« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

2012 – Why Republicans Lost. And What They Must Learn to Do…IF They Want to Recover.

Now that Barak Obama has been reelected, the usual flurry of excuse-making and finger-pointing by Republicans has been even more intense than usual.

“Democrats cheated!” – So what else is new? They always cheat. So get a big enough margin and it won’t matter. Democrats cheated when Reagan won 49 states. Who cared?

“Obama spent millions on vicious attack ads!” – Once again, this is news? Despite the public’s claim that they don’t like them, attack ads work. So develop better ads than theirs.

“It was Romney’s 47% remark!” – Beside the fact that what Romney said turned out to be absolutely accurate, so what? Democrats will always get a free pass from the media for the most outrageous comments, while every less-than-elegant word spoken by any Republican (even in private) WILL be splashed all over the airwaves – accept it.

“Conservative ‘purists’ stayed home!” – True, a fair number of the pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and Ron Paul types refused to participate, but again, if you’d gotten enough votes to offset their temper tantrum, you would have still won.

“It’s all the fault of social conservatives!” – The unutterably stupid Todd Akin aside, blaming the loss only on social conservatives is just another scapegoating effort. That being said, even on this issue, when Romney and Republicans didn’t know how to counter the “War on Women” rhetoric with persuasive messages of their own, the end was inevitable. 

And while some positions (decriminalizing marijuana for example) have some merit, throwing out social conservatives is not the answer. Democrats never dumped their anti-gun constituents – they simply got them to fly under the radar (and retained their votes).

And of course, last but not least:

“The Press was in the tank for Obama and the Democrats!” – Hey, the press is LIBERAL. Get over it. Unless and until you get enough capital to buy out all the major TV networks, as well as all the major newspapers, you’ll just have to live with it.

But the real question is: With a horrible economy, soaring food and gas prices, millions on food stamps, not to mention suspicious scandals like “Fast and Furious” and the Libyan debacle, how on earth did Barak Obama get reelected, especially just two years after the unprecedented Republican tsunami in the 2010 mid-term election? Why, after almost 4 years of massive deficits and staggering debt, all of it racked up by Obama and the Democrats, did an astonishing 50+% of voters say they still blamed the economy on George Bush? How is that even possible?

The answer is simply that Democrats are better at marketing than Republicans.

An old Chicago political friend of my father once summed it up nicely: “Republicans insist on talking to voters as if they are giving a presentation to a board of directors – Democrats speak as if they are delivering a summation to a jury.”

What he meant was that Republicans think that facts will win the day. Ridiculous – Democrats know that you have to couch your message in vivid, simplistic, and emotional language that reaches the majority of Americans who are neither politically active, nor economically astute.

Look at how the Left has sold their message for the last 50 years. They relentlessly demonize “the rich” and “big business” – the very people who employ most of American workers. They tell the “little guys” (which includes black and Latino voters, of course) that they are “victims” of “the 1%” and therefore have a “right” to a certain standard of living. How Democrats will provide this utopian vision is never clearly explained – other than that they will be sure to “tax those fat cats” to the hilt.

Then there is the brilliantly conceived (pun intended) “War on Women” – the fact that liberal policies have put more women into poverty matters not one bit. By positioning women as victims, and portraying themselves as “saviors” and “protectors” of their “rights” (free stuff), Democrats got the votes of a huge percentage of single women. But again, it wasn’t their policies, it was their emotional language that sealed the deal.

Public schools, from elementary to the university, inundate your kids with “global warming” propaganda that has them thinking that America’s prosperity is “killing the polar bears” and “destroying the environment.” And if you think this is not happening in your child’s school, you are mistaken. Even private parochial schools have jumped on the “green” bandwagon. I recently drove by a Catholic elementary school promoting “Global Warming Day.”

Once again, the facts are that in spite of massive increases in industrial output worldwide, and a billion more people on the planet, global temperatures have not budged in nearly 15 years. But that does not matter. The anti-prosperity “green” propaganda rolls on unabated.

The Left also has an army of Hollywood writers, producers, and actors who pepper nearly every movie and TV show (from dramas to sit-coms) with left-leaning propaganda messages. Note the snide remarks that are regularly made by a character about “the rich” or how often the villain is a corporation doing something evil.

