The Republican Path To Victory II

[Keyboard Warriors]

They'll be RINO hunting again.

Should RINOs be included under the Endangered Species Act?

Definitely, their natural habitat is being destroyed by an invasive species.

[Geilinor]

The Republican Party is still a viable and living party, with a firm base in the more conservative areas of America. They represent their constituents, and when their constituents change, they will change with them.

What's the point of being in the more conservative areas if increasing numbers of moderates think you're crazy?

[Gauthier]

Oh I read it.

You see I have seen this argument ad nauseam when ever the credibility of Fox is questioned.

Conservatives LOVE to raise it.

"Fox news is bullshit!"
"OH YEA LOOK AT MSNBC!"

It is nothing more then a distraction and it hardly props up Fox as better.

In fact, I think there was a link posted to a study which showed Fox viewers less informed in general. Msnbc did a little better but it was still pretty low.

Defend Fox on the claims made against them. Writing "BUT MSNBC!" is not a defense.

I do not intend to defend the credibility of Fox News, just to knock MSNBC watchers off of their sanctimonious perch.

Another Republican fallacy: That anyone who criticizes the journalistic dishonesty of FOXNews MUST be a strict MSNBC viewer.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh I read it.

You see I have seen this argument ad nauseam when ever the credibility of Fox is questioned.

Conservatives LOVE to raise it.

"Fox news is bullshit!"
"OH YEA LOOK AT MSNBC!"

It is nothing more then a distraction and it hardly props up Fox as better.

In fact, I think there was a link posted to a study which showed Fox viewers less informed in general. Msnbc did a little better but it was still pretty low.

Defend Fox on the claims made against them. Writing "BUT MSNBC!" is not a defense.

I do not intend to defend the credibility of Fox News, just to knock MSNBC watchers off of their sanctimonious perch.

If you're the one who brought up MSNBC, that's kind of disingenuous statement.

[The Black Forrest]

Oh I read it.

You see I have seen this argument ad nauseam when ever the credibility of Fox is questioned.

Conservatives LOVE to raise it.

"Fox news is bullshit!"
"OH YEA LOOK AT MSNBC!"

It is nothing more then a distraction and it hardly props up Fox as better.

In fact, I think there was a link posted to a study which showed Fox viewers less informed in general. Msnbc did a little better but it was still pretty low.

Defend Fox on the claims made against them. Writing "BUT MSNBC!" is not a defense.

I do not intend to defend the credibility of Fox News, just to knock MSNBC watchers off of their sanctimonious perch.

Are you not making a rather large assumption the detractors are faithful MSNBC viewers?

I bash Fox all the time. About the only thing I have listened to MSNBC wise is Rachel Madow. Can you find any falsehoods raised by her?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh I read it.

You see I have seen this argument ad nauseam when ever the credibility of Fox is questioned.

Conservatives LOVE to raise it.

"Fox news is bullshit!"
"OH YEA LOOK AT MSNBC!"

It is nothing more then a distraction and it hardly props up Fox as better.

In fact, I think there was a link posted to a study which showed Fox viewers less informed in general. Msnbc did a little better but it was still pretty low.

Defend Fox on the claims made against them. Writing "BUT MSNBC!" is not a defense.

I do not intend to defend the credibility of Fox News, just to knock MSNBC watchers off of their sanctimonious perch.

Right.

Except that nobody was defending MSNBC. In fact, I don't believe that anyone brought them up as a major topic of discussion until Fox News was criticized as a part of the Republican establishment, at which point it was "BUT LOOK AT MSNBC!"

Which, to be fair, is pretty much what Republicans do whenever their mouthpieces are criticized.

[Pilotto]

I do not intend to defend the credibility of Fox News, just to knock MSNBC watchers off of their sanctimonious perch.

Another Republican fallacy: That anyone who criticizes the journalistic dishonesty of FOXNews MUST be a strict MSNBC viewer.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you do not watch MSNBC? Because if you are, then I'm calling bullshit.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Republican Party is still a viable and living party, with a firm base in the more conservative areas of America. They represent their constituents, and when their constituents change, they will change with them.

