And Bush 41 had the advantage of running against Dukakis. And Reagan also ran against Mondale in 84 and did very well.
Of course, Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were all chosen by their democratic party that had majorities in the “blue states”.
Clinton won red states by somehow communicating his positions effectively (and pretending to be a conservative on matters of importance). Bush took a different tack, managing to win by the skin of his teeth.
But we shouldn’t pick our next presidential contender based on the result of running a non-communicator like Bush in 2000/2004.
Both Romney and Fred Thompson are much better communicators than Bush, and would effectively sell conservatism in the swing states. They would come across much more presidential than Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards.
We don’t need to settle, and no reason to be defeatists. Conservatism is not a lost cause, and we shouldn’t give in to Giuliani’s message of failure and surrender.
GW wasn't run on his ability to communicate. He was run on his ability to raise campaign cash.
You have made some really strong points on this thread.
Regards,
TS
You mean by concealing his positions effectively.
We most definitely need another good if not “great” communicator. I agree with you about both Romney and/or Thompson and I agree we don’t need to settle. We can give the socio-cons what they must have AND appeal to the mushy middle with good communication and leadership.