Huckabee: We lost in 2012 because evangelicals didn’t support a more moderate nominee

posted at 7:21 pm on April 1, 2013 by Allahpundit

Ed flagged this Politico piece earlier but I want to pay special attention to Huck’s comments. Gabe Malor called BS on them on Twitter this morning. I think he’s right. Huckabee’s latest shot across the party establishment’s bow:

“The last two presidential elections, we had more moderate candidates, so if anything a lot of conservatives went to the polls reluctantly or just didn’t go at all,” said Huckabee in a separate interview. “If all of the evangelicals had showed up, it may have made a difference.”

Huckabee, like Santorum, was a bit incredulous at the attempt to fault social conservatives when the party nominated two individuals who largely shunned talk of culture in the general election and were uncomfortable when they had to discuss issues like abortion.

“Nobody would say that these were guys that just light ’em up at the National Right to Life Convention,” cracked Huckabee.

In other words, lower social-con turnout for Romney last year proved that the party’s already on thin ice. Move any further to the center on, say, gay marriage and who knows what might happen? Just one problem: Unless I missed something, social-con turnout for Romney wasn’t lower. On the contrary, after months of liberal concern-trolling that conservative Christians might not show up on election day for a Mormon, evangelicals gave Romney the best turnout among their demographic that any modern GOP candidate has seen. Remember this exit-poll comparison published by Pew a few days after the election?

mor

Not only did Romney match Bush’s share of white evangelicals from 2004, when Dubya and Rove famously used the gay-marriage issue to mobilize social cons, he actually did ever so slightly better among evangelicals than he did with Mormons. But wait: To say that Mitt matched Bush’s share isn’t to say that the same number of evangelicals turned out for both. It could be that 20 million voted in 2004 versus only 10 million in 2012, with the GOP nominee winning 79 percent of each. Is that what happened? According to the exit polls, no. In 2004, white evangelicals made up 23 percent of an electorate composed of more than 122 million voters; last year, they made up 26 percent of an electorate consisting of more than 127 million voters. As a share of the electorate and of total voters, Romney actually improved on Bush’s performance. The only way Huck is right is if the rate of growth among the white evangelical population between 2004 and 2012 should have pointed to even greater turnout last year than what we saw. I haven’t seen any data to that effect but I’m willing to be corrected.

If Huck is right that Romney’s too moderate for social conservatives’ liking, why’d they turn out for him in such high numbers? Simple: They’re not single-issue voters. Skim through the graphs compiled by the NYT’s Thomas Edsall a few days ago. On subjects like harmful government regulations and strong defense, white evangelicals top white mainline Protestants and white Catholics. They’re conservative more or less across the board, which is what the party establishment’s counting on if the nominee has to finesse the issue of SSM with a federalism dodge three years from now. The X factor is whether Huckabee, Santorum, or some other prominent social conservative pol will turn gay marriage into a litmus test. That’s what was missing from 2012 — maybe evangelical turnout for Romney would have been lower if Huck had agitated against him by reminding voters of his pro-choice past. But he didn’t. Social conservatives were roundly unified behind Mitt in the interest of defeating O, even when they denounced him as being the lesser of two evils. The one silver lining for the GOP in potentially having to face Hillary in 2016 is that she’s sufficiently polarizing to maybe keep social conservatives in the Republican tent even if they’re unhappy with the nominee’s position on SSM. With a lesser known Democratic nominee, the impetus to unite and defeat the great liberal threat might not be as strong.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Absolute bs.

Genuine on April 1, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Hey Huck…like you well enough…but you need to focus on your popular TV preacher show and stay the hell out of politics

Or at least get your FACTS straight before opening your mouth

Surely, you don’t plan to give up your FOX gig and run again are you?

Redford on April 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Oh, and bishop.

*hat tip*

Genuine on April 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Can we just send Huckabee packing already?

Blake on April 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Oy!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Huckabee thinks he speaks for Social Conservatives.

Who he speaks for are the Social Cons/feel good legislatures who poisoned our party with “Passionate Conservatism”.

portlandon on April 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Maybe they lost because the GOP took conservatives for granted.

Never thought the words you said were true
Never thought you said just what you meant
Never knew how much I needed you
Never thought you’d leave, until you went

– Gordon McClean

Socratease on April 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Ed flagged this Politico piece earlier but I want to pay special attention to Huck’s comments. Gabe Malor called BS on them on Twitter this morning. I think he’s right.

As someone who voted for Virgil Goode rather than Mitt Romney, methinks Malor is wrong.

In other words, lower social-con turnout for Romney last year proved that the party’s already on thin ice. Move any further to the center on, say, gay marriage and who knows what might happen? Just one problem: Unless I missed something, social-con turnout for Romney wasn’t lower.

You missed something. Remember that Romney witnessed a 13-point swing of independents towards him. Hence, while McCain lost them by 8, Romney won them by 5. And despite that massive swing, Romney essentially duplicated McCain’s vote tally, and that’s in a bigger pool of potential voters.

