November 8, 2008

Conservatives: Obama's Secret Army

Hatched by Dafydd

According to the Ass. Press:

Democrats made up 39 percent of the electorate and Republicans 32 percent in a national exit poll for The Associated Press and television networks. That left the share of voters considering themselves members of the GOP lower than in any presidential election since 1980 and was a sharp contrast with the 37-37 split between the two parties in the 2004 election.

But there was virtually no change in the ideological spectrum: This year 22 percent called themselves liberal, compared with 21 percent in 2004; 44 percent moderate, compared with 45 percent; and 34 percent conservative, same as four years ago....

Then again, some voters can't be pigeonholed by ideology. For instance, one in five self-described conservatives voted for Obama. One in 10 liberals voted for Republican John McCain.

Let's hop aboard my Syllogismobile and go for a ride...

  1. 34% of voters called themselves "conservatives."
  2. Of that 34%, 20% voted for Barack H. Obama; that means 6.8% of the electorate both called themselves conservatives and also voted for Obama. (Would that include Christopher Buckley and his ilk?)
  3. Contrariwise, only 10% of self-dubbed liberals voted for John S. McCain. Conservatives defected at twice the rate of liberals.
  4. Suppose, just for a giggle, conservatives had only voted for Obama at the same percentage that liberals voted for McCain... in other words, that conservatives were no more likely to defect than liberals. In that case, half of the conservative defectors would have remained loyal, and 3.4% of votes would shift from Obama to McCain.
  5. According to the most recent quasi-official unofficial tally, the popular tallies for the two nominees were 52.6% for Obama and 46.1% for McCain.
  6. Switching 3.4% from left to right yields 49.2% for Obama and 49.5% for McCain. (Note McCain number higher than Obama number.)
  7. Conclusion: Had conservatives defected at the same rate as liberals, instead of twice the rate, then John McCain would have won this election.

Thanks, guys!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 8, 2008, at the time of 4:36 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3329

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Conservatives: Obama's Secret Army:

» Drives me nuts... from Random Jottings
This is from a good piece by Dafydd.... ..But let's broaden this out a bit. It doesn't matter even if a candidate has a comprehensive economic policy, if he's unable to communicate it effectively to voters. And everything said about... [Read More]

Tracked on November 8, 2008 1:29 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: MTF

OK, good observation Dafydd. I've not seen this anywhere else. If Palin wasn't included on the ticket the numbers you highlight probably would have been somewhat worse, since so many conservatives viewed the problem in this election as having to choose between two Democrats. Everyone I know went around asking "which one would be less bad?" Obama was and remains such a political cipher that it was possible for voters of widely varying beliefs to see something they liked. Me, I was sure we were looking at the real-life "Manchurian Candidate", so I'm appalled at the election result.

Conservatives in America are hungry for leadership. Unlike Democrats, who confuse charisma for leadership, we're looking for someone who can vividly articulate our ideals and apply those principals to the problems of the world. Right now, we don't have that person or people, but we will. And, when we do, those missing votes will come home. Blame the candidate, not the voters.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 5:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Frank Laughter

Excellent analysis, Dafydd, but the half of the 20% defection that cost us the election cannot be blamed entirely on McCain's liberalism. I know two so-called "staunch" conservatives that voted for Obama and they claim it's the first time EVER they voted for a Donk. They say they believe BHO will do a better job conducting the war on terrorism. They refused to listen to reason because, they say, McCain wanted to continue Bush's policies, which would drag the war out, and Obama wants to WIN the war NOW.

I know another moron that voted for Obama (also a first, according to him) because BHO has more experience with the economy than McCain. Reminds me of the old lamentation, where do we get such people?

Even George Washington, Abe Lincoln, or Ronald Reagan, could not have overcome the stupidity of relying on the MSM for political guidance.

I concede that McCain didn't have the pizazz to overcome his own liberalism, but without the full-court press from the MSM for BHO, McCain would have had a fighting chance. In short: there are more stupid Republicans than there are stupid Democrats.

