- #71
jduster
- 2
- 0
I know I said this before, but now it applies moreso, after losing in the states he was depending on.
He needs to withdraw.
He needs to withdraw.
Gokul43201 said:Newt seems to be doing fairly well with one segment of the population: deep south super-religious conservatives...
I think it is fair to say that people that oppose interracial marriage are social conservatives. That follows essentially from definition, doesn't it? I think it's also not a huge stretch to guess that a large fraction of them are likely to be religious - after all, even the judge that ruled on Loving v. Virginia used the Tower of Babel argument to justify racial integrity laws. Newt also ties Santorum among the demographic that doubts evolution, and I think there's a pretty strong correlation between religiosity and anti-evolution positions.mheslep said:According this pole, Newt wins "Obama's a Muslim" voters, and "interracial marriage should be illegal" voters. Yes this is Alabama. But how do these opinions make these voters "super-religious conservatives"? How are they conservative, and how do these opinions suggest they have ever stepped inside a church?
In this case, the poll was primary in the context of the impending GOP primaries in those states, so naturally was restricted to Republicans. I haven't looked through PPP's archives to see if they had done something similar in 2008 (or earlier years).Also, I don't recall seeing similar polling on Democratic candidates (this poll was 100% R. voters).
1. As far as this particular poll goes, I didn't draw any conclusions (not anything significant, at least). I merely made observations on who was more popular among which demographic, in fact merely echoing the observations made by PPP. Admittedly, I did characterize the demographic as being extremely religious, which is a bit of an inference. I'm happy to drop that characterization and go with "deep south super-conservatives" if that'll help end that particular disagreement. But, to address further the specifics of your question, it should not be surprising that an Obama primary opponent would win a plurality of support from the "Obama's a Muslim" demographic - that's the trivial solution. Just as one would trivially expect the "Romney is a thief" demographic to favor Obama over Romney. Conclusions might only become worth drawing when you look at the "Romney is a thief" demographic in terms of say, their support for different hypothetical Democratic candidates.What would you conclude if, in 2008, Biden/Clinton/Dodd/etc won the "Obama's a Muslim" vote in Alabama, or in Vermont with a 95% white population, or if Obama won the "women should not be President" vote?
Catching just this bit at the moment: I suspect the reverse, going by, for example, the sexist nature of the attacks from the left on Republican female candidates, and the history presented by conservative UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her popularity in the US. Declining to set aside one's life and run for office is a different matter from supporting someone else who does.Gokul43201 said:PS: As of early 2007, according to Gallup, about 11% of respondents say they wouldn't vote for a female President. The sample was not polled for political identity, as far as I can tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans made up a somewhat larger fraction of that group (going by say the relatively large abundance of Democrats vs. Republicans among the women in Congress).
I'm guessing he probably will if he keeps coming in a distant third. Which, imo, he will. But the thing is that the campaign keeps his name in the news and should have a positive effect on his earning potential (provided he doesn't say or do something really stupid). I don't know what his campaign's financial situation is. But for some candidates campaigning is a wonderful thing. Living off money that people give you because you're running for public office.jduster said:I know I said this before, but now it applies moreso, after losing in the states he was depending on.
He needs to withdraw.
jduster said:He needs to withdraw.
It's possible. I don't have a definitive source that addresses the distribution of that group by political inclination. I couldn't easily find a poll that looks into it, so I went with the only other quantitative data I had - that Dem women outnumber Rep women in Congress by more than 2:1.mheslep said:Catching just this bit at the moment: I suspect the reverse, going by, for example, the sexist nature of the attacks from the left on Republican female candidates, and the history presented by conservative UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her popularity in the US. Declining to set aside one's life and run for office is a different matter from supporting someone else who does.
I remember it too, along with a similar poll last July in which about 15% of Republicans said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President. And that was when women were enjoying particularly high ratings among Republicans. Now less than 5% of Republicans will vote for a woman to be President.Jimmy Snyder said:I vaguely remember a poll that came out in 2008 in which 48% of Democrats said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President.
a small group will not vote for a woman, right?Gokul43201 said:I remember it too, along with a similar poll last July in which about 15% of Republicans said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President. And that was when women were enjoying particularly high ratings among Republicans. Now less than 5% of Republicans will vote for a woman to be President.
It's a joke, mh. Jimmy was being clever, interpreting the 2008 Dem primary numbers as a reflection of Dems that would not vote for a woman. I applied the same reasoning to Michele Bachman's numbers this season.mheslep said:a small group will not vote for a woman, right?
I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.Gokul43201 said:I think it is fair to say that people that oppose interracial marriage are social conservatives. That follows essentially from definition, doesn't it?...
mheslep said:I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.
Agreed.ThinkToday said:The abolitionist movement in the civil war wasn't run by conservatives? Lincoln wasn't conservative? There seems to be a mixing or conservative, redneck and race hate as if they are the same.
lpetrich said:Abolitionism in general could easily be interpreted as a radical movement, not as a conservative in the Burkean sense or whatever. A Burkean could say that it's wrong to try to outlaw slavery if it had been legal, since it has existed for millennia, and outlawing it could cause awkward social upheavals. However, if a nation had long rejected slavery, a Burkean would insist that it's wrong to change that.
lpetrich said:...LBJ allegedly stated this his signing of the Civil Rights Act meant that "We have lost the South for a generation". The Republicans moved in with their "Southern Strategy", and since then,...
...It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t...
Yes, I was using the connotation that is in common usage todaymheslep said:...
That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society.
...
mheslep said:I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.
I think the problem is that many terms have lost their meaning.Gokul43201 said:Yes, I was using the connotation that is in common usage today
These terms are used to shoehorn multidimensional people into a one dimensional specturm.Astronuc said:I'm not sure what 'conservative' or 'liberal' mean anymore. It's now a matter of context and who is using the term.
I stopped paying heed to labels when I started hearing about RINOs, DINOs, LINOs, CINOs and other _INOs.Jimmy Snyder said:These terms are used to shoehorn multidimensional people into a one dimensional specturm.
Is business competence important to your decision process/assessment of candidates in general? That is, is demonstrated business competence important to your assessment of Obama, or perhaps other US Senate/House candidates in your area?lisab said:Looks like no one's been minding the store while Newt's out campaigning:
Gingrich Group Files for Bankruptcy
Hardly makes him look like a capable businessman, IMO.
Has Obama filed bankruptcy?mheslep said:Is business competence important to your decision process/assessment of candidates in general? That is, is demonstrated business competence important to your assessment of Obama, or perhaps other US Senate/House candidates in your area?
Has he ever run a company that could go bankrupt?Evo said:Has Obama filed bankruptcy?
He has personal finances.mheslep said:Has he ever run a company that could go bankrupt?
It would really depend on why a candidate is filing for bankruptcy. If it is because of external matters outside of their control that they could not prepare for or cope with then fair enough, it might make them better at understanding the plights of workers in the current economy or it might blind them to reality (i.e. they perceive X to be a big problem because it finished off them when it isn't a big issue). If it is because of incompetence then it shows them to be unsuitable at running large enterprises, in which case why would you want them to run a nation?mheslep said:Is business competence important to your decision process/assessment of candidates in general?
Nope. No real power, legally, but a bully pulpit from which to tout her favorite causes.Char. Limit said:Why do people care so much about the FLOTUS anyway? She has no real power, does she?
Char. Limit said:Why do people care so much about the FLOTUS anyway? She has no real power, does she?
Char. Limit said:Why do people care so much about the FLOTUS anyway? She has no real power, does she?
lisab said:I think some people look at the spouse to get an insight to the candidate's character.
Whether that's a fair way to judge character is debatable.