NationStates Jolt Archive

Back in 1980 and 1984, the US saw the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon, with substantial numbers of Democrats defecting to the GOP.

With the current leaders and candidates of the GOP, and Obama showing increasing popularity with the rank and file of the GOP, will we see the reverse phenomenon this year - the Obama Republicans helping to elect a Democrat?

Party lines really don't mean much. If somebody didn't use charisma as a dump stat, then anyone will like them eventually. Especially if they keep rolling natural 20s...

That's it, hand over your lunch money...

Party lines really don't mean much. If somebody didn't use charisma as a dump stat, then anyone will like them eventually. Especially if they keep rolling natural 20s...

I've never even heard of Obama Republicans. I've only heard of Paul Democrats.

depending on who gets the republican nomination--or maybe not since they are such a sad group of men--i can see lots of republicans defecting the party to vote for the democratic candidate. more so for obama than clinton.

I've never even heard of Obama Republicans. I've only heard of Paul Democrats.

If you are a democrat and support Ron Paul, then you are not a democrat.

No, this is the year for Third Parties! Finally people will get off of their lazy asses and realize that the Democrats and Republican both suck and that they should vote Third Party!

I wish....

I've never even heard of Obama Republicans. I've only heard of Paul Democrats.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece
http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007/09/the-obama-repub.html


depending on who gets the republican nomination--or maybe not since they are such a sad group of men--i can see lots of republicans defecting the party to vote for the democratic candidate. more so for obama than clinton.

Indeed. This year's GOP slate reminds me of 1988 - "Gary Hart and the Seven Dwarves". Except for the GOP in 2008, there's no Gary Hart - it's just the seven dwarves...

Click Stand]If you are a democrat and support Ron Paul, then you are not a democrat.


No true Scotsman... (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots)

No true Scotsman... (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#scots)

What I was saying was that his policies are far away enough from democrat that if you vote for him, there is no way you could be a democrat. You can say you are a democrat and voting for him, but that would mean you disagree with all of the key principles of the party.

Obama I can understand since he is at least somewhat in the center, but Paul is not even close.

That's it, hand over your lunch money...

Hang on a sec, let me make my persuade roll to see if I can convince you otherwise.

... Hm. Damn, rolled a 1. FLEE!

Click Stand]What I was saying was that his policies are far away enough from democrat that if you vote for him, there is no way you could be a democrat. You can say you are a democrat and voting for him, but that would mean you disagree with all of the key principles of the party.

Obama I can understand since he is at least somewhat in the center, but Paul is not even close.

You still fall foul of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I know quite a few lifelong Dems who would vote for Paul over Hillary, for example.

No, this is the year for Third Parties! Finally people will get off of their lazy asses and realize that the Democrats and Republican both suck and that they should vote Third Party!

I wish....

I fully agree. I wonder what the third party will be called and who will run.

Click Stand;13336554']What I was saying was that his policies are far away enough from democrat that if you vote for him, there is no way you could be a democrat. You can say you are a democrat and voting for him, but that would mean you disagree with all of the key principles of the party.

Obama I can understand since he is at least somewhat in the center, but Paul is not even close.

Either you are not familiar with the "key principles" of the Democratic party or you are unfamiliar with Ron Pauls's platform. Many of his ideas fit quite well into the Democratic philosophy.

If Obama plays his cards right, he may be able to draw off some of the soical conservative vote should Rudy win the primary, though Rudy will also probably draw off some democrat votes especially in inner city areas with his record as an urban reformer. If Paul takes the primary, the pro-war right (which is still a very decent contigent of the Republican party) will defect, though probably not to Obama. And if Huckabee wins the primary, the economic right, especially out west, will almost certainly go for a thrid party candidate, though I can't tell who, unless Obama decides to play his free-trade card, in which case, once again, he will receive defectees.

And if anyone except Paul wins the primary, the very strongly anti-war right (smaller contingency but definitely there) will likely defect in some numbers to Obama.

So yes, there will definitely be defection, and a considerable amount of it will be to the democrats, though depending upon who takes the cake, there may be some defection in the reverse direction as polling averages seem to be indicating.

If Obama plays his cards right, he may be able to draw off some of the soical conservative vote should Rudy win the primary, though Rudy will also probably draw off some democrat votes especially in inner city areas with his record as an urban reformer. If Paul takes the primary, the pro-war right (which is still a very decent contigent of the Republican party) will defect, though probably not to Obama. And if Huckabee wins the primary, the economic right, especially out west, will almost certainly go for a thrid party candidate, though I can't tell who, unless Obama decides to play his free-trade card, in which case, once again, he will receive defectees.

And if anyone except Paul wins the primary, the very strongly anti-war right (smaller contingency but definitely there) will likely defect in some numbers to Obama.

So which primary are u talking about here? the New Hampshire or Iowa primary? (or other?)

I fully agree. I wonder what the third party will be called and who will run.

he or she better get on the stick and announce.

none of the current 3rd parties are strong enough or sane enough to win.

i suppose that a charismatic person with great policies could come forward and charm the public but it takes a huge amount of organizing to get on the ballot in all 50 states

I'm voting the Zod/Luthor ticket.

Well, 2008 is the Year of the Rat.

I fully agree. I wonder what the third party will be called and who will run.

he or she better get on the stick and announce.

none of the current 3rd parties are strong enough or sane enough to win.

i suppose that a charismatic person with great policies could come forward and charm the public but it takes a huge amount of organizing to get on the ballot in all 50 states

Mike Bloomberg and maybe Sam Nunn have been nosing around it - those are the only two who could pull it off right now...

Either you are not familiar with the "key principles" of the Democratic party or you are unfamiliar with Ron Pauls's platform. Many of his ideas fit quite well into the Democratic philosophy.

