Why do So Carolina Republicans hate populist conservatives?

[renard_ruse]

Why do populist right candidates always poop out once the campaign goes down there? Serious question, I really don't get it.

We saw it in 1996 with Pat Buchanan. He does well in Iowa and wins in New Hampshire. I'm like, wow, now that's its going to a real conservative state like SC he should storm to victory and walk to the nomination. Then, poop. They vote overwhelmingly for Dole, not even a contest. At the time I didn't get it and still don't.

Now, the same thing with Ron Paul. He had all this momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire and yet looks to finish in in fourth place, polling in the low teens, in South Carolina.

I admit I don't really know much about the deep South, never been there, but it would seem to me that a Buchanan or a Ron Paul would do better down there than in the North. Yet the opposite is true. So, what am I missing about southern Republicans?

 

[renard_ruse]

Is it foreign policy? Pat and Ron both oppose our overseas adventures?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Half my family tree is populated by South Carolinians so I'll explain it.

South Carolinians walk the walk, and they smell posers a mile away. They prefer the Jesus who tosses chairs and tables to the Jesus who turns the other cheek.

 

[renard_ruse]

Half my family tree is populated by South Carolinians so I'll explain it.

South Carolinians walk the walk, and they smell posers a mile away. They prefer the Jesus who tosses chairs and tables to the Jesus who turns the other cheek.

So they supported Bob Dole?

 

[badbabysitter]

Half my family tree is populated by South Carolinians so I'll explain it.

South Carolinians walk the walk, and they smell posers a mile away. They prefer the Jesus who tosses chairs and tables to the Jesus who turns the other cheek.

Half your family was populated in the trees of South Carolina

 

[MadeYaLook]

Well, it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul won't win the race I think, even if he won SC. Which is sad, in a way.

The funny thing is that for me as a European, and hence a left-left-left-left -super-liberal-almost-communist-socialist from an American point of view, I find Ron Paul by far the most intriguing candidate of the Republicans. He has a clear agenda, he is consistent, and he's right in a very central point most other Republicans don't seem to understand: American can simply no longer afford to play word police and to support an army that can fight three wars at once, and that costs five fucking percent of GDP. Since the cold war ended, that military budget is pure insanity in my opinion.

But then again, I don't get to vote

 

[rosco rathbone]

How is Ron Paul a populist conservative??

Populist conservatives are "socially conservative" but favor the safety net for deserving, hardworking folks. (but nothing for welfare slackers, minorities etc)

Ron Paul is a radical libertarian who would like nothing better than to eliminate SS and Medicare not to mention any other kind of government service to anyone whatsoever.

 

[eyer]

Well, it's pretty obvious that Ron Paul won't win the race I think, even if he won SC. Which is sad, in a way.

The funny thing is that for me as a European, and hence a left-left-left-left -super-liberal-almost-communist-socialist from an American point of view, I find Ron Paul by far the most intriguing candidate of the Republicans. He has a clear agenda, he is consistent, and he's right in a very central point most other Republicans don't seem to understand: American can simply no longer afford to play word police and to support an army that can fight three wars at once, and that costs five fucking percent of GDP. Since the cold war ended, that military budget is pure insanity in my opinion.

But then again, I don't get to vote

And all your measly country does is hold and hide all the dirty money...

...why don't you - you know, as "a left-left-left-left -super-liberal-almost-communist-socialist from an American point of view" kinda guy - tells how "intriguing" Paul is to you concerning his foundational position on individual liberty and the role of government for a free people?

BTW:

Could you start a "Politics in Switzerland" thread and sees if anyone gives a fvck at all?

 

[Liar]

Because politics is like dating.

And populists are like that kind-of-hot girl that gave off the vibe that she might be into freaky sex, but who by the third date turned out to never put out, be obliviously racist, and have an unholesome obsession with Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

 

[renard_ruse]

How is Ron Paul a populist conservative??

Populist conservatives are "socially conservative" but favor the safety net for deserving, hardworking folks. (but nothing for welfare slackers, minorities etc)

Ron Paul is a radical libertarian who would like nothing better than to eliminate SS and Medicare not to mention any other kind of government service to anyone whatsoever.

Interesting question. I guess because he is not a favorite son of the GOP establishment, I would call him a populist. He's not GOP establishment and wants to shake things up. That's how I would define a populist.

I also don't agree with your characterization that populist conservatives want to deny benefits to people simply because they are "minorities" (and "minority" is what non-white? In my state, whites are a minority but ok, nationally perhaps). They may want to deny benefits to people here illegally, but not simply because of race.

 

[renard_ruse]

And all your measly country does is hold and hide all the dirty money...

Good for them. They mind their own business in other countries' affairs and make lots of money. In fact, the Swiss model sounds pretty good if you think about it.

 

[renard_ruse]

Because politics is like dating.

And populists are like that kind-of-hot girl that gave off the vibe that she might be into freaky sex, but who by the third date turned out to never put out, be obliviously "racist," and have an unholesome obsession with Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

America is "racist" to whites, but anyway, why would the truly racist whites in the deep South consider this a negative (even though its not true)?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Interesting question. I guess because he is not a favorite son of the GOP establishment, I would call him a populist. He's not GOP establishment and wants to shake things up. That's how I would define a populist.

Fair enough. You've got a different definition of populist from me. To me, "populist" means something like "the opposite of the ruling elites", who, as study after study has proved, are more "socially liberal" (pro abortion, gay marriage, etc) and more "economically conservative" (pro free trade/offshoring at any cost, pro NAFTA, pro immigration for cheap labor, pro Wall Street) than the masses of people.