Just DAYS before the election, in an episode of NCIS-LA, there were two political candidates running for local office. Their party affiliation is not identified. However, one was a young, nice looking, Hispanic woman who, we are told (oh-so-adoringly by the pretty NCIS agent) “supports the ‘Occupy’ movement” and “wants to build ‘affordable’ housing for the poor” – if that’s not enough, one of the major characters opines, “sounds like someone worth voting for.” Meanwhile, her opponent just happens to be a balding, older white guy who makes lewd suggestive remarks to the aforementioned female NCIS agent, and is “funded by big donors” – gosh, is there a message in there somewhere?

The show “Leverage” is based almost entirely on a team of “good guys” battling “evil corporations” who are “taking advantage” of some absurdly tear-jerking victim (“single-mother-whose-child-got-cancer-from-your-products-because-you-intentionally-hid-the-damning-test-results”). If you watched it regularly, you would get the idea that every business executive in America spends his free time trying to figure out how to make products that kill children and old people.

Now, just about everything the America Left stands for is either factually wrong or economically insane, but that is beside the point. It is the way that they sell their message – relentlessly, forcefully, and using language that is simple, vivid, and emotional – that carries the day with enough voters to make the difference. Even when the “product” is flawed – in this case an ever increasing, dictatorial nanny state – the right marketing campaign works.

Thus the answer for Republicans is not to continue trying to be more “moderate” in their policies (which has never worked). In fact, if they want to survive as a party, today’s Republicans had better get back to the kinds of conservative principles that have always worked. But then they must learn how to “sell” capitalism and smaller government using the kind of language that everyone can understand.  And, please, quit apologizing for the free market policies that have proven to work, both here and around the world.

After Obama’s endless attacks on the “top 2% of the wealthiest Americans” where was the justifiable counter-punch from Republicans? Why has not ONE Republican leader defended the top job creators? Why is even the word “capitalism” seemingly forbidden in the Republican playbook? Surely with it’s record of success throughout history, free market capitalism should be downright easy to vigorously promote, let alone meekly defend.

For a superb example of how you do this, I suggest you Google “Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue” – Friedman’s one-hour appearance in the 1970s is divided into five segments, but it is well worth watching the entire program. He calmly explains in simple, easily understood language, precisely and persuasively how free market capitalism is unequaled in its ability to provide prosperity to more people than any other system in history, and why it is always demonstrably superior to government controlled economies (i.e. – socialism). Simply brilliant.

We can do it. It’s been done before. Reagan did it. The Tea Party did it. Margaret Thatcher did it.

Yes, the forces aligned against the free market and limited government are formidable, but unless Republicans learn, and learn quickly, how to market their message to women, to minorities, and to the public at large, we are all going to find ourselves in a country that none of us will recognize…and the change will not be positive.

11/17/2012 – Update: The commentary on this piece has devolved into a discussion on “gay marriage” and other social policy issues. Those are perfectly legitimate topics for another day – this posting is about how to MARKET the party’s policies (whatever they eventually turn out to be). Try to keep on topic, please.

COMMENTS

  • libertarius

    It’s not just marketing; it’s much of the actual message from the right that kills us. When will you discover the courage to face the reality that social conservatism is a loser? When will you admit that social conservatism is what causes us to lose elections?

    If mainstream Republicans went on tv and said, “My religious beliefs are personal; politically, I believe in separation of church and state”, we could win every election in this country. The left wants to force collectivist, backwards economics on us–and the mainstream right wants to force collectivist, backwards “social policy” on us. You’re both wrong, and for the same reasons–you want to force your goofy beliefs on others.

    Fiscally conservative (i.e capitalistic) and socially liberal is the word of the future (if there is to be one). Go libertarian or go extinct, GOP.

    • GremlinJones

      I agree that it’s not just marketing and I also agree that social conservatism is an anchor on the core GOP message of smaller government. This isn’t 2004, when gay marriage was a winning issue. Gay marriage happened, the world didn’t end, and support rises every year. It isn’t a matter of IF that plank will be removed, it’s a matter of WHEN. Same thing with marijuana legalization – when the people see that Washington and Colorado don’t descend into chaos and madness, it will be another issue of which we’re on the wrong side. Young people are increasingly atheist or at least not church-goers – and we’re the party that demonizes anyone who isn’t a devout Christian. Bottom line is we should pound the issues that matter and on which we’re strong – fiscal responsibility, small government, and ditch the positions NOW that we’ll end up ditching LATER.