The one silver lining for the GOP in potentially having to face Hillary in 2016 is that she’s sufficiently polarizing to maybe keep social conservatives in the Republican tent even if they’re unhappy with the nominee’s position on SSM.

The lesser-of-two-evils schtick didn’t work on Obama, and it won’t work on Hillary. Work on finding someone that your base likes.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

He wasn’t Ron Paul enough for the Paulbots. They got what they deserved — four more years.

unclesmrgol on April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

The people I knew who didn’t vote were libertarians who were frustrated that there was no small government / pro-liberty alternative.

LilyBart on April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

By 2016 the GOP will have folded on pretty much everything and I’ll probably be standing in the voting line with a few hundred of my newly legalized fellow citizens, people who curiously enough only speak Spanish.

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Huckabee is no conservative. He’s weak on immigration, soft on crime, and raised taxes plenty in AR. He’s hardly qualified to be calling anyone else out.

Kataklysmic on April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Go f_ck a tree Huckabee.

Hey a rhyme

jake-the-goose on April 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Political science is not Huckabee’s strong suit.

Mister Mets on April 1, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Go form your own party, moron. Your pal Akin would love to run again.

Marcus on April 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

he gets a paycheck from ailes. no surprise here.

renalin on April 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Huckabee is no conservative. He’s weak on immigration, soft on crime, and raised taxes plenty in AR. He’s hardly qualified to be calling anyone else out.

Kataklysmic on April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

YES and once and for all he does NOT represent socons! I wish he would go away..

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Social conservatives were roundly unified behind Mitt in the interest of defeating O

AP really needs to read the comments on his own site. You’ll find that social conservatives were not lining up behind the guy. Fiscal conservatives? Absolutely. Social conservatives? Not at all.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Work on finding someone that your base likes.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

the GOPe doesn’t care … they expect the base to turn out cuz there is no place
else to go … which is what the Whigs thought too ….

conservative tarheel on April 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

I suppose he was asked to explain this monolithic evangelical vote and pair that with reelected Senator Claire McCaskill.

Marcus on April 1, 2013 at 7:38 PM

The only way Huck is right is if the rate of growth among the white evangelical population between 2004 and 2012 should have pointed to even greater turnout last year than what we saw. I haven’t seen any data to that effect but I’m willing to be corrected.

I’ll give it my best shot.

The only way to see if Huck is right is to look at other data besides the National Exit Poll, such as election results.

In 2012, 92 million White voters voted in the election. That’s not only less than 2008, it’s less than 2004! How is that possible? Are whites losing people? Nope, they’re gaining, and based on projections, there should have been 100 million White voters for this election, which would have made the electorate 74% White. The same as 2008.

So, who were these White voters? Were some these disaffected Obama ’08 voters? Heck yeah, but looking at the state results, it looks like more Republican Whites stayed home.

Vs. ’08 Turnout:

Alaska: -8%
Indiana: -5%
Kansas: -6%
Missouri: -6%
Oklahoma: -9%
South Dakota, Tennessee: -5%

And that’s for the whole, if we go into rural conservative counties in Florida, Ohio and PA, turnout is down.

So, why was this? Romney was a RINO, a Mormon, Richie-Rich, gun grabbing RINO who snubbed Sarah Palin. Romney did win millions of evangelicals, but he could have won millions more who stayed home.

I mean, Santorum and Gingrich won Southern primaries/caucuses on shoe string budgets. And the only reason why Romney won states like Ohio and Michigan in the primaries was due to the conservative vote being split. They hated Romney and relying on Obama hate wasn’t going to turn them out 100%

sentinelrules on April 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

By 2016 the GOP will have folded on pretty much everything and I’ll probably be standing in the voting line with a few hundred of my newly legalized fellow citizens, people who curiously enough only speak Spanish.

Bishop on April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

You’ll have to specifically ask for your ballot in English.. :)

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

AP really needs to read the comments on his own site. You’ll find that social conservatives were not lining up behind the guy. Fiscal conservatives? Absolutely. Social conservatives? Not at all.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

It is OK, this social Conservative turned out, and left every family member and friend at home. 15 votes at least that did not go to Romney because he was not worth throwing my credibility with my family away.

astonerii on April 1, 2013 at 7:40 PM

he gets a paycheck from ailes. no surprise here.

renalin on April 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Er, Roger Ailes is smart. Huckabee, not so much. Ailes has built the #1 cable news network. Huckabee has a one-hour show on Fox that is played on Sat and rerun on Sun. He’s a bone tossed to socons by Fox.

Resist We Much on April 1, 2013 at 7:41 PM

The people I knew who didn’t vote were libertarians who were frustrated that there was no small government / pro-liberty alternative.

