I Told You "Moderates" Can't Win!

[Zeus]

I'm not saying there's a magic candidate. It's like a kid comes home with an F on a paper, and goes "What, nobody can get 100%" -- So I'm not saying there was a perfect or magic candidate. I'm saying Romney ran a really, really, really bad campaign. His message was wishy-washy, pandering, not particularly conservative, but also not appealing across the aisle. What's unfortunate is that I think it was a bit of the emperor's new clothes situation... no influential voice on the right really wanted to admit this.



He refused to refute it. Here's the game that got played. Romney didn't want to get specific. So Obama baited him with, "Well Romney wants to eliminate X." Because if Romney said "no" well then he would have to get specific. So Romney ignored it, because he preferred to keep things high level/vague. For better or worse, gave people the impression he had no real plan.



I can only rely on anecdotal evidence for this, because I'm not a pollster. But the truth is I happen to work in a liberal industry. I'm in Montreal, but it's an international company and we have quite a number of Americans. Me in this other guy were the only non-Obama-supporters. Those Americans that work at my company; they all have reasonably high paying jobs. They don't want free stuff, they make too much money to collect it. My mom also voted for Obama. She's extremely well off.

So you can take this however you want, but to be perfectly honest when I read a conservative blog or watch Fox and they say "oh, well Obama won because he's the welfare president / gives people free stuff / etc" I think it's not only false, but tragic... because it's the easy answer that lets the party off the hook from self-reflection and a deep analysis. Just my 2c.

Not all Obama supporters want Barack's candy but enough to make a difference in the election. Hell you as much as admit it when you criticise Romney for not refuting the claims. If it wasn't truth then why did it make a difference. Doesn't require deep analysis just common sense.

Candy just the thing to enslave folks to a voting block. By candy I don't just mean free stuff but the leftists love with the idea of Wealth redistribution.

[LukeEDay]

I've learned from this election that the only way to get elected is if you promise the lazy more handouts, Big Bird more money, and women free contraception.

[linda22003]

It's not that Moderates can't win it's more like the mistake of playing to independents on the silly idea that independents decide elections. Play to the base.

I agree, with the proviso that they HAVE to learn how to expand the base. I was at the CQ/Roll Call Post Election Conference yesterday downtown, and the consensus was that "this was the year the ticking demographic time bomb went off" on the GOP. Calling people who voted against them "moochers" may not be the best way to attract them to your point of view, and simply writing them off is the way to extinction.

[Rockntractor]

I agree, with the proviso that they HAVE to learn how to expand the base. I was at the CQ/Roll Call Post Election Conference yesterday downtown, and the consensus was that "this was the year the ticking demographic time bomb went off" on the GOP. Calling people who voted against them "moochers" may not be the best way to attract them to your point of view, and simply writing them off is the way to extinction.

You can't go long when one half of society feeds, clothes, houses, pays for telephone and all utility bills, pays taxes and provides free entertainment for the other half.
How long can that last Linda, even when you tell those people you like them and encourage them to continue what they are doing so they will vote for you, how long do you seriously think we can keep that up? You do know that as time goes by many more will decide they are tired of pulling the cart and want to ride in it don't you?

[linda22003]

As I said, characterizing them as deadbeats is not the way to win their hearts. No doubt some are, but others are simply poorer and wish to do better. Maybe assuming the best of people rather than the worst is one tactic the party could try. Just a thought.

[Rockntractor]

As I said, characterizing them as deadbeats is not the way to win their hearts. No doubt some are, but others are simply poorer and wish to do better. Maybe assuming the best of people rather than the worst is one tactic the party could try. Just a thought.

I is a hard question to fully face and address so I don't blame you for just blowing it off.

[AmPat]

I hope all of you and the Republican 'establishment' have finally learned that 'moderate' Republicans DO NOT win national elections. I tried to say this to all of you during the primaries, only to get trashed as a DU troll and get my threads moved and/or deleted.

Now we are stuck with 4 more years of Obumbler! I hope all you 'moderates' are happy now. As a social conservative, I now realize the culture war is over. Once Obama selects two more Supreme Court justices, Obamacare will be locked in place, abortions will be unfettered, our borders will be wide open, and people may even be legally allowed to marry their dogs, for all I know. All because the Republican 'establishment' forced a 'moderate' down our throats.

The only thing that we should try to do now is throw out the Republican 'establishment'. The elites that run the party are the real problem, NOT the grassroots.

I hope there are still free elections in 4 years.

We all know that you jackass. Stop with the moral superiority dipshit. YOU are not the only person blessed with this "common" insight. Who the hell do you think you are you pathetic POS? So what is your brilliant insight that only you possess and somehow the rest of humanity missed? You bore me child.

[linda22003]

[It] is a hard question to fully face and address so I don't blame you for just blowing it off.

You know, you're right. The GOP should just ignore the demographic changes and do what it has always done, the same way. That will probably work out just fine.

[m00]

Ford...Bush 41...Dole...McCain...Romney.


How'd THOSE moderates work for you m00?

This is a really valid point, so let me rephrase... moderates can win. I mean, Clinton was moderate-left (while Gore was a moonbat). Maybe Republican moderates have a harder time winning than Liberal moderates.

I'm not saying the Republican party should put up moderates. They clearly shouldn't. I'm just saying there are two different issues here. One is that Romney wasn't conservative. The other was, on top of this, he failed to appeal to people who might otherwise elect a moderate, based solely on Romney's personal demeanour and how he ran his campaign. That's all.

It's like... if you are absolutely resigned to fielding a moderate, you need to make sure he can appeal to the other side... some sort of thoughtful, rational, "I'm mostly a conservative but I agree with liberals on these issues and willing to work with them" kinda of guy. But Romney not only didn't appeal to (most of) the base, he didn't appeal to the other side either. He was the candidate of no-one, except for the beltway club that pushed him.

To compare W. Bush to Romney... I think far more people disagreed with W. Bush's actual policies than (what we knew of) Romney's proposed policies. But Bush wasn't insulting, and he ran a good campaign. DU-types aside, people who didn't even like Bush wouldn't call him "out of touch." They would just call him "wrong." But Bush was a man with convictions, and stood up for his convictions, and you knew what you were getting -- both in terms of strengths and weaknesses. He wasn't a beltway-insider phony. I think this aspect of Romney which, true or not, was the impression one was left with after following the campaign. Again, just my observation.

[Rockntractor]

You know, you're right. The GOP should just ignore the demographic changes and do what it has always done, the same way. That will probably work out just fine.

Not even an honest attempt at the actual question, typical liberal.