(no subject)

Date: 10/11/12 22:52 (UTC)
Republican's made the tactical decision to run a candidate who was more moderate (comparatively) for reasons of electability.

Were they wrong?
Did their tactics backfire? If so, why were they so stupid?

Had the republicans nominated Santorum, or Perry, or Bachman, do you really think the numbers would have been different? I do, but I think the difference would have been a larger margin for Obama.

The decision to run Romney was not stupid, Monday quarterbacking aside. He was the best candidate in the field, with the best chance of winning versus Obama, after other moderats like Huntsman were eliminated so very, VERY quickly. Looking back, a moderate in 2008 was absolutely necessary given the horrendous damage to the brand for Republicans done by Bush and Iraq and the recession.

2010 is different, #1 because we are talking about local races rather than national ones, and #2 Republicans figured out a short term method to avoid institutional responsibility for 2008, and were thus able to capitalize on voter anger without being the target of it.

The bottom line is, extreme social conservatism can no longer ride the coat tails of fiscal conservatism. The Republican party needs to abrogate the deal with the devil it made with evangelicals in the 80's. Playing to that peanut gallery demeans and damages any candidate they want to put into a national race.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
26 2728293031