LilyBart on April 1, 2013 at 7:31 PM

They didn’t vote for Gary Johnson.? Maybe they were too stoned or something.

sentinelrules on April 1, 2013 at 7:42 PM

I was ABR … until he became the nominee .. then I became ABO ….
I voted for Mitt against Obama.
No money, no signage, but I voted for him. because he wasn’t Obama.
would have been nice if after he got the nomination he would have campaigned
against Obama like he wanted to be President. but that is water under the bridge.

conservative tarheel on April 1, 2013 at 7:42 PM

AP really needs to read the comments on his own site. You’ll find that social conservatives were not lining up behind the guy. Fiscal conservatives? Absolutely. Social conservatives? Not at all.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Yes, don’t look at objective election data. Nothing to see there.

Brilliant!

jhffmn on April 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Hey how bout some tax hikes there Huck?

Any way you can get them?

Speakup on April 1, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Yes, don’t look at objective election data. Nothing to see there.

Brilliant!

jhffmn on April 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

The swing of independents is objective election data. And anecdotal evidence, while not statistical in nature, actually provides a narrative. And some of us were doing weekly polling analysis of the states (while folks like AP were busily going over national polling) and posting it here on HotAir, explaining why Romney would lose, week after week.

Some of us were right.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 7:45 PM

All this talk is irrelevant if these mofos pass amnesty.

El_Terrible on April 1, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Four Dead Washington State Policemen would like to have a word with you Governor Huckabee about your leaning toward Clemency you bleeding heart fraud…..

portlandon on April 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Well, for those of you who didn’t vote for Romney because he wasn’t _________ enough for you, you got what you deserved. Unfortunately, you stuck the rest of us with what you deserved in the process.

tdarrington on April 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM

My evangelical husband voted for Mitt. Our attitude was that he was good man who would’ve been better than Obama-much better.
We still have our sign up btw.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM

enough of the huckster…

ugh

cmsinaz on April 1, 2013 at 7:48 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM

+1

our sign was stolen…pathetic

cmsinaz on April 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM

I’ve got an idea, why don’t all the social con zealots create their own theological party?

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

The missing voters were the apathetic blue collar working class conservatives in suburban or semi rural who did not trust either candidate. This included people who were Evangelical.

Huckabee was not off on the basics.

Those who were willing to trust the GOP morph candidate still turned out.

The trim was across various states, and electoral college is still mostly winner take all.

The apathetics knew Obama did not represent them. The real question: was Romney going to be the man represented, or was he one more GOP scam? The GOP had already burned bridges on immigration, on spending etc. Known evil vs unknown evil. That is the reality for the apathetics. The GOP is doing a good job of making it worse not better for the next run

This does not include the factor of the moderate progressive First time Obama voters who might have swung to Romney except for the hurricane, and Christie’s endorsement of Obama as the champion of bipartisanship

The double edged sword

If the GOP is floating trial balloons that the soc con movement is over, they are fools

entagor on April 1, 2013 at 7:52 PM

+1

our sign was stolen…pathetic

cmsinaz on April 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Ours isn’t the only Romney/Ryan sign still up.

annoyinglittletwerp on April 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I’ve got an idea, why don’t all the social con zealots create their own theological party?

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Oh go Reince Priebus yourself..

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I’ve got an idea, why don’t all the social con zealots create their own theological party?

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

They all say that, from the socons to the libertarians who are too smart for the Libertarians.

“We need a third party!”

And that’s all they do. Just talk.

thebrokenrattle on April 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I what the Huckster says is true, then evangelicals lost twice. They didn’t vote in a Republican because they sat on their hands, and Obama got re-elected because the evangelicals held their heads in their hands.

Think about is for a sec.

john1schn on April 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

I am a fiscal conservative. Although there are a couple of social issues that are important to me, I tend to only vote “against” social issues based on their financial impact. I don’t vote because moral values are declining. Otherwise, I’d try to find a way to tax tramp stamps.

I didn’t vote for Romney because I couldn’t tell the difference fiscally between him and Obama. Basically, if I’m going to be financially screwed, I’d prefer it was the democrats who took the blame for it.

Give me another RINO next time, and I’ll go to the polls and vote for the Libertarian. I’m tired of choosing the lesser of two evils, and my Romney no-vote was my disgust at the string of Bush-Dole-Bush-McCain-Romney tax-and-spenders.

Wino on April 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

If Huck is right that Romney’s too moderate for social conservatives’ liking, why’d they turn out for him in such high numbers?

That’s easy: They didn’t. Your exit poll only shows the results of people who actually held their noses and voted; maybe not to the extent we did for McLame, since Romney was a much better choice, but still not who we were looking for.

If the GOP tries to send up another Dole/Bush/McLame/Romney-style candidate “because he’s electable,” an even larger percentage of the base will just give up and stay home — me included.

Let it burn.

RoadRunner on April 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

…Huck!…shut the f*ck up!

KOOLAID2 on April 1, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Er, Roger Ailes is smart. Huckabee, not so much. Ailes has built the #1 cable news network. Huckabee has a one-hour show on Fox that is played on Sat and rerun on Sun. He’s a bone tossed to socons by Fox.

