Skip to comments.Observation. "Republicans stay home". Does that mean that McCain cost us other seats?
Posted on 11/07/2008 10:03:56 PM PST by prismsinc
This is interesting analysis by Marston. Does this mean that McCain cost us seats in the House and Senate? I have to admit, when McCain was elected in the primaries, my first inclination was "we lost already". Did any of you think the same thing back then?
McCain's repulsion in the base kept potential voters home for other seats, it seems.
I think the thesis was fiscally conservative, social moderates stayed home. They were put off by sarah because of their social views. And they were pissed off at McCain for supporting the bailout and supporting an even more aggressive bailout for homeowners.
TO them, both candidates were the same and they stayed home.
Its hilarious. Usually RINO’s are called rino’s because they are not socially conservative but fiscal conservatives. He spent so much time reassuring his socially conservative base, he failed to realize how unpopular he was with fiscal conservatives.
Evangelicals turned out for McCain (26% of electorate versus 24% in 2004 with similar level of support for McCain), but fiscal conservatives did not.
IF not for the addition of PALIN to the Ticket, I was Ready to stay home. The Republican who ran against my CongressIDIOT got I think, my vote and maybe 8 others.
If we stayed home, WE are to blame. McCain being an uninspiring candidate doesn't excuse lazy Republicans from going to the polls to vote the whole ballot.
No, Republicans cost themselves seats.
McCain is responsible for his own loss, but not down ticket races.
If they haven’t legislated in a way to inspire voters to come out and support them, then they own their own defeat.
You are correct.
Is this just another way of saying ‘pro-life’ versus ‘pro-abortion?
I am not joking either as I do not understand how anyone thinks that a social liberal can be fiscally conservative... people play somebody has to pay!
I think we have learned that we can not be a party of the fiscally conservative but socially moderate. We need to be one or the other. Seeing that social liberalism is an import from outside our party, and has never been a part of the platform, I say they go. We may lose in two years, but a party divided can not stand.
The youth vote didn't turn out in too much greater percentage than 2004.
No way RATS picked up 6 million new voters while repubs lost 5 million.
Either Rats voted for Bush and crossed back over to Obama or Repubs crossed over to Obama.
Everything I'm seeing & hearing says the latter.
I can't wait for the "experts" final sort-it-out analysis.
That’s silly. We are a party of conservatives and must welcome all conservatives to the tent if we are to be the big-tent majority party.
Most socially moderate people don’t care if other people are socially conservative if they leave them alone. Reagan was a social conservative but he couched his social conservatism in terms of federalism and strict originalist judges.
The republican party did fine with socially moderate, fiscal conservatives before terry schiavo. That was just a disaster for congress.
Remember, Reagan was all 3 legs of social conservatism (foreign policy, social, and fiscal), but his tent of voters and cabinet members included a mix of the legs.
If you want us to be “pure” go join the constituionalist party that just killed our senate seat in oregon and see how far that gets you when liberals with a 0 ACU rating beats a conservative with a 70 lifetime ACU rating.
Many libertarians are.
Another example - I think the Federal government should be small, rigidly held within its Constitutional restraints, a drastically reduced and balanced budget and debt free (fat chance, I know). I feel that the Federal government shouldn't be wasting money on a Dept of Education, or Welfare/Human Services or any liberal dream waste. Hence, a fiscal conservative.
However, I think that the Federal government should also stay out of regulating personal lives, beliefs, sexuality. I feel that social conservatives who attempt to use government entities and legislation to enforce their morality on others are just as in the wrong when liberals do so. Hence, this often aligns me with the social 'liberals'.
We just had a moderate everything Presidential nominee. The moderates are trashing the one conservative on the ticket. We need to clean up the party, and the social and fiscal conservatives were here first. Social moderates should go third party.
He cost us seats ‘cause the guy conceded WAY too early. All the states hadn’t even voted yet, and Oregon was a state with the senate race up in the air.
Don’t you see that the moral health of a nation affects the fiscal health?
Sorry, but any negative about this election laid on Sarah is absurd. Without her it would have been an Obama landslide.
For example one might say to a person, "you can never be sure", and not really be referring to the person they are speaking to.
Butt-nugget, I wasn’t talking to you. Note the conditional in the very first clause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.