The above hissed in response by: Frank Laughter [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 7:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH

Both candidates for president did a bang-up job of obfuscating the issues. McCain made a hash of his message because he is a poor communicator and not a theoretician. He was generally right but he made it damnably hard to follow his reasoning. Obama was deliberately slippery and counted on the sympathetic media not to let him be pinned down. His believers could peer into his Heisenberg uncertainty policy cloud and see themselves reflected there, no matter who they were, while his opponents would see other, less-reassuring but equally fantastical visions.

I contend that a portion of the electorate came to despair of ever sorting it out and fell back on the easier option of treating the election as a referendum on the question: Is America ready to elect a black president?

This notion of the election as a referendum on race relations is more-or-less orthogonal to the liberal-conservative axis. There are, undoubtedly, otherwise-liberal racists who voted "no" and your analysis here suggests to me that a substantial number of conservatives voted "yes."

People are reluctant to admit that they are voting for the moment in history, and not so much for the man himself, so the conservatives who are smitten with the idea of the first black president will come up with rationalizations -- Obama has a first-class temperment, they might say, or he is a rara avis politician who writes his own books, or he wants to WIN the war NOW, or he has more experience with the economy (as if that experience weren't disqualifying) or Sarah Palin is a cancer on the party, etc. etc..

I have a bit more on this in The Teleoscope.

The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 10:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nathan

My Father, who is normally rather conservative, decided early on that he was going to vote for Obama this year. Toward the end he was wavering a little, but his rationale was enlightening: he felt the Republicans had their chance, that things weren't going right, and that it was time to give the Democrats a turn in the White House. He also didn't believe that Obama would actually be able to accomplish the things he was promising.

What that means on a practical level is that Obama didn't win on the strength of his policies; he won because America wanted something different, and he was the default something different. If he tries to actually implement his policies he could find the tide of public opinion shifting rather decisively against him.

The above hissed in response by: Nathan [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 10:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste

Your whole calculation is based on two assumptions:

1. That the people who answered the exit poll were a statistically valid sample.

2. That the people who answered the exit poll told the truth.

History tells us that neither assumption is valid.

The above hissed in response by: Steven Den Beste [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 1:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: S. J. Reidhead

I picked this up the other day at The Pink Flamingo. It is remarkable how conservatives are wriggling around this and trying to come up with any excuse why this is not true. There's another fascinating little fact that conservatives fail to realize that there are such things as conservative Democrats. When they piddle around with party identification I fear there is an automatic assumption that all conservatives are either GOP or 3rd party. That is far from the truth. The tragic bottom line is the GOP can only trust 14% of self identified conservatives. This is NOT a "base". You can't build a political party on 14% of the voting public. It is a loser.

Now - can we get conservatives to comprehend this?

Fat chance!

SJR
The Pink Flamingo

The above hissed in response by: S. J. Reidhead [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 2:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr

I grant that defectors were a real problem. Another problem was people staying home. (My own father is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and ALMOST switched from voting "present" to voting for Obama just because he was pissed; he may not vote for Repubs for a while. Oh, don't forget he's in CA, so this is more "adding insult to injury".)
Both problems have to be analyzed; your conclusion that this is the individual conservatives' fault is far too hasty.

In particular, you have to wonder about how 3.4% of voters all made the same mistake at the same time; ascribing that to coincidence or sudden unexplained stupidity is antiscientific thinking. There's a reason for this.

Perhaps it's the media or Obama's snake-oil; but equally possibly it's ... well, I'll stop speculating. I'll mention that McCain started without strong conservative support, perhaps undeserved (but perhaps something that his own party wished upon him in revenge for having acted like a statesman rather than a partisan); and throughout the campaign, he proved that he had only a little more communication and sales skills than had Bush.
I still think he would have been a good or great choice; but obviously... I'm in the minority at the moment. Sadly, when America comes around to agree with me McCain will be too old to run.

