Hard Core Conservatives Defecting From Bush?

[St Leo]

Finally, the Mensheviks are breaking with Chairperson George W. Bush's Bolsheviks. Whichever side wins, at least they'll be less of them for normal people to worry about.

[Kepler]

Nixon said "the trouble with Republicans is, when we get into trouble we start acting like cannibals." And that was back before most Republicans were rabid dogs.

Trent's an interesting test case. If you're Bushy and the RNC, do you let an unreconstructed scumbag racist stay high profile because he represents a big part of your base in the south and risk opening people's eyes to the truth, or do you hang him high, control the damage, but piss off the klansmen who funnel gazillions into GOP state and local elections?

I think in the end you hafta do the latter, because where's the fringe gonna go? Maybe they can run Strom as a States Rights candidate again (don't laugh -- that'd skim 25% of the GOP's southern base).

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Depends on where you are from. To someone from Ann Arbor he may appear to be akin to Genghis Khan.

No. That's John Ashcroft.

What I meant was that if people were abandoning both Bush and Lott, then moderates like Specter are all that are left.

[Sava]

You know what I was thinking? All right, check this out... I'm not sure the exact percentage of people that voted in the last presidential election, I want to say like, 50% of registered voters which is around 100 million (I might be wrong here, so feel free to correct me). Anyways, less than half voted Republican (remember Gore won popular vote) which makes around say 48 million Republicans. Maybe 5 or 10 million were moderates who tend to sway from left to right depending on candidate, that leaves around 40 million republicans... 40 million out of 300 million... that's like 13% of America.

So really, 13% of America now effectively controls the government. And within that 13% there's different factions of Republicans.

My figures are probably wrong because I basically pulled them outta my 4ss, but the point is that the amount of Republicans in this country is small. Democracy indeed.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Sava
My figures are probably wrong because I basically pulled them outta my 4ss, but the point is that the amount of Republicans in this country is small. Democracy indeed.

Indeed. When people don't vote, they give up their right to democracy. It isn't really fair to unclude non-voters in those statistics. Of course, maybe we should just go ancient greek and socially ostracize non-voters...

[chequita guevara]

Actually Sava, your percentages are good, but I think your absolute numbers are off. I believe in this last election, 49% of registered voters voted. Of them, 49% voted for Bush, about 24%. Of them, about half were voting against Gore, not for Bush. So roughly 12% of the eligable voters voted for Bush. On top of that consider that many people are eligable to register to vote, but don't bother (but I don't know those numbers).

cyclotron7, people shouldn't be forced to vote. Either they aren't voting because either way, they're fine with the system or either way, they think the system is screwed. Either way, they are making a political choice not to vote.


Wow, real discussions pop-up in a thoroughly Fezzed thread.

[Cyclotron]

I was just being figurative. I don't think that's a good idea either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

piss off the klansmen who funnel gazillions into GOP state and local elections

I hate to break up a non-thinking rant, but who are these klansmen that have gazillions of dollars to give to the GOP?

Maybe they can run Strom as a States Rights candidate again (don't laugh -- that'd skim 25% of the GOP's southern base).

Once again, I hate to break up a non-thinking rant, but 25%? More like 5%, at best. You remember what happened Pat Buchanan when he split from the party for becoming too imperialist.

but the point is that the amount of Republicans in this country is small.

So are the amount of Democrats... and Greens... and Libertarians. Republicans are just more populous than any other group right now (Democrats close behind).

[chequita guevara]

Klansman is a bit of an overstatement, but the Republicans "Southern Strategy" pretty much involves the GOP kissing the hand of Southern racists, who are still plentiful and powerful, despite all the advances that have been made in the South vis a vis race relations.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Republicans are just more populous than any other group right now (Democrats close behind).

And that's why Gore won the popular vote.

[chequita guevara]

Democrats are just disgusted by their own party right now, which puts them in the same company with the rest of the country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And that's why Gore won the popular vote.

Living in the past much? 2000 was 2 years ago. I saw the 2002 elections and the Republicans pretty much swept that.

but the Republicans "Southern Strategy" pretty much involves the GOP kissing the hand of Southern racists

To a very minor degree. The governor's race in Georgia might have involved in twinge in that (though there are MANY non-rascists that think the flag shouldn't have been changed to that montrosity of thing they call the Georgia flag), but the Senate race had absolutely NO elements of racism.

Lindsey Graham didn't win the Senate seat in South Carolina by appealing to racists. He is definintly not a racist.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Living in the past much? 2000 was 2 years ago. I saw the 2002 elections and the Republicans pretty much swept that.

As Che said, that really had more to do with complete disenchantment within the democrat ranks than any change in political demographics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As Che said, that really had more to do with complete disenchantment within the democrat ranks than any change in political demographics.

Seeing as the Republicans have held the House for the longest period of time since the 1950s, I doubt the truth of that. I could easily say that 2000 had to do with disenchantment with Republicans for Bush.

If there WERE more Democrats, the House never would have fallen back to the Republicans, would it? After all the House, more than any other instution, shows how many people belong to a party.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If there WERE more Democrats, the House never would have fallen back to the Republicans, would it? After all the House, more than any other instution, shows how many people belong to a party.

Not really, since larger states are slightly under represented. Besides, the Democrats totally failed to deliver to their constitutants when they had Congress and the Presidency from 1993 - 1995. Despite having control, they still let the Republicans set the agenda and tried to rule by consensus with the Republicans. The DP hasn't been losing voters to the Republicans, they've been losing voters out of the system.