« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Myth of Unelectability

I’m tired of people here (and throughout the political spectrum, for that matter) pushing the meme that Republican X “can’t defeat Obama”. So I’m going to go through several candidates and give reasons why each one can defeat Obama:

Mitt Romney can defeat Barack Obama.

Yes, Romney gives up the natural Republican edge of hanging ObamaCare around his neck thanks to Massachusetts and RomneyCare. However, that does nothing to alleviate Obama’s other weaknesses. Obama has run the national debt up to an insane degree, and Romney can hammer him on that repeatedly, playing up his own managerial skills to good effect. In addition, Romney has a strong base dating back to 2008 that will do him well. Having already run a national campaign before in 2008 will also do Romney well; it’s no coincidence that most Republicans that won a Presidential election had already run for President previously (Bush Sr., Reagan twice, Nixon).

Tim Pawlenty can defeat Barack Obama.

Pawlenty has taken some problematic positions in the past, like cap and trade, however he’s done his best to distance himself from those; if Obama tries to use those against him, he can take the reasonable position that he’s learned from his mistakes, unlike Obama. Pawlenty’s biggest challenge at this stage is that he’s mostly unknown nationally, so he needs to define himself to the general public before the media and the Democrats do it for him. Having been governor in a blue-purple state means that he should already have at least one state in the bag for him that didn’t go for Republicans in the last three presidential elections, which could be the difference in a close race.

Jon Huntsman can defeat Barack Obama.

Yes, he was Obama’s ambassador to China, but he can answer any negative criticisms by pointing out that ambassadorships aren’t political positions, and how he started out as a staff assistant in Reagan’s White House. Huntsman can point out his record of cutting taxes in Utah, and how Obama really hasn’t kept his tax pledge. As with Pawlenty, he’ll need to define himself before the Democrats do.

Sarah Palin can defeat Barack Obama.

Yes, Palin doesn’t do very well amongst independents right now. But then again, neither does Obama. Independents that think poorly of both Palin and Obama are likely to not vote at all or vote for some third party, which reduces the election to an exercise in turning out the base. In that situation, you have Palin, who energizes the base better than anyone, against Obama, who has spent the last two and a half years disappointing his base. Republicans have got to like the odds in that situation.

Herman Cain can defeat Barack Obama.

Sure, Cain has never ran a national campaign, and he’s never held any significant political office before– but in an election like this, being an outsider has to be considered an advantage, and it’s not like he doesn’t have any executive experience, having been a CEO that turned a company around. Yes, he will make mistakes, novice mistakes even. But don’t discount the ‘black-on-black’ nature of an Obama vs. Cain race; there will be a significant number of independents that voted for Obama previously that are disappointed with him, and the idea of saying ‘I voted for the first and the second black President’ will appeal to them. Cain also has better rhetorical skills of anyone potentially running (save Palin), and that will work well to fire up the Republican base even more than they already are.

Ron Paul can defeat Barack Obama.

Okay, not all the current field of Republican candidates can defeat Obama. If by some fluke Ron Paul were to get the Republican nomination, the media would very quickly destroy him by pulling out issues of the Ron Paul Newsletter that have racist content. The first black president running for re-election against a media-confirmed racist? It would make 1964 look like 2000. The only question would be, would Obama carry all 50 states or not.

So with the exception of Ron Paul, I think any candidate that’s good enough to win the Republican nomination is good enough to defeat Barack Obama. What we should be concerned about is choosing the best candidate, not trying to play strategic games that will only work to our disadvantage. Heck, if it hadn’t been for the financial meltdown, we likely would have dragged John McCain’s sorry carcass across the finish line and into the White House. Let’s worry about getting the best Republican possible to be our standard-bearer in 2012 and retire the ‘unelectable’ myth once and for all.

COMMENTS

  • BA Cyclone

    Save for that financial meltdown in 2008, and McCain effectively torpedoing his own campaign concurrently with that (in more ways than one) — we honestly had momentum on our side at that point. The coronation of The Obama was not certain.

