Saturday, January 07, 2012

Why Republicans almost always nominate moderates

It's simple. One fairly well-known moderate runs. About eight conservatives run. The moderate gets all the moderate Republican votes--or the votes of conservatives who don't know how moderate he is--and gets momentum.

Meanwhile the conservatives split the conservative vote, no one of them ever gets enough votes to get enough momentum.

The result: Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain.

36 comments:

Lee said...

Why does the GOP prefer moderates? It's their version of marketing. Barry Goldwater's '64 debacle so traumatized the GOP party establishment that they have a visceral fear of running a conservative. It's like Ronald Reagan never existed.

The GOP usually tries to follow Nixon's advice. Nixon, no one's dummy when it came to politics, famously observed that whereas a Republican cannot get elected without the conservatives, he cannot get elected with just the conservatives. So a GOP candidate has to sound conservative to win the nomination and then run as fast as he can to the center once he's won it.

Problem is, as a Republican, using this strategy presumes that conservatives will vote for a Republican regardless of how liberal he is, because conservatives, in Nixon's words, "have no place to go."

But that only works (as we saw in the last election) as long as the conservatives don't catch on. But once they do catch on, enough of them stay home or vote third party to lose the election.

So the GOP, every election now, flirts with this death spiral the same way that fly flirts with the Venus fly trap. Their (poor) instincts lead them to prefer the moderate candidate as the "winnable" choice, then go on to lose the general election.

This year, Romney is the "winnable" candidate, never mind that nobody likes him and he didn't run for re-election in Massachusetts because he knew he couldn't win. ObamaCare is still very unpopular and would be an issue in the campaign if the GOP doesn't go and nominate someone who tried to implement the same sort of plan in his home state.

The only thing the GOP establishment knows how to do is lose elections.

KyCobb said...

Well, look at the alternatives. Gingrich has more baggage than a Diva on tour. Santorum is a one-note social conservative extremist who got trounced in his last campaign. Perry can barely remember three at a time, and now is promising to restart the war in Iraq. Paul is an extreme libertarian. The GOP really ought to be nominating Huntsman, but because he thinks scientists might actually know something about what they research he is anathema, plus he committed the sin of serving his country as an ambassador while Obama was in office. All of the conservatives are so flawed, I'm confident Obama would trounce any of them unless the economy simply collapses.

Lee said...

> The GOP really ought to be nominating Huntsman, but because he thinks scientists might actually know something about what they research he is anathema...

If you're referring to the same scientists who have been caught in emails conspiring about how to acquire peer review boards they know to be favorable to their research, and how to fire scientists who have disagrees a time or two, then I can't imagine what you're talking about.

But in my informal and unscientific polling I have found, unanimously, that Huntsman is the favorite Republican candidate of liberals and Democrats. That he is the only Republican in the field that you cannot bring yourself to speak ill about, is helpful to my poll.

So if a political party ought to take the advice of those who wish it ill, then my advice to Democrats is they should scuttle Obama and nominate Thomas Sowell. That's advice I hope they'll take.

> I'm confident Obama would trounce any of them unless the economy simply collapses.

You are obviously not following the polls. Even this admittedly miserable field of candidates is outpolling Obama. That speaks well, or poorly, of his presidency, depending on your perspective.

Lee said...

> All of the conservatives are so flawed, I'm confident Obama would trounce any of them unless the economy simply collapses.

What would you call what the economy has been doing for the past three - four years?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"You are obviously not following the polls. Even this admittedly miserable field of candidates is outpolling Obama."

I check the polls at realclearpolitics regularly. There isn't a single GOP candidate trouncing the President. In fact, Obama leads every single one, including Romney, so I don't have a clue what polls you are looking at.

"So if a political party ought to take the advice of those who wish it ill, then my advice to Democrats is they should scuttle Obama and nominate Thomas Sowell. That's advice I hope they'll take."