Except that they don't represent their constituents - quite the contrary. Look at the issue of gay marriage, for example - which has been consistently gaining ground over the last decade or two, while the GOP has purged its ranks of permissive Republicans (painted as 'RINO') to chase the fundamentalist minority.

That's the problem. Because American elections are rarely won by catering to your base - they are almost always almost entirely decided by persuading the mobile pool of swing voters (who are, by definition, more centrist overall) to swing one way or the other.

[Cannot think of a name]

Another Republican fallacy: That anyone who criticizes the journalistic dishonesty of FOXNews MUST be a strict MSNBC viewer.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you do not watch MSNBC? Because if you are, then I'm calling bullshit.

Man, how shitty is your cable and internet package that these are the only two options you think exist?

[Keyboard Warriors]

Another Republican fallacy: That anyone who criticizes the journalistic dishonesty of FOXNews MUST be a strict MSNBC viewer.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you do not watch MSNBC? Because if you are, then I'm calling bullshit.

How would you know for sure what he watches?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The Republican Party is still a viable and living party, with a firm base in the more conservative areas of America. They represent their constituents, and when their constituents change, they will change with them.

What's the point of being in the more conservative areas if increasing numbers of moderates think you're crazy?

That is because the Republican Party represents the right wing and conservative interest, which will not suddenly vanish. So long as they have a conservative base, they will have firm support.

[Mkuki]

The Republican Party is still a viable and living party, with a firm base in the more conservative areas of America. They represent their constituents, and when their constituents change, they will change with them.

How do you define viable?

[Geilinor]

Another Republican fallacy: That anyone who criticizes the journalistic dishonesty of FOXNews MUST be a strict MSNBC viewer.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you do not watch MSNBC? Because if you are, then I'm calling bullshit.

Anyone who criticizes Fox News must be a strict viewer of MSNBC? I think Fox is a highly biased and partisan channel, but I don't watch MSNBC either. In fact, I don't watch cable news anymore.

[Geilinor]

What's the point of being in the more conservative areas if increasing numbers of moderates think you're crazy?

That is because the Republican Party represents the right wing and conservative interest, which will not suddenly vanish. So long as they have a conservative base, they will have firm support.

It won't be enough support to win national elections.

[Gauthier]

Another Republican fallacy: That anyone who criticizes the journalistic dishonesty of FOXNews MUST be a strict MSNBC viewer.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you do not watch MSNBC? Because if you are, then I'm calling bullshit.

I swear you've got Deflective Questioning down better than a Scientologist.

You assumed anyone who criticizes FOXNews must *ONLY* watch MSNBC, like most Republicans.

I also watch CNN, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and listen to NPR.

Assumption, busted.

[Gauthier]

That is because the Republican Party represents the right wing and conservative interest, which will not suddenly vanish. So long as they have a conservative base, they will have firm support.

It won't be enough support to win national elections.

Not naturally anyways. Hence those Poll Taxes 2.0 in the form of Voter ID.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The Republican Party is still a viable and living party, with a firm base in the more conservative areas of America. They represent their constituents, and when their constituents change, they will change with them.

Except that they don't represent their constituents - quite the contrary. Look at the issue of gay marriage, for example - which has been consistently gaining ground over the last decade or two, while the GOP has purged its ranks of permissive Republicans (painted as 'RINO') to chase the fundamentalist minority.

That's the problem. Because American elections are rarely won by catering to your base - they are almost always almost entirely decided by persuading the mobile pool of swing voters (who are, by definition, more centrist overall) to swing one way or the other.

They are probably able to attract moderates so long as they present economic policies that attract right-wing moderates, or run candidates who represent that so called 'libertarian' wing of the republican party.

[The Black Forrest]

The Republican Party is still a viable and living party, with a firm base in the more conservative areas of America. They represent their constituents, and when their constituents change, they will change with them.

Except that they don't represent their constituents - quite the contrary. Look at the issue of gay marriage, for example - which has been consistently gaining ground over the last decade or two, while the GOP has purged its ranks of permissive Republicans (painted as 'RINO') to chase the fundamentalist minority.