      • Bill S

        Have fun removing that plank and about 50% of the GOP with it.

        • exitsfunnel

          Which plank specifically? Because if you’re talking about opposition to gay marriage, then that’s going to be a real problem for the GOP. Support for gay marriage has reached critical mass and it’s not hard to read the tea leaves. It’s not going to be possible for one of the two major parties to be opposed to it and be viable.

          I do not identify myself as a social conservative; I am an atheist. But I do hate abortion and my hope for social conservatives is that they find a way to draw a bright line in the sand between their opposition to gay rights and their opposition to abortion. Because the former position is going to quickly become marginalized and crumble and I hope that when that happens, it doesn’t take the latter down with it.

          • Jack_Savage

            OK – what do we do with the people who are against gay marriage but love abortion? Then what do we do with the people who love gay marriage and love abortion, but want God to be more in the public square? Then what should we do with people who are against gay marriage but really like don’t ask, don’t tell, really like 99 weeks of unemployment but really don’t like AFDC and WIC?

            What you want is cafeteria conservatism. I get that you don’t understand the principles that underlie the philosophy, but if you did you would understand that what you ask is not possible for those of us who adhere to a set of coherent beliefs.

          • exitsfunnel

            The reality is that we have a two party system while there is an almost infinite number of possible permutations of positions a person can take. Almost no one can expect that their party is going to line up with them on 100% of everything.

            I’m not trying to convert anyone to the cause of gay marriage, I’m just pointing out that unless there is some kind of miraculous singular event which changes the trajectory of public opinion, it’s not going to be possible for the GOP to be opposed to it. It would be like trying to be the party of Prohibition.

            Regarding my not understanding the principles of of conservatism, I’ll only say that I’d bet dollars to donuts that I’ve read as much Locke and Burke as you have and probably more Smith. Conservatism changes, at least around the edges, as much as people want to pretend otherwise. American conservatives today aren’t positioned exactly where they were 40 years ago, nor where they’ll be 40 years from now.

          • Jack_Savage

            This isn’t an “around the edges” change. Support for gay marriage requires a complete and total repudiation of history, law and tradition, and to compare it to Prohibition is not worthy of discussion.

          • exitsfunnel

            I don’t want to belabor this point, so this will probably be my last post on the topic. I’m only comparing opposition to gay marriage to support for prohibition in the sense that they are both minority positions. (I understand that the public support for gay marriage isnt’ at those kinds of levels yet, but my premise is that it’s headed there and in fact, I don’t know how you can look at the trend and the polling crosstabs and come to any other conclusion)

            My only other comment is to repeat that I’m not trying to win you personally (or anyone else really) over to the cause of gay marriage. I’m just positing what I think is the reality which is that the GOP can’t hope to be a majority party if they hold a minority position on such a divisive issue. There’s a reason that in only eight short years they’ve gone from campaigning on the FMA to essentially pretending on the campaign trail that the issue doesn’t even exist.

          • Jack_Savage

            Amendment One in NC.
            61% yes, 39% no.

            That’s not a minority position. And that is just one of 37 examples I could cite. Pro-gay marriage may be the majority position in Manhattan and Hollywood, but when it comes time to make an actual decision on it, we all know what happens.

          • exitsfunnel

            Could you cite me the most recent three? Because I’m obviously not arguing that support for gay marriage has always been a majority postion.

          • Jack_Savage

            Maine, Washington and Maryland approved same-sex marriage in the election this year, the first states to do so by popular vote. A blurb from the article on the vote in Washington State says a lot, though:

            “The measure was losing in 31 of the state’s 39 counties. But it had its
            strongest lead — 66 percent of the vote — in King County, which holds
            about a third of the state’s voters and is home to Seattle.”

            To wrap this up – I don’t take positions on issues because they are popular, or unpopular. I take positions on issues because they align with a deeply help philosophical belief. Whether you are correct or not is debatable, but what is not debatable is whether gay marriage aligns with conservatism.

          • rustyoldgarand

            I don’t think you have a monopoly on conservatism, jack.

            America is mostly an urban nation. Dismissing the city voters as irrelevant to conservatism is a good way to lose elections.

