with John Paul II in liberating Poland from Communist (atheist) rule, garnering even more support from conservative Christians. This trend continued with Bush/Quayle in '88.Edited for accuracy go read up on some political history ... man for a 9th grader you dont know shat.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 (edited) go read up on some political history ... man for a 9th grader you dont know shat.... Hey Retardius, are you suggesting that Mondale's support of the ERA and the freeze of nuclear weapons production won over the Baptists and Pentacostals in the South? Or was it his selection of the pro-choice Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate that garnered their votes? Edited January 5, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 The Democrats, for the most part, are all on message i.e. change, but Hillary obviously has a more difficult case to make, hence her struggles in Iowa. Obama's ability (so far) to bring new faces into the tent may be a harbinger of continued success. I heard a stat on the radio that the Obama camp was hoping for 150-165K turnout in Iowa. 220K showed up. As long as Obama can avoid putting his foot in his mouth, he'll win. I get the sense people will vote for him simply because he doesn't have that stench of Washington about him. His inexperience may well be an asset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Most of those "very moderate Democracts" were Christians from the South, which became overwhelmingly Republican by the '90s. While quite a few of these people may have identified themselves as "Democrats" in 1980, a very large proportion of them voted Republican by '88. Actually, it was the Reagan Democrats in the North that elected him. If you read the exit polling data that is available I believe it will show this. There, from memory, is no mention of whether they were christian or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 As long as Obama can avoid putting his foot in his mouth, he'll win. I get the sense people will vote for him simply because he doesn't have that stench of Washington about him. His inexperience may well be an asset. I concur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 (edited) Actually, it was the Reagan Democrats in the North that elected him. If you read the exit polling data that is available I believe it will show this. There, from memory, is no mention of whether they were christian or not. Actually, just about everybody voted for Reagan. But the conservative Christians sure as hell didn't vote for Mondale, who ran on overwhelmingly liberal platform. Carter only won two states in the South in 1980 (his own and WV). Conservative Christians tend to take hard-line stances against abortion, Communism, and Islamofasicsm. I'm not saying that moderate Democrats in the North didn't vote for Reagan. You're absolutely right about that. But I'd say that his votes from Evangelicals in the South (and Midwest) were more substantial. Remember that the Southern states were not typically friendly to Republicans ("The Party of Lincoln") before the '80s. People who were ridiculously socially-conservative and even biggots like George Wallace and Bull Connor would run as Democrats because of the stigma towards "Yankee Republicans." But that all changed with the Reagan/Bush administrations. By the time that Bush/Quayle were elected in '88, the South had become overwhelmingly Republican. That set the stage for the "Republican Revolution" in '94 and Bush 43's two terms. Much of that transformation can be attributed to the Reagan administration. Edited January 6, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Actually, just about everybody voted for Reagan. But the conservative Christians sure as hell didn't vote for Mondale, who ran on overwhelmingly liberal platform. Carter only won two states in the South in 1980 (his own and WV). Conservative Christians tend to take hard-line stances against abortion, Communism, and Islamofasicsm. I'm not saying that moderate Democrats in the North didn't vote for Reagan. You're absolutely right about that. But I'd say that his votes from Evangelicals in the South (and Midwest) were more substantial. Remember that the Southern states were not typically friendly to Republicans ("The Party of Lincoln") before the '80s. People who were ridiculously socially-conservative and even biggots like George Wallace and Bull Connor would run as Democrats because of the stigma towards "Yankee Republicans." But that all changed with the Reagan/Bush administrations. By the time that Bush/Quayle were elected in '88, the South had become overwhelmingly Republican. That set the stage for the "Republican Revolution" in '94 and Bush 43's two terms. Much of that transformation can be attributed to the Reagan administration. The reason the south is republican is because of the dixiecrats switching parties during the civil rights legislation battles. The southern democrats outnumbers northern democrats and wanted to keep blacks second class citizens. The northern democrats sided with the northern republicans and the dixiecrats voted with the southern republicans. There were more numbers in the north, so the civil rights legislation of 1964(I believe) passed. Now, it is for this and this reason only that there are more republicans in the south than democrats. While evangelicals will vote to save the fetus...but not fight for that fetus' rights if it ends up being gay....doesn't mean it pushed reagans victory. Catholics voted for Reagan in record numbers. But not because of