Resist We Much on April 1, 2013 at 7:41 PM</blockquote

we've seen those bones before. they lack marrow.

renalin on April 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Yes, don’t look at objective election data. Nothing to see there.

Brilliant!

jhffmn on April 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Because some people aren’t as big as their egos like to believe and it leads them into thinking they’re speaking for large groups when they’re only speaking for themselves.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 7:59 PM

I what the Huckster says is true, then evangelicals lost twice. They didn’t vote in a Republican because they sat on their hands, and Obama got re-elected because the evangelicals held their heads in their hands.

Think about is for a sec.

john1schn on April 1, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Social Conservatives already have a Saviour. Politics is not where Christians go to be saved.

portlandon on April 1, 2013 at 7:59 PM

I didn’t vote for Mittens because he was too liberal across the board. Nominate yet another liberal to lead the Republican ticket and you’ll lose my vote again.

Liberal Republicans just can’t win elections anyway – so what is the point?

18-1 on April 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM

I’ve got an idea, why don’t all the social con zealots create their own theological party?

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I’ve got an idea, why don’t you go join the Democrats, since the Republicans are all caving on most of the social conservative issues as well as the fiscal ones? May as well associate with folks more to your tastes. The end results will be the same without all the nasty names being called at you–racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, etc. Voting D gets you a pass on everything!

theotherone on April 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM

our sign was stolen…pathetic

cmsinaz on April 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Twerp stole it and put it in her yard. (:

SparkPlug on April 1, 2013 at 8:01 PM

This endless hand-wringing about the 2012 election is useless.

Between 1968 and 1992, as the party of the Vietnam War and social disintegration, the Dems won one election — and that only because of Watergate and the subsequent Ford pardon of Nixon.

And after 2008, with the Iraq misadventure and financial meltdown, the country isn’t going to trust us with the Presidency so soon, nor should it.

I love GWB as a man, but I’m sorry, he was a disaster for future GOP electoral success. And no appeals to Hispanics, “true conservatives,” libertarians, or whatever magic bullet constituency it is this week can change that. Eventually the country will move on, and we’ll be serious contenders again.

bobs1196 on April 1, 2013 at 8:01 PM

The lesser-of-two-evils schtick didn’t work on Obama, and it won’t work on Hillary. Work on finding someone that your base likes.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Well, aren’t you proud. The rest of us? Miserable.

Vince on April 1, 2013 at 8:03 PM

The loss had nothing to do with the SoCons … they vote lock-step with anyone who they think will KEEP government eyes in the bedroom …

The loss had to do with LOSING THE CONSERVATIVE BASE … THE BASE IS TIRED OF THE GOP LYING TO THEM!

IF YOU SAY YOU WILL CUT GOVERNMENT AND THEN DO NOT CUT IT – THEN YOU LOSE CREDIBILITY EVENTUALLY EVEN WITH THOSE WHO MIGHT LIKE YOU.

HondaV65 on April 1, 2013 at 8:03 PM

I was ABR … until he became the nominee .. then I became ABO ….
I voted for Mitt against Obama.
No money, no signage, but I voted for him. because he wasn’t Obama.
would have been nice if after he got the nomination he would have campaigned
against Obama like he wanted to be President. but that is water under the bridge.

conservative tarheel on April 1, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Went through the same scenario as you, felt the same way as well. 2014 is the next hurdle.

theotherone on April 1, 2013 at 8:03 PM

The fact is, if the Republicans keep going the way they’re going, ANYONE who counts themselves a conservative will be staying home or voting for another party in 2016.

catmman on April 1, 2013 at 8:05 PM

I’ve got an idea, why don’t all the social con zealots create their own theological party?

ButterflyDragon on April 1, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Just who are these zealots? Please be specific and define zealot.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Well, aren’t you proud. The rest of us? Miserable.

Vince on April 1, 2013 at 8:03 PM

I am proud of my vote and of my predictions, most certainly. I join with you in your misery about the man currently in office, but the reason I voted for a third party candidate was that I knew his main opponent would be no different.

With Romney defeated, I see the opportunity to have conservatives appointed to SCOTUS if we win in 2016. I saw no such future had Romney won given his gubernatorial record, campaign rhetoric, and advisor selection.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 8:09 PM

we’ve seen those bones before. they lack marrow.

renalin on April 1, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Huck doesn’t take his “marching orders” from Ailes. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

If Huck was Ailes’ special case or something, he would be on Fox more often than the half-dozen liberals that are on everyday. He’s not.

Resist We Much on April 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Social Conservatives already have a Saviour. Politics is not where Christians go to be saved.

portlandon on April 1, 2013 at 7:59 PM

I don’t think he was insinuating that you didn’t.

Let me ask you this: Does Christ expect you just to sit by idly and do nothing because he is your Saviour?