The above hissed in response by: wtanksleyjr [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 4:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: SlimGuy

My viewpoint

First the exit polls are turning into mush.

Even the pollsters themselves said because the Obots wanted to show their support they threw off the primary exit polls by as much as 7%.

If you look some states had as much as 45% or more of their votes cast in early voting or absentee ballots this year.

There are 38 states now that allow early voting which is more than last year so the year to year number comparisons are worthless.

Early voters are not available for the exit polls and the demographics of the exit polls can differ from the actual voter pool.

That is part of the reason for the Kerry election problem with election votes vs exit poll results.

All the votes will have to be fully accounted for before any body can draw real conclusions rather than the quick reactions being seen now unless there are major undeniable trends.

In addition just total numbers tell you little, you have to look at the distribution in each and every state to get the full picture.

The above hissed in response by: SlimGuy [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 5:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: SlimGuy

The exit polls are drawing some false conclusions here.

Party identification can be off since more Republicans sat out the election this year based on the current total votes.

Also composite registration numbers across the country show that in many states both parties lost percentage of voter base even if their absolute total numbers went up since the independents grew even faster.

Again..not everyone was available for the exit polls and they also have to weed out false claims of life long republicans voting Obama.

Some states do not register by party identification at all.

I believe Oregon is 100% mail in voting..how do you exit poll that.

Tell me somebody was at a trading post in remote Alaska just to do exit polling.

What was it this year 13,000 or so samples out of about 130 million voters.

The above hissed in response by: SlimGuy [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2008 6:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Well. What do I see when I come back here but another attack on conservatives. Yeah. Those damn conservatives again. Don't they know they're supposed to send money and vote GOP, but otherwise not trouble themselves with the direction of the party or the country?

And that's the real problem the GOP has- the establishment thinks rank-and-file Republican conservatives are bunch of hicks they can ignore. McCain was infamous for this attitude. As long as the GOP leadership feels that way, screw'em.

I voted for McCain but I have no doubt if he had won we would get four years of reaching across the aisle to slowly enact the agenda of the left- and McCain berating conservatives who objected. Meanwhile, the media would continued to blame the GOP for every problem in the universe and McCain wouldn't have minded too much. In other words, he would have been the McSame as Obama.

Believing that, why would I exert myself to make McCain president? Why would other conservatives?

I have no idea how accurate that exit polling data is, but it doesn't even matter. The current GOP leadership is epic fail. That they have been reduced to (for example) anonymously attacking Sarah Palin should shows just how contemptible they are. They're lucky to have lost ONLY 20% of conservatives. They need to go.

Damn. Now I regret voting for McSame. Hope and Change for everyone!


The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 2:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Xennady:

Gee, you make conservatives sound so attractive and mature.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 3:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Dafydd,

Yes. No doubt I should mock Governor Palin to increase my appearance attractiveness and maturity.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 7:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH

Do you remember the "big tent" Republican party that aimed to be inclusive enough the win the occasional election? I kinda miss it. It's one thing to criticize McCain for his penchant for "reaching across the aisle" to the Democrats, but is quite another to get into a Hatfield and McCoy feud inside the party when he reached across the friggin' tent to tap Palin for veep.

Aren't the Republicans supposed to the the grown-up party?

The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 7:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

BigLee,

That's an excellent point. However, McCain has not only "reached across the aisle", he has done many things that make conservatives actively dislike him.

Specifically, I'm thinking of the McCain-Feingold bill and the infamous amnesty bill. Don't forget the "gang of 14" senators which allowed democrats to avoid a filibuster over judicial nominations. Rumor has it that he came close to switching parties- twice. In the 2000 campaign he was sending direct mail solicitations to democrats of my acquaintance but not to me or other republicans. I could go on, but you get the idea.

In short, he was damn lucky to get as many conservative votes as he did. If he hadn't chosen Palin he would have gotten far fewer. But if conservatives cost him the election, he only has himself to blame. He's spent most of the last decade striving to find new ways to antagonize us.