          • Jack_Savage

            I never said I had a monopoly on conservatism. I just said that support of gay marriage is incompatible with it. I will be happy to take correction if it can be provided.

          • rustyoldgarand

            I agree with you about gay marriage, but I don’t see why we can’t discuss a compromise on civil unions. Conservatism does not mean stasis, and even that old scion of conservatism Edmund Burke supported the American revolution because he understood that England could not win by opposing it. Conservatism divorced from practicality is just ideology. I’m all for holding the line where we can, but we do need to give some thought to what is strategically practical.

            I dunno, jack. What is the social conservative position on civil unions? I see it as a matter of giving to god what is god’s and to caesar what is caesar’s, but I’ve spent so much time overseas over the past ten years that I’m not really up to date on every argument out there.

          • Jack_Savage

            My personal view on civil unions is that if two adults wish to enter into a legally binding contract, it is none of my business. If it ended there I would fully support it. Knowing liberals as I do, however, it would merely be one step in their little jihad against marriage.

          • rustyoldgarand

            I share your doubts about the left’s ultimate intentions vis-a-vis the redefinition of marriage…but it does sound like there is some room to negotiate on this point, and I think making it clear that we support full legal rights for gays in the eyes of the state while maintaining principled opposition to the redefinition of marriage (which is an inherently religious institution) is a message that would have a lot of traction with the average voter.

          • avgjo

            “The mobs of great cities add just so much to support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body”

            “I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts; but the useful ones can thrive elsewhere; and less perfection in the others, with more health, virtue and freedom, would be my choice.”

            “I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get plied upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”

            -Thomas Jefferson.

          • Jack_Savage

            Amen.

          • garbolly

            The NC vote was interesting. About 2.7 million people voted, from a voting age population of about 7.3 million – about 36%. The population of NC is now nearly 10 million, and for those under 30 years of age, support for gay marriage is around 70%!! Troubling to extrapolate.

          • Jack_Savage

            Provide a citation for the 70% figure so I can look it up, please,

          • exitsfunnel

            This poll puts it at 73% for to 24% against for the 18 – 34 age group. I didn’t cherry pick this poll; I simply googled and this was the first results from 2012 with crosstabs I could find. You’ll note also the trend lines which are striking.

            http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/06/rel5e.pdf

          • Jack_Savage

            Interesting. Also interesting how it changes as one gets older, and how it plays among non-whites.

            I guess the point that I am trying to make is that if a position changes because of a trend, it’s not much of a position, is it? I am reminded of the cowardice of the Democrats who voted for the Iraq War, then came out against it when things did not end in about a month. I also think of how many American lives that cost.

            I also think of the other institutions where trendy responses to the popular culture have resulted in erosion of the institution, like the military and organized religion. I don’t think you need look any farther than the headlines of the last week to see that in the former, and I can provide a ton of information regarding the latter.

            It pains me to see conservatives participating in the re-definition of the most fundamental institution of society, and I dread the unintended consequences that will result.

          • exitsfunnel

            I think that you get at the heart of the issue when you assert that it changes as one gets older. I think that it’s pretty clear that that’s not what’s happening. If it were, I wouldn’t be making the argument that I’m making. But I’ve never known even a single person who used to support gay marriage but now doesn’t. I think that age differential in support is simply a function of young people having a different world view by virtue of having grown up in a society less hostile to gay people. I’m too lazy to go look for the data, but the numbers were quite similar during the period where interracial marriage was still controversial.

          • Jack_Savage

            I think gay marriage is a lot like abortion. People may support it in the abstract, but when Polly wants to abort my grandchild, or the gay Scout leader wants to take my 13 year old on a camping trip, or the actual mechanics of the either one are openly discussed, things get a little more personal and real, and opinions change.

            I also think that there is a Bradley effect in the polling, and there is a big difference in accepting gays in society and re-defining marriage. Those two issues get conflated, IMHO, in the polls.

            We’ll see.

          • exitsfunnel

            There was a response to this and I started to read it and then it just disappeared. Disqus is so frustrating.

          • streiff

            basic point. There is a difference between gay rights and gay marriage. I really don’t know what the first is as the various post Civil War Amendments and subsequent SCOTUS decisions have settled the issue of civil rights. Marriage, however, is not now nor has it ever been a right. You can’t marry your sibling or a parent. Polygamist rights have been off the table for a while. What is at issue is simply whether the state has the ability to regulate marriage.

