Not sure I'd characterize this as a debate, so much as I would a, hopefully, polite confrontation over ideas. But we'll see. Scott Payne of the League site was kind enough to offer and I accepted - as did Conor (with one N.) You can submit questions at the link, or in comments here and I'll email them over if they're serious ones.
So next week we are going to have a skypecast up of Conor Friedersdorf and Dan Riehl discussing/debating their different ideas about the necessary tonic for the future of American conservatism. I’m exploring the possibility of being able to broadcast the discussion live, though I’ve never done such a thing, so if anyone has any experience with broadcasting live on the Internets please drop a comment to this post or fire me an email via the League’s contact page.
Well done, Dan. I'm looking forward to seeing this.
Posted by: Jamie Lockett | Wednesday, June 03, 2009 at 01:55 PM
a few questions:
i'm looking at exit polls(cnn) from 2004 and 2008, specifically, "Voter Ideology".
2004-
35% conservative.
44% moderate.
21% liberal.
2008-
34% conservative.
44% moderate.
22% liberal.
In the context of these numbers, is either party obligated to try to move towards the middle, away from the conservative/liberal tags?
How does either party reconcile the tag liberal/conservative with their actual party identification?
conservatives are closer in number to the actual number who are willing to identify as a republican, while little more than half who identify as democrats would identify themselves as liberal...
how do you interpret these numbers? in the context of these numbers, is it fair to say that the media has been far more successful in 'defining' republicans as conservatives, or conservatives as republicans?
Posted by: mark l. | Wednesday, June 03, 2009 at 02:40 PM
About this "Conor (with one N.)"... What business is it of ours to, er, take anatomical inventory?
Posted by: Ran | Thursday, June 04, 2009 at 03:07 PM