    Further, squish McCain with zero energy only lost 52-46, in a horrible year for the GOP at large and with “all the energy” and populism on the side of Obama.

    WE can do this thing for conservatives! But it does take some doing on our part — the left will NOT cede their power lightly.

    Nice diary.

    • renny

      than o but o took almost ALL the cities and in a state like PA with Phila., Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg being essentiall 100% minority and motivated to vote for the first black president and hyped up by lots of Dem. “walking around money” and ACORN fraud, they took a normally Rep. state.

      I don’t even like to say Red State, because red is the color of the old USSR and was the color of the left until the broadcast newsies were afraid too many people would associate “red” with the commie left and so assigned red to the right. The truth is the left should be PINK states.

      But I am very interested in making those CBS electoral maps BRIGHT RED all night in Nov., 2012.

  • msctex

    True Desperation distilled to its very essence is the denial of possibility. The argument could concern whether the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning, and if someone is sufficiently invested in it supposedly rising in the West, their only recourse, after a few embarrassing haymakers of simple logic, is,

    “No it won’t.”

    This is exactly where the Democrats find themselves, and this early in the game. All of the above (and at this rate I’d even add Paul to the mix because at the rate things are going we could run a poodle and win) can clearly beat Obama. Their only recourse is a laughing denial of the possibility of Obama ever losing to anyone, under any circumstances. It is the price that is paid for the abandonment of Reason.

    • williamjameson

      Obama, perhaps its the lack of enthusiasm for some candidates that translates into “can’t beat Obama”. I think anyone could beat Obama because money isn’t going to be the driving factor in this election, even Obama knows that. Obama will be beat by a multitude of sources tied directly to the nominee and by wealthy groups out to destroy the messiah.

      Conservatives didn’t utilize the internet as well as liberals did in 2008, this time its going to be different because Obama’s track record of failure and complacency exposes incompetence which translates into a weak candidate that the people are losing faith in. A survey ” Are you any better off since 2008″ will open many other American eyes.

      Dem Andrew Cuomo is a model of proof that Obama is a failure, even though idiot dems in NY are bitching about his refusal to raise taxes. Cuomo proves Obama is wrong by growing faith in the people and businesses who love his move. Cuomo even said he hadn’t ruled out a 2012 presidential run, probably teasing but clearly a better choice than Obama.

      • Finrod

        The most common one I’ve seen is claims that Sarah Palin can’t defeat Obama, but I’ve also seen claims that Mitt Romney can’t defeat Obama thanks to RomneyCare. I’ve also seen it said by multiple people that no Republican at all can beat Obama.

        I wrote this diary to try to help take off the table the ‘X can’t beat Obama so we should nominate Y instead’ argument, because with the exception of Luap Nor, I think that whoever is strong enough to win the nomination will be strong enough to defeat Obama with our hard work. I’m a bit weary of people focusing on the negatives of the various candidates; I’d rather hear why the lesser-known candidates are good candidates than argue about the drawbacks of the more well-known candidates.

      • n0n_s3quitur

        I stopped reading at
        “Sarah Palin can defeat Barack Obama”. Lulz.

        And in an article refuting the myth of unelectability, Ron Paul is determined to be unelectable… Because his tenuous ties to alleged racists will be exploited by the elite media? Any Republican nominee running against Obama will be labeled a racist; they will find some way, some how to use the race card. That is not even close to the most significant (and most easily demagogued) obstacles Paul will have to overcome to be elected if he were to be nominated. C’mon, surely you can do better than that.

        • Finrod

          It sounds like you’re trying to assert what you want to prove. Then again, since you seem to be supporting Ron Paul, I guess that’s standard procedure for his supporters.

          Wake me up when you actually put together something coherent, because what you wrote isn’t.

          • gekster

            I thought it was best to ignore it.
            I’m sure he will self destruct eventually. ;)

          • n0n_s3quitur

            What part of my comment did you find to be taxing your powers of comprehension?