In Martin's thread supporting Gingrich, I enthusiastically seconded his endorsement, and I certainly hope the GOP nominates him. I don't really want the GOP to nominate Huntsman, but if I was a conservative who thought we needed federal budget austerity, he'd be my choice.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"What would you call what the economy has been doing for the past three - four years?"

The economy has added 1.64 million jobs in the last year. And they have all been private sector jobs, since the public sector has dropped by over 700,000, which as a conservative I think you would be jumping for joy over. It looks like the economy is primed to continue to add private sector jobs this year, which is why the President's approval ratings have improved considerably since last summer.

Art said...

If you're referring to the same scientists who have been caught in emails conspiring about how to acquire peer review boards they know to be favorable to their research, and how to fire scientists who have disagrees a time or two, then I can't imagine what you're talking about.

Lee, I would agree with your own self-assessment here - you're totally clueless.

Why don't you do us a favor and summarize all the ways that those emails you are so fixated on "disappear", so to speak, the many, many indicators of long-term warming that make it clear to all but the willfully ignorant that the earth has warmed perceptibly in the past century. Please be specific.

Lee said...

Art: Lee, I would agree with your own self-assessment here - you're totally clueless.""

Art, when it comes to scientific matters such as global warming, I am forced to take things on authority, as I have no scientific training and have done no scientific research that could lead me to accept or reject all or parts of their thesis.

So that, when I read about the East Anglia emails, it tends to undermine that authority.

Surely you can appreciate that.

And then, when I look at the lifestyles of those who proselytize on behalf of global... excuse me, climate control... what do I see?

I see Al Gore and Thomas Friedman living resplendently in enormous mansions, while they begrudge me my 2300 sq. ft. brick rancher.

I read reports that, during the Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Danish car-rental businesses ran out of limousines and had to import them in from Germany and Sweden. Not to mention the number of private jets that showed up.

In my line of work, I get to attend a convention now and then. In almost thirty years, I've never ridden in a limousine at a convention (though I rode in one once at someone else's wedding).

And I've never flown in a private jet, let alone owned one.

But those things are reserved for my more socially-conscious betters, I guess.

It's no great challenge to make me cynical. But I submit that even Pollyanna could become cynical at times like this. It all seems like yet another pretext for more government power.

But on the bright side, it's given us one of the best, most amusing passages ever written. From Mark Steyn:

"According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet....

"Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned.... And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over."

"He then got in his limo and was driven to his other palace."

So, since I have to take all this on authority, I have my eyes closely trained on those who are supposed to be in the know.

When they act like they're really worried, so will I.

Lee said...

> The economy has added 1.64 million jobs in the last year. And they have all been private sector jobs, since the public sector has dropped by over 700,000, which as a conservative I think you would be jumping for joy over.

Is this, or is this not, the most anemic recovery in the history of recording recessions and their recoveries?

> It looks like the economy is primed to continue to add private sector jobs this year, which is why the President's approval ratings have improved considerably since last summer.

Gallup says his approval ratings are suffering.

Art said...

Art, when it comes to scientific matters such as global warming, I am forced to take things on authority, as I have no scientific training and have done no scientific research that could lead me to accept or reject all or parts of their thesis.

So that, when I read about the East Anglia emails, it tends to undermine that authority.

Surely you can appreciate that.


So, facts don't matter to you.

That's why Huntsman says the things he does. He knows that the idiocy coming from the wingnuts does not change the simple and irrefutable (sorry, snippets from some stolen emails don't amount to a refutation of anything) fact that the earth is getting warmer.

You can hold your breath 'til you're blue in the face, but you cannot change reality, Lee.

Lee said...

> So, facts don't matter to you.

You're not following, Art.

How can I know what the facts are, if the people in charge of those facts are pulling shenanigans to forward a particular narrative?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Is this, or is this not, the most anemic recovery in the history of recording recessions and their recoveries?"