          • exitsfunnel

            On the semantic point I agree of course, though I’m not sure exactly how it’s relevant. I dont’ agree though that what is at issue is simply whether the state has the ability to regulate marriage. Everyone agree that the state has that ability. No one in this country thinks that an adult should be able to marry a seven year-old.

          • streiff

            to the contrary, that is the only issue in gay marriage. If the state has the ability to regulate marriage a state can legitimately forbid sacramental sodomy. Claiming there is a “due process” issue says that for some people — homosexuals — marriage is a right. For the rest of us the state can forbid it. Personally, I don’t find child marriage any more morally reprehensible than gay marriage. Both do nothing more than cloak sexual perversion with social acceptability. All polemics aside, I would support polygamy/polyandry long before I would support homosexual marriage.

          • exitsfunnel

            Okay then. Not much to say to that except that ultimately I hope that it’s the culture and not the courts which decide the issue though, frankly I think that they both get us to the same place.

      • http://havegunwillvote.blogtownhall.com/ cmndr45

        I actually DO support decriminalization of “pot” as a libertarian/conservative position. If it were championed by Republicans (combined with strong punishments for DWI, etc. to satisfy the soccer moms), it could possibly knock the wind out of the Left with younger voters.

    • Bill S

      The success of the Libertarian Party testifies to the asinine point you’ve made here.

      • http://havegunwillvote.blogtownhall.com/ cmndr45

        “Success” of the libertarian party? Where? And if you can’t comment without resorting to Lefty-style insults, the Daily Kos would gladly take you…

        • Bill S

          I predict that I will be here at Redstate far, far longer than you will.

      • libertarius

        I testify to the millions and millions of independents and young people for whom the Republican Party is toxic because of social conservatism. Many people have no way of knowing that they are libertarian republicans, because exposure to these ideas is so hard to come by in the mainstream. But if mainstream Republicans were making libertarian arguments, it would ‘flip the script’ on the Democrats, and now those old fuddy-duddy Republicans would become the avant garde party of change.

        In light of the imminent demise of the 20th century “progressives” welfare state, it is the Democrats who have become the new reactionaries. But the only way for the GOP to capitalize on this, is by going libertarian.

        • streiff

          so that’s why the Libertarian party is so powerful.

        • Bill S

          Sarcasm ain’t your strong suit, it seems.

        • Jack_Savage

          So you speak for millions, huh?
          God help us all.

      • rustyoldgarand

        I think this is a somewhat disingenuous point you are making. We exist in a two party system, so criticising third parties for not getting votes in national elections is sort of missing the point. In a parliamentary system, a hypothetical libertarian party would get a lot more than the 1% or so of the vote that Johnson got this year. Just how much they’d get is not clear to me, but they are a meaningful part of the electorate, and probably constitute the clearest “low hanging fruit” which the GOP can win back.

        This poster has done a terrible, ham-handed job of communicating libertarian principles, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore or dismiss libertarians out of hand. Although I consider Ron Paul a dangerous crackpot, libertarian values are not incompatible with the rest of conservatism. The biggest problem with libertarians may simply be that many of them are quite young, and don’t very well understand things like humility, manners and negotiation. If they want to come to a place like redstate and tell us what’s what, it’s their own damn fault, but we can still hope that they come to their senses.

        • Bill S

          Nice postulation, but I could just as accurately and with as much evidence state that the number of dogmatic libertarians who don’t waffle on their alleged beliefs is too small to really take seriously.

          • rustyoldgarand

            It is difficult to speak with any real authority on this subject. One of the disadvantages of the two party system is that it serves to mask specific voter preferences. Beyond superficial information like skin color and age, we don’t really even know much about the components and proportions of our own coalition, nevermind how many voters corresponding to values x, y, and z there are out there for the taking. All very frustrating.

            I’m unconvinced by talk of the GOP’s imminent demographic demise, but I do think it’s fairly clear that we’ve lost the thread a bit with younger voters. But young does not automatically equal libertarian, so what we’re supposed to do with that information is unclear.

