Let’s start with your case studies—
1- Nevada voters chose Nevada over their country. They could not afford to throw away Reid’s seniority and clout in the Senate in exchange for a newbie. His opponent had little effect on the outcome.
2- Bad candidates can’t win elections. The Republican candidate for Governor in CO was a disaster and Buck was only somewhat better.
3- O’Donnell might have had a chance to win that election if establishment Republicans hadn’t been sore losers and refused to support her. They sounded like little kids. “Gov. Palin came in here and stole our candy and we’re not gonna play anymore”.
4- You are probably correct about CA and CT. I will say that I was not a great fan of Carly although I supported her in the general election. I don’t think she had the energy to effectively campaign against Boxer. If Chuck DeVore had been elected to the Senate,he would be among the five or six smartest in the body. His lack of fund raising ability kept him out.
5- Rossi is a repeated loser in WA. A confident conservative may have had a chance to win that seat.
What you are suggesting is that for a Republican to win, they must go to where the independents are. This is not what happened in 2010. In 2010, led by Gov. Palin and the TEA party, independents came to where we are. It is almost impossible to know where independents are because they lack core beliefs held by liberals and conservatives. Democrats win them over by lying and submerging them with media propaganda. The TEA party effort opened their eyes and many saw the truth about the liberal agenda. That truth still exists and will carry over to 2012 because the job was only half done in 2010. It will carry over because Obama is still intent on implementing Obamacare which they oppose. It will carry over because he still wants to bankrupt this country. If you want to lose those independents, try nominating a squishy Republican who is afraid of the social issues and who is afraid to call Obama out on his policies.
Yes, they will call Palin an idiot, but they would call Daniels an idiot too because name calling is what they do. When the campaign starts, all of those myths will evaporate in the face of truth and reality.
In 2008, many white voters wanted to see the first black President get elected. Of course black voters did also. Now, that ship has sailed. In 2012, the same effect will occur among women voters to see the first woman elected President. You can cite all the polls showing Palin doing poorly among women and independents but they tell us nothing because those polled are still thinking Palin is Tina Fey. When voters get to see the real Palin campaigning, those myths will fall like popped balloons. If you remember back to 2008, the selection Of Gov. Palin actually put McCain in the lead until the economy blew up (or was blown up) and McCain fumbled his response.
Gov. Mitch Daniels has no charisma. He comes off as a nice man ala Calvin Coolidge. Against Obama, he would be blown off the stage while women fainted on cue for Obama. Governor Palin dominates a stage. Obama will be upstaged and stuttering like a fool and when she asks him why he is intentionally trying to destroy the country he was elected to lead, I want to hear his attempts to answer and so do a lot of independents.
The fact of the matter is, if you can define yourself and your opponent, you will win the race. We beat Kerry in 2004 with devastating video of him lying about Vietnam, betraying his unit and flip-flopping on his record. Rove further rallied the base with worries about proliferation of gay marriage, and Bush got more votes than any other president in history. While you may think we should go back to the gay marriage well, I would submit to you that with 9-17% unemployment or underemployment and the FACT public opinion has softened on gay marriage, this is not the trump card it once was. In fact, social issues specifically will not carry a candidate from either party to a presidential victory - especially in this economic climate.
I look at Obama, presiding over the worst economy, job market and housing market in a generation, and he somehow has around a 50% approval rating. This is as stupefying as it is disappointing. Then, I look at the field of candidates and really start to think this is going to be an uphill slog. Obama is damaged but still has the upper hand with his incumbency. Those of you pointing me to last year’s elections, I would refer you to NV, CO, DE, CA, CT, and WA (the last 4 for reasons you might not expect).
Case study 1: Nevada. If you think beating Obama is going to be a slam dunk, here you have the most despised member of the senate pulling out a last minute victory with the sheer brute force of his bank and ground game. In fairness, I’m not sure Sue Lowden would have won, but I am certain it would have been closer. Angle or Lowden would have received the similar tons of money from groups looking to unseat Reid, but Sharron was not a polished candidate and stuck her foot in her mouth too many times (”2nd amendment solutions”, etc.).