The US is recovering from the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. By the time Obama took the oath of office, ordinary Americans wages had been stagnant for a long time, they were deeply in debt, and millions were underwater on their mortgages. This isn't a problem which could be solved quickly. It definitely can't be solved by GOP solutions, which are more tax cuts for the wealthy, and taking billions of dollars away from ordinary Americans through deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending.

Art said...

How can I know what the facts are, if the people in charge of those facts are pulling shenanigans to forward a particular narrative?

So you choose to believe the pronouncements of the fringe elements on the right, who have done little more than lift comments out of stolen emails, without considering whether any of this affects the actual science...

... that is settled, when it comes to the matter of whether or not the earth is warming.

What I find ironic is how you (and Martin) repeatedly give lip service to the notion of absolutes (morality, knowledge, etc.) yet embrace, so willingly and obviously, the idea that reality (in this case, global warming) is determined, not by data, but by one's political and economic leanings. This embracing of metaphysical relativism flies in the face of your allegiance to absolutes. (Heck, if you think about it, your position on this subject is absolutely Marxist.)

Lee said...

> It definitely can't be solved by GOP solutions, which are more tax cuts for the wealthy, and taking billions of dollars away from ordinary Americans through deep cuts in domestic discretionary spending.

But it can be solved through Democratic solutions of slow strangulation of free enterprise and spending into the multi-trillions?

The results so far say, resoundingly, no.

Lee said...

> So you choose to believe the pronouncements of the fringe elements on the right, who have done little more than lift comments out of stolen emails, without considering whether any of this affects the actual science...

Again, Art, what is the actual science?

When I can't count on scientists observing an impartial peer review process, I can't know what the actual science is.

The well is thoroughly poisoned.

The peer review process gives legitimacy to science. Mess with that, and you take away legitimacy.

Else why have it at all?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"When I can't count on scientists observing an impartial peer review process, I can't know what the actual science is.

The well is thoroughly poisoned.

The peer review process gives legitimacy to science. Mess with that, and you take away legitimacy."

There have been multiple reviews of the research of the scientists in question, and every single one has vindicated them. The Right is simply choosing to live in fantasy land to believe that we can keep pumping vasts amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without any consequences. Not that it matters, since the do nothing crowd has won the political debate. Thus we will see for ourselves over the coming decades what our massive experiment in atmospheric pollution has wrought.

Lee said...

> There have been multiple reviews of the research of the scientists in question, and every single one has vindicated them.

Interestingly, KyCobb, neither you nor Art are denying that what I said happened, happened -- namely, that scientists tried to stack the deck of the peer review process in order to support their foregone conclusions on global warming.

Neither are you denying that there were comments in the emails about getting people fired who disagreed with those conclusions.

So now, when those same scientists tell me how reliable the rest of their research is, what am I supposed to do? Take them at their word?

Their word is no good.

So don't yell at me. Yell at them. Tell them that if they want people like me to believe them, they'll behave better, and while you're at it, tell them start living the lifestyles themselves that they have in mind for me and everyone else. That too would give them more authority.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

I do wish to clarify...

I don't disbelieve in global warming.

I don't believe it either.

If I were to argue that global warming does not exist, I would be jumped on because I am not an expert.

I am not an expert, but for that same reason, I cannot believe in global warming, either. It's a two-edged sword. If I don't have the expertise to disagree, then I also don't have the expertise to agree. I have to take it on authority.

And at the moment, the authority is looking none too reliable.

I think there are several outstanding questions to which we need answers.

Is global warming really happpening?

If it is, is it a bad thing?

If it is, is it being caused by humans?

If it is, is it something we can afford to do something about?

If it is, is it something we have to be willing to cede power to the state to do something about?

And without wrecking our economies? Because if we wreck our economies, how will we afford the bill?

Or will we not be able to afford the bill, and will it mean returning to the economics of Middle Ages?