    • http://havegunwillvote.blogtownhall.com/ cmndr45

      Please note that my entire piece focuses on fiscal issues. But even if we were able to silence every crackpot (the inimitable Todd Akin is a perfect example), unless we learn the art of communication (Reagan and Clinton are two prime examples), the policy positions won’t trump the massive Democrat marketing campaign.

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        Why are conservatives obliged to muzzle “crackpots” like Todd Akin (who, by the way, is a very decent man), but the damnable leftists are never asked to denounce REAL crackpots like Tammy Baldwin –as detestable a candidate that the Democrat Party has ever fielded?

        When, oh when, are traditional Americans going to stand the hell up and fight? It’s not that which you so blandly label “marketing”– We engage in “marketing” all right; but we market thin gruel and mush.

        All of the professional consultants ran screaming into the night, along with all their bags of money, the moment Todd Akin made his “Legitimate Rape” comment. Plenty of money for Karl Rove and American Crossroads to dump into the rat-hole of Pennsylvania in Romney’s Quixotic campaign there, but none whatsoever for Akin. Instead, these consultants and customers-men should have run IN to Missouri, filling the breach by aggressively pounding the detestable McCaskill for voting for Obamacare– and then gone to extraordinary lengths to educate the public about why Obamacare is such a nightmarish disaster. They should have pounded the hell out her, and ripped the campaign back in Akin’s direction. This was never done. There was never the slightest attempt to rip McCaskill to shreds politically by the establishment right: They simply abandoned the field.

        Has the left EVER done this? NO! They never surrender an inch of turf, as the Baldwin (and Tim Kaine) elections prove: In both these instances we have far-left loathsome radicals dressed up as mainstream Democrats, and Todd Akin is left to dangle in the wind because we’re too damned gentlemanly to fight — and fight hard, with the same brass knuckles, prevarications, skullduggery and flim-flam the Left does. THAT’S the problem: Not marketing.

        Why is this? Most of the money managers on the Right don’t actually embrace conservatism: Rather, they promote mushy middle-ism because passionate, full-throated, lion-hearted conservatism embarrasses and frightens them. In reality, too many of these Steve Schmidt-types find the simplistic, emotional appeals of Marxism and Socialism alluring to one degree or another, even as they campaign against them.

        Reagan battled these forces his entire career, especially after learning about them as the union leader of the Screen Actors Guild in 1940′s Hollywood, which was a hornets nest of Soviet infiltration, as the Verona cables attest. Reagan WON because he fought, he engaged the battle– not once, but FIVE times in his political career, losing as often as he won. Marketing had little to do with it. Passion, and knowledge, and the courage of his convictions had EVERYTHING to do with it. Romney shows up, all filled with the entitlement of unearned primogeniture, and comes across as the phony he was.

        Oh, no, don’t kid yourself. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party spent more money, and expended more precious resources on “marketing” than most American businesses will ever blessed to be able to spend. The problem is, they were marketing Mush. Americans, no matter what you may think of the election result, can’t be suckered by marketing when that which is being marketed is a cheap, counterfeit phony. Obama is an authentic Radical Leftist. Authentic sells.

        Mush doesn’t sell. Strength and Passion, however, DO.

        • Bill S

          They don’t call us The Stupid Party for nothin’…

        • ww2nd95

          I agree with you to a certain extent. Authenticity does matter and if Romney had canned the “Severe Conservative” act, and we all know that was an act no matter how much we wanted to believe him at the time, he would have won. He should have run as the board room, CEO that controls the room, as he truly is. He should have been more specific with his plans on air, rather then saying “I have a 59 point plan online, go read it.” as if anyone by the most ardent supporter is going to spend the time, because the “indies” don’t even pay attention to politics before the step into the voting booth, so they’re not going to go read 59 points on a website.

          As to what the OP said, yeah marketing is important and so is authenticity. People voted for Obama because he looked comfortable in his own skin and wholeheartedly embraced his own policies, where as Romney didn’t, because he was pretending to be a SoCon/FiCon all in one, when he’s actually just a NE moderate Republican. He couldn’t even embrace his healthcare law in MA, which I honestly think in his gut he’s proud of despite Obamacare’s unpopularity, and I think that hurt him because he had to actively avoid it, which I’m sure wasn’t easy. If he had simply said.. “That is what the people of MA wanted and I think it was good for that particular state, but I do not want to impose that on other states, where people do not want it.” he may have been able to get that monkey off of his back, but he failed to effectively articulate that message.

