House of Eratosthenes

The smart money inside the Beltway says that the Republicans need to pick a moderate candidate who can appeal to independent voters, not just to the conservative voters who turn out to vote in Republican primaries. Those who think this way say that you have to “reach out” to Hispanics, the elderly and other constituencies.

What is remarkable is how seldom the smart money folks look at what has actually been happening in presidential elections.

Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections when he ran as Ronald Reagan. Vice President George H.W. Bush then won when he ran as if he were another Ronald Reagan, with his famous statement, “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

But after Bush 41 was elected and turned “kinder and gentler” — to everyone except the taxpayers — he lost to an unknown governor from a small state.

Other Republican presidential candidates who went the “moderate” route — Bob Dole and John McCain — also came across as neither fish nor fowl, and also went down to defeat.

This actually goes back quite aways. Generally, a conservative politician is injured when the difference between him and his opponent is muted, obfuscated, toned down or otherwise made difficult to perceive; a liberal politician is injured when that difference is highlighted. Bold, primary color Republicans win elections. Passive, muted tone Republicans lose them.

I actually heard a woman on the radio yesterday morning counter-attacking the people who had criticism for John McCain, insisting that he deserved to be defended because, hey, he picked a running-mate who really ignited the base. Uh, yeah. That’s what running mates are for; they bring things to the ticket that the guy in the top slot cannot bring. Well you know, based on what I have seen — I don’t think they can bring that. I think, on Election Day, people who are slightly of a conservative bent but not passionately in that camp, will make a decision about bothering to vote based on whether they can recognize what the top contender would actually do once elected. This is an enormous demographic, I think people are right to be putting some serious energy and curiosity into finding out what it takes to bring in their votes. But I don’t think a moderate candidate brings those votes in. I’m not entirely sure why there is this widespread perception that this is the case.

Maybe it’s the irrational fear of America becoming a Christian theocracy. Not the people who cling to that fear, but rather, the people who are playing to the concerns of people who cling to that fear. You know, I don’t think people who have this phobia vote for Republicans. I don’t think it happens one time out of a hundred.

Answering the Professor’s question: Wouldn’t bet against it.

Bold, primary color Republicans win elections. Passive, muted tone Republicans lose them.

Yes!

I’ve never understood the passion for “moderates.” “Moderate,” as defined by the media, means “liberal.” Why should one vote for the squishy, doesn’t-know-he’s-a-liberal liberal when they’ve got the out and proud real thing on the other ballot? At least the card-carrying liberal will promise you sunshine and unicorns at taxpayer expense…..
- Severian | 11/16/2011 @ 06:20
‘Round here, the only thing that consistently runs down the middle-of-the-road is a yellow streak.
A more moderate candidate? Great “advice” for a slate that’s already established.
There IS a political viewpoint that is “more moderate” from the well ensconced “inside the beltway” way of saying crap, and SOMEHOW always “debate, and negotiate” abi-partisan “We NEED more money from the folks that actually pay it…it’s for the children”.

It’s often referred to as The Tea Party.
- CaptDMO | 11/16/2011 @ 10:11
My thoughts exactly, Sev.

I was on some blog (maybe even it was this one, I can’t remember) arguing against nominating the “moderate”establishment candidate awhile back, and I pointed out the same thing – “We’re done listening to you moderates. You’ve lost us at least four presidential elections in just the last twenty years, while true-red conservatives have won as many in thirty years. We tried it your way the last time around and we lost and lost big. Enough. The real conservatives get to pick the candidate this time.”

Speaking of that, the latest Ann Coulter column is….a disappointment.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47570

I think Ann’s gone off the deep end. She starts off by slamming Newt (admittedly I’m not a big fan of his, either) and finishes by telling us what a wonderful boon for Republicans that Mittens is supposed to be.

Between this and her passion for Kevin James – er, I mean – Gov Chris Christie of NJ – I am starting to wonder what she has been smoking of late. It is infuriating enough that these squishy blueblood types had the audacity to seek the presidency to start with.

Sorry, but I’m not going to vote for Mittens McBlueBlood Establishment no matter what kind of glowing review she writes…and I suspect the majority of conservative voters are with me. I detest the false-choice often presented: ideological purity vs electability. I want to know why we supposedly can’t have both.

There’s adequate evidence available by now that trying to get the latter at the expense of the former, has in fact gotten us neither.

Personally I’m still backing Perry. I don’t give a hoot if he can’t debate and I’m willing to overlook the immigration bit and the Gardasil thing. He still is a far more authentic conservative than any of the others except Bachmann.
- cylarz | 11/17/2011 @ 22:50

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Will Republicans Blow It?”Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

“Will Republicans Blow It?”
Wednesday, November 16th, 2011