I'm concerned about that because I fear there are a lot of folks who don't mind if *I* have to return to the Middle Ages, so long as they don't. The aforementioned Prince Charles, Al Gore, and Thomas Friedman are cases in point.

Lee said...

I found this article interesting...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm?csp=34

Some money quotes from Dr. Craig Bohren...

> "First off, let me say I consider the concept of a global mean temperature [upon which global warming statistics are based] to be somewhat dubious, and I say so in my recent book (with Eugene Clothiaux) Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation. A single number cannot adequately capture climate change. This number, as I see it, is aimed mostly at politicians and journalists."

> "The issue of global warming is extremely complicated, and it transcends science. Views on global warming are as much determined by political and religious biases as by science. No one comes to the table about this issue without biases."

> "The pronouncements of climate modelers, who don't do experiments, don't make observations, don't even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, don't move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc."

> I have lived long enough to have seen many doomsday scenarios painted by people who profited by doing so, but which never came to pass. This has made me a skeptic. Perhaps global warming is an example of the old fable about the boy who cried wolf, but this time the doomsayers are, alas, right. Maybe, but I can't help noting that some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We'd get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others it has been a godsend."

> "Stated simply (and probably unfairly), [I think] conservatives do not believe that global warming exists (because they don't want it to exist) whereas liberals believe in global warming (because they want it to exist)."

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Like I said, you've already won this argument. Nothing will be done to change things, and we will continue to pump massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can only wait and hope its not as bad as some scientists predict.

Lee said...

> Like I said, you've already won this argument. Nothing will be done to change things, and we will continue to pump massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can only wait and hope its not as bad as some scientists predict.

Right now, I would say we have a much better chance of dying due to complete economic and political collapse brought about by bankrupt Western governments than to global warming.

But look at the bright side. If we have a complete economic collapse, our carbon footprint is likely to diminish. Some social programs are likely to disappear, though. :(

KyCobb said...

Lee,

There will be no economic collapse since neither the US nor Europe as a whole are anywhere near bankrupt, unless incompetent politicians bring it about.

Art said...

I do wish to clarify...

I don't disbelieve in global warming.

I don't believe it either.

If I were to argue that global warming does not exist, I would be jumped on because I am not an expert.

I am not an expert, but for that same reason, I cannot believe in global warming, either. It's a two-edged sword. If I don't have the expertise to disagree, then I also don't have the expertise to agree. I have to take it on authority.

And at the moment, the authority is looking none too reliable.


LOL

So, may we assume, Lee that you take no position on the two opposing statements: water consists entirely of hydrogen and oxygen, according to the formula H2O; and water does not consist of hydrogen and oxygen?

After all, the authorities that tell us the former are all part of the atheistic cabal of proponents of scientism who would all reject the notion that there is an immaterial component apart form H and O that is part of the make-up of water. The sort of group that are on the opposite political and philosophical end of the spectrum as yourself.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"The issue of global warming is extremely complicated, and it transcends science. Views on global warming are as much determined by political and religious biases as by science. No one comes to the table about this issue without biases."

Were you aware that Richard Muller, a Koch funded climate change skeptic, conducted an exhaustive study to try to detect global warming bias, and that he determined that the science showing that the earth is warming is accurate? How do you account for his conclusions?

Lee said...

He could be correct, or he could be mistaken.

Lee said...

> So, may we assume, Lee that you take no position on the two opposing statements: water consists entirely of hydrogen and oxygen, according to the formula H2O; and water does not consist of hydrogen and oxygen?

So it's that simple, is it Art?

If it is, why waste billions of dollars researching it?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"He could be correct, or he could be mistaken."

Its a fascinating contrast. You want to ban same-sex marriage because of potential bad consequences you can't even imagine, but when even a top global warming skeptic becomes convinced based on exhaustive research that the earth is warming, you just shrug your shoulders. Facts really don't matter to you at all, do they?

Lee said...

> Facts really don't matter to you at all, do they?

