Posted on 08/16/2011 7:20:47 AM PDT by Scythian
I was listening to him last night as I was driving my son to his boy scout "Court of Honor". He's really starting to take an interest in these things.
Anyway, my favorite is Bachmann as many of you know. Well Boortz starts off with "Bachmann and Palin and Santorim have ZERO chance of winning the election, and here's why ..." I'm open minded, always willing to listen to anyones argument. And so he goes on ...
He stated that 42% of democrats will vote for the democrat no matter what, and 38% of republicans will vote for the republican no matter what. The battle is for those that vote independent. And there's no way a big "pro-life or pro-christian or pro-flag waving candidate is going to make a person who voted for Obama now vote for a republican, it ain't going to happen.
He wen't on to layout the argument that the only two candidates in the race that could win these more or less semi-liberal independents were Romney and Perry. Boortz didn't say he liked that or that it was he choice, but that if anybody else wins the nomination for the GOP then Obama wins, hands down.
As much as I hate to admit it, he's probably right, and this is why we keep winding up with these middle of the road types.
My candidate is Bachmann, but I think Boortz is right, independents will not vote for somebody who protested at abortion clinics, it's jobs and economy and nothing more. The conservative values are great for the base, but then the base almost always votes for the eventual candidate no matter what anyway.
What do you guys think? I can't relay what he said well, but it was well said.
Nonsense. Accepting this flawed analysis is saying that a conservative can never win a national election.
He completely discounts the idea of turnout. Democrat turnout was high in 2008 but nowhere near that level in 2010, nor will it be in 2012. Why? Because "hope and change" turned into higher unemployment, higher gas prices, more wars, etc. He's also ignoring the probability that a fair bit of the mushy middle will just stay home. Hopeychangium withdrawal. A lot of them just showed up to make a "historic" vote and won't do so again as Obama has turned out to be much less than what he was sold as. And some of that mush (or a similar subset of the uninformed voting block) would vote for a Bachmann or Palin simply for the "history" of voting for the first female President.
Finally, overall numbers matter much less than state-by-state. Who cares if Obama wins New York by 90-10 or 60-40? It's the same number of EVs either way.
lol
Perry is not middle of the road, he is actually pretty far right on most issues, especially social issues.
I would trust Perry 100% to pick good supreme court judges, and in the end, that is what is most important since the court has so much power and each judge is there for decades.
Believe me, Liberal women are CERTAIN that unattractiveness = high IQ. (The uglier and less fashionable you are the more of a genius you are) Ignoring personal hygiene is the pinnacle of intellect and genius.
THAT’S how ignorant they are. I can verify this from personal experience.
I am called attractive and though my IQ is only 131, the instant Liberal women determine my politics, I feel the cross hairs on my neck. The work place is almost intolerable, if I EVER discuss politics with them.
Exactly.
A lot of conservatives aren’t as conservative as they would like to believe.
No...Boortz's point was that anyone who voted for Obama before will find the super-religious, super pro-life positions of Bachman and Palin too bizarre and fanatical.
It doesn't matter that their campaigns will emphasize only the economy and competence...the MEDIA/Obama campaign (one and the same...) will incessantly push the very strong pro-life/religious fanatic (as they will portray it) sides of those candidates...portraying a (lying picture of a) balanced black man, against shrill female fanatics....
Oh yeah, God forbid that the butchering of another four or five thousand defenseless little American children today be given any political priority!
/s
Boortz is a liberal. I don’t care what he thinks.
She didn't endorse Bachmann yesterday. That was baffling as your thread asking her to do so had nearly 60 entries. 60! A record!
If Palin doesn't pay attention to this thread and its indigestible bolus of fake RINO psephological data how can she hope to be taken seriously!?
Survey after survey shows that America more or less breaks down to 40% conservative, 40% moderate, 20% liberal. IOW, we are a center right country.
The Rove-Boortz wing of the GOP insists that we always must nominate someone from the moderate wing of the party to win elections.
Yet, the Democrats are free to nominate someone from the ultra-left wing of the party. Since JFK, only Carter and Clinton have come from the moderate wing of the Democrat party. Even then, the former turned out to be a Jew-hating ultraleftist. The later turned out to be a playboy who willingly did the ultraleft bidding in return for keeping the perks of office.
MY conservative women friends will not support a woman, unless there's no other viable choice. Bachmann probably should have waited a few years, too.
More like 40% vote for the guy who looks better.
Same here. Voting conservative and letting the chips fall where they may.
Voting for a RINO this time will pretty much assure a socialist future. At least when it happens I’ll have a clear conscience.
pgyanke: “And clearly, this (running middle of the road types) has been proven a winning strategy.”
Just to be clear, that was sarcasm right? We may have been winning some elections with middle of the road RINOs, but we conservatives have been clearly losing the war. It does us no good to elect people like Romney who will probably only slow the country’s descent into an economic abyss and completely throw in the towel on social issues. Perry is another one who hasn’t proven he has what it takes to fundamentally change government, but he’s the new favorite flavor of the day. We Republicans have a history of nominating people who simply don’t have what it takes to turn the country around, but hey, at least some of them win elections, eh?
I firmly believe Obama received a large block of votes that were less for him than against Bush. My personal universe is small but I know of more people than I have fingers on my hands who did exactly that.
This time around, taking that block and putting it back in the conservative column should give the GOP candidate the winning edge.
...Boortz believes that the abortion issue will hurt the Republican nominee. Let the states decide. Amendment 10...
By November of 2012 the GOP could run a corpse and win. Obama is so toxic nobody but the blacks and Marxist lefties will be voting for him. Its going to be anybody but Obama.
Yep. A bunch of democrats telling us who the hope to face.
Tax cuts are NOT entitlements (nor are they "spending"). Letting someone keep more of their own money is a tax cut, and GIVING someone tax money that was confiscated from someone else is an entitlement.
I like Boortz, but he’s singing what disc jockeys call a golden oldie.
Back in 1948, the politically smart were saying “Taft Can’t Win,” and that the moderate Dewey would appeal more to the moderates and independents than the conservative Taft. In 1960, the “politically smart” endorsed Richard Nixon’s wining strategy of picking a liberal running mate and ignoring a growing conservative trend among the voters. In 1976, the “politically smart” urged Republicans to stick with President Ford, because his conservative challenger would never be able to corral enough independent and moderate votes to win. In 2008, McCain, with his reputation of “reaching across the aisle,” was the sure winner in the eyes of the “politically smart.”
And so it goes.
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.