Key voters aren't just the ones who haven't made up their minds until the last minute; there are other kinds of key voters. For instance, a lot of Rs stayed home because they could not stomach voting for the RINO McCain. So putting a non-staunch conservative R loses other kinds of key voters. (BTW I did vote for him although it made me sick to my stomach to do so.)
Famous last words.
Let's say the Dems in general and 0thugga in particular have made it easy for the conservative GOP to be a clear contrast.
You get some votes that are "against the other guy," but not enough. You still need votes "for" your candidate or issues.
I don't mean by saying "We're against whatever they're for, and for whatever they're against" - I mean stating clearly the Constitutional principles that they trash. Clearly and forcefully stating what the conservative principles and platform is, which just happens to be precisely the opposite of what the Evil party is.
And I'm proposing nationalizing the election on freedom and the foundational principles of the American experiment.
Not sure what you mean by "nationalizing" the election. Also the word "freedom" can mean many things - what exactly do you mean? And the foundational principles were not merely monetary.
I'm not proposing framing the election into an argument about issues we disagree about how to deal with even here on FR.
What specifically do you think should be left off the table, then?
>>>>”Key voters aren’t just the ones who haven’t made up their minds until the last minute.
They’re one half the key at least. The other half is turnout. Those who have made up their minds long before the election. Some always vote, the others are more problematic. GOTV is crucial and they have to think it’s important enough and their vote counts, the need emotional involvement.
The 5% who make up their minds at the last minute are those “independents” blech. But anything over 52% is a landslide, so, yes, they often determine the outcome, because they’re up for grabs.
Nationalizing the election means framing it such that the great majority voters see it as voting on the nation instead of the narrow issues of their district or the likeability of their congresscritter, pork, etc. Contract with America is a classic example.
You may think every congressional election is nationalized but it’s not, it’s rare and difficult. It takes a unified issue perfectly in tune with the moment and of extremely broad appeal and emotional content. With “Morning in America” it was “we want to feel proud to be Americans again” or “American exceptualism”. You can see this is a big emotional issue, in tune with voters of the time (we’re tired of this weak ‘malaise’ crap).
>>>>>”What specifically do you think should be left off the table, then?”
Issues that don’t fit well in the category above. Issues that divide off into subgroup upon subgroup and cause division even among normally unified blocks.
It's a big word. That's a good thing. Freedom from being told what to do by government, freedom from taxes, freedom from the snot-nose elites who think they know what I need better than I do, freedom to choose my doctor and my insurance, freedom to buy what car I want, freedom to use incandescent bulbs instead of what the government says I have to - how f-ing ridiculous is that? Freedom to open a business without an EPA emissions permit, freedom to defend my property and life, freedom from paying for free stuff for illegal aliens, freedom this government caused economic mess.. Freedom.
the foundational principles were not merely monetary.
They're intertwined. In elections, if there's any economic uncertainty, your key position had better be economic or have positive economic appeal - pocketbook rules. Right now, this issue is off the charts, it overwhelms whatever is in second place.
Two more quick things, then I’m outa here:
First, the ‘84 election (Morning in America) was a landslide Reagan victory, but the dems still picked up two seats in the House. However, this is much less than the average for second term losses, and the GOP retained the Senate. The point here is: there’s never reason for over-confidence even with a killer campaign at the top.
Second point is: if you want to see what can happen to unity of purpose in defeating the Dem Congress if you start in on social issues at the wrong time, just look on this thread.