To oversimplify things a great deal: He wants a very small federal government with a large amount of state power, Dems want the opposite. I could go into a deeper analysis, but I think that is accurate enough.

You still fall foul of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I know quite a few lifelong Dems who would vote for Paul over Hillary, for example.

I thought that fallacy required a prior statement and then revision of said statement. At least that's the way I always understood it.

Maybe? Hopefully...or Edwards might pull it off also...or the two of them on a joint-ticket.

Either you are not familiar with the "key principles" of the Democratic party or you are unfamiliar with Ron Pauls's platform. Many of his ideas fit quite well into the Democratic philosophy.

That may be in part because many Republican ideas fit quite well in to the Democratic philosophy until you realize who votes Democrat and that those people would be unlikely, in most cases, to support said idea in current form. Actually, I doubt he'll get much support from the left because he choose to be for banning abortion, thus excluding the one major group of liberals (West Coast Populists, not to be confused with the environmentalist group) who might otherwise vote for somebody like him.

Click Stand]I thought that fallacy required a prior statement and then revision of said statement. At least that's the way I always understood it.

It's an assumed implicit in this case.

(No Democrat would vote for a Republican.)
Some Dems. will vote for Dr. Paul.
Then they aren't really Dems.

As Celtlund II pointed out, there are congruances. I am willing to bet if the race were Hillary vs Paul, you'd see a goodly chunk of the anti-war crowd go for Paul or a third party.

Maybe? Hopefully...or Edwards might pull it off also...or the two of them on a joint-ticket.

An Obama/Edwards ticket would be very smart. At the moment, they're spliting the ABC vote.

... Hm. Damn, rolled a 1. FLEE!
Nope, Mishap now. You've managed to successfully dissuade people who otherwise weren't involved in the first place.

Either you are not familiar with the "key principles" of the Democratic party or you are unfamiliar with Ron Pauls's platform. Many of his ideas fit quite well into the Democratic philosophy.

Which part, exactly?

Click Stand;13336491']If you are a democrat and support Ron Paul, then you are not a democrat.
Amen. Paul's anti-war credentials are just about the only part of his views that fall in line with the Democratic party line. Paul favors pure capitalism in every aspect of society (though he recognizes the implausibility of immediately disbanding programs like Social Security), and believes that the market is the key to solving virtually every national ill. Furthermore, he favors a state and locally-based approach to almost everything. Meanwhile, the Democrats continually propose federally-based, government-sponsored programs to make up for capitalism's ills, and believe that the market cannot be trusted to provide for certain necessities, such as healthcare and education. Paul's platform and the Democrats' views are about as diametrically opposed in mainstream U.S. politics as you can possibly get.

Anyway, Obama has universal appeal in his calls for bipartisanship and his pragmatic, compassionate approach to solving national problems. I live in a town compromised mostly of staunch Republicans, and among these individuals I have been surprised to meet people who favor Obama. If a town as conservative as mine has this phemonenon, surely it must be occurring elsewhere in the country.

Amen. Paul's anti-war credentials are just about the only part of his views that fall in line with the Democratic party line. Paul favors pure capitalism in every aspect of society (though he recognizes the implausibility of immediately disbanding programs like Social Security), and believes that the market is the key to solving virtually every national ill. Furthermore, he favors a state and locally-based approach to almost everything. Meanwhile, the Democrats continually propose federally-based, government-sponsored programs to make up for capitalism's ills, and believe that the market cannot be trusted to provide for certain necessities, such as healthcare and education. Paul's platform and the Democrats' views are about as diametrically opposed in mainstream U.S. politics as you can possibly get.


Not to mention Paul's authoritarian stances on abortion, privacy, and religion - wanting to remove individual liberty and give states more authority in these areas than any level of government currently has - and his anti-equality stances. These things are at odds with, if not diametrically opposed to, the Democratic party stances.

Not to mention Paul's authoritarian stances on abortion, privacy, and religion - wanting to remove individual liberty and give states more authority in these areas than any level of government currently has - and his anti-equality stances. These things are at odds with, if not diametrically opposed to, the Democratic party stances.

Yeah, I agree. To be honest with you, Giuliani would probably be the closest to a true libertarian candidate, and even he's a ways off.

I hope to God not.
I can't stand republicans, but Democrats are worse. And to have Republicans giving their vote to Obama?(Shiver)

I hope to God not.
I can't stand republicans, but Democrats are worse. And to have Republicans giving their vote to Obama?(Shiver)

I know, people crossing party lines to vote who they think is the best candidate, that would require forethought put into decision making.(Seizure)

And to have Republicans giving their vote to Obama?(Shiver)

Kinky, eh?

I know, people crossing party lines to vote who they think is the best candidate, that would require forethought put into decision making.(Seizure)
Hardy har har... Nah I'm just saying that I wouldn't want them because I rather have a Republican as President then a Democrat. Besides, deep down everyone knows Libertarian is the best party, their just to stubborn to admit it:D

Hardy har har... Nah I'm just saying that I wouldn't want them because I rather have a Republican as President then a Democrat. Besides, deep down everyone knows Libertarian is the best party, their just to stubborn to admit it:D

oh, I thought you meant something else entirely, sorry.

BTW, Green is the best party and everyone knows it's true in their hearts and souls.;)

RP is a racist, nuff said.

To be honest with you, Giuliani would probably be the closest to a true libertarian candidate, and even he's a ways off.

understatement of the primary season thus far?

You still fall foul of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I know quite a few lifelong Dems who would vote for Paul over Hillary, for example.

Isn't that a bit like saying a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ is still a Christian by definition?
I think you're dragging the No True Scotsman argument a little too far here..