Do the dishes get done by someone or something else because you are saved and are just waiting to go to Heaven or do you actually have to do them yourself in the meantime?

Resist We Much on April 1, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Huckabee supported Akin post meltdown. He is dead to me when it comes to any discussion of faith or the conservative voter.

Happy Nomad on April 1, 2013 at 8:20 PM

he gets a paycheck from ailes. no surprise here.

renalin on April 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Look its Dana Vachon.

RickB on April 1, 2013 at 8:25 PM

God-in-heaven, please spare us the f*cking polls.

It’s not about ‘evangelicals’, it’s about conservatives, and if the GOP keeps foisting ‘moderate’ (also known as Democrat lite) candidates on us, they’re going to continue to need ‘post mortems’ after every election cycle.

It’s quite simple – in the last 4 2-year cycles, the GOP did spectacularly well in ONE of them, not in the others. Spot the difference, it’s not hard – and there is your answer.

If you’re basing your ‘knowledge’ on what pollsters are telling you, well, you’re not very smart.

Midas on April 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM

It is odd that I get told I’m evil for my stance on abortion by these same people who say they won’t vote for GOP candidate who supports SSM. The GOP candidate is going to be pro-life, and the Democratic candidate is going to be more pro-abortion than the status quo. This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

As a footnote, ask yourself who wasn’t at the polls, so didn’t answer the exit polls, hmmm? If conservatives, evangelicals, or Martians weren’t there, what impact would that have had on the exit polling, hmmm?

Midas on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

That seems pretty evil to me.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Well, that’s just because you’re a f*cking moron, as usual.

Midas on April 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM

It is odd that I get told I’m evil for my stance on abortion by these same people who say they won’t vote for GOP candidate who supports SSM. The GOP candidate is going to be pro-life, and the Democratic candidate is going to be more pro-abortion than the status quo. This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Unless of course the GOP candidate supports murdering babies and gay marriage, as evidenced by when he signed $50 abortion into law and was the first governor ever to implement gay marriage, aka Mitt Romney.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m not voting for the lesser of two evils ever again. If the GOP can’t field candidates that don’t support my conservative beliefs then “f” ‘em. I’ll stay home, and if that means the Donks win, who cares? The Donks win either way when a lib is in office.

HiJack on April 1, 2013 at 8:33 PM

It is odd that I get told I’m evil for my stance on abortion by these same people who say they won’t vote for GOP candidate who supports SSM. The GOP candidate is going to be pro-life, and the Democratic candidate is going to be more pro-abortion than the status quo. This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

The only way to fight abortion is via state legislation and the judiciary. The President has little to do with it other than nominating SCOTUS, and as we have seen with Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor and Roberts- the GOP is notorious for nominating losers who love liberal cocktail parties.

melle1228 on April 1, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Unless of course the GOP candidate supports murdering babies and gay marriage, as evidenced by when he signed $50 abortion into law and was the first governor ever to implement gay marriage, aka Mitt Romney.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Gay marriage was ordered by the state Supreme Court. Romney opposed but there was nothing he could do about it.

Are you intentionally trying to mislead people or do you yourself not know any better?

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Gay marriage was ordered by the state Supreme Court. Romney opposed but there was nothing he could do about it.

Are you intentionally trying to mislead people or do you yourself not know any better?

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 8:35 PM

1.) The Court decision actually pertained to the Massachusetts state legislature, not Romney. They commanded that the legislature pass legislation implementing gay marriage.

2.) Romney pre-empted legislative action by directing state officials to hand out marriage licenses.

3.) Although the court may speak on a matter, there is nothing forcing a governor to comply with a court’s decision, particularly when that decision does not pertain to the governor.

4.) Romney ran on a pro-gay rights platform in Massachusetts. Ignoring that and pretending like was dragged along kicking and screaming is intentionally trying to mislead people on your part.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 8:39 PM

If you compare the 2008 vs 2012 presidential vote swing, as outlined in the link below, you can see almost all states firmly moved in the GOP’s direction.

http://tinyurl.com/chu9rj5

I’m of the opinion that the refusal of many conservatives to come out and vote for a Mormon was at the root of the 2012 GOP defeat at the polls…

Jabba The Cat on April 1, 2013 at 8:40 PM

I don’t know about anybody else, but I’m not voting for the lesser of two evils ever again. If the GOP can’t field candidates that don’t support my conservative beliefs then “f” ‘em. I’ll stay home, and if that means the Donks win, who cares? The Donks win either way when a lib is in office.

HiJack on April 1, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Really? We lost on Obamacare but we managed to keep card check at bay even when the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority. We held the line on cap and trade long enough to get the lie exposed. They’ve almost managed to not lose on gun control thus far. Would you rather the left got what they wanted on those issues as well?

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Huckabee is correct about the numbers.

In 2012, according to the Fox News exit poll linked above, 126,838,980 people voted, and 26 percent of that electorate was white evangelical/born again Christian. That’s 32,978,134 voters.