the pro-life issue. It was about the cold war and the fact that Carter was such a miserable failure. Carter had more evangelical support than Reagan...he was ultra religious. Reagan was voted in by northern white males who wanted a tax cut...PERIOD. Remember, just a few short years earlier, democrats voted in a tax cutting president in Jack Kennedy. That is why Reagan won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 The reason the south is republican is because of the dixiecrats switching parties during the civil rights legislation battles. The southern democrats outnumbers northern democrats and wanted to keep blacks second class citizens. The northern democrats sided with the northern republicans and the dixiecrats voted with the southern republicans. There were more numbers in the north, so the civil rights legislation of 1964(I believe) passed. Now, it is for this and this reason only that there are more republicans in the south than democrats. While evangelicals will vote to save the fetus...but not fight for that fetus' rights if it ends up being gay....doesn't mean it pushed reagans victory. Catholics voted for Reagan in record numbers. But not because of the pro-life issue. It was about the cold war and the fact that Carter was such a miserable failure. Carter had more evangelical support than Reagan...he was ultra religious. Reagan was voted in by northern white males who wanted a tax cut...PERIOD. Remember, just a few short years earlier, democrats voted in a tax cutting president in Jack Kennedy. That is why Reagan won. you've got little pieces of good info here slipped in with a bunch of bad info. the reagan elections were indeed a huge part of the shift of the south from D to R...yeah you can point back to the historical developments in the 60s, and see things start to shift with nixon's electoral victories, but it was reagan's campaigns that made that shift permanent. in 1980, the south was 51/44 for reagan -- and these are the same states, and presumably many of the same voters, carter won handily 4 years earlier. carter had more evangelical support than reagan? wrong. according to wikipedia, protestants went 56/37 for reagan, white protestants 62/31 for reagan (catholics 51/40 for reagan). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 As long as Obama can avoid putting his foot in his mouth, he'll win. I get the sense people will vote for him simply because he doesn't have that stench of Washington about him. His inexperience may well be an asset. I think that this is correct... especially if McCain or Huckabee end up as the Republican candidate. Neither of those two can win the General Election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 you've got little pieces of good info here slipped in with a bunch of bad info. the reagan elections were indeed a huge part of the shift of the south from D to R...yeah you can point back to the historical developments in the 60s, and see things start to shift with nixon's electoral victories, but it was reagan's campaigns that made that shift permanent. in 1980, the south was 51/44 for reagan -- and these are the same states, and presumably many of the same voters, carter won handily 4 years earlier. carter had more evangelical support than reagan? wrong. according to wikipedia, protestants went 56/37 for reagan, white protestants 62/31 for reagan (catholics 51/40 for reagan). LOL...I said that wrong...Carter HAD...meaning when Carter won his first Presidential election he had the support of religious people. Obviously when he ran against Reagan...he lost their support, but that is not what propelled Reagan to victory. The loss of support had really nothing to do with Carter being anti-religion, but more so that he was an incompetent screw up and no one was going to vote him back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 carter had more evangelical support than reagan? wrong. according to wikipedia, protestants went 56/37 for reagan, white protestants 62/31 for reagan (catholics 51/40 for reagan). wrong carter was the first to have the evangelical support ... GW was the second that actively courted the nut jobs to get him elected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) Reagan was voted in by northern white males who wanted a tax cut...PERIOD. LOL, wrong. Reagan/Bush's approach was clearly two-tiered: Appeal to economic conservatives by cutting taxes and appeal to social conservatives (e.g., Evangelicals) by speaking out against abortion and taking a hard-line stance against Communism. Remember that Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority supported Reagan heavily in the 1980 election... During the 1980 presidential election, the Moral Majority is credited with giving Ronald Reagan two-thirds of the white evangelical vote, over Jimmy Carter Remember, just a few short years earlier, democrats voted in a tax cutting president in Jack Kennedy. That is why Reagan won. I don't consider two full decades "a few short years." you've got little pieces of good info here slipped in with a bunch of bad info. the reagan elections were indeed a huge part of the shift of the south from D to R...yeah you can point back to the historical developments in the 60s, and see things start to shift with nixon's electoral victories, but it was reagan's campaigns that made that shift permanent. +1 Edited January 7, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Interesting article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...62-7583,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.