          We need people who can articulate conservatism and truly believe in what they say. It’s when we nominate either panderer’s like Mitt Romney or people outside of the mainstream of America (a-la Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle) we lose. We keep looking for the next Ronald Reagan and I think that’s killing us. Dems do not keep looking for the next Bill Clinton, they simply take their best candidates and put them forward, and support them, which is why they have been successful. Ronald Reagan was a diamond in the rough. There won’t be another Reagan. We need to simply take the best that we have and put them forward, rather then tossing those that we do not think could be another Reagan to the side.

  • BlackRedneck1

    Excellent points! Not only is the lefties better at marketing, there goal is to destroy conservatives and they are playing to win. Republicans are too busy taking the high road and not offending people that they fighting with their hands tied. More importantly, will the left loses, they double down on their issues. When they win, they shove through their bills and they throw red meat to their base. Republicans yell at their base to shut up and send money. Social conservatism is a winner. It delivered a landslide to Reagan. Lefties who are successful usually live a “conservative” lifestyle, i.e. they get married before they have children, they stay married, they educate their children and they invest in the future. You don’t see them living the gangsta lifestyle that they encourage in the black community.

    • BlackRedneck1

      P.S. I love Leverage and have from the beginning. The premise of the show is that the go after “the rich and the powerful.” So, they go after corporations, the government, and the mob. Yes, there are lefty elements which annoy me, but they also have pro- Christian elements (Nate is a former seminary student who agonizes over doing the right thing and is the conscience of the group) and pro-military (Eliot fights for his country and always has his friend’s back).

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      Some social issues are winners. I think anti-abortion is increasingly a winner, and promoting families is always a winner. The Gay marriage thing, and the continued failed war on drugs? not so much. Also, a very activist, interventionist foreign policy is a big loser among the majority. Most people feel that our priorities ought to be right here in these difficult times.

      • BlackRedneck1

        That just shows that the popularity of social issues fluctuate especially when the left uses propaganda and demonizes the opposition. When conservative issues are the majority belief, then majority opinion doesn’t matter (how convenient). As soon as a lefty issue gets 50.1% approval, the matter is settled and conservatives should shut up and go away. The 2nd amendment and pro-life issues demonstrate why it is important for conservatives to hold the line. Now, the tide has swung back and pro-life and 2nd amendment issues are being won, people act like it was inevitable. the Pro-life issue is winning because the pro-life movement adapted their arguments see Lila Rose, the slippery slope became reality i.e abortion for convenience, millions of females have been aborted all over the world shocking the feminists, and 3D sonograms etc have allowed people to see the growing baby in utereo which destroyed the clump of cells argument. Now, after 20 years of relentless bashing by media and entertainment, support for gay marriage is growing. Conservatives have not fought back against the demonization but they will. Many see the growing threat threat to liberty and religious freedom, and we’re pushing back. In the next 10-20 years, the numbers are going to change again. Foreign policy, I don’t think American’s have ever been big interventionalists.

  • commonsenseobserver

    1) Opposition to gay marriage on the federal level must go. Federalism and democracy must be our lodestar here. (And face it, DADT’s dead and buried. DOMA’s another matter.)
    2) The sanctity of life in cases other than rape, incest, or for a mother’s health is non-negotiable. Especially on the state level. A majority of Americans continue to support regulations such as waiting periods and parental notification, and oppose late-term abortions and taxpayer funding for abortions.
    3) Religious freedom ought to be an area of common ground with libertarians.

    • exitsfunnel

      This is where think that the party should be as well, especially on (2). I describe mhyself as pro life and I understand the intellectual argument behind the ‘no exceptions’ position, but it’s just political suicide. Sometimes getting 90% of what you want is enough.

  • commonsenseobserver

    And libertarians, values voters, neoconservatives, and moderates would do well to remember that they cannot win without one another.

  • redeleven

    “The answer is simply that Democrats are better at marketing than Republicans.”

    Thank you. My thoughts exactly. We have to get better at this.

  • 1stRichard

    The problem is simply not only marketing, the Republican Party has no continues campaign behind them as does the left. On the left, there is the Populist movement, the Rights movement and the Union movement in campaign mode 24 / 7 / 365 and the Republican Party only comes out to play mostly during elections.

