I’d honestly like your (and anyone else's) opinion on this and how to properly gore this beast.In the cold and sunless space of political calculus, there are those districts which are unwinable.
They are populated so heavily by the true believers, useful idiots, benefactors who feed at the public trough and heavily indoctrinated, that no candidate who does not promise them the moon and stars in their pocket has a ghost of a chance.
Maybe.
Such people are swayed readily by a few factors, so let's look at those factors.
For some it is merely a mercenary endeavor:
"What's in it for me?" sums up the attitude readily. Their vote is for sale, often on an issue such as 'shake-and-bake citizenship' (amnesty) for illegals, 'Preferred or protected' status for other special interest groups, or the real bottom line 'gimmies' of increased welfare benefits and other perks for the professionally poor.
(Note, please, I am not including unemployment, which you have to work to earn, and which you must be unintentionally separated from your employment to qualify for except in a rare few instances).
These people are bought and paid for by Government programs (read: Democrat policy) and will vote the other way every time.
There are voters who feel just as strongly about Conservative matters of principle, from the Constitution to the abortion issue to fiscal issues to the current trainwreck in progress which is the economy. They are balanced by 'true believers' on the other side, their ideological and moral antithesis. Those 'true believers', Socialist ideologues, limousine liberals, jet-setting saviors of planet Earth, are votes which are going to the other side. Only the wedge of doubt has a chance to sway any of them from their beliefs, and only a rare few will consider evidence of fraud and pseudoscientific gimmickry long enough to realize they have been hornswogled. Theirs is a near-religious fervor, and they pursue a self-destructive jihad against sanity to assuage their moral guilt.
While these have their counterpart on the Right, we agree with many of those on the Right who so believe in God, the Constitution, and can even find common ground on many issues with the few who are far more than two standard deviations from the mean, so to speak, whether we agree with or embrace all they believe or not. Whether they choose to find enough common ground with a candidate who has a reasonable chance of dismissing Republican charges of being a whacko is up to them and how rationally the candidate can present their case while remaining charismatic enough to inspire faith in the candidate to do the right thing.
Note that the Democrats, New Leftists, and Socialists are going to call anyone to the right of Lenin a 'right wing whacko/extremist'. That is to be expected, as are the 'hick from the sticks' and 'uneducated', un polished, 'non-IV League', etc. mantras used to marginalize (isolate) candidates. The Leftmedia honestly believe they have the sole right to determine who is cool and who is not, and it is their whole concept of what is socially acceptable which has made many urban areas a pit in so many ways, and is spilling into the Federal Government like a tsunami.
But it is when the RINOs start spewing that Leftist mantras that two things need to happen.
First, anyone on the Right should examine the statements of the candidate, in context, as written (not as edited by the minions of Katie Couric or somesuch). The candidate's record should be examined, and decisions made on the basis of that, not the howlings of a left-of-center Republican.
Note that the Republican Party has repeatedly shat upon Conservatives in this very manner, either through the claim of not being "electable" or other slurs, and that partly because of this treachery even an able and budding populist Conservative candidate was insufficient to carry the RINO across the finish line against a slick suit stuffed full of hope and change.
But the average office is not the political three-legged-race of the Presidential election, and the candidate must stand on their own merits in comparison to their opponents, not rely on a running mate to drag in a few 'moderate' splinter votes or provide comic relief with repeated gaffes.
Like it or not, it is a question of selecting the best person running for the job.
This is where it is critical to get that person in the primary race, to start building a team of people who can move up from local offices to positions of greater scope, and getting them the experience to step up to the plate. That means every race is important at the local level, too.
We may instinctively shun the spin-doctors and 'kingmakers' of modern, media-driven politics, but we do so at our peril. The packaging is, unfortunately, as important as the contents, and sometimes more so.
We need for our candidates to be able to work a crowd in personal appearances, preferably have an innate knack for it. We need for them to be media savvy as well, to be able to respond to a question fishing for a soundbyte, which can be used against them with a concise and definitive answer, which permits no creative editing, and yet is short and sharp enough to merit being shown on the six-o-clock news--and we need to record those and post them on YouTube and other venues where they can be seen.But beyond the education of the candidates, we may need to change the mind of the electorate as well. That requires education of the voters in marginal districts, and even in the ones in which there is no rational hope of winning this election. The best weapon against the minions of "Hope and Change" remains Doubt.
