California's Model for The Middle (lessons for 2008)

LAT ^ | Oct. 1, 2006 | David S. Broder

[FairOpinion]

The likely victory of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in next month's election could change the dynamics of California government and the way both national parties think about this mega-state.

It has been a long time since a Republican presidential candidate won California: not since George H.W. Bush in 1988. And it had been almost as long since any Republican won major statewide office -- until Schwarzenegger won the special election of 2003.

In 2005 he declared war on the Democratic legislature and the public-employee unions and forced a special election on four initiatives designed to cripple the unions' influence and strengthen his hand as governor. Voters rejected all of them and drove his approval ratings into the basement.

After that repudiation, Schwarzenegger reopened negotiations with the legislature this year, passed a heap of big bills and won the applause of an independent electorate.

Indeed, key Republicans here -- including some of George W. Bush's former people imported for the Schwarzenegger campaign -- think the governor's example is one that could be emulated in 2008.

[FairOpinion]

The key is to appeal to a broader base of electorate.

If Republicans would do that, they would win more elections.

[goldstategop]

You mean become liberal like the Democrats? If that's the price of victory, no thanks.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Mojave]

The middle of the left?

[FairOpinion]

You mean better to have socialist leftist Dems run the country and CA, instead of having the Republcans move 10 degrees to the middle?

[goldstategop]

The middle means the Left. Moving towards the middle never means moving towards the Right. Moderates inevitably are tugged towards the Left because its the path of least resistance.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[AVNevis]

"The key is to appeal to a broader base of electorate."

There has to be a balance. You need someone who can appeal to most centrist voters yet still shares Republican values of limited government, tough national security, and moral values.

That is certainly not Rudy Guiliani or John McCain. Guiliani supports partial birth abortion and McCain has assaulted the first amendment with his campaign finance "reform"

The only one of the men mentioned in the Times article I could support is Romney. He can win over moderates, yet still is a Republican most of the time.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

You mean become liberal like the Democrats?

As long as they're willing to defend the nation, they're not Democratis.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Blah Blah Blah

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

There truly is no such thing as "the middle."

It is a concept fabricated by the MSM/Democrats to get Republicans to abandon their core beliefs so that their conservative supporters will get frustrated and stay home.

That's all it really is.

[proxy_user]

" As long as they're willing to defend the nation, they're not Democrats.

Yes, the Republicans may very well pull in everyone who is not a moonbat.

But when only a few leftists are left as Democrats, the Republican party will be so big that it will be unable to remain whole, and split into two.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

The sorriest people are those who call themselves moderate as they have no core values and will compromise with anything!

[hsalaw]

Not in California, where the dems outnumber the Republicans something like 42% to 34%, and you can throw those so-called "independent" right in there with the dems. The only reason Arnold won the first time was his name recognition, and he knows it; that's why he's veering towards the center-left (with the envirowhacko "global warming" stuff) as fast as he can right now. I'll still vote for him, because heaven knows he's much better than the alternative, but he's a RINO and we all know it.

I really doubt any known Republican could attract dems by trying to "appeal to a broader base" unless the dem alternative is just so completely looney that not even a dem could vote for him. Look at McCain: he's tried to attract dems by being the most looney Republican ever, and all he's really done is alienate 99.999% of the Republicans.

[quantim]

Ronald Reagan did not win in a 49-state massacre by appealing to the supposed mush in the middle.

[goldstategop]

The word that describes such Republicans is RINO and they're lionized by the Drive By Media for always taking stands in favor of the Left. That makes them "courageous," "principled", "maverick," and "independent." Unlike those conservatives who are viewed as just shy of worshipping Hitler.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[ClaireSolt]

He's triangulating like Clinton and Bush. I think Giuliani has a good government, tough on crime appeal that is every bit as important to convservatives as sex issues a president has little impact on. However, I am not at all sure a politician is what Washington needs. I am for Jack Welch or another successful CEO who could downsize that monstrous, unweildy bureaucracy and focus it on its core mission as outlined in the constitution.

[ElkGroveDan]

The key is to appeal to a broader base of electorate.

No the key is to motivate your base -- turnout the silent occasional voters. There are more than enough to make California the most Rpeublican state in the union. All that's needed is a candidate that stands for something.

[bpjam]

Lets just become the 'give them everything they want without worrying about the cost' party...

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Yes, the Republicans may very well pull in everyone who is not a moonbat.

But when only a few leftists are left as Democrats, the Republican party will be so big that it will be unable to remain whole, and split into two.

Which would be a good thing, IMO. I'd much rather be able to choose between two major parties that both believe in defending America rather than having to default to the one that does.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

No the key is to motivate your base -- turnout the silent occasional voters

If you can do that without losing the moderate voters.

[No2much3]

If convincing the people at the middle that they should vote Republican and you have a problem with that then the Republican party has a problem.

I understand politics as such;

20% Will vote hard core Left.
20% Will vote hard core Right.
60% !!! Will vote how they feel the candidates will represent them. This is referred to as the undecided Middle (Independent). You alienate them at your own peril. You curry their favor at every turn.

The reason that Republicans have been winning elections has been the Middle has voted for the Right. They are dissatisfied with what the Left is selling.

The worst case scenario is that the Right is so arrogant in their position that the Middle decides to either vote left or Independent.

Please remember that if a valid Independent candidate came forward he/she would gather from both the Left and the Right and most of the Independent Possibly the best case scenario would be someone who actually unites the 60% at the center and moved them to the Right. We would carry the election at around 60% (like Ronald Reagan) with a serious hurt to the left. If we still held the House and Senate then it would be a slam dunk. JMO