Case study 2: Colorado. Here we have another purple state with the wind at our backs and blew it. Buck is a smart guy and articulate, but he walked right into the gay marriage trap down the stretch, comparing homosexuality to alcoholism on Meet the Press. He never recovered. Even though I do think homosexuality is an identity disorder, if you’re trying to get elected, shut up about it and keep hammering away on fiscal issues. You can get away with that in Alabama - not Colorado.
Case study 3: Delaware. I hate Castle, so this was the least significant for me. He was basically the 2010 version of Dede Scozzafava and glad we don’t have to defend him in the senate. However, it hurt us from the standpoint in that it allowed the DSCC to mostly ignore the race, where Castle would have forced them to spend more money there (a point I’ll get back to a lot).
Case study 4: California and Connecticut. Carly was the best we could have ever done there and had a lot of money. Linda may not have been the best candidate in CT, but she is also extremely wealthy. Both of them pulled a LOT of DSCC resources away from other states and really helped us, even in defeat (stop me if you see a pattern here).
Case study 5: Washington. Dino isn’t uber wealthy like the last 2, but he is an extremely polished, solid candidate and forced the DSCC to spend a lot of money there.
Here’s the thing: believe me if I tell you I could bring back Barry Goldwater from the dead and install him in the White House without having to worry about losing an election, I would. But I recognize we cannot win without a plurality of Independent squishes. This is just a fact. It is also a fact that conservatism will suffer more with the re-election of Obama than any Republican in the mix right now. We can win with 100% orthodox conservatives, but they MUST be able to connect with independents in a way so that they feel comfortable voting for them, even if the sources of their comfort are for superficial reasons. I felt like Pence could have been that guy, but he’s running for IN governor. There’s really no one else like him left right now.
If I were Obama, of the names being mentioned, I would fear Daniels the most. How could they label him? He’s a competent, accomplished, books-balancing, budget-slashing, Harley riding, ivy league educated state executive. They would be unable to easily label him a racist (hello Mississippi Barbour), an idiot (hello Palin), a hypocrite (hello Romneycare), or a Bible beater (hello Huckabee). What are they going to attack him for - his height? Having once worked for Bush? If that’s the worst he’s got in the way of baggage, he’s in good shape. If he put Christie on the ticket with him (a true RINO to be sure, but a star with gravitas nonetheless), Obama would have to go and dump money into NEW JERSEY. The midwest would be an electoral killing field from PA to WI. There would only be a few states Obama wouldn’t have to defend. I think we’d have a similar shot with T-Paw, but he hasn’t really impressed me in one-on-one interviews.
Back to the social issues, all I want out of our next president is to reinstate the Mexico City Policy and to elevate as many Scalias to the bench as possible - bonus if he can defund Planned Parenthood. Ginsburg is probably going to expire pretty soon, and Kennedy is wanting to step down soon. Do you want to risk their seats with a candidate likely to lose?
I’d be interested to hear your feedback of why you think I’m right or why you think I’m wrong. I’m on your team, so let’s keep it civil.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS
Sorry didn’t mean to repeat your post.
Perhaps you don't understand the MO of the democrat/media complex yet.
They will label and savage any candidate for president with an (R) behind their name.
Daniels will be no different, and he has never faced that kind of thing so we don't know how he will handle it. Besides the lambasting he will take like any of the others, he has a lot of weaknesses as a candidate, as many or more than the rest that might become candidates.
If he wins the nomination I'll get behind him, but right now he's nothing for Obama to fear at all.
“Case study 3: Delaware. I hate Castle, so this was the least significant for me. He was basically the 2010 version of Dede Scozzafava and glad we don’t have to defend him in the senate. However, it hurt us from the standpoint in that it allowed the DSCC to mostly ignore the race, where Castle would have forced them to spend more money there (a point I’ll get back to a lot).”
The democrats wouldn’t have had to spend any in Delaware to defeat Castle. He would have crossed the aisle. Rather then them spending money, Republicans would have wasted money electing a democrat.
COD did as well as any Republican has since Roth, and forced them to spend money in DE that they could have spent otherwise. Plus, it doesn’t hurt having a pretty, solidly conservative young woman running on your ticket.