The ads should be non-partisan, soft-sell, and push Constitutional and Conservative issues in such a way as to seem to be little history lessons, either in print or in the electronic media.
Letters to the editor, 'today in history', special interest pieces, even stories which highlight local history and in doing so subtly show how things were often radically better without government interference or oversight can slowly drive the wedge of doubt in those minds which are yet capable of maturing enough to become conservative. It is one way to highlight the difference between being given a fish and being taught to fish, but there are as many angles as their are interests, primarily because the government has invaded them all.
Reminiscences of events as late as the fifties and sixties can portray a significant change.
But I am off topic, perhaps, dealing with building for the future, and not living in the present (although now is the time to build for the future, we are there).
I think in districts where the races have been close, the right candidate has an excellent chance to capitalize on the current disaffection with government policy, especially the outrageous spending and overreaching consolidation of power by the Obama administration. Harping on doubt, attacking the whole hopey-change paradigm and getting people, real, regular working folks to look hard at whether they are doing better is a first step. Doing so with humor, being likeable, having a winning smile and a general demeanor which shows a person at ease with themselves and what they are saying is crucial to getting people to walk away from the speech/appearance/TV and say "that guy gets it, I'm voting for him (or her as the case may be).
The next step is a coordinated and viable plan for restoring the Republic, one which does not blatantly alienate the borderline leftists, but pulls them to the Right to vote for true freedom--the freedom to succeed.
Reaching out to the young as a genuine and heartfelt (not 'preachy' or proselytizing) sentiment could rake in some of the younger set who are paying attention, after all, they are on the hook for the tab for Obamacare and so much more.
Facebook, Twitter, and other networking sites are probably vitally important venues--with a word of caution--any misstep could go viral just as easily as anything praiseworthy, but do not underestimate the power of the 'grapevine' in getting the message out.
Those messages need not be tied to a specific candidate, only their message, their stance on the issues, and if presented correctly, that will resonate when the candidate speaks those words themselves--if the message does.
Making it 'cool' to be anti-establishment still works, so long as the message reminds prospective voters who the 'establishment' is--the very alleged 'revolutionaries' who have only delivered the chains of economic bondage to future generations.
Blue dogs and bad bites...
As we have seen, so-called 'Blue-Dog Democrats are Democrats. Despite any Conservative leanings, they tend to flock together on the big votes.
Frankly, I'd bet dimes to doughnuts that there is a system of deciding what votes can be survived by voting party line by whom, and the count is determined more by the calculus of how many votes are needed by whom and whether they will survive the next election, rather than ideology on that side of the aisle.
Note the Kamikaze Democrats who will vote the party line despite the fact that polls in their home districts indicate the result will be retirement even if they run again. These are seats that either the Dems do not consider important, or consider they might be able to retrieve with another Democrat who can deny any philosophical union with the former incumbent. While that might play in some places, the voters need to be reminded that another cat with the same spots isn't likely to behave any different than its predecessor, that the party ideology is the driving force inside the Beltway, not the folks back home.
This tactic might be especially effective with the grassroots groundswell against the rampant and capricious disregard for the will of the voters in Congress, a grievance that needs to be emphasized repeatedly in order to keep the Dems feet to the fire.
With the right candidates, the right message, and a Conservative stance firmly in juxtaposition to the unprecedented disregard for the people's concerns about spending, extra-Constitutional power grabs, unaccountable appointees, and incredible disregard for the will of the people, there is a solid chance to gain both houses and shut down the Obama Juggernaut.
Pressing the issue and pushing for repeal of many of the Left's 'gains' will force Obama's hand and make him veto or acquiesce.
The one caution is that Republicans and Conservatives have to position themselves to not be the fall guys for the inherent failure of Obamite policies, to be vocal from the onset that this is what they expect to happen and that it will take some time, some serious budget cuts, and the backing of the American People to recover from the crises foisted upon us by the Left's Socialist policies.
Bottom line: Show how the Congress, under new management, will tighten the Federal belt, even as Americans have been tightening theirs.
Then, given the opportunity, do it!
