Posted on 10/13/2015 8:31:06 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A common piece of conventional wisdom — and one that has backing in the political science literature — is that candidates are punished for being ideologically out of step with their constituents. This is what underlies the usual advice given to presidential candidates in a general election: move to the center, or risk being perceived as too ideological. Thus far in 2016, as Matthew Atkinson and Darin DeWitt have argued on this blog, prediction markets bear out this advice.
Now here’s something fascinating about this election cycle: Republicans seem not to believe that there is any electoral penalty for being strongly conservative. But Democrats do believe a strong liberal will be penalized.
That’s the conclusion from the newest Huffington Post surveys of Republican and Democratic activists....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
because the last to morons the GOPe put on the presidential ticket did so well...
Funny thing though- conservatives led the way to humiliating defeats for the rats in ‘10 and ‘14...
Republicans should follow political advice from the Washington comPost because ....
yes, we’re sure wrong about that...
It’s going to be just awful for us if someone like Trump gets to run.
We sure are thankful for your advice.
Good point wapo..let's ask Presidents McCain and Romney..
If they are indeed wrong, then the functional part of the nation needs to unite with the intention of driving out these third world socialist minds from our country so as to restore the nation back to functionality.
We need to disenfranchise huge swaths of the Democrat voting populace. The voting age needs to be raised back to 21 and the requirement to be a tax payer needs to be restored.
Or Dole, Rockefeller, Lindsay, Wilkie...
Some have proposed only veterans can vote.
and '80, '84 and '88 (Reagan's third term)
” Republicans seem not to believe that there is any electoral penalty for being strongly conservative. But Democrats do believe a strong liberal will be penalized.”
This is a true statement. This is why the left wants a RINO to run. It makes it easier for the liberal candidate to identify with the people. They make the RINO out to be a moderate and after the RINO is nominated, they call him conservative and the left wing candidate becomes the moderate.
Wash, rinse, repeat and lose the election.
The “logic” contains the planted axiom that actually (gasp!) opposing what Obama is doing is extreme. Which would of course be true if Obama’s actions were entirely unexceptional.I do not hold that view.
Members of the armed services who are 18 should be able to vote. This is what the 26th amendment should have said. Others? Not so much.
21 is the age at which most people have had to live on their own for awhile, and it is the age by which most people have had to make adult decisions.
We should not be paying attention to the opinions of fresh out of high school novices with no real life experience.
There is no point in winning with Democrat Lite candidate.
IF we can’t win with a Conservative, the ballot box part of the game is over.
They don't care about the (R) or the (D), only about having their agenda continue.
A) Crappolla
B) How about principles? Core values? Even if what the Post says is true (it’s not), what is the point in electing a Republican liberal? It gains us and the country nothing.
At 18 I was in charge of intelligence on the Korean DMZ.
The comPost strikes again.
Pretty sure the current leave the nest average age is 28.
It is my opinion that those who serve their country in the armed forces are generally of higher caliber than are the average members of the general population.
They recognize a responsibility and take steps to address it. They are generally of the sort who mature faster.
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.