General Primary Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Q99
It's sort of a multi-level thing. "Obama is horrible, and everything he does needs to be stopped without exception," and "we can stop him and turn back what he does," makes every success of Obama's, even limited ones that trickle out and would normally be the type of thing every president does often with bipartisan support*, a loss for them, and also makes their words come across as untrustworthy. "I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do this," only works if people at least view you as making a serious effort into that area- if something fails due to great effort of the opposition, that's one thing, but, say, the 40 attempts to repeal Obamacare don't even reach Obama's desk.

When 'how much I said against Obama and voted against him,' surpasses 'what I got done' as a selling point in primaries, it caused a lot of people to paint themselves into corners where they were promising stuff they literally did not have the power to do in their positions.

*Which also removes stuff as much of a propaganda weapon. "I did X!" "Well, everyone on both sides voted for it, so?" is ironically a much more effective way to remove some of an opponent's points rather than trying to block every shot.

One thing I learned this cycle is apparently the overpromising thing, while big with Obama, started much sooner.

Like, of course I don't pay attention to house and senate primaries in other states, but analysts and political media people who have said it's common in those for the candidates to promise a list of conservative things they're going to do- and that a lot of these people had opportunities to push for these conservative things in the Bush years and before, when they had a lot of power to get things through, and didn't, and that even during the Obama years, there really was a fair amount they could've done.

Proposed legislature wise, there's been far more emphasis on the 'cut taxes' 'corporate stuff,' and that kind of thing that the business Republicans have wanted, while the other social conservative stuff has remained in the realm of primary promises.

And when there were wins, this was at least somewhat accepted, because at least it kept out people who wanted things they didn't like. But if you trade the stuff a fair amount of the base wants for the promise of victory, and you don't get victory for it? They end up pissed.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think this is a gross overreaction to everything that has happened.

It's just part of the story, but a lot of people who study politics do seem to view it as some of the contributing factors.

A lot of people, myself included, really underestimated how fed up the Republicans are with their establishment, because the shape of this race right now? Massively atypical.

Remember last election cycle, how Trump briefly entered, but then left fast and didn't make a lot of splash. Things have obviously changed, and the primary driving factor seems to be frustration, and frustration at not-being-able-to-get-things-done being the larger part of that.

Normally the establishment candidates, while often temporarily surpassed by early challengers, are none the less picking up speed. Even Romney, who had a half dozen different challengers pass him up, remained in a solid second place throughout, because that's the kind of support being the 'official' candidate' normally brings, and that is very noticeably not here.

The Republican voters are treating the establishment voices visibly differently. For now, at least.

It seems to me that you are desperately attempting to portray Obama as a success against all odds when Thats not close to beinh accurate. Not sure if that's ahat you're doing.

Originally posted by psmith81992
It seems to me that you are desperately attempting to portray Obama as a success against all odds when Thats not close to beinh accurate. Not sure if that's ahat you're doing.

How did you get this from anything that was said? None of this has been a value judgement, only a discussion of how Republican politicians have positioned themselves and how their voters react to it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How did you get this from anything that was said? None of this has been a value judgement, only a discussion of how Republican politicians have positioned themselves and how their voters react to it.

I noticed it as a consistent tone from q9o through out these debates. I also said I could be wrong.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I noticed it as a consistent tone from q9o through out these debates. I also said I could be wrong.

But what in the post you quoted did you think in line with your suspicion?

The initial post i quoted.

Ok, let's not have a conversation, that's cool...

I'm posting from my phone so ill get back to you.

Carson slams Muslims: "I would not support a Muslim for president."

And says "Islam is not consistent with the constitution."

Stand the **** and cheer.

A black man actually in Charge and standing up for Truth.

What does the liberal party have but a woos.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Carson slams Muslims: "I would not support a Muslim for president."

And says "Islam is not consistent with the constitution."

Stand the **** and cheer.

A black man actually in Charge and standing up for Truth.

What does the liberal party have but a woos.

I thought you wouldn't mind having a Muslim as president?

That's your best response is what my personal option is?

You don't have the balls to critize Carson😂

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's your best response is what my personal option is?

You don't have the balls to critize Carson😂

I don't really care about Carson, I don't think he has a chance. I disagree with his policies, and obviously he's a close minded islamophobic bigot, but I'm more interested in why you aren't criticizing him, when this is allegedly something you disagree with.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But what in the post you quoted did you think in line with your suspicion?

It's sort of a multi-level thing. "Obama is horrible, and everything he does needs to be stopped without exception," and "we can stop him and turn back what he does," makes every success of Obama's, even limited ones that trickle out and would normally be the type of thing every president does often with bipartisan support*, a loss for them, and also makes their words come across as untrustworthy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Carson slams Muslims: "I would not support a Muslim for president."

And says "Islam is not consistent with the constitution."

Stand the **** and cheer.

A black man actually in Charge and standing up for Truth.

What does the liberal party have but a woos.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Mainly this.

Hmm, I view this as Q99 actually taking a value judgement out of the equation, by stating that even small successes by Obama are perceived as huge failures of the Republican Party by the Republican voters. Of course we all disagree on how successful Obama was generally, but I see the only way to take offense to this if one thinks Obama has absolutely no successes, which I don't think you believe either, right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't really care about Carson, I don't think he has a chance. I disagree with his policies, and obviously he's a close minded islamophobic bigot, but I'm more interested in why you aren't criticizing him, when this is allegedly something you disagree with.

He has a point, Islam and our constitution don't seem to mix. Since when did not approving of Islam become bigoted.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He has a point, Islam and our constitution don't seem to mix.

Can you expand more on that.

Well, as originally drafted the Constitution did uphold the right for white people to own slaves and didn't even consider the reasonable possibility of women's suffrage (even Universal white male suffrage above a certain age was tricky).

I'm not saying it was as bad as Quranic values (the Enlightenment did after all inspire the Constitution), but it did share some weaknesses that were only corrected much, much later. Much as many modern Muslims turn away from the harsher rules and values of the Quran, particularly in America.

Again, I don't like Islamic values, and I know from experience that even "liberal" Muslim families can be pretty backward, but I see no reason why being Muslim *on its own* should disqualify someone from being president.