          • gekster

            the problem was, I understood all of it from, “I stopped reading at” all the way to
            “surely you can do better than that.”
            Just say you are a mind numbed robot of Ron Paul and be done with it.

          • n0n_s3quitur

            You make some mighty large assumptions. I was calling on the author to defend some of his unsubstantiated assertions, which heretofore has not been done. However, I have been victim of some weakly presented ad hominem attacks. Let me know when you’re ready to debate like an adult.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            That’s enough trolling.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          .

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    Another point is that once there is a Republican nominee, the universe changes. All Republicans will get behind the nominee, and we know that GOTV is the whole ball game.

    If we have a candidate with a weak background in national organization, we will have to win it ourselves.

    And we will.

  • David123

    and spends many years attending a church where America is cursed in the sermons.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    anathema to civilized discourse.

  • zooboy

    She’s as good as Palin at firing up the base, but without Palin’s media-generated baggage. Cain or Palin would be great for the base, too. I’m a Reagan conservative from Texas, and Perry has too many RINO tendencies for my vote (in the primary).
    We don’t need a ‘litmus test’ of having held executive office, or been on the national stage for a long time, as a disqualifier for a candidate. Being a long-time politician increases a person’s susceptibility to ‘government-think’.

  • Finrod

    I left out Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry too, for that matter, but I’m sure anyone who wanted to could fill in the rest, with a little effort.

  • JSobieski

    It is far easier for a legislator to avoid evidence of RINO-ness than it is for an executive. In most instances, the vote of an individual legislator is meaningless because most measures are not decided by a single vote.

    Lets take Sen. DeMint as an example. I am sure we both are big fans of his. He voted against TARP, against bailouts, etc. Of course, he did so knowing either that his opposition would fail or that if it succeeded, there would not be individually linked and singled out for any negative ramifications that resulted.

    The budget showdown is a great example. An executive does more than simply give a thumbs up/thumbs down. Most decisions are linear, not binary. Its not a question of merely raise debt limit/don’t raise debt limit. Rather its how much in cuts would you require before agreeing to raise the debt limit. How does the candidate handle disputes with the legislature?

    For example, we know that Pawlenty is capable of inducing a government shutdown to get cuts through. We know this because he has done it before. Bachmann may say that she would (and I believe her), but she has not proven that she would.

    In my opinion, the best way to avoid RINO executives is to go with someone who has actually resisted the pressure to behave in a RINO fashion. Unless for example you think we can get $1.6T in budget cuts this year, you are looking for some type of “deal” that makes real cuts but still leaves a deficit. How does one negotiate such a deal? What is the track record of the candidate in such negotiations? As someone who negotiates for a living, saying that I won’t agree to any deal unless it is 100% what I want is silly.

    What made Reagan so effective was that he was a great negotiator and he cut good deals.

    Merely voting the right way is but one step better than blogging the right way or saying the right things on a tv or radio show. The accountability of executive action is far far different than the accountability for giving a yes/no vote on a legislative proposition.

    It is far easier to be philosophically consistent when all you do is vote yes or no on a finite number of specific legislative propositions. Would you want a surgeon to operate on you when they have never actually performed that type of surgery before?

  • NHConservative0227

    Just look at good old FoxNews letting Chris Wallace insult Bachmann this past Sunday!

    If MB ever became a serious threat to Obama, the media will rip here apart.

    The difference is that Palin has already been threw it and has become even stronger and turned the tables back on the media!

  • ssshannon1026

    The objective should be the utter destruction of the political forces that made Obama possible in the first place. If Obama is replaced by someone unwilling or unable to make every possible effort to begin the immediate dismantlement of the entire progressive poliltical infrastructure from top to bottom, than beating Obama will mean nothing. In a few election cycles we will be right back where we are right not. A republican who tolerates or compromises with any aspect of the progressive agenda would be worse than just leaving Obama in place. The left should be allowed to continue their distruction of the fiscal and social infrastructure of the nation until there is, in fact, sufficient political will to sweep every part of it away. To achieve that we should put forward the most conservative person we can find, electable or not, and conintue to do so until they ARE electable.

