[The Final Dakar]

Wanted to make this yesterday but was too lazy to log on. A one-stop shop for results, predictions, and probably news for people not named Trump.

I'll kick off the punditry by saying the big winner of Iowa in Rubio – the consensus establishment pick since fall, he faded to from media attention with the rise of Cruz. But with voters backing off Trump in Iowa, I think he gains both credibility and a little momentum going into New Hampshire. Can this be enough to sneak him past Cruz for second in NH? As previously noted, the GOP Top 2 in NH has predicted the eventual nominee since 1980, so I rise there would give Rubio big credibility. On the other hand, a 1-2 in Iowa-NH for Cruz would give him serious legitimacy (Sorry, Iowa).

Crazy proposition: A Trump collapse in NH followed by Rubio and Cruz snagging the top two positions.

---

On the flip side, Bernie's near win in Iowa is simultaneously heartening and crushing. The Good: Unlike Trump, Bernie's new voters actually showed up. The Bad: Iowa was one of the more favorable states for Bernie (i.e., white as hell). There's only two states that appear easier to for him to win: New Hampshire and Vermont.



All Hillary has to do now is weather a loss in New Hampshire that isn't worse than what the polling indicates.

[subego]

Identity is multiplicative?

The moar you know.

[The Final Dakar]

[BadKosh]

Down. Goes. Paul.
Down. Goes. Huckabee.

[subego]

So, what's the deal with Jeb?

How much of his disastrous showing is due to his brother killing the brand, and how much is everything else?

[BadKosh]

I think he was unable to excite ANYBODY. All I ever heard was pink noise......

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Jeb! is tapioca pudding. I suppose it's okay, but get "excited" over it? Bleh.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, what's the deal with Jeb?

How much of his disastrous showing is due to his brother killing the brand, and how much is everything else?

As I said, he has no charisma. But if the last debate is any indication, Trump really does own him. Bush was graded fairly well (Top 3?) in that debate and I don't think it's a coincidence this happened while Trump was MIA.

Its funny, I read an email response from him today to a journalist asking him if he wore the same sweater a few days in a row, and it was kind of witty and charming. And all I could think is if I saw him deliver it in person, it likely would have been neither. I think he might be the secretly funny bookworm.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Jeb! is tapioca pudding. I suppose it's okay, but get "excited" over it? Bleh.

Tapioca pudding is revolting. That's Ted Cruz. Jeb is vanilla. Trump is vanilla with every topping available thrown on top, a lá a five year-old girl.

[subego]

I'm not denying Jeb has failed to ignite, but I feel this has caught everyone flat-footed. I imagine the people who gave him a bajillion dollars are wondering what the **** happened.

I mean, he's not some guy they picked because they loves them some Bush. He is a career politician... as in, something of a known quantity. He's run, like, whole states, right?

[P]

Santorum drops out and decides to support Rubio. Interesting. Is he angling for the VP slot? Because that makes a lot of sense from an electability standpoint.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not denying Jeb has failed to ignite, but I feel this has caught everyone flat-footed. I imagine the people who gave him a bajillion dollars are wondering what the **** happened.

I mean, he's not some guy they picked because they loves them some Bush. He is a career politician... as in, something of a known quantity. He's run, like, whole states, right?

I imagine those donations were solicited by the typical GOP handlers. They vouch for Bush, and the floodgates open.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by P 

Santorum drops out and decides to support Rubio. Interesting. Is he angling for the VP slot? Because that makes a lot of sense from an electability standpoint.

Good question. I dunno. He's not helping though, as he got stumped by Scaraborough with the question "what's rubios biggest accomplishment?"

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Okay, I ran my pluses and minuses spreadsheet (I hadn't done that in a while), updated the weighting for each category, and have my candidate rankings.

1. Rubio (by a decent margin)
2. Sanders (by a whisker)
3. Cruz
4. Whoever is on the Libertarian ticket (protest vote)
5. Clinton
6. Trump

Since I believe Rubio will get the nomination, I think it'll be Rubio vs Clinton w/ Rubio beating her by a fairly comfortable margin.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Okay, I ran my pluses and minuses spreadsheet (I hadn't done that in a while), updated the weighting for each category, and have my candidate rankings.

