Elections Why does Huckabee have a following?

[ProBoxingInsidr]

So, he can refuse data and facts and simply be flat out wrong about things, but you would take him because he's a swell guy? Over more unlikeable guys who are clearly far more intellectual, like Romney?

I get it, some of these conservatives are dicks, but my money is on the intellectual assholes, at least.

why not? we have a president on his second term that you can say the same about

 

[Jack V Savage]

why not? we have a president on his second term that you can say the same about

Jesus, we can't get through a single thread without someone posting hackish idiocy, huh?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Post-Nixon skeletons don't really get to stay hidden. That's not a media bias issue with GOP candidates being unfairly targeted either, look at Gary Hart (or the wide and intense coverage of slick Willie's personal behavior as Gov). An interesting aspect of the 2008 campaign is actually how effective the Edwards campaign was at keeping his dirt hidden.

True, and I didn't mean to imply that the media was doing the digging.

Btw- a history professor once told me that Gary Hart was the one that broke the mistress taboo for papers when he dared them to catch him.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Jesus, we can't get through a single thread without someone posting hackish idiocy, huh?

As for the question, he seems like a genuinely decent guy. That's pretty much all there is to it. Is it a good reason to vote for a guy who is wrong about almost everything? No. But it's a reason, and it's enough to explain why he has a following.

 

[Jack V Savage]

???

 

[faustian]

Why does Bill Clinton have a following? Arkansans are dumb.

 

[Madmick]

Fringe candidates always look good in a vacuum.

 

[Ayin]

In truth, he probably didn't really feel as far-right as he appeared in the primaries. It's just that he couldn't abandon the very people who got him to where he was. So he had to keep recounting his statements whenever he was speaking to a group that wasn't GOP-centric.

Will this be an issue with the next Republican candidate as well? Will they need to take those same positions in the primaries to get to the election, and if so, how will they avoid the same situation?

I assume that the party will try and select someone whose record in office is closer to what they will support when running (as opposed to Romney), and then that person can scale back for the presidential run after being selected?

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

why not? we have a president on his second term that you can say the same about

Completely agree. Not only that, but he's been the most ineffective president I've witnessed in my lifetime.

 

[Ayin]

How many times in your lifetime have you seen your congress attempt to shut down the working federal government? Seems to me there has been a lot of 'ineffective' to go around.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

republicans would have a better shot if they weren't such assholes that hated poor people, gays and minorities.

Yeah, if only they could pretend to like them to get votes like the Democrats do.

 

[Golden croc]

Ok.

For me, out of those mouth breathers, I would go with Gingrich. I think he's the smartest of those, but it isn't saying much. I thought out of all the candidates, Romney was the best. Again, not saying much.

Gingrich is too much of a scumbag. The squirrel eater is always wrong, bends over to Walmart after all the money he has recieved over the years but the Grinch may be the biggest asshole in Washington in the last 50 yrs.

Still, unless theres a catastrophe the Dems wont lose the next elections. Hardcore right wingers have a mentality that belongs to a century that already ended. They just cant keep themselves from scaring independents.

 

[Ayin]

Do you think the Republicans may have a chance by putting forward someone new to the general public eye vs the Dems candidate (who I assume is going to end up being Clinton)?

Clinton seems to come with a lot of baggage, deserved (or even real) or not, if Republicans can't beat her, do they really have a chance at all?

 

[Golden croc]

Do you think the Republicans may have a chance by putting forward someone new to the general public eye vs the Dems candidate (who I assume is going to end up being Clinton)?

Clinton seems to come with a lot of baggage, deserved (or even real) or not, if Republicans can't beat her, do they really have a chance at all?

They have tried but they have failed. Truth is the loons have too much control. Look at Rubio. He tried to put forward.an immgration reform and the extreme right wingers see him as a traitor. For right wingers the word compromise is a sign of weakness. Whatever, good luck crying about the end of "America" for the rest of your life. They are also hijacked by clowns that care more about money than anything else. Look at Palin. 6 yrs of laughing all the way to the bank by repeating the same bullshit. And shell keep doing it.

