Replies

I understand the bit about principles, and having something to support, and RINO's and their lukewarm mean-nothing too much compromise policies. I get all that. I really do.

But let me put an alternate viewpoint to you, based on practical politics.

The simple fact is that, barring divine intervention, only about ten of the fifty states were "in play". Only ten, tops, had any chance of going from Blue to Red, which is what would have had to happen if Romney was going to win. Similarly, only a few of the individual counties and voting districts in those ten states have any real chance of changing their minds. Most of the rural areas will vote GOP, most of the urban areas are solid democrat. Its a few counties on the borders in suburban areas that change.

The simple fact is that, in spite of all the ads and rhetoric, the high-blown analyses and criticisms of policy, the US election is effectively decided by a small number (less than 20,000) independent, undecided voters who happen to live in a few key districts in a few key States. The key to victory therefore is to appeal to them.

Now that is not easy, as many of them are swayed by very ephemeral things, like the color of a candidate's skin, or how nice a smile he has, or whether he's going to give me free stuff or not. I'm afraid that rigorous application of the constitution, or ideological Conservative purity, fine though they are, does not cut the mustard with these people. This is a very sad state of affairs and a major weakness of democratic systems - rule by the people assumes the people care enough about the real issues to make informed decisions - but unfortunately it doesn't seem this is so.

What I am asking is this. True conservatism appeals to people in general, of that I have no doubt. But does it appeal to the ones in the middle who basically are the ones who decide who wins? I don't know.