1. Rubio (by a decent margin)

For someone who claims to have a libertarian bent, or at least be a social liberal, I find it odd that his stances on same sex marriage, abortion, and drugs policies don't trouble
you.

Position wise, Rubio is as fundamentalist as Cruz or Santoruim. He is a tea party darling that just happens to be young, relatively well spoken, and photogenic. His only flirtation with the less conservative wing of the party was his since abandoned stance on immigration. If it weren't for Cruz and Trump, he would definitely be viewed as a wing-nut.

He is considered 'establishment' only because he seems electable. It baffles me that anyone who claims to have any liberal leanings whatsoever could even consider supporting him, let alone rank him as #1.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Okay, I ran my pluses and minuses spreadsheet (I hadn't done that in a while), updated the weighting for each category, and have my candidate rankings.

1. Rubio (by a decent margin)
2. Sanders (by a whisker)
3. Cruz
4. Whoever is on the Libertarian ticket (protest vote)
5. Clinton
6. Trump

Since I believe Rubio will get the nomination, I think it'll be Rubio vs Clinton w/ Rubio beating her by a fairly comfortable margin.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

For someone who claims to have a libertarian bent, or at least be a social liberal, I find it odd that his stances on same sex marriage, abortion, and drugs policies don't trouble you.

Don't feel bad, a lot of independents will choose Rubio, and not just out of hate for the Hildebeast (though that's entirely warranted).

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

sour puss

[P]

At some point we need to consolidate these threads...

Anyway: I think that Rubio is the best bet the GOP has, but I don't think that it is a done deal against Clinton. He is rather conservative, and as soon as his positions are more well known, that will scare the Bernie supporters to come out for Clinton, drive left-leaning independents to the Dems, and we have a very traditional Jesusland EC map just like 2000 or 2004, with the states along the dividing line being the battlegrounds.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Okay, I ran my pluses and minuses spreadsheet (I hadn't done that in a while), updated the weighting for each category, and have my candidate rankings.

1. Rubio (by a decent margin)
2. Sanders (by a whisker)
3. Cruz
4. Whoever is on the Libertarian ticket (protest vote)
5. Clinton
6. Trump

Since I believe Rubio will get the nomination, I think it'll be Rubio vs Clinton w/ Rubio beating her by a fairly comfortable margin.

What gets weighed as most important?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Don't feel bad, a lot of independents will choose Rubio, and not just out of hate for the Hildebeast (though that's entirely warranted).

It's possible, the general public does all kinds of things for odd reasons, but I'm fairly confident that should Rubio go on to win the nomination, the main stream media will drop the narrative that Rubio is the moderate, establishment candidate and start to focus on the reality that he is on the far right of the national party. His positions on social issues are indistinguishable from Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum.

If Rubio is your guy, good on you, but perhaps it's time to admit to yourself that you really are a right-winger and stop pretending that you are middle of the road, much less left leaning, on social issues. I could understand a fiscal conservative/social liberal supporting Christie or Kasich. While both of them are more conservative socially than you claim to be, they are nowhere near Rubio.

And for the record, I will almost certainly vote for whomever the democratic candidate ends up being, but I will not necessarily be happy about it. My dream scenario is that Hillary has to drop out and Biden steps in and ends up on the ticket.

Not going to happen though.

[subego]

[Sorta related to Cap'n Tightpants' rankings]

I feel my vote in the general has no value unless it's for a third party.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like it has a lot of value this way, but at least there's going to be a direct correlation between the number of votes a third party gets and how seriously they're taken.

When it comes to the mainstream candidates, my state is solid blue. Other than getting to say "I voted for such and such", I don't see the point of voting for either of them.

As an aside, that whole getting to say "I voted for such and such" thing? Regretted it every ****ing time.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by P 

At some point we need to consolidate these threads...

Anyway: I think that Rubio is the best bet the GOP has, but I don't think that it is a done deal against Clinton. He is rather conservative, and as soon as his positions are more well known, that will scare the Bernie supporters to come out for Clinton, drive left-leaning independents to the Dems, and we have a very traditional Jesusland EC map just like 2000 or 2004, with the states along the dividing line being the battlegrounds.