Screw 2004. Look at the 2008 numbers linked at the same Fox News poll. 129,446,839 people voted in that election and the number of white evangelical/born again Christians was again 26 percent. That’s 33,656,178 voters. 678,044 white evangelical/born again Christian’s stayed home from 2008 to 2012.

Overall, 2,607,859 voters stayed home from 2008 to 2012. That’s what the GOP is looking at. Most of those folks were probably moderates who were disillusioned by Obama, but believed Romney was too conservative for them.

Romney spent most of the election cycle blatantly pandering to So-Cons, yet a big chunk of that vote abandoned him. He could have moderated earlier, dropping a few more So-Cons in the process, but picking up enough in the middle to win.

Huckabee gets it wrong with his conclusion. Despite record high So-Con turnout from 2004-2008, McCain took a brutal beating. Then, despite Romney doing everything he could to please the base, they abandoned him in 2012, and the GOP lost again. The base can’t win elections anymore; it is no longer the decider.

Had the So-Cons managed to push Romney over the top, the GOP would be paying attention. On the other hand, no one cares if you withhold your vote because you don’t like the candidate. By showing your “power” by refusing to play ball, not even voting for the other guy to help him succeed, you show weakness, not strength. Politics is played to win. You don’t want to play anymore, the captain will look for a player who does. You get left at home.

Mr. Arkadin on April 1, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Huckabee is a social conservative, but alas he is NOT a fiscal conservative. He may not realize it but he is part of the establishment when it comes to spending cash we don’t have.

He also sucks at picking people for higher office which is only equaled by his ability to pick people who should be let out of prison early.

Huckabee is like a Social Conservative version of Karl Rove.

William Eaton on April 1, 2013 at 8:48 PM

It is odd that I get told I’m evil for my stance on abortion by these same people who say they won’t vote for GOP candidate who supports SSM. The GOP candidate is going to be pro-life, and the Democratic candidate is going to be more pro-abortion than the status quo. This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Straw once again. You’re still a joke and yes you are evil.

Must be sad to dehumanize yourself with each sex act.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 8:52 PM

So it is that you don’t know any better! Good, I hate calling people liars.

1.) The Court decision actually pertained to the Massachusetts state legislature, not Romney. They commanded that the legislature pass legislation implementing gay marriage.

The court left it to the legislature to decide what to do but said that granting marriage licenses to heterosexuals couples while denying them to homosexual couples was unconstitutional. The legislature was left to address that however they saw fit (so the elected representatives of the people got to decide what to do) but the status quo wasn’t an option.

2.) Romney pre-empted legislative action by directing state officials to hand out marriage licenses.

Should the marriage law have been struck down instead? The legislature had 180 days to act and Mitt moved on the last day because the legislature failed to do so.

3.) Although the court may speak on a matter, there is nothing forcing a governor to comply with a court’s decision, particularly when that decision does not pertain to the governor.

I can hear the echoes of Andrew Jackson cheering you on.

4.) Romney ran on a pro-gay rights platform in Massachusetts. Ignoring that and pretending like was dragged along kicking and screaming is intentionally trying to mislead people on your part.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I remember the flyer that the campaign disavowed but that’s about it. What statements in his platform are you referring to here?

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 8:53 PM

The court left it to the legislature to decide what to do but said that granting marriage licenses to heterosexuals couples while denying them to homosexual couples was unconstitutional. The legislature was left to address that however they saw fit (so the elected representatives of the people got to decide what to do) but the status quo wasn’t an option.

Precisely. The legislature, which Romney was not a part of, was tasked with that.

Should the marriage law have been struck down instead? The legislature had 180 days to act and Mitt moved on the last day because the legislature failed to do so.

To answer your question: yes. If the judiciary wants to act like tyrants, you should make them do their own dirty work, not enable them.

I can hear the echoes of Andrew Jackson cheering you on.

Although I didn’t like that president on substance, I certainly admire him for being the only one to tell the court that they had made their decision, and then dared them to see if they could enforce it. The judiciary is one of three supposedly co-equal branches of government. That does not mean they get to act as the be-all, end-all of every major decision.

I remember the flyer that the campaign disavowed but that’s about it. What statements in his platform are you referring to here?

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Romney’s record on homosexuality can be found here. Look to the right-hand column for articles dating further back towards his gubernatorial record. Immediately preceding it is the background on gay marriage in MA.

Also interesting is this letter to the Log Cabin Republicans he wrote when running for senate in 1994. Romney’s dream of openly serving homosexuals in the military has finally been achieved by the very man he ran against for president.

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

It is odd that I get told I’m evil for my stance on abortion by these same people who say they won’t vote for GOP candidate who supports SSM. The GOP candidate is going to be pro-life, and the Democratic candidate is going to be more pro-abortion than the status quo. This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Straw once again. You’re still a joke and yes you are evil.