That won't cut it. The party needs leadership that can at least tolerate the people that vote for it, and McCain apparently can't. I don't want any kind of feud either, but I'm rather tired of republicans attacking conservatives for this reason or that- including this site today.

This has got to stop- period.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 9:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Xennady:

Dafydd,

Yes. No doubt I should mock Governor Palin to increase my appearance attractiveness and maturity.

Did I miss some post that appeared here on Big Lizards mocking Gov. Palin? I sure don't remember any such.

(My guess is that when Sarah Palin runs for the presidency in 2012, conservatives will mock and oppose her, resurrecting the "Caribou Barbie" label used by liberals. They'll do the same to that illegal immigrant, Bobby Jindal. Heck, I don't think Newt Gingrich or even Ronald Reagan would pass muster with "conservatives" these days... it's Tancredo or bust!)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 12:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

Dafydd:

It seems like my previous messages have not gotten though. What makes you think that Conservatives would vote for a loser like McCain or any republicans for that matter? What has the Republican leadership done in the last eight years to make conservatives vote for them?

What you need to understand is that I don't have to convince you. Rather you have to convince me or keep losing by 5% because those of us who did not vote for McCain will not vote for any Republican until our demands are satisfied.

Republicans have a duty to manage this country in a fiscally responsible manner and they have not. I don't expect any better from the progressives, which is why this is the Republican's duty.

Bush has been an abject failure and it is unfortunate it took me so long to realize this. Foreign policy is meaningless now. Our way of life economically will collapse well before Allah and his minions destroy us.

Where were conservatives when Bush and the Democrats passed an $8 trillion Medicare Drug program? Bush in his desire to be loved got together with the Democrats to increase the size of the nanny state trying to buy the votes of old people. Where were their votes on election day? That's right, with Obama. These useless baby boomers that have bankrupted our country have now stolen and additional $8 trillion from our future, benefits they never contributed to, and their thanks to the fool that gave them it was to elect a bigger fool in Obama.

Where was Bush while CDOs were all the rage? He was busy letting his banker buddies rape our country. Allowing a tool like Cox to run the SEC. It was Bush, Paulson (king of all thieves) and Cox who changed the rules so that investment banks could lever up to 40-1 and create this fiasco. Bush and the Republicans controlled government for 6 years and what did they do to reign in Fannie and Freddie? And after all of this the SEC has still to look into one bank and punish the wrongdoers. Bush killed free markets because in order for free markets markets to work those involved must know that they will be punished for their misdeeds. So what we are left with now is the mainstream belief that free markets do not work, even though we never gave free markets a shot.

What did Bush do when he was handed an economic bubble from Clinton? He covered it up with another bubble, because god knows we could suffer a recession in this country. No, rather than tell us to suck it up and pay for our past excesses we just added more excess on top of that. Allowing that clown Greenspan to keep rates at 1% for three years and create our housing bubble because of unlimited cheap money.

All I am left with to believe after all this is that the majority of Republicans are no different that Democrats. They will live in a world of cognitive dissonance with their party never doing wrong. The problem is that there is a small enough percentage of Republicans who do not believe like you do, who hold certain values as non negotiable, and regardless of what we label ourselves we will never support someone who does not stand for our values. Unfortunately for the rest of Republicans our numbers are large enough in this bipartisan environment to shift an entire election.

The Republicans stole my money and gave it to their banker friends. Yes the same NY bankers who take that money and donate it to the Democrats. The Republicans stole my money and gifted out $150 billion stimulus plan based on idiotic Keynesian demand side economics. In the end 20% of the money was spent, they other 80% ended up in the banks' coffers as personal savings or debt repayment. The Republicans stole my money and gifted it to loser baby boomers and retirees for benefits they never paid for. Yes, the same old people who supported Obama in droves. The Republicans stole my money and gave it to the automobile industry. Yes, the same automobile industry whose unionized work force votes almost entirely for Democrats. The Republicans stole my money and gave it to No Child Left Behind. The same unionized teachers who keep our children uneducated and vote as a block for Democrats.

