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.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 22:52 (UTC)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.