Must be sad to dehumanize yourself with each sex act.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Dude, the term “straw man argument” has a definition. It does just mean an argument you don’t like. Here’s a link to the wikipedia on straw man argument. Feel free to explain how my argument is a straw man argument.

In terms of your endearing habit of saying it is sad for me to dehumanize myself with each sex act, you may wish to ponder for a second why your side is losing the culture wars. And by the way, you don’t even know if I’m celibate on not.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 9:13 PM

The loss had nothing to do with the SoCons … they vote lock-step with anyone who they think will KEEP government eyes in the bedroom …

The loss had to do with LOSING THE CONSERVATIVE BASE … THE BASE IS TIRED OF THE GOP LYING TO THEM!

IF YOU SAY YOU WILL CUT GOVERNMENT AND THEN DO NOT CUT IT – THEN YOU LOSE CREDIBILITY EVENTUALLY EVEN WITH THOSE WHO MIGHT LIKE YOU.

HondaV65 on April 1, 2013 at 8:03 PM

You mean like people who say they are conservatives and then go out and vote for Obama?? Those people?

Hey Obama voter! You having fun yet?

kim roy on April 1, 2013 at 9:17 PM

We lost on Obamacare but we managed to keep card check at bay even when the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority. We held the line on cap and trade long enough to get the lie exposed. They’ve almost managed to not lose on gun control thus far. Would you rather the left got what they wanted on those issues as well?

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Those are all good points, but they are directed at what conservatives in Congress was able to do. I meant to direct my comment to the presidential election, but it still applies to congressional/senate seats. Either field a conservative or pound dirt for all I care, and the accomplishments that you listed were possible by having conservative people representing us. Otherwise, you would have been a writing a “what if” reply. Point taken.

HiJack on April 1, 2013 at 9:22 PM

This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

LOL, no that’s not a strawman argument *at all*… you might want to perhaps *read* the definition of something if you’re going to *use* the definition of something as an argument, m’kay?

Midas on April 1, 2013 at 9:29 PM

first, i am very dubious of exit polls. Second, i don’t see any methodology on the Fox polls. the only relevant question is the number of evangelicals in the population vs. the turnout

the estimates for the US pop are highly variable. 26 or so is probably a decent number…I don’t think there’s an overwhelming unseen movement out there

The important point in the Fox poll is that this was something of a base election. And guess what.

Barry’s base will crawl over glass to vote for him. On many questions there is a striking polarity in the lib-o-sphere…obama wins HUGE over mitt. But if it is mitts area…he wins maybe by 20

the young, under-50K, single-issue voters were FIRED UP. Is there hope? Maybe a little for the young voters…maybe. But the lower income will always be left…and with all the benes, they will now always be FIRED UP.

Let’s hope that young people sober up pretty fast

r keller on April 1, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Really? We lost on Obamacare but we managed to keep card check at bay even when the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority. We held the line on cap and trade long enough to get the lie exposed. They’ve almost managed to not lose on gun control thus far. Would you rather the left got what they wanted on those issues as well?

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Sorry. That smells too much of the Obama Party’s argument “they want to put y’all back in chains”, and frankly, we’re not that stupid.

Sit out one or two more election cycles, and you and your fellow gay-sex liberals masquerading as Republicans will lose, lose big, and be completely and totally discredited.

And after two more tries at Obama rule, we will be looking at a repeat of 1979, with the house burning around the Obama Party’s ears and these “young people” who put gay-sex marriage as their primary concern starving to death when they’re not crushed by taxes.

Evangelicals and conservatives are smart, and we know how to save, put away, and protect our families. Obama supporters don’t, and they’re just about to find out the full consequences of that.

So there’s no need to compromise on principles. You and yours will be destroyed in two more election cycles, and Barack Obama will completely destroy and discredit liberalism.

Then people may be interested in families, business, sensible tax law, and morality again.

northdallasthirty on April 1, 2013 at 9:31 PM

LOL, no that’s not a strawman argument *at all*… you might want to perhaps *read* the definition of something if you’re going to *use* the definition of something as an argument, m’kay?

Midas on April 1, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Ok, so you want to focus on my saying “spiting gay people”. It was a minor part of what I said, but I guess you would to focus on it rather actual deal with the issue I was pointing out. Therefore I completely take it back. Where I wrote “spiting gay people”, please instead read “supporting traditional marriage.” And now reply to my argument, without side issues. Who cares if misspelled a word or something?

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 9:43 PM

McCain and Romney are not Moderates … they are Socialists/Liberals. ‘W’ was probably a moderate. ‘W’ is as far left as I’ll ever go again. Forget the McCains and Romneys … might as well go for the Hillaries or even Obama.

Karmi on April 1, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 1, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Condemning what you view as judicial tyranny out of one side of your mouth while praising executive tyranny out of the other is something I’ll leave it for everyone else to judge on their own.

You choose to highlight Romney’s view that DADT should have been repealed and openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military? We’ve since crossed that bridge and last I checked the US military is the still working just fine so Romney’s position was the right one.