Our country is almost $60 trillion in debt and we have spent eight years of Republican rule making it even worse. Is this what you believe in? Is this what conservatism is? You have no answer to this. You hate Obama so much that you would vote for a loser like McCain. A man who thought it was dishonorable to let this country know that his opponent's closest ties were to terrorists and America hating preachers. A man who denounced the Swift Boat ads even though they were true and were the only way to let Americans know who John Kerry really was.

No, McCain the loser would rather argue over Joe the Plumber and economic issues McCain has no clue about. McCain would rather rush back to Washington, and as usual get together with the Democrats to find a way to waste $750 billion of our money. This is the man, the loser, you voted for. You must be proud to be a conservative!

To make matters even worse, this is the McCain whose team is now bad mouthing Sarah Palin, the one honorable person on the ticket. Is that who you support? Is this what you truly believe in? Then you have the audacity to tell xennady that he is immature because he actually stands for something and can't be conned into compromising his beliefs.

This Republican leadership has completely failed us. They need to be destroyed and shown to be the criminals they are. All they care about is keeping any power they can. They could care less about this country or the American people.

This country is toast. We are done and you can't accept it because your area of expertise is clearly not economics. Your area of expertise is partisan politics. Exactly what all the politicians want us to do. Fight amongst ourselves. As long as we continue being partisans we will continue to ignore the damages and crimes that our politicians are thrusting upon us. How different is this from the tyrannical leaders in the Middle East who keep their population hating Israel and the US so that they don't revolt and kill their leaders?

Unless we have leadership that is willing to lead we are doomed. The only issues that we need to address in this country is our $60 trillion debt based on our entitlement programs and our fake fiat paper currency that will be valueless in ten to twenty years. Until a candidate is willing to stand up and demand that we limit these expenses and dissolve the Federal Reserve I will not support the Republican party. The Republican party now represents the Democrats of twenty years ago and the Democrats represent the socialists. There is no party that represents the American taxpaying citizen.

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 1:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

Malaka, in his sneering regard for the Fed and our fiat currency, yearns for the days of the gold standard? The days where industrial giants such as Westinghouse Electric or General Electric nearly went bankrupt due to increases in demand with simultaneous decreases in available capital? The day of a noncentralized banking system where the country relied on the general good will of financial barons like J. P. Morgan to keep the system afloat?

There were numerous recessions during the "golden age" of true value currencies in the 19th century. Many of those deepened into depressions (1893, 1907, etc). There have been numerous recessions during the age of fiat "managed" monetary policy. As of right now, none have devolved into financial depressions.

You clearly think of yourself as some sort of macroeconomic genius, having no doubt read the works of Hayek and Von Mises, mistaking their misogyny and stalwart opposition to socialism as the equivalent to Absolute Truth. Sorry, but economics is a little more complicated than that.

Do I disagree that the Republican leadership has failed us? Sure. But to abandon the controls to a neophyte radical in a time where public opinion is none too high in favor of capitalism (it is what it is) is the epitome of foolishness. Go ahead, pitch your fit. See where it gets you. We have yet to recover from Carter's CRA. Indeed, it has much to do with the current economy and Obama's victory -- irony? We are wallowing in the filth of Johnson's social programs, and our country never quite got over the debilitating disease of the New Deal.

What makes you think a radical liberal is the way to "teach us a lesson"? These sort of surgeries are less like removing cancerous tumors and more like full scale lobotomies.

So again, thank you Dr. Malaka. I hope you find what you're looking for -- because I'd like to find a better candidate, too. But you go to war with that army you've got, and you don't sit out, take your ball and go home in a fit of pique when things don't quite go your way. In the mean time, I hope our nation comes out of an Alinsky administration capable of recuperation.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 1:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Dafydd,

I never said there was any post here attacking Palin in any way. But the attacks on Palin I've heard of elsewhere seem similar in attitude to what I stumbled across here earlier today.