We've been over this. Facts so matter. The question is, what are the facts?

There are two methods I have to understand the issues:

1. Drop whatever I'm doing now and enroll in a physics Ph.D. program, get a post-doc, and maybe in fifteen years I'll qualify as an expert in the subject. And that's if I'm capable of being a physicist at all. Probably could have done so once upon a time, but in fifteen years I'll be 73 if I'm still consuming oxygen.

2. Rely on the experts to keep me informed -- that is, take it on authority.

If I remember correctly, you, KyCobb, are a lawyer. I don't think you're qualified to be considered a primary source.

Maybe Art is, but he's too interested in ad hominem attacks to bother explaining his credentials on the subject.

So I'm left with taking my facts from the folks who think it's just fine and dandy to tamper with the peer review process.

If the facts are so obvious, why do they bother tampering?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"So I'm left with taking my facts from the folks who think it's just fine and dandy to tamper with the peer review process.

If the facts are so obvious, why do they bother tampering?"

No, Lee, that's precisely why I pointed out to you that a leading global warming skeptic who conducted a Koch funded study of the research confirmed the accuracy of its findings that the earth is warming. He was not one of the scientists whose emails were hacked. So you can't use that excuse anymore. You are going to have to come up with a different excuse for why you won't believe Richard Muller.

Lee said...

> No, Lee, that's precisely why I pointed out to you that a leading global warming skeptic who conducted a Koch funded study of the research confirmed the accuracy of its findings that the earth is warming.

Did you confirm that there was no tampering?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Did you confirm that there was no tampering?"

Why would Muller tamper with his own study in order to refute his own hypotheses?

Lee said...

> He was not one of the scientists whose emails were hacked. So you can't use that excuse anymore. You are going to have to come up with a different excuse for why you won't believe Richard Muller.

Muller is but one scientist, and I gather at least that there is some dissension about the narrative.

Is it not true that East Anglia was considered kinda the mother lode of eco-science on this issue, before the emails?

So again I ask, if the issue is as cut-and-dried as you and Art want me to believe, why did East Anglia interfere with the peer review process by stacking the peer review boards?

Why did they publish studies and not make the data available?

Why did they try to get those holding dissenting views fired?

My conclusion is it must not be as cut-and-dried as you and Art are saying.

I'm still not saying global warming isn't happening. I'm even not arguing that if it's happening, it is necessarily good. I'm not arguing that if it's happening, it must be the sun and not man's carbon emissions.

But if it's happening, if it's bad, if it's our fault, if it requires a severe change in lifestyle and economic expectations... can I then count on Al Gore, Thomas Friedman, Prince Charles, the limousine-loving and private-jet-flying Copenhagen greenies, Art, and you, KyCobb, all to lead the way by giving up your homes and cars, and living instead in an 800 sq. ft apartment building and riding bicycles, as an example to people like me?

Art said...

Is it not true that East Anglia was considered kinda the mother lode of eco-science on this issue, before the emails?

No.

Just how much do you know about the field, Lee? Anything other than what you get from Beck, Limbaugh, et al.?

Just wondering.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"can I then count on Al Gore, Thomas Friedman, Prince Charles, the limousine-loving and private-jet-flying Copenhagen greenies, Art, and you, KyCobb, all to lead the way by giving up your homes and cars, and living instead in an 800 sq. ft apartment building and riding bicycles, as an example to people like me?"

Why would I try to cram my family of four into a tiny apartment when even if I reduced my family's carbon footprint to zero it wouldn't make any difference at all? This is a global problem that requires big solutions which would make a real dent in greenhouse gas emissions, such as the development of green technology and renewable energy resources.

But to show how silly your rhetorical device is, since you keep harping on the federal government debt, can I count on you to take a vow of poverty so that you can send most of your income to the IRS to pay the debt down?

Lee said...

Wow. I guess global warming is so yesterday...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Now, the problem is, which scientists to believe?