Originally Posted by McBear
PROTIP: You don't pick your political affiliation based on their ability to raise money and gain votes. Usually PRINCIPLES are the first and last criterion. I notice its scant notice is much further down in your discussion.
This is so disjointed it is comical.
I will have a hard time responding to this as we are obviously talking about entirely different things.
Please show me where I said we should pick our political affiliation based upon fund raising capabilities?
For the purpose of the fundraising discussion I am talking about conservatives in the very broad sense of the RNC.
Originally Posted by TNTrower
Pearls before swine and all of that comes to mind. But alas, what I was referring to was the modern historical context of the Conservative political candidates and their ability to effectively translate their popular support into votes.
The conservatives have been much more successful in fund raising on an ongoing basis than the liberals. Like the old cliche goes, I will tell you what is important to you, just show me your check book
Your conversation defined it. You talked specifically about how the Conservatives are better at X and Y than the democrats yet, at no time did you mention PRINCIPLES, what most folks use as a guide for choosing a party and what the discussion has been about. So what are we suppose to think when everyone else is discussing principles and their variations within the splinters of the Republican Party and you bring in fundraising ONLY.
By the way, your facts on fundraising are a bit outdated. I think you are looking at 2004 data. And you got the cliche wrong.
It seems to me YOU are the one that provided the tangential, albeit erroneous fundraising concept into the mix. It must have been important to you. That is why I noted it.
And you still haven't defined which splinter of the Republican Party to which you refer when you say "conservative". Is it the Conservatives
[such as Goldwater or William F. Buckley], Republicans
[standard bearers no matter what the particular bent of the day], NeoConservative
[Bush, Bush2, Gramm], or NeoNeoConservative
[Boner, McConnell, and all those who keep trying to distance themselves from Bush and the NeoConservative Legacy]?