Your guess about conservatives in 2012 and about Bobby Jindal are just bizarre. Note that most conservatives STILL voted for McCain after all he did to infuriate us. Huge crowds still greeted Sarah Palin even after the media told people she was a bimbo. We like her. She won't be treated like McCain treated us because she hasn't done what McCain did to us.

You also vastly overestimate the intractability of conservatives. I said here a while back that there was no immigration bill I could not accept so long as it secured the US border. That's all I wanted. This was and is supported by most Americans, but it was and is too much for the political GOP establishment. Too bad for them.

They're toast, and should be. I'd be thrilled if Bobby Jindal was the GOP presidential nominee, and one day he may well be. But I doubt he will support a permanent McCain style rolling amnesty, nor will the American people. And Tancredo is history. I'm sure we'll survive without him.



The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 1:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Xennady:

You also vastly overestimate the intractability of conservatives.

Did you read the comment two above yours? DrMalaka will accept nothing less than a return to the glory days of Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater!

I'm sure that was a heady time to be a conservative; the joy, the camaraderie must have been nigh orgasmic.

Goldwater was principled to the point of rejecting any pragmatism whatsoever. He made conservatism intellectually respectable. He was consistent, clear, and uncompromising: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

All right, all right, so he was shellacked by Lyndon Johnson, losing every state except Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Arizona. And so he handed 36 House seats and 2 Senate seats to the Democrats, giving them a two-thirds majority in both houses; big whoop. The important point is that movement conservatives were energized!

They were so energized that just four years later, they overwhelmingly elected that staunch movement conservative -- Richard Milhous Nixon.

Now there's a comforting precedent, eh?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 2:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

D, where did I say we should go back to Goldwater. It seems pretty simple. I want a return to small government, the gold standard will force this upon us. I want a stop the criminals who steal our money in Washington. I will accept no less because that is what The Constitution proscribes. You try to belittle my argument without ever bothering to understand what the problem is. Democrats are not the problem. Politicians are the problem and you blindly support them as long as they have an R next to their name. What do Republicans have to do to you for you to not vote for them?

I warned you before the election this was going to happen, you did not care. You would rather attack me as if I was the problem. Bush and McCain were the problem. Now they are gone. I am not against you. I agree with almost all your posts. The problem is that he Republicans you support don't believe in anything you write. I am done. I will not support criminal politicians who lie, cheat and steal from us, regardless of party affiliation.

D, since I am the problem, why don't you tell me how we are going to pay for $50 trillion worth of baby boomer entitlements? Do you have a solution? Have you bothered to notice a $2trillion increase in money supply in the last three months? Have you seen the Feds' balance sheet balloon from $700bil to $2 trillion in three months? Can you say INFLATION? Can you say that your retirement savings will not go down in absolute value but will be worthless in a decade?

k2aggie07, your reply was insulting and insightful at the same time. I understand economics quite well. I have read Friedman, Keynes and the like. None offer a 100% answer. They provide knowledge to make decisions from.

Since you seem so well versed in economics please explain to me how our current system of a fiat currency, $60 trillion debt, massive government, excessive leverage, dependence of foreign debt, weak dollar and trade deficits is a tenable situation for this country in the long run? If you are honest and actually understand economics you can only have one answer. It is not.

You discredit the Austrian economists with a broad brushstroke and then tell me that economics is complicated. Hmmm, seems pretty simple when you put down Austrian economics. In your world of complex economics it was the gold standard that caused all the problems. Wow, that simple. It's better to print fake money and worry about the problems when they come.