This, but the country has moved to the left socially since 2004. An anti-gay marriage, no abortion for rape and incest (and up until recently, no exemption for life of the mother) candidate is going to struggle even harder.

I also don't think he's going to do particularly well with the hispanic vote- though no doubt some will vote for him just to see a latino in the White House. It's a bit like expecting Alan Keys to capture the black vote. Or Sarah Palin the female vote. Or Jimmy Carter the redneck vote. His positions on key issues do not line up.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

It's possible, the general public does all kinds of things for odd reasons, but I'm fairly confident that should Rubio go on to win the nomination, the main stream media will drop the narrative that Rubio is the moderate, establishment candidate and start to focus on the reality that he is on the far right of the national party.

I've already seen that bullshit start, I even talked about it with Justin Robert Young last night. Left wing media will lie and paint him as a nazi as soon as the general election starts. Look what they did to Romney, and he was a moderate Republican from Massachusetts, for ****'s sake. Rubio is as "far Right" as Clinton is Far left, which is to say, not at all.

His positions on social issues are indistinguishable from Cruz, Huckabee and Santorum.

That's absurd. Let's start by looking at his stance on immigration... Gee, that's not anything like Cruz, is it?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've already seen that bullshit start, I even talked about it with Justin Robert Young last night. Left wing media will lie and paint him as a nazi as soon as the general election starts. Look what they did to Romney, and he was a moderate Republican from Massachusetts, for ****'s sake. Rubio is as "far Right" as Clinton is Far left, which is to say, not at all.



That's absurd. Let's start by looking at his stance on immigration... Gee, that's not anything like Cruz, is it?

Ok, if you want to call classify Immigration as a social issue, Rubio is slightly to the left of Cruz.

Issues they agree on?

Gay marriage
Abortion
"Equal Opportunity"
The God stuff (prayer in schools, war on Christmas, etc)
Tough on crime (locking up punishment rather than rehabilitation)
"School Choice" vouchers
War on drugs (actually, Cruz is slightly more liberal on this)

Yeah, he's a centrist.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've already seen that bullshit start, I even talked about it with Justin Robert Young last night. Left wing media will lie and paint him as a nazi as soon as the general election starts. Look what they did to Romney, and he was a moderate Republican from Massachusetts, for ****'s sake. Rubio is as "far Right" as Clinton is Far left, which is to say, not at all.

You just kind of restated my point. Rubio is getting it easy from the media because he is less abhorrent than Trump or Cruz. That will go away.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

even talked about it with Justin Robert Young

I have no idea who this is. Am I meant to be impressed?

[subego]

Well, I'm impressed.

Other than immigration, Rubio seems party line. Pro-life, Pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, anti-pothead.

Romney was the same, no?

I disagree, at least philosophically, with three of those four, but I've been doing that for as long as I can remember.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Gay marriage
Abortion
"Equal Opportunity"
The God stuff (prayer in schools, war on Christmas, etc)
Tough on crime (locking up punishment rather than rehabilitation)
"School Choice" vouchers
War on drugs (actually, Cruz is slightly more liberal on this)

Yeah, he's a centrist.

How the **** is immigration NOT a "social issue"?

Gay marriage? He believes in gay civil unions, Cruz doesn't.
Abortion? As a state legislator he twice supported legislation protecting abortion when the mother's life is in danger. Cruz? No.
Equal opportunity? WTF does that even mean? Equality under the law? All of them agree with that, but I'm sure you mean equality of opportunity, which is complete bullshit. Forcing a "level" playing field only leads to new forms of discrimination.
The God stuff? You mean like how Obama says he starts every day in the Oval Office with prayer? Rubio has never said he wants to reinstitute prayer in schools, nor has he mentioned the "war on Christmas, not like Cruz has. Likely because he's Catholic, not an Evangelical, like Cruz. (The differences in "religiosity" is night and day.)
Tough on crime? The only thing he's mentioned is mandatory federal sentencing, but then, so did Clinton.
"School Choice" vouchers? You got one! They both support vouchers.
War on drugs? Rubio supports medical MJ, Cruz doesn't (but Cruz ultimately believes it's up to the states to decide regarding its recreational use). Pretty much a draw between them.