I agree, Ron Paul's program if carried out would be very painful for people who make their money at the nexus of Big Government/Big Finance/Big Business and I can see populists cheering for that.

I also don't agree with your characterization that populist conservatives want to deny benefits to people simply because they are "minorities" (and "minority" is what non-white? In my state, whites are a minority but ok, nationally perhaps). They may want to deny benefits to people here illegally, but not simply because of race.

It was a cheap shot on my part.

 

[Liar]

America is "racist" to whites, but anyway, why would the truly racist whites in the deep South consider this a negative (even though its not true)?

It was a metaphor, numbnuts. Or do you also think I mean that populists are obsessed with Buffy?

 

[MadeYaLook]

And all your measly country does is hold and hide all the dirty money...

...why don't you - you know, as "a left-left-left-left -super-liberal-almost-communist-socialist from an American point of view" kinda guy - tells how "intriguing" Paul is to you concerning his foundational position on individual liberty and the role of government for a free people?

BTW:

Could you start a "Politics in Switzerland" thread and sees if anyone gives a fvck at all?

Wow, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? And maybe you'd like to have a look at Delaware before you point the finger 5000 miles away. Or close Guantanamo before you bring "Human rights" to the world. Just a thought.

 

[rosco rathbone]

FWIW, I think a Buchanan type character would do far better now than in 96, when much of the old school GOP was still in unquestioned control and the Gingrich REvolution was only 2 years old. I'm surprised a George Wallace figure hasn't emerged yet. Trump is sort of the closest thing to it.

The "populist conservatives" are largely "Southern Democrats" (minus the "white ethnic" "Reagan Democrats" in the north) and it's worth keeping in mind that several of the contenders (Perry, Gingrich) are really nothing more than the modern version of the classical Southern Dems, just after 30 something years of Rand/Laffer/Hayek/Thatcher/Cold War Victory free market triumphalism.

I don't know how much you know about George Wallace, but you should look him up if you aren't familiar with his history.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So they supported Bob Dole?

Bob Dole's reputation was worse than Newts back in the 70s. He ate babies back then.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Another thing to keep in mind is that SC was the cradle of the Confederacy, whereas Buchanan is a Catholic, Irish northerner. Always going to be some suspicion between those two groups.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Half your family was populated in the trees of South Carolina

Unlike your crew mine left the trees wearing underpants, and bought their smokes rather than fish them from urinals.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Now, the same thing with Ron Paul. . . .

Whoa, what?! Up to that point, thought you were talkin' about Santorum.

Maybe that's the problem. One "populist conservative" could beat Romney, but three can't.

 

[pointless]

to understand south carolina you'd really have to live there. it's an odd place. i liked it there, but it's definitely a different world than my upper midwestern home.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Why do populist right candidates always poop out once the campaign goes down there? Serious question, I really don't get it.

We saw it in 1996 with Pat Buchanan. He does well in Iowa and wins in New Hampshire. I'm like, wow, now that's its going to a real conservative state like SC he should storm to victory and walk to the nomination. Then, poop. They vote overwhelmingly for Dole, not even a contest. At the time I didn't get it and still don't.

Now, the same thing with Ron Paul. He had all this momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire and yet looks to finish in in fourth place, polling in the low teens, in South Carolina.

I admit I don't really know much about the deep South, never been there, but it would seem to me that a Buchanan or a Ron Paul would do better down there than in the North. Yet the opposite is true. So, what am I missing about southern Republicans?

I do not consider Ron Paul to be a populist Republican.

For me the populist conservatives are the religious right. The Republican Party has done nothing to advance their agenda, it only solicits their votes and small campaign contributions. The people who matter to the GOP are those who are rich.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Half my family tree is populated by South Carolinians so I'll explain it.

South Carolinians walk the walk, and they smell posers a mile away. They prefer the Jesus who tosses chairs and tables to the Jesus who turns the other cheek.

Are they really such assholes as that?!

 

[badbabysitter]

Unlike your crew mine left the trees wearing underpants, and bought their smokes rather than fish them from urinals.

Unlike your crew, mine is Irish.. and yours will never be as culturally significant

 

[renard_ruse]

FWIW, I think a Buchanan type character would do far better now than in 96, when much of the old school GOP was still in unquestioned control and the Gingrich REvolution was only 2 years old. I'm surprised a George Wallace figure hasn't emerged yet. Trump is sort of the closest thing to it.

The "populist conservatives" are largely "Southern Democrats" (minus the "white ethnic" "Reagan Democrats" in the north) and it's worth keeping in mind that several of the contenders (Perry, Gingrich) are really nothing more than the modern version of the classical Southern Dems, just after 30 something years of Rand/Laffer/Hayek/Thatcher/Cold War Victory free market triumphalism.

I don't know how much you know about George Wallace, but you should look him up if you aren't familiar with his history.

Wallace again? Haven't we had this discussion recently on here?

I think that is my point, though, that I would think a populist conservative would do well in the deep South, especially in the virtually all white southern GOP primaries and yet they don't seem to. My guess is that they are too conservative (as in for the status quo) to vote for a perceived radical candidate such as a Buchanan or Paul. I think that is interesting because of the history of radicalism in SC (birthplace of the Confederacy, Strom Thurmond and Wallace in the 20th century, etc). Maybe the whites in the New South simply aren't radical enough to vote outside the mold.