As for abandoning economic principles in a time when capitalism is under attack, what are you talking about. We have capitalism in this country? Does capitalism include the government creating Fannie and Freddie and backing them? Does capitalism include stealing my money and gifting it to bankers? Wake up, we have been teetering on socialism and this idiot Bush pushed us further into it. But since he stands for supposed capitalism thus capitalism and free markets are discredited. You are smarter than that. Regulation and socialism has been discredited once again in the eyes of intelligent people. Capitalism has been discredited in the mind of the fools who have been convinced we live in a capitalist society because a Republican was president.

And don't assume I voted for Obama. I would never cast my vote for the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on America. The man is a clown and a joke. Oh, but he speaks from a teleprompter well.

Quite simply your response tells me that you are a tool of our politicians. No matter what the Republicans do you will vote for them. Much like our minority inner city communities, regardless of how little the Democrats do for them, and actually make their lives worse, they still line up and vote 100% for the Democrats. Is that who you are proud to be?

Supporting a party that has lied, cheated and stolen from us is no way to live your life. I am willing to stand up for what I believe in. You are not. Regardless of which party you voted for in this election you were voting for the demise of this country.

Neither party offers solutions or salvation. The only way to save this country is to find leaders who are willing to represent the American taxpayers. The current Republican party does not do this and the only way to get them to change their ways is to make them understand that we will not vote for them under the current circumstances.

And let me make this very simple once again. If you want Republicans to win then you need my vote. Either return to capitalism, free markets and stop being criminal politicians (real change) or keep losing elections to clowns like Obama.

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 4:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

DrMalaka:

What do Republicans have to do to you for you to not vote for them?

They would have to run against opponents who could plausibly win election -- and who would be better for the country than the Republicans.

Not even DrMalaka can identify any such people. So I'll continue to vote for the best option available in the real world.

(P.S. I never claimed to be a conservative; in fact, I have frequently noted, to both Left and Right, that I am not. If I'm anything, I'm a non-Euclidean futurist: I want us actually to have an optimistic future, not merely spin lotos-dreams of utopia.)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 5:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

DrMalaka,

No one ever implied that "spend your way out of it" was a viable solution to our current state of affairs. However, Fannie and Freddie are hardly creations of conservatism, and Bush's options throughout his tenure were limited -- both in the beginning of his terms and in his dealings with the financial crisis. I've often wondered what it would be like to make the decisions he's made. Would you veto spending bills and run the risk of de-funding our troops? Unfortunately the president can't write the legislation. He can only take the lesser of two evils -- sign it or veto it. Due to the failures of the Republicans in congress Bush didn't have very many easy choices to make. Calling him an idiot shows your true colors. (As an aside, Bush has been one of the best "lame duck" presidents fighting an opposition congress since 2006. The nation's collective awareness of this is telling).

And, incidentally, I do blame many of the depressions, panics, and bank runs of the late 19th century on a gold-based money system. If any system has been shown to be unsustainable, it is that of a true gold-based currency. What it does guarantee is an economy that is hamstrung and tied to a fixed, low growth rate, no matter the economic opportunity. Indeed, many of the current problems are eerily similar to those that happen under a gold standard: insufficient liquidity creating a premium for cash, resulting in business not being able to get short term loans to fund their efforts. As I'm sure you know, investment takes time to mature into profit...hence the need for commercial paper.

If you want to be upset, that's fine -- but be reasonable in your anger. The Bush administration has supported their weak dollar policy (which I disagree with) to the detriment of our economy. Fine. Don't call him an idiot for spending, though, because he didn't write the legislation.

You sound a little too much like those "troofers" and Ron Paululans who believe that our current financial system only allows money to be created as debt and that we currently do not have enough money to pay off all of the existing debt (assuming we wanted to), resulting in a "ticking time bomb" that will explode our heads and result in ruin.

