DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Left-Wing Activists Admit Allen West Terrifies Them

**Tribas4u** · 08-02-2012, 12:40 AM

Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone called a political party insane on here and meant it.

Still though, the "extreme" position I don't necessarily agree with either as a general rule. For example, the Mayoral primary in 2007 wasn't won by the most extreme Democrat (Nutter). That probably would have fallen to Fattah.

Even on the GOP side, it is a case by case scenario. For every tea party candidate that won a primary, how many have lost a primary?

Are they likely to be more displaced from the center of their region's position during a primary? Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that taking the most extreme positions and being insane is going to appeal to the majority of the party.

It won't appeal to the majority of the party, but it appeals to the most-likely-to-vote-in-the-primary voter.

It's not a hard and fast rule, as your examples above demonstrate. But what I'm getting at I suppose is that this is the general drift of our politics today, and it's picking up steam. Sure, some guys may tack away from the extremes after the primary (like McCain in 2010, and I hope Orrin Hatch after this year) but many may have boxed themselves in. And especially with the House and another election being right around the corner, there's less time to back away from extreme and then re-establish cred with the base in time for the next election.

Plus - and I'm being serious here - don't discount the effect of saying something you don't believe over and over. They may be saying something just to get elected, but after a while they could start believing it, especially when everyone around them is echoing the same thing.

08-02-2012, 12:40 AM	#37
Tribas4u Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 460 Senior Member	Well, it wouldn't be the first time someone called a political party insane on here and meant it. Still though, the "extreme" position I don't necessarily agree with either as a general rule. For example, the Mayoral primary in 2007 wasn't won by the most extreme Democrat (Nutter). That probably would have fallen to Fattah. Even on the GOP side, it is a case by case scenario. For every tea party candidate that won a primary, how many have lost a primary? Are they likely to be more displaced from the center of their region's position during a primary? Sure, but it doesn't necessarily mean that taking the most extreme positions and being insane is going to appeal to the majority of the party. It won't appeal to the majority of the party, but it appeals to the most-likely-to-vote-in-the-primary voter. It's not a hard and fast rule, as your examples above demonstrate. But what I'm getting at I suppose is that this is the general drift of our politics today, and it's picking up steam. Sure, some guys may tack away from the extremes after the primary (like McCain in 2010, and I hope Orrin Hatch after this year) but many may have boxed themselves in. And especially with the House and another election being right around the corner, there's less time to back away from extreme and then re-establish cred with the base in time for the next election. Plus - and I'm being serious here - don't discount the effect of saying something you don't believe over and over. They may be saying something just to get elected, but after a while they could start believing it, especially when everyone around them is echoing the same thing.
	Quote