He's no Goldwater, but yeah, Rubio is a moderate Republican.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

How the **** is immigration NOT a "social issue"?

First off I conceded, because clearly it's got a 'social' aspect to it. But in my experience, it tends to fall under the 'domestic' or 'economic' banner. Social issues tend to those that are more pinned to morality. But immigration, like many issues, span multiple categories.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Gay marriage? He believes in gay civil unions, Cruz doesn't.

No he doesn't. He supported Florida Definition of Marriage, Amendment 2 (2008), which banned gay marriage and civil unions.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Abortion? As a state legislator he twice supported legislation protecting abortion when the mother's life is in danger. Cruz? No.

Cap'n Tightpants? Wrong.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Equal opportunity? WTF does that even mean? Equality under the law? All of them agree with that, but I'm sure you mean equality of opportunity, which is complete bullshit. Forcing a "level" playing field only leads to new forms of discrimination.

Fair play, it was very late and I stated my position inelegantly. What I was attempting to convey was that like Ted Cruz, Rubio is on the conservative side of 'equality' issues.
-Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act
-Opposes Paycheck Fairness: don't require equal pay for women
-Voted against Paycheck Fairness Act (equal pay for women)

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The God stuff? You mean like how Obama says he starts every day in the Oval Office with prayer? Rubio has never said he wants to reinstitute prayer in schools, nor has he mentioned the "war on Christmas, not like Cruz has. Likely because he's Catholic, not an Evangelical, like Cruz. (The differences in "religiosity" is night and day.)

Here is a good lesson for you. How to admit you were wrong. I'd seen Rubio invoking his faith so often, I made an incorrect assumption. My bad. But I got to tell you, admitting you are wrong when you clearly are doesn't actually hurt- you should give it a go.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Tough on crime? The only thing he's mentioned is mandatory federal sentencing, but then, so did Clinton.

The point is, he is pretty much lock step with Cruz here. Some ideas he has proposed:
-Collect DNA of those convicted of sexually deviant behavior
-Life Without Exception for Sexual Predators
-Increase the risk and penalties for those engaged in the business of promoting sex crimes
-Afford whistleblower status to everyone who reports sex crimes, even if they were involved in the act
-Limit the time convicted felons have to appeal their sentences
100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"School Choice" vouchers? You got one! They both support vouchers.

Thank you, I know that was difficult for you to admit.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

War on drugs? Rubio supports medical MJ, Cruz doesn't (but Cruz ultimately believes it's up to the states to decide regarding its recreational use). Pretty much a draw between them.

I know this is going to come as a shock, but it turns out you are wrong again. Cruz thinks marijuana legislation should be left to the states, recreational and medical. Rubio says he would enforce federal laws in states that have legalised it. Rubio is to the right of Cruz.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He's no Goldwater, but yeah, Rubio is a moderate Republican.

Uh, no, he's not. You seem to have developed the idea that if you repeat nonsense enough, it will become true. It doesn't.

[P]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

This, but the country has moved to the left socially since 2004. An anti-gay marriage, no abortion for rape and incest (and up until recently, no exemption for life of the mother) candidate is going to struggle even harder.

This, and Clinton is a better candidate than Kerry. 2004 was Bush or not Bush - Kerry himself milquetoast. Love her or hate her, no one is neutral on Clinton.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I also don't think he's going to do particularly well with the hispanic vote- though no doubt some will vote for him just to see a latino in the White House. It's a bit like expecting Alan Keys to capture the black vote. Or Sarah Palin the female vote. Or Jimmy Carter the redneck vote. His positions on key issues do not line up.

The thing is, he doesn't have to do all that well with the Latino votes to flip the states I think he flips - FL, NV, NM, CO. I got to those four by going to the Fivethirtyeight simulator and pulling the slider for the latino vote to 50-50 - not unreasonable, I think.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

No he doesn't. He supported Florida Definition of Marriage, Amendment 2 (2008), which banned gay marriage and civil unions.

