Or it could be the other way around: that Republicans nominate social conservatives when the party is likely to win.
In any case, Nixon wasn't quite a social conservative in today's sense, nor was Bush I. It's also not clear that Dole was that different from Nixon or Bush I on social issues: he just happened to lose.
I guess if Democrats oblige us by nominating a McGovern or a Dukakis, the Republican candidate can't help but look like a social conservative, but one can't count on them doing that every time.
That's not to say that Huntsman is right and the GOP ought to drop the social issues, but I'm not sure that a lot of the things we tell ourselves are actually true -- especially in today's very different America.
Very sensible and logical post. We need to stop with this circular firing squad mindlessness and stick to economic issues and follow the constitution. On those issues we are solid ground.
This election should have been a walk over to winning. The economy was horrible. We had a Marxist ideologue in the WH and we lost????? That really takes some skill to pull off the impossible even with a lockstep mainstream media pulling Obama’s wagon.
How could anyone with half a brain vote against a Republican who sticks to the economy and rails against national bankruptcy which we will sure have at the rate we are going? If the voting public is this stupid then we are surely doomed as a republic and deserve what we will reap.