Clinton has baggage as you say but shes beyond the Republicans league politically speaking.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

Because he is a super Christian but with Tea Party economic ideologies. He is the perfect "Republican" candidate, just doesn't have a lot of moderate appeal.

He's a big government statist after you scratch the surface. He's not fiscally conservative at all. He's basically GWB with more Jesus Juice.

 

[ucunc156]

Yeah, if only they could pretend to like them to get votes like the Democrats do.

seriously always LOL at people who think democrats actually "care" about the poor. The vast majority don't and on average, aren't democrats richer than reps? Its funny how democrats always come from the rich states (outside of texas).

 

[ucunc156]

Do you think the Republicans may have a chance by putting forward someone new to the general public eye vs the Dems candidate (who I assume is going to end up being Clinton)?

Clinton seems to come with a lot of baggage, deserved (or even real) or not, if Republicans can't beat her, do they really have a chance at all?

the only hope any republican has against clinton is a MASSIVE smear campaign where every ounce of dirt on her comes out, going back to dealings during the clinton administration. She has to be shown dirty in policy and dirty in character to have any hope of winning.

 

[Jack V Savage]

seriously always LOL at people who think democrats actually "care" about the poor. The vast majority don't and on average, aren't democrats richer than reps? Its funny how democrats always come from the rich states (outside of texas).

It's true that most poor states are Republican, but in terms of individuals Republicans and Democrats are evenly split among high-income Americans, Democrats have an edge among middle-income Americans, and Democrats have a large edge among low-income Americans.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012...ivides-democrats-republicans-and-independents

I think it's true that both parties are primarily interested in the rich (hence the prioritization of deficit reduction and low inflation over fighting unemployment), but Democrats *also* are pushing policy that benefits the non-rich, while Republicans are not.

 

[ucunc156]

It's true that most poor states are Republican, but in terms of individuals Republicans and Democrats are evenly split among high-income Americans, Democrats have an edge among middle-income Americans, and Democrats have a large edge among low-income Americans.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012...ivides-democrats-republicans-and-independents

I think it's true that both parties are primarily interested in the rich (hence the prioritization of deficit reduction and low inflation over fighting unemployment), but Democrats *also* are pushing policy that benefits the non-rich, while Republicans are not.

I do agree democrats push legislation that benefit the poor. However, i think that kind of legislation only hurts the middle class. In a society based on money that isn't completely redistributed, the greater the gap between the poor and the lower middle class, the better it is for the lower middle class. republicans offer tax breaks, which is the single most useful thing to the lower middle class and regular middle class. It doesn't help the poor at all and disproportionately helps the rich, but it is what it is.

as far as high income splitting reps and dems, that is true. anecdotally (I have no proof to back this up, just personal experience), it seems that democrats in high income brackets come from a lot of family wealth, while republicans in high income brackets come from new money.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I do agree democrats push legislation that benefit the poor. However, i think that kind of legislation only hurts the middle class. In a society based on money that isn't completely redistributed, the greater the gap between the poor and the lower middle class, the better it is for the lower middle class. republicans offer tax breaks, which is the single most useful thing to the lower middle class and regular middle class. It doesn't help the poor at all and disproportionately helps the rich, but it is what it is.

as far as high income splitting reps and dems, that is true. anecdotally (I have no proof to back this up, just personal experience), it seems that democrats in high income brackets come from a lot of family wealth, while republicans in high income brackets come from new money.

Republicans aren't offering tax breaks for the middle class, though. I posted this in another thread, but it illustrates the point:

And if you recall the 2012 presidential campaign, the GOP's plan was to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for big tax cuts for the rich.

Generally speaking, also, full employment is beneficial for the middle class and potentially not beneficial to the rich (it increases the labor share of the economy/decreases the share that goes to owners of capital, but it also grows the overall economy which may or may not offset the distributional loss to the rich). Democrats have been pushing full-employment policy, while the GOP has been opposing it--that's one of the biggest current differences between the parties, actually. Environmental problems also fall heavily on both the poor and middle class, while not necessarily hurting the rich, and the cost for preventing it does fall more heavily on the rich. Finally, the ACA is highly beneficial to both the poor and the middle class, while increasing the costs to the rich and only providing abstract benefits to the rich in return (a lowering of overall healthcare costs).