Let's look at something that's actually current:

“It’s not that I’m against gay marriage. I believe the definition of the institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman. States have always regulated marriage, and if states wants to have a different definition, you should petition the state legislature and have a political debate. I don’t think courts should be making that decision, and I don’t believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.”

He believes that if states want to allow gay civil unions, or even marriages, that's their business. That's much further Left than Cruz.

Cap'n Tightpants? Wrong.

You're so wrong it's painful. Yet again, let's look at something more current.

"Rubio would ban abortion after 20 weeks. Rubio co-sponsored a 2013 Senate bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks since fertilization, making exceptions for the life of the mother, rape or incest."

That's well to the Left of Cruz, as well.

Fair play, it was very late and I stated my position inelegantly. What I was attempting to convey was that like Ted Cruz, Rubio is on the conservative side of 'equality' issues.
-Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act
-Opposes Paycheck Fairness: don't require equal pay for women
-Voted against Paycheck Fairness Act (equal pay for women)

As were many Democrats, because the Wage Gap is a myth, and the Violence Against Women Act was simply another way of trying to make women a specially protected class. Try actually reading the text of the bill, it effectively strips away due process and the right to innocence until guilt is proven, fundamental principles upon which our society is founded. It's unconstitutional, no small wonder it was rejected.

Here is a good lesson for you. How to admit you were wrong. I'd seen Rubio invoking his faith so often, I made an incorrect assumption. My bad. But I got to tell you, admitting you are wrong when you clearly are doesn't actually hurt- you should give it a go.

You make quite a few incorrect assumptions, especially in this thread. I'm nice to people who are nice to me, regardless of political opinions. It was your decision to forgo being pleasant to each other.

The point is, he is pretty much lock step with Cruz here. Some ideas he has proposed:
-Collect DNA of those convicted of sexually deviant behavior
-Life Without Exception for Sexual Predators
-Increase the risk and penalties for those engaged in the business of promoting sex crimes
-Afford whistleblower status to everyone who reports sex crimes, even if they were involved in the act
-Limit the time convicted felons have to appeal their sentences
100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future

That's standard Republican fodder, it doesn't prove that he's "lockstep" w/ Cruz. Cruz wants to expand capital punishment to include "lesser" crimes, like rape.

Thank you, I know that was difficult for you to admit.

Admit what? That one position you could find is correct? Geez.

I know this is going to come as a shock, but it turns out you are wrong again. Cruz thinks marijuana legislation should be left to the states, recreational and medical. Rubio says he would enforce federal laws in states that have legalised it. Rubio is to the right of Cruz.

Again, Rubio believes in potentially legalizing medical MJ on the federal level, that's further Left than most other Repubs.

Uh, no, he's not. You seem to have developed the idea that if you repeat nonsense enough, it will become true. It doesn't.

Sure, sparky. You've so obviously proven it, amirite? Yes, he's a moderate, but you can't believe that because it doesn't fit the narrative, it isn't what Slate and Vox are telling you.

[Paco500]

On gay marriage:

Read here. Yes the source is a liberal rag, but it actually quotes rather than interprets. He would appoint justices to Supreme Court that would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

As for Cruz? He's happy to leave it up to the states as well. So they have the same position. And you are wrong.

Now abortion.

He may have co-sponsored a bill that had exceptions as a compromise because it was more restrictive than current legislation, but he has stated his position. Rrubio reaffirms opposition to rape and incest exceptions he backs abortion ban irrespective of the circumstances. So, uh, yeah your wrong. No so wrong it's painful, mind you, just consistent.

As for the equality issues, I was not arguing if he had the correct position or not, but only the he aligned with Cruz. Which he does.

Now pot. Your obsession with Rubio's position on medical Marijuana is irrelevant. He says that he would not be opposed if it went through FDA approvals. This isn't radical. Cruz is happy for it to be a states rights issue, Rubio is not- he very clearly states that federal laws should be enforces. Rubio is to the right of Cruz. There is no question here. You are wrong.

