I disagree. Race boosted turnout, not the message.
How could any message of limited government, by any candidate, possibly have dissuaded them from their desire to have the government “do more” in these times?
As I've said before, I don't think it could have. Just like Gore couldn't get out from under Clinton, the Republican candidate, no matter who was chosen, would have had a very difficult time getting out from under Bush.
And the thing is, I would have had no problem mortgaging the future for two Bush terms (which is what happened) if Bush would have been able to accomplish a conservative domestic agenda. Didn't happen. Other than advancing the cause of free trade and the appointment of a couple good Supreme Court justices (not that I'm downplaying these accomplishments at all--they are both very important), it's sort of a weak scorecard for eight years, six of which included a Republican-led Congress.
PV: As I've said before, I don't think it could have. Just like Gore couldn't get out from under Clinton, the Republican candidate, no matter who was chosen, would have had a very difficult time getting out from under Bush.
Then you agree with me, I take it, that focusing on McCain's alleged "failures" in not being conservative enough, in not sufficiently articulating the limited government message, etc., is neither illuminating nor helpful.
My essential point here is that too often the "if we only had the right candidate who said the right things" focus leads to thinking such a candidate magically would be elected. It's much more complicated than that, and failure to accept that fact is both delusional and a severe hindrance to success in the future.