1. DE, CA, CT, and WA are liberal states....you don’t need those states to beat Obama, so what’s the point on how those loses in 2010 in liberal states means Obama is almost unstoppable?
2. some Republican strategist have pinpointed concern about his lack of fire in the belly or the desire for the rigors of hard campaigning....Obama will have his billions, the MSM in his back pocket, the Unions...etc. We need someone who will go toe to toe with Obama and not back down and will be the captain that is willing to “Give them Hell, Harry”......To beat Obama one has to go for the jugular not play “smart and cute”...so their is a concern on that part.
3. Moderates don’t win -
Ford(moderate) lost
Reagan(conservative) won
Bush 41(moderate) lost after he was away from Reagan’s coattails
Dole(moderate) lost
W (conservative/moderate) won by running as a conservative
McCain(moderate) lost
1. I mentioned those states to illustrate the necessity of draining democrat resources. It will be imperative that we force Obama to spread out his money in as many places as possible.
2. Daniels will have a LOT of money behind him. He won’t be playing with any of this public financing crapola, and the business community will be solidly behind him. People are tired of the grandstanding pretender and ready for the boring, tried and true manager, IMHO.
3. Look at his record - he is not as moderate as you think.
Ford(moderate) lost
Reagan(conservative) won
Bush 41(moderate) lost after he was away from Reagan’s coattails
Dole(moderate) lost
W (conservative/moderate) won by running as a conservative
McCain(moderate) lost
You left out Nixon. In 1968 you have to say he ran as (and was perceived as) a conservative. In 1972 it’s not so clear. 1972 might be the exception to your rule, in that Nixon played the moderate against the McGovern lefty (much like McCain vs Obama in 2008). No?
And then your analysis completely breaks down in 1964. Goldwater was the clear conservative and lost big.