As you believe Cruz is a moderate, I suppose I understand why you think Rubio is a moderate. I don't really care what you think- it's irrelevant. My point was and remains that most independents thinks Cruz is a far-right loony. Once independents realise that Rubio holds almost identical positions on almost all issues, they will not be inclined to support him.

[subego]

Didn't see the Republican debate, but the narrative I'm seeing is Christie put his boot in Rubio's eye.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

[arguing with you is getting old, you really don't give a shit about anything but your narrative]

As you believe Cruz is a moderate, I suppose I understand why you think Rubio is a moderate. I don't really care what you think- it's irrelevant. My point was and remains that most independents thinks Cruz is a far-right loony. Once independents realise that Rubio holds almost identical positions on almost all issues, they will not be inclined to support him.

They're both moderates, but Cruz is to the Right of him. I've already explained this, I'm not repeating it because it isn't worth my time.

Moderate Repubs:

Right [----Cruz-----------------------Rubio---------] Left

Does that makes sense to you? Of course it doesn't, what was I thinking? Buzzfeed says that anyone to the Right of Clinton is a nazi, and you guys gobble it up.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The kiss of death: Drug CEO Shkreli to Jeb: 'I'm an avid supporter' | TheHill

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You are on a roll.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Do tell?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yes aren't you.

[subego]

[subego]

I took a look at the ratings from ontheissues.com, and they put Rubio and Cruz pretty far to the right.

In the exact same place actually.

Which is also the exact same place they put Jeb.

Christie is the one they put in the moderate zone.

[subego]

And here's 538's chart...

[subego]

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure 538 gets its info for the blue dots from On The Issues, so it's claiming the same thing. Jeb, Cruz, and Rubio all talk the same level of conservative, the same level talked by Reagan and Huckabee.

I'm not 100% sure I buy this proposition, but I'm not exactly rejecting it either. It's certainly worthy of consideration.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Yes aren't you.

I win by default, you have none.

(I'll just place you on ignore, that way you can jerk-off by yourself and not waste my time. I'm sure that's something you're quite familiar with.)

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

And here's 538's chart...

What were "conservative" positions 20-30 years ago aren't today (today's Republicans would have been 1980's Leftist Dems). That's the thing. If the entire spectrum shifts, and it has, then that has to be taken into account.

[John B. Smith]

Move the goal posts and Ted Cruz is a centrist! Stunning analysis.

Edit: I say that in jest. Quite frankly, it's stunning how the spectrum has changed.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Liberals and conservatives are necessary. Without the former there would be little growth, and without the latter society would be reactionary and unbalanced. Not many liberals were for gay marriage just 12 years ago, including the Clintons, Obama, and 90% of Democratic legislators. Same goes for pot legalization and a host of other issues. If you plucked a moderate Repub out of our time and plunked him/her into the 1970s, they'd be a fairly radical Dem.

[John B. Smith]

Are people really divided into "liberals" and "conservatives," or are those just terms that allow us to think we are part of the dialectic? Players for teams that don't exist.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

It's a pitfall of a two party system, most people conform to one or the other, rather than carefully consider each individual issue on their own.

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Liberals and conservatives are necessary. Without the former there would be little growth, and without the latter society would be reactionary and unbalanced. Not many liberals were for gay marriage just 12 years ago, including the Clintons, Obama, and 90% of Democratic legislators. Same goes for pot legalization and a host of other issues. If you plucked a moderate Repub out of our time and plunked him/her into the 1970s, they'd be a fairly radical Dem.

This is true up to a point, but there are other areas where what we consider "conservative" positions now wouldn't even be on the political spectrum 30 years ago. Things like the mistrust of science involved in "teach the controversy" bills around evolution and climate change are political positions most Republicans of the sixties or seventies wouldn't recognize at all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Not many liberals were for gay marriage just 12 years ago, including the Clintons, Obama, and 90% of Democratic legislators. Same goes for pot legalization and a host of other issues. If you plucked a moderate Repub out of our time and plunked him/her into the 1970s, they'd be a fairly radical Dem.

Excellent point.

Obama didn't consider it politically expedient to be pro-gay marriage until four years ago, but that Ted Cruz, he's a Nazi.