Replies

Plouffe is correct that almost all voters are seeking a fantasy to believe in. That is why campaign managers market their candidate as an empty suit, who “cares about people like you.” Democrats have an edge, because their voters tend to be driven by emotion rather than rational thought. They start with the 50% of people with IQ below 100, supplement that with “interested” government employees, benefit collectors and cronies, add fearful “victims” looking for solace, and top it off with higher-IQ but emotionally-driven collectivist ideologues. The Democrats own a coalition of the easily-marketed: the believe-in-Santa voters.

Republican voters are looking for a harder-headed fantasy: a return to what the U.S. “used to be” (i.e., Mayberry in the 1950’s), with real patriotism, rugged individualism and self-reliance, a world where merit and hard work are rewarded, public officials act with decency, competence, prudence, and integrity, the Constitution and rule of law matter, the U.S. always does the right thing on the world stage, all overlaid with a mix of Judeo-Christian “traditional values.”

The Democrats enjoy a fantasy gap, because they market belief in the future (nebulous and perfect), whereas Republicans market belief in the past (concrete and imperfect). The Republicans have a dilemma: few candidates will ever measure up to their fantasy, because it tends to be specific. The fantasy that works for conservatives is not so appealing to moderates and independents, or groups like women, Latinos, blacks, and gays who did not fare so well in the Past.

I disagree with your characterization of the ideal the Republican voters are looking for. The explosion of Republican interest in '10 was based on a return to the Constitution as the gyroscope of the ship of state. Focusing on Obama as the anti-Constitutional President would have been accurate, targeted, effective and easy. His own words that we've known since before '08, ("It's a charter of negative liberties, the civil rights movement failed in being too focused...blah, blah)could have been the center of the Republican message with the anti-Constitutional Obamacare as the vehicle. Any other Republican candidate could have made Obama defend it as a tax on the middle class. The options in that playbook are too numerous to count, where Romney had to go with a one-line plunge between the tackles, "I'll repeal it." The inflection point of the campaign, even according to Nate Silver's graph, was after the first debate, when Romney failed to capitalize on the trend. To me, his most shining moment was bringing up and quoting both the Declaration and the Constitution in his closing. But he never did it again nor did Paul Ryan.

“The Democrats enjoy a fantasy gap, because they market belief in the future (nebulous and perfect), whereas Republicans market belief in the past (concrete and imperfect). The Republicans have a dilemma: few candidates will ever measure up to their fantasy, because it tends to be specific. The fantasy that works for conservatives is not so appealing to moderates and independents, or groups like women, Latinos, blacks, and gays who did not fare so well in the Past.”

Great analysis and the only reason I didn’t copy ALL of it was due to space limitations.

The problem is that the “Republican product” is something in which a growing proportion of the population simply is no longer interested.

We can change the appearance of the package a little (like is done with a cereal box from time to time), but the contents inside remain the same and a near-majority of the population — perhaps now an outright majority — won’t consume it, regardless of the packaging.

The Pubbies better find an attractive “salesman” with the ability to see ice to Eskimos. Otherwise they could be headed down the pathway to oblivion.

Not because of their philosophy, but because of raw numbers.