  • darcdante

    That is all.

  • Finrod

    The media will tie him to racists through his newsletter and convict him in the court of public opinion. It’s not like they ever let the truth get in the way of a good story anyways.

  • NHConservative0227

    By saying that independents don’t like either Palin or Obama, that’ll it would come down to who excites their base more– advantage Palin — you proved what I’ve been saying all along!

    Why not elect the most conservative candidate then instead of settling for a more electable moderate like Romney or Pawlenty??

    Plus, the majority of these precious independents are actually soft Dems or Repubs anyways. They are followers, not leaders. Give them a strong conservative to vote for and they will just like they did with Reagan.

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    Never, ever listen to what the mainstream media says about OUR candidates. They are invariably wrong.

    They loved McCain, and kind of liked Dole. Look at how that worked for us.

    They hated Bush…they hated Reagan…and thought both would lose.

    I wrote a piece a couple months ago about how Palin could win. I am not a huge Palin fan either…but I still think, looking at state to state polls, that she could beat Obama. I used poll numbers (accurate at that time) and I think I made conservative, reasonable arguments. I think a Palin-Obama fight would be closer than some others, but I still think she could win.

    Ultimately,we should pick the person who most fits our conservative ideals, and move on from there. Electability will come.

  • http://www.sheetanchor.org Sheet Anchor

    Palin can win based upon polling like this:

    PPP Poll numbers from ?the? vital swing state of Ohio.

    Independents in Ohio:

    Palin 43%
    Obama 42%
    Undecided 15%

    Overall in Ohio:
    Obama 50%
    Palin 40%

    This may be the reason the Democratic and Republican establishment is worried about Governor Palin.

    PPP surveyed 565 Ohio voters from May 19th to 22nd. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.1%.

    Note: PPP oversampled Democrats by 10%. Thus Palin is tied or ahead of Obama in the overall poll numbers based upon 2010 and 2008 Ohio election ratios of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

    Link is below. Independent data is on page 12.

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_OH_0524513.pdf

    And then there was this extemporaneous speech by Palin at the movie premier earlier this week in Iowa:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/michellefron#p/a/u/0/J4JtCGFqk5M

    Is she running?

  • renny

    they would spend all their time and energy attacking Mormonism to make even the mildest RINO a religious extremist. That’s the mantra. Kos and Moveaglong are already bragging they are going to pick the Rep. candidate as they did McCain and get the same results.

    The lie to that claim is that if Paulson and Bush had sat on their hands a couple months longer instead of declaring a ec. terminal emergency in August 2008, McCain was leading then and might have won on his experience if we were in financial turmoil in Nov. Paulson and Bush really ended the McCain campaign.

    But if we work hard in this election, contribute much, and get out the vote (we could use Rove’s playlist there), the numbers say o is not going to win.

  • gekster

  • Christine (Trelaina)

    is an acceptable alternative to allowing someone who gets a 99 on SSShannon’s conservative test into office???

    C’mon, please…drop this insanity. You loons are going to cost us the election. I don’t want my children to grow up in a socialist nightmare…and if that means I have to vote for someone that I might have to smack around a bit in office, by God I’ll do it and be proud.

    I don’t for the life of me understand why this…purist attitude seems to be catching on. Or is it just a handful being trolls? Please let that be true….

  • ssshannon1026

    If it takes the destruction of America to kill this evil, than that is what we need to do. We had become a socialist nightmare before Obama was ever even born. Obama isn’t the problem, he is a symptom of the problem. Simply defeating him will gain conservatism nothing if it isn’t part of a much more far ranging plan to bring the current system to its knees and root out progressivism from our entire society altogether. That should be the goal. If it isn’t, the battle is not even worth fighting.