Posted on 09/25/2015 2:49:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In June 2014, Senator Ted Cruz told The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin this:
It is amazing that the wisdom of the chattering class to the Republicans is always, always, always ‘Surrender your principles and agree with the Democrats. That’s been true for my entire lifetime. The chattering classes have consistently said, ‘You crazy Republicans have to give up on what you believe and become more like Democrats.’ And, I would note, every time Republicans do that we lose.
Cruz went on:
And what does the entire D.C. Republican consulting class say? ‘In 2016, we need another establishment moderate!’ Hasn’t worked in four decades. ‘But next time will be the time!’
To Cruz, the logic is simple: more moderate Republicans have lost some presidential elections, so the party should nominate someone less moderate. It’s an unsurprising view from a guy who is on the conservative flank of the party and is now a presidential candidate.
It’s also a view that is largely wrong. Political science research shows that ideological moderation actually is rewarded at the ballot box in House elections and presidential elections. The same thing is true in the 2016 presidential race. In fact, we estimate that in 2016, the electoral penalty for choosing a true believer rather than a moderate is a 23-percentage point decline in the probability of winning the general election....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yeah, just like it hurt Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 Mega sarcasm.
John Bonehead ?
Catlynn Pelosi, John Bonehead is a Nancy Pelosi with female parts.
Well, hell, any fool knows that. Look at the landslide victories the moderate Republicans have given us since '92!
Democrats can’t steal House seats. With the House and a strong Speaker, the Democrat agenda CAN be stopped.
What went wrong in 2012? The case of the 4 million missing voters
In retrospect this is hilarious, because the liberal pundits were certain that for the Republicans to nominate Ronald Reagan “would destroy the Republican party”. His biggest opponent was H.W. Bush, who derided Reagan’s conservatism, and called Reagan’s platform to cut taxes, yet increase revenues, while cutting government, “voodoo economics”.
H.W. Bush never truly believed in Reagan or conservatism, but was happy to ride on his coattails. Then, when he got elected on a promise of “Read my lips, no new taxes”, he then agreed with the Democrats to raise taxes.
I don’t think anyone here would say that H.W. Bush was better for the Republican party than was Reagan.
Yep, bringing in Bush guaranteed that the Reagan Revolution would not last beyond Reagan’s Presidency.
Man, I am SO GLAD Matthew Atkinson and Darin DeWitt have the BEST INTERESTS of the Republican party in their hearts and minds!
Thank you SO MUCH Matthew Atkinson and Darin DeWitt for caring soooo deeply as to give such WONDERFUL analysis and advice to the Republican party.
Matthew Atkinson and Darin DeWitt are such modern day HEROES for helping us see that conservatives are soooo wrong and people like Linseed Grayed Ham and Juan McInsane are the TRUE solution for victory.
A lot depends on moderate how?
On social issues extremes are at best a wash (what you gain from your base you lose from others) and more likely a negative (the loss of moderates and rage of the other side overwhelms the gain in your base). This applies to liberals too, but is worse for conservatives (thank you movies, tv and academia).
On economic issues there is probably more room for ‘extremes’ especially on the conservative side. This is the reverse of social issues. Extreme liberals will tend to lose more from the others than they gain from their base. Where Republicans do tend to lose out is in pushing free-trade as a god; a little scepticism here would not be a bad thing.
On foreign policy it is moderation for the win. The public may like a strong military but their taste for war is not unlimited. Outside of a narrow part of the base, I can’t see Carly’s don’t-talk-to-Putin-but-prepare-for-war proposal really enthusing people. Again outside a narrow base, Ron Paul’s peace-through-libertarian-non-aggression is not entirely appealing (although it probably has more support than militarism). In 2000 George Bush promised a strong military but a ‘humble’ foreign policy, nothing wrong with that.
As Trump has shown ‘extremism’ regarding immigration is a winner, even if he backtracked a bit with his “big beautiful door” comment. Hey Donald the problem is not legality, it’s numbers (sadly, mentioning demographics might fall into the camp of ‘too extreme’).
President Bob Dole “moderate establishment candidate”
President John McCain “moderate establishment candidate”
Ronald Regan “lost due to conservative values”
George W Bush “lost due to conservative values”
Yep, that moderation works every time! /sarcasm
Chortle!
Yeah..is that why Barack Obama, by far the most extreme of far left extremist of extremists ever to have run for president won TWICE, and is that why the Republican Party won their two biggest victories in the House in 2010 and 2014 by running on a solidly conservative platform to repeal Obamacare and dismantle Obama’s far left agenda? /sarcasm off.
Beware of the Washington Post when they come bearing gifts. Whenever, the Washington Post, unapologetic and notorious Obama water carriers, and Obama propagandists turn round and offer “advise” to Republicans on how to win, the Republicans need to run as fast and as far away from that “advise” as possible, and do the exact opposite of what that “advise” entails.
FDR, also a left-winger, won FOUR times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.