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 9:46 PM

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Straw.

This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.
thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position

C: We should give children ice cream after every school day.
D: That would be rather bad for their health.
C: Do you want our children to starve?


Yes you are spinning straw.

Too easy.

Oh and you and I know you are not celibate.

It does not surprise me that someone that does unnatural acts would dehumanize the unborn.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 9:46 PM

Ok, so you want to focus on my saying “spiting gay people”.
thuja on April 1, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Hmmm so now you admit it.

Seriously laughable.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Nothing like using a DB’s own BS to hang them.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 9:54 PM

northdallasthirty on April 1, 2013 at 9:31 PM

You know, nd30, you’re silly and you’re ignorant but in spite of it all you’ve kind of grown on me and I would almost go so far as to say I like you. It’s my honest hope that once the gay marriage debate is behind us, when gay marriage is shown to be harmless and no one makes churches do anything they don’t want to do and we all lighten up a bit then maybe, just maybe, you’ll meet someone special who makes you feel all good inside and happy and who you want to spend the rest of your life with. Then maybe you will get gay-sex married and then on your wedding night just for a moment (but not too long because that would weird me out) you’ll think back and remember our discussions and what a huge problem you once thought all this was going to be. Wherever and whenever that is, I want you to know that I’ll be happy for you. :-)

alchemist19 on April 1, 2013 at 9:57 PM

This means that the social cons are willing in their own words “to let babies be murdered” to spite gay people. That seems pretty evil to me.
thuja on April 1, 2013 at 8:28 PM

is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position

C: We should give children ice cream after every school day.
D: That would be rather bad for their health.
C: Do you want our children to starve?

Yes you are spinning straw.

Too easy.

Oh and you and I know you are not celibate.

It does not surprise me that someone that does unnatural acts would dehumanize the unborn.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 9:46 PM

I have already said on this thread that I take back “spiting gay people”, and now please instead read “supporting traditional marriage.” My honest opinion is that “spiting gay people” is accurate, but it seems to be a distraction from my point, so let’s just bury for the sake of argument.

With that said, you are simply wrong in describing my argument as a straw man. If by sitting out the 2016 election, you help elect a Democrat president, you will be contributing to the “murder of babies” to support traditional marriage. There is no straw man here. How do you justify that?

And I point out once again that you know nothing about my sex life. How can you know I am not celibate?

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Yeh Thuja just what I thought.

Oh and yes if you support the deliberate killing of unborn humans …….that is evil. If you cannot even stand up to the murder of born babies…..that is evil.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM

With that said, you are simply wrong in describing my argument as a straw man

You distorted the argument of the anti SSM crowd. You admitted it.

Read the link you provided and I even snipped it for you. Not real hard.

And you are not celibate.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:04 PM

I have already said on this thread that I take back “spiting gay people”, ….
With that said, you are simply wrong in describing my argument as a straw man

Dimwit , you did not take it back until after you claimed I was wrong about the strawman charge. So ES.

Now I dare you to claim you’re celibate right here. Go ahead. You know the lie will come back to haunt. That is why you have danced.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Yeh Thuja just what I thought.

Oh and yes if you support the deliberate killing of unborn humans …….that is evil. If you cannot even stand up to the murder of born babies…..that is evil.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM

This is such a weird non-sequitor of a response to me, that I can only assume that you have no moral defence of attempting to throw the election to the Democrats to punish the GOP for a gay friendly candidate in 2016–even if it means an abortion friendly Democrat wins.

You social cons are like children taking a temper tantrum. You certainly aren’t the “salt of the earth” that your scripture describes you as.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM

You social cons are like children taking a temper tantrum. You certainly aren’t the “salt of the earth” that your scripture describes you as.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Someone give this baby his pacifier.

MelonCollie on April 1, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Now I dare you to claim you’re celibate right here. Go ahead. You know the lie will come back to haunt. That is why you have danced.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM

I have never posted such intimate details of my life here or on Facebook. It’s not exactly like I am anonymous here. There are even social cons from here who are my Facebook friends. I am not going to say anything beyond that I have led a life of sexual restraint.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM

I have never posted such intimate details of my life here or on Facebook. It’s not exactly like I am anonymous here. There are even social cons from here who are my Facebook friends. I am not going to say anything beyond that I have led a life of sexual restraint.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM

So in other words you’re not celibate.

So in other words you avoided the fact that I proved you wrong about my claim that you used a straw man.

And in other words (in regards to my comments about evil) you would rather avoid the reality of your position. Yes you are evil.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:19 PM

You social cons are like children taking a temper tantrum. You certainly aren’t the “salt of the earth” that your scripture describes you as.

thuja on April 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM

What scripture is that? Do tell? You seem to be selling more of that straw. you never fail.

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Say thuja why did you try to imply that you were celibate when you were not? Is dishonesty all you know?

CW on April 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3