[WS:] Possible, but it begs the question why would the Repugs want to take an extreme position that alienates them from their support base? I think they do it because it works - it attracts the reactionary element that sways the elections without sacrificing their core support base. In other words, they pursue a strategy that Piven & Cloward advocated for Democrats some 40 or so years ago - bring the nonvoters in to sway the election results to the left. Except Piven & Cloward were wrong in their assessment of non-voters, and the Repug strategists have been right - bringing the non-voters in sways the election results to the right, if not the delusional and the ridiculous.
Wojtek
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:21 AM, brad <babscritique at gmail.com> wrote:
> [WS:] I wonder how this split would look if the Repugs held the White House.
>
> At any rate, this indicates that the Repug supporters are far more to
> the right of their "own" party than the Dem supporters are to the left
> of Dems. Scary.
>
> Wojtek
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I don't think it indicates that. It could mean they are far to the
> center than their party. I suspect, and most polls confirm, that
> Republicans differ on a few key ideas and issues (mostly around
> libertarian v. social conservatism). The problem for the party is its
> need to coddle big and crony forms of capitalism versus the rural,
> poor, christian base of the party. As a party it is very fractured
> and it will only get worse as their policies further the divide
> between the haves and have-nots. It would almost be fun to watch them
> attempt to govern and what it would do to their party (destroy it), if
> it wouldn't have such a negative impact on society.
>
> Brad
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>