    Obama has mentioned his specific attacks many times, Obama in his own words, “concentration of power – collectivist” he will use not only the civil rights movement but also union and populist movements start at 1:55 in http://youtu.be/ZjzPirAp0vM I have said and say again, ignore the facts at your own detriment, this is where the front lines are in this war and you will be defeated if you ignore this.

    This is the primary reason why the Republican Party lost and in part conservatism lost, too many do not know where to fight, who to fight, what to fight and think it is only time to fight when there is an election. The worse group of all that I have seen would be the libertarian purists that cannot accept a slow turn, as they demand some ridicules leap of faith that is far out of reach. Then there is the social conservatives that bring a bible to a gunfight, it may be best seeing how many times they shoot them selves in the foot. Then there are the fiscal conservatives and so on. The simple fact here is everyone needs to stop with these circular firing squads, correct your mistakes and take common aim at the left, the Populist movement, the Rights movement and the Union movement.

    I must also make mention of those that have recently called for the Republican Party to become the Populist Party, read your history books please. We already had a Populist Party and it became part of the democrat party. Goldwater called it “me-to-ism” and today we call it RINO, do not be a Statist enabler.

    • http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php kralizec

      Republicans will continue to lose as long as they act like, vote like and run like moderate big government democrats. Face it, the GOP is a moderate party, it has run moderate candidates for POTUS since Reagan left office and since then they are 3-4 in races, losing the last two to the most left-wing clown on the planet, this last time worse than the first since his record of failure was so monumental that people thought it would be great to give him a Mulligan instead of taking a chance on another moderate. The GOP is the Whig party of the 21st century, and it needs to be discarded. Fight, whine and cry all you like all you pooh-pooher’s, but that is a fact. If you like moderate big government democrats who call themselves Republicans, great, stay put, hone that marketing message and drift further left, yeah, lemme know how all that works out for ya! Politics is dead, I am moving beyond such meaningless pursuits and looking to my own means of preserving my liberty. God be with you.

  • dsmurf

    get rid of all the married white guys, pander to Mexicans with TV ads in Mexico, tell them its Bush’s fault, watch the remaining people who want the GOP label, and watch them choke on their Frappes- get rid of all the churched people who actually believe that our Republic will only stand with a true religion pursuit. Top it off with telling everyone that they can work with their lenders instead of going through the foreclosure process. You will leave Obamacare in place and force Medical doctors to practice as their patriotic duty. Tell the Catholic church to pay for every women’s abortion that has a law degree Oila you will have a winner,

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: Bernardine Antonini

  • Pingback: 2012 – Why Republicans Lost. And What They Must Learn to Do…IF ... | The Unpopular Opinion | Scoop.it

  • Pingback: bgdfgdfgdfgdf

  • Pingback: grotlopt

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: breaking events

  • Pingback: noclegi roztocze

  • Pingback: lecteur datamatrix

  • Pingback: buy real instagram followers

  • Pingback: "?????"

  • Pingback: Prince Hayner

  • Pingback: Cucciolo Rottweiler

  • Pingback: Rent a dumpster

  • Pingback: consultant

  • Pingback: Dumpster Deliveries

  • Pingback: weight loss diet

  • Pingback: free annual credit report

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: free annual credit report

  • Pingback: land of nod discount code

  • Pingback: babys r us registry

  • Pingback: Jamaal Arenburg

  • Pingback: talk for free

  • Pingback: cheapest car insurance

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: Reva Stassi

  • Pingback: Chiropractor boardman

  • Pingback: http://ldlhdlcholesterollevels.org

  • Pingback: Rosetta Toguchi

  • Pingback: Marketing a Medical Practice

  • Pingback: Regenia Bilodeau

  • Pingback: Gladys Salmans

  • Pingback: Harley Dyse

  • Pingback: buy zynga poker chips

  • Pingback: hair loss treatment for men

  • Pingback: chat

  • Pingback: Eugena Janower

  • Pingback: http://quizilla.teennick.com/user/nondescriptrepr41/journal/2337984/ponte-vedra-homes-for-sale

  • Pingback: lida satis

  • Pingback: Kasandra Sera

  • Pingback: Read This

  • Pingback: Krystle Hyacinthe

  • Pingback: Cliff Deoliveira

  • Pingback: free