That's the problem. Because American elections are rarely won by catering to your base - they are almost always almost entirely decided by persuading the mobile pool of swing voters (who are, by definition, more centrist overall) to swing one way or the other.

Indeed. They have the Religious wacko vote simply for Democratic support of abortion.

The swing voters are always the key.

I have been a registered Republican (when I was younger and disenfranchised by Carter). I voted for Saint Ronnie and then was screwed over by his actions.

I went registered "no party" since then and it's fascinating to see both parties literally start frothing at the mouth when you tell them that you are not aligned.

Repubs have a hard time ahead. The gay issue is not so big. Hispanics are becoming a force and all their deportation, border safety talk will give them problems in that area.

[Edlichbury]

What's the point of being in the more conservative areas if increasing numbers of moderates think you're crazy?

That is because the Republican Party represents the right wing and conservative interest, which will not suddenly vanish. So long as they have a conservative base, they will have firm support.

Except the "conservative" interest is mobile. Contrary to popular belief, you cannot remain conservative while firmly planted in the 1950s. The Republicans must either move left or become a reactionary party; only one of those options is electorally viable.

[The Black Forrest]

Except that they don't represent their constituents - quite the contrary. Look at the issue of gay marriage, for example - which has been consistently gaining ground over the last decade or two, while the GOP has purged its ranks of permissive Republicans (painted as 'RINO') to chase the fundamentalist minority.

That's the problem. Because American elections are rarely won by catering to your base - they are almost always almost entirely decided by persuading the mobile pool of swing voters (who are, by definition, more centrist overall) to swing one way or the other.

They are probably able to attract moderates so long as they present economic policies that attract right-wing moderates, or run candidates who represent that so called 'libertarian' wing of the republican party.

Moderates? No....probably not with this batch. Moderates tend to be willing to negotiate over issues and negotiating is a sign of traitor to the republican cause.

[Keyboard Warriors]

That is because the Republican Party represents the right wing and conservative interest, which will not suddenly vanish. So long as they have a conservative base, they will have firm support.

It won't be enough support to win national elections.

It could be. There won't be another major political party emerging that's to the right of the GOP; they're nothing more than a few policy and ideology changes from appealing to more than half of the country again.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That is because the Republican Party represents the right wing and conservative interest, which will not suddenly vanish. So long as they have a conservative base, they will have firm support.

Except the "conservative" interest is mobile. Contrary to popular belief, you cannot remain conservative while firmly planted in the 1950s. The Republicans must either move left or become a reactionary party; only one of those options is electorally viable.

It really doesn't need to move 'left', when it can take 'right' wing positions on the topics of the day, without rejecting them altogether.

[Grave_n_idle]

Except that they don't represent their constituents - quite the contrary. Look at the issue of gay marriage, for example - which has been consistently gaining ground over the last decade or two, while the GOP has purged its ranks of permissive Republicans (painted as 'RINO') to chase the fundamentalist minority.

That's the problem. Because American elections are rarely won by catering to your base - they are almost always almost entirely decided by persuading the mobile pool of swing voters (who are, by definition, more centrist overall) to swing one way or the other.

They are probably able to attract moderates so long as they present economic policies that attract right-wing moderates, or run candidates who represent that so called 'libertarian' wing of the republican party.

On the contrary, catering to the libertarian wing is suicide - libertarians represent about a single percent of American voters.

Much better to come up with some kind of moderate platform that appeals to the majority of Americans, rather than trying to find a niche they can identify with 100%.

[The Black Forrest]

Another Republican fallacy: That anyone who criticizes the journalistic dishonesty of FOXNews MUST be a strict MSNBC viewer.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you do not watch MSNBC? Because if you are, then I'm calling bullshit.

I don't.

[Geilinor]

It won't be enough support to win national elections.

It could be. There won't be another major political party emerging that's to the right of the GOP; they're nothing more than a few policy and ideology changes from appealing to more than half of the country again.

Nationes Pii Redivivi seems to be saying that they don't need to change at all.