You can call me a tool of the party, but to say that there is any difference whatsoever between not voting for John McCain and voting for Obama shows how limited your grasp of the situation is.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 6:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

DrMalaka,

No one ever implied that "spend your way out of it" was a viable solution to our current state of affairs. However, Fannie and Freddie are hardly creations of conservatism, and Bush's options throughout his tenure were limited -- both in the beginning of his terms and in his dealings with the financial crisis. I've often wondered what it would be like to make the decisions he's made. Would you veto spending bills and run the risk of de-funding our troops? Unfortunately the president can't write the legislation. He can only take the lesser of two evils -- sign it or veto it. Due to the failures of the Republicans in congress Bush didn't have very many easy choices to make. Calling him an idiot shows your true colors. (As an aside, Bush has been one of the best "lame duck" presidents fighting an opposition congress since 2006. The nation's collective awareness of this is telling).

And, incidentally, I do blame many of the depressions, panics, and bank runs of the late 19th century on a gold-based money system. If any system has been shown to be unsustainable, it is that of a true gold-based currency. What it does guarantee is an economy that is hamstrung and tied to a fixed, low growth rate, no matter the economic opportunity. Indeed, many of the current problems are eerily similar to those that happen under a gold standard: insufficient liquidity creating a premium for cash, resulting in business not being able to get short term loans to fund their efforts. As I'm sure you know, investment takes time to mature into profit...hence the need for commercial paper.

If you want to be upset, that's fine -- but be reasonable in your anger. The Bush administration has supported their weak dollar policy (which I disagree with) to the detriment of our economy. Fine. Don't call him an idiot for spending, though, because he didn't write the legislation.

You sound a little too much like those "troofers" and Ron Paululans who believe that our current financial system only allows money to be created as debt and that we currently do not have enough money to pay off all of the existing debt (assuming we wanted to), resulting in a "ticking time bomb" that will explode our heads and result in ruin.

You can call me a tool of the party, but to say that there is any difference whatsoever between not voting for John McCain and voting for Obama shows how limited your grasp of the situation is.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2008 6:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Dafydd,

Since 2000 the two most prominent Republicans- George Bush and John McCain- have agreed with you.
As far as I can tell you all believe conservatives are the worst problem the GOP faces, and have acted as such.

In that time the GOP has shrunk from the majority party of the country to a collapsing minority. Literally every positive accomplishment of the GOP since 1980 is standing by to be reversed.

This is not success.

If the GOP wants to ever win again it has got to stop blaming conservatives for every problem.

I keep wishing for that, but so far, no luck. Well, maybe socialism will finally start working.

Hope and change!

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2008 1:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Xennady:

As far as I can tell you all believe conservatives are the worst problem the GOP faces, and have acted as such.

On what do you base this claim? The worst problem the GOP faces is the increasing sophistication of the Left. But many conservatives contribute to that problem by demanding simple, mindlessly ideological, and implausible "solutions" to complex problems, like the economy, the financial collapse, fighting the Iran/al-Qaeda axis, immigration, and so forth.

The Left's answer to every problem is to throw money at it; the movement-conservative Right's answer to every problem is to cut taxes. While it's good to throw some money at some problems and to cut some taxes by some amount, neither of those options is a binary lightswitch that must be set either to "all the way" or "none at all."

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2008 2:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: harkyman

On the original topic of the post (Republican defectors), I know that my friend who watched election returns is one such person. We talked about his position all night, which was that McCain was erratic, but, most importantly, that Obama would actually govern as a steady centrist as a matter of practicality. He decided (rightly or wrongly we'll soon find out) that Obama's previous steeping in socialism and Marxism would not bear out. This guy is a staunch conservative -- Naval academy, prosecutor, hunter/target shooter, flirting with fiscal libertarianism. So, if Obama even pulled people like that -- well -- I don't know what to say.

I think we need to re-examine the sets that are "conservatives", "Republicans", "libertarians", and maybe a few others, to find their overlaps, better methods of communication and coherence between them, and perhaps some common goals. As it stands now, the "Republican" set generally controls the political mechanisms, thinking that the other sets will simply show up when called, and, while there is a lot of overlap, they might be learning that the rest of us cannot simply be summoned like a genie in November.

The above hissed in response by: harkyman [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 11, 2008 6:06 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved