Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
I've often wondered about whether it is ever better to lose an election than to win every one. The entire point of winning an election is to advance a policy agenda.
If your side is unclear about a policy agenda, is divided about what the policy agenda should be, or the candidate you vote for betrays that policy agenda, is it better to lose?
This comes to mind as we face the 2012 election. Let's face it, Republicans are very divided and I think somewhat confused. I listen to and read John Yoo talk and write about Presidents not needing to act without congressional approval with regard to foreign wars, and to me it's like Alice in Wonderland.
I voted for Bush in 2000 and really regret it. Bush was against McCain-Feingold, against nation building, and advocated policy prescriptions in the campaign that turned out not to be policy enacted. While 9/11 could certainly not have been foreseen, all of his policy prescriptions were statist rather than restricting immigration. I think it would have been better if Gore had been elected since we wound up getting so many of the Democrats' policies. Of course, all my Democrat friends tell me Gore was elected, but let's not go there. I can't help but think Republicans would have been better off if Gore had won. I can't help but believe that the country would have been better if Gore had won because almost certainly Obama would not be in the Oval Office.
I was a Republican back in 2000, but am no longer a registered Republican since the last time I moved. So perhaps it is not appropriate for me to talk about who the Republicans nominate.
Wouldn't it be better if conservatives simply put attention on state and congressional elections rather than the 2012 presidential race?
Please convince me I'm wrong.
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Two words: Supreme Court.
Feb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
I've thought about that and my response is also two words: The Senate. Any nominee has to make it through the Senate and while your nominee can't go through, theirs can't necessarily. I've always thought one of the best solutions to the court problems is to just have them all empty.
Dec '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
I would heartily disagree with your premise "The entire point of winning an election is to advance a policy agenda." While that is certainly one point, the opposite is every bit as important - preventing the other side from advancing their policy agendas.
Would Republicans have been better off if Algore had been elected? I seriously doubt it. I shudder to think how the Stiffmeister would have handled 9/11. We may not have Obamacare in place, but it's entirely possible that we'd have some thing marginally less odious - and not nearly as easy to use as a target. I'm 99% sure we'd have some stout cap and trade laws in place, making the current economic miasma look like Happy Days.
I can't convince you that you're wrong, and I'm not accusing you of being crazy, but I know that if a thought like that ever passed through my skull, I'd seriously think about seeing a shrink.
Edited on Apr 3, 2011 at 4:19pmFeb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Hang On
I've thought about that and my response is also two words: The Senate. Any nominee has to make it through the Senate and while your nominee can't go through, theirs can't necessarily. I've always thought one of the best solutions to the court problems is to just have them all empty. · Apr 3 at 2:29pm
The Republicans don't have the backbone to stop any Democratic Supreme Court nominee.
Edited on Apr 3, 2011 at 4:20pmMay '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
I agree. Two more words: Repeal Obamacare.
We all know that Obama will veto any repeal attempts. We need a Republican in the White House to do this and nip Obamacare in the bud. If it's allowed to take hold until 2016, we're stuck with it forever, with disastrous results.
Jan '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
How do Democrats succeed in advancing their agenda?
Democrats know that politics is a team sport. You play together to win. Democrats don’t criticize their leadership.
Democrats are tolerant of diversity, so long as it helps them win. They recruit “Blue Dogs” to get majorities to set legislative agendas.
Unfortunately, in the GOP the ones who criticize the most claim there is no difference between the two parties. Try telling that to a Democrat!
I am a straight-ticket Republican. If some want purity they can run in the Libertarian Party and gloat over their 3% of the vote. They'll learn the same lesson Ron Paul did. Then they can come back and be good, disciplined Republicans who know that in unity there is strength.
The name of the game is winning. Political parties have one purpose: to win elections. When they stop winning elections, they disappear.
Our goal as conservatives must be to destroy the corrupt, immoral and criminal organization known as the Democrat Party. To do that, we have to win elections - not put Al Gore in power.
Talk to me about how to crush Democrats. Liberalism will die when its host organism dies.
Oct '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
When we vote, we consent to abide by the outcome of the election. We commit ourselves to support our elected officials and their successfully enacted laws. We've long ago lost faith in our representative government, yet we continue to act and function as if we had not.
We, as a nation, are no longer honest with ourselves or with our elected government. I dare say that our elective government is not honest with us either. The Democrats pummelled Bush and friends just as conservatives pummel Obama and friends today.
As long as we grant our consent by voting and our resources when paying taxes, we reaffirm our government's legitimacy. Do we fail ourselves when we vote? Or a more fundamental question, is this really still our nation?
Feb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
The House was Republican after the 2000 election and the Senate became Democrat as a result of a flip. How would Gore and the Democrats have advanced their agenda? You would have had Democrats in control up to the build up of 9/11 in the Executive Branch with most of the same people doing nothing about it. The economy was in a funk and there was basically a lost decade. Republicans would have been in the same situation in 2002 that Democrats were in 2006 and already with a majority in the House. Democrats would have made many of the mistakes Bush made and Republicans would have criticized those mistakes and learned from them and hopefully in a more realistic way than Obama and the Democrats have done.
Feb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
jrb
Hang On
I've thought about that and my response is also two words: The Senate. Any nominee has to make it through the Senate and while your nominee can't go through, theirs can't necessarily. I've always thought one of the best solutions to the court problems is to just have them all empty. · Apr 3 at 2:29pm
The Republicans don't have the backbone to stop any Democratic Supreme Court nominee. · Apr 3 at 4:19pm
Edited on Apr 03 at 04:20 pm
Even I have more faith in Republicans than you do.
Feb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
concerned citizen
I agree. Two more words: Repeal Obamacare.
We all know that Obama will veto any repeal attempts. We need a Republican in the White House to do this and nip Obamacare in the bud. If it's allowed to take hold until 2016, we're stuck with it forever, with disastrous results. · Apr 3 at 5:04pm
That's a very valid point. Problem is getting 60 or close to it in the Senate while not bumping off Democrats with whom Republicans could work to do it.
Feb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Freesmith:
I am a straight-ticket Republican. If some want purity they can run in the Libertarian Party and gloat over their 3% of the vote. They'll learn the same lesson Ron Paul did. Then they can come back and be good, disciplined Republicans who know that in unity there is strength.
· Apr 3 at 5:55pm
Not looking for purity. But you sound an awful lot like Tom Delay. And that's just not my idea of politics that leads to nothing other than corruption.
Feb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Freesmith:
Talk to me about how to crush Democrats. Liberalism will die when its host organism dies. · Apr 3 at 5:55pm
And why do you want the other side to die? I really do believe in a system of checks and balances. I really do think that politicians are basically corrupt because they spend a lot of other people's money and don't earn it themselves. For one side to die gives a free field to the other. That is certainly something I do not want.
Dec '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Hang On
The House was Republican after the 2000 election and the Senate became Democrat as a result of a flip. How would Gore and the Democrats have advanced their agenda? You would have had Democrats in control up to the build up of 9/11 in the Executive Branch with most of the same people doing nothing about it. The economy was in a funk and there was basically a lost decade. Republicans would have been in the same situation in 2002 that Democrats were in 2006 and already with a majority in the House. Democrats would have made many of the mistakes Bush made and Republicans would have criticized those mistakes and learned from them and hopefully in a more realistic way than Obama and the Democrats have done. · Apr 4 at 5:49am
As I said originally - I can't convince you that you're wrong. From my perspective, however, you are. Simply pulling out George W. Bush in the office and replacing him with Al Gore and then assuming there wouldn't be any other changes is not a constructive argument. It's like the "What if Lee had won at Gettysburg?" exercise.
Jan '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Hang On
Unity in a political party does not lead to corruption. It leads to strength, as it does in a team sport.
Your post is filled with negativity toward Republicans. If you have something bad to say, say it about the Democrats.
If you want to change the Republican Party, be my guest. The primaries are a little over a year away for congressional races and less for the presidential nominee.
Focus, man. Focus.
Jan '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Hang On
Why do I want the Democrat Party to die? Are you serious?
I believe in checks and balances, and in a two-party system, so long as the two parties are Libertarians and Republicans. But in order to arrive at that halcyon state the Democrats, the political party which actually believes that, yes, you are entiltled to other people's money, must be destroyed.
As I stated, political parties die when they can no longer do what they were created to do - win elections. My aim, therefore, is to defeat Democrats. Their agenda will die with them, because in a two-party system agendas flow to the winning party.
For instance, since 1980 look at what has happened to "Rockefeller Republicans." They have disappeared for the simple reason that they could no longer win Republican elections.
By staying steadfast and unified, by picking up allies instead of reading people out of the party, by attacking our enemies rather than besmirching our friends, conservatives, traditionalists and libertarians can eliminate the cancer on the body politic that is the modern Democrat Party.
Elect no Democrat anywhere, ever.
Apr '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
I agree Freesmith. This is my first comment, so...huzzah! The Democratic Party is now simply an amalgamation of various Leftist causes, and the ignorant voter. This is what Obama capitalized on in 2008. Getting the people who are not engaged politically, and do not follow this stuff so closely. How can we expect to compete with that slick devil when all we have on our side is policy?
May '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
It took the elections of extremists like Obama and Pelosi to wake Americans up to growing tyranny of our government. Al Gore probably would have been just as bad.
If the results of 2008 elections are not enough to coax voters back to reality, then I doubt a loss in 2012 could do better.
Jun '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Two words:
YOU HAVE TO PASS THE BILL TO KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BILL
Ok, that's Vice-President Biden doing the counting.
May '10
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
The simple answer is "no"; it is never better to lose an election. As much as folks get caught up in the "horse race" aspect of politics, ultimately the goal is not what is best for Republicans or conservatives, but what is best for the United States. The lives and well-being of current and future generations are being decided, and any party that doesn't really want leadership ought to get out of the race. This stuff is important. As much as I dislike what Barack Obama is doing, at least he's willing.
As for the idea that "if things get really bad the public will turn back to the Republicans", don't be too sure. If the country is in serious trouble in 2015, why would folks turn to the party that flaked-out in 2012? Losing is not a good way to polish your image.
The nation needs real leaders, who are ready to lead, and eager to lead. Leaders who don't sit on the side-lines watching and waiting while the country sinks.
Feb '11
Re: Is It Ever Better to Lose an Election?
Freesmith:
Our goal as conservatives must be to destroy the corrupt, immoral and criminal organization known as the Democrat Party. Apr 3 at 5:55pm
I am a conservative and I think the Democrat Party is wrong on every issue, but this kind of statement is huge overreach and it's a sure way to marginalize our side. You can certainly point to instances of corruption, immorality, and criminality - but that applies to the Republican party too. Effective persuasion doesn't involve insulting half the electorate.
Edited on Apr 4, 2011 at 10:56am