Gay marriages for everyone! Follow

Yet...

I see them more as the sit at home and demand tribute type. War is expensive, and then you have to manage your new territories. Better return on investment if you just loan your enemies money. Let them deal with all the problems of governing themselves while you sit around cashing checks all day.

Kinda suspected as much. Surprised you didn't demand more tribute though, but it still must be nice they spend a lot of time telling you you're awesome and all. Smart move dumping India and the mideast when you did though; those places seem like nothing but trouble. Don't know why we bought them from you...

Sort of back to the OP, the Illinois state senate is expected to pass a SSM bill today and send it to the governor's desk who has already committed to signing it. Happy Valentine's Day, homosexuals!

"Ha ha, Gbaji's an idiot" jokes aside, the last two elections have been losses for the state GOP even while they grabbed majorities in all sorts of other states. At this point, the state Democratic party has supermajorities in both Assembly chambers and the governor's seat. I dunno how the state GOP can be so God awful at winning elections but it's good for the state same-sex community I suppose.

I contend it's because they're idiots and most of the GOP-held state legislature seats are held by Tea Party numbskulls which makes the bench for state executive seats (governor, attorney general, treasurer, etc) extremely sparse for general elections. I'm still a bit surprised the Democratic governor managed to win a second term but that's what happens when your opponent is a far-righty in a left-leaning state.

Honestly, it's stupid to not pass it, especially for a state that, as one friend pointed out, most people forget even exists.

Our friend lives in Providence. We went to visit and they lit the river on fire. Hannah cried and said "let us never return to this godforsaken place" We all agreed.

I'm not sure how much this is "strategy", but making a more clear differentiation between Democrats and GOP can play into the GOPs favor, especially at the state level. In a lot of state elections it's hard to see a difference between one party or the other, so people tend to just vote their party. Performance isn't as much of a factor in this case. But if things are going poorly and there's a clear difference in platform between one candidate and another, voters are more likely to switch. In this specific case though, this requires putting less well known names out there, which will result in losses initially (especially, as Joph pointed out, in higher profile executive seats). But it does make the choice more stark and as name recognition grows and people see a more clear choice instead of "left leaning Democrat versus left leaning Republican", they'll act on that option.

Who was the GOP candidate again? Now go re-read what I wrote.

You tell me. While I don't remember your comments on this specific election, the sheer number of times you've made the whole "GOP nominating Tea Party candidates hands us the win" argument just kinda blends together. Was this the case here as well? What qualities then did you think his primary opponent had that might have allowed him to win the election instead of Brady? And isn't that exactly what I just wrote above?

Assuming this was one of those cases, of course. But your whole "they nominated a far-righty in a left leaning state" comment indicates it was. So had they nominated a more moderate republican, he might have won, right? But they'd have nominated a republican who wasn't a clear departure from the democrats and would likely have continued the same liberal policies. As I stated earlier, the GOP will lose some races because of this, but over time they create a more clear choice for voters.

For conservatives, it's not about the name of the party next to the guy who wins, but what that persons politics are. While some degree of party politics is par for the course, the whole reason behind the tea party movement is that the GOP has allowed itself to be dragged too far left and some members of the party are more or less indistinguishable from their opponents. Doesn't do a whole lot of good for your party to win an election if the guy representing your party is just as liberal as the guy he beat.

Sure. Which is what I just said. It's like there's an echo in here. It takes time for that "clear choice" to gel in the minds of voters, and for those who advocate new and different positions (hopefully absent the "let school districts mandate school prayer" bits) to rise to the top of the movement and gain sufficient recognition to win more elections. Until then, it will cost some.



It's not a matter of seeing it on a surface level, but being exposed to the ideas that choice represents sufficiently enough for it to resonate with voters.



Yeah. Devil you know. That's exactly what I was saying. But as people become more familiar with the platform, they'll be less prone to vote for the other guy just because his positions and politics are familiar and understood. The biggest point of the tea party movement isn't about this specific position or that one, but about creating a dialog about how we view those positions in the first place. Many of the concepts being talked about are things that most people have simply never been exposed to, or if they did, it was always in a "there's this crazy idea..." kind of way. You start talking about what individual liberty and individual responsibility really means and it will start to sink in. You keep talking about small government and fiscal responsibility and it will start to resonate with people. You do this long enough and when a politician steps onto a stage and starts talking about those things, instead of getting a lot of "wtf is he saying?" responses, you'll get more "that sounds like a great idea" responses.


That's the point. It's about pushing the GOP platform into a more classical conservative direction. It's a direct attempt to make a clear distinction between the left and the right on many issues. And yes, along the way this means there will be some stinker politicians who don't express those things well, or go off on unrelated tangents that cost the GOP elections. But the overall process down the road is more positive. It gives the GOP a set of positions on issues that they can run on instead of what's been viewed (fairly or not) as just a watered down version of what the Dems want. Why do you suppose the left continually talked about Romneycare being just like Obamacare? Was it to say that Romney was someone that liberals should like and perhaps vote for? No. It was to tell moderates and conservatives that Romney wasn't really conservative enough or different enough from Democrats.

That's telling, isn't it? When your best tactic against Republican politicians is to convince people that they're not very conservative, what do you think Republicans should do? Be more moderate? You're own rhetoric shows that what you're most worried about politically is a strong conservative. Because even if a moderate Republican wins, it's almost a half win for you anyway (especially at the state and local levels). The nightmare candidate for the left to oppose is a conservative who embodies the fiscal and liberty aspects, but without the stereotypical religious positions (which btw, the tea party does not have anything to do with). Unfortunately, right now, there are too many "right wing" politicians who think that to be conservative means to be ultra-religious. But that's not part of the tea party ideology at all and as that ideology spreads and we see more politicians come up with those ideals and positions, we'll see more of those candidates who have that right combination of positions and ideals to win lots of elections without having to sacrifice their principles.