I could see someone not do well in the primaries but win in the general. The problem the Rs have now is that they lean so far to the right. The only way to win the primary is to lean way in that direction. So they end up with a very conservative candidate that may not appeal to the general population.
It would be in the Rs best interest to nominate someone who has the best chance of winning the general election rather than just the primary. That would mean their voters would have to nominate someone who is more moderate.
Huntsman seemed like the only sane candidate of the bunch. I’m independent, and he’s the only one that I would consider voting for.
The problem is that the primary system caters to the most committed voters - those who are going to vote for a party year after year. So it’s the most hardcore Republicans and Democrats deciding the nominees. They do think they’re voting for the most electable candidate - they’re picking the guy who most closely matches their beliefs and the beliefs of the other people around them. They’re thinking, “We shouldn’t have gone with Romney. He’s way too liberal. We should have picked a safe mainstream candidate like Bachmann. Everyone agreed with her.” Of course the “everyone” they’re talking about are the conservatives standing around them.
If Romney hadn’t been dragged so far to the right, I think Romney would have sounded just as reasonable. Huntsman just didn’t let himself be dragged that far.
Then why do the Democrats end up nominating relatively centrist folks. I mean I don’t think Kucinich won a single state in 2008.
People keep saying this and I can’t understand it at all.
Romney was probably the most moderate candidate in the field from the beginning. (Yes, more moderate than Huntsman on most issues. Huntsman is extremely conservative.) Romney is one of the most moderate national Republican figures. There are few left, and will be fewer in the future. Yet Romney was the obvious winner from the start. None of the many conservatives farther right than him had any real chance to win the nomination. Why? Because the so-called Tea Party wing is a minority even among Republicans. (And I said that before the primaries so this isn’t 20:20 hindsight.)
The Republican Party as a whole is certainly conservative. Romney has manifestly pandered to that base. But that base is basically the entire party outside of the tiny minorities in New England so anyone running for a national office has to pitch a campaign at that majority.
The reality is that the country is split down the middle with fewer in the middle every year. But that split is not exactly 50/50. It’s more like 52/48 or even 54/46 in favor of liberals. We saw that is 2008 and we’re seeing that this year and we’ll probably be seeing that in 2016. That a moderate will appear as a national Republican figure to swing those few percent over is a political fantasy. The demographics make the voter base skew less right every year. What might happen is that a charismatic right of center conservative - a Romney with a personality - may take advantage of some yet-unknown Democratic mistakes. The electorate likes to change presidential parties every eight years, after all. But it will be a political generation before the Republican Party generates a new moderate wing.
Didn’t Governor Kasich turn off a lot of Ohio to the GOP? People have been claiming that Ohio would go blue for over a year now. Romney’s problem: the pubbies have already been there and introduced themselves to voters. They learned what the GOP is all about and are saying, “no thanks.”
So, conservatives will believe Romney wasn’t conservative enough. Meanwhile, whenever they get a ‘conservative enough’ guy in office, it turns the public against them.
I’m continuing my bad habit of reading the comments made on online news articles (I opened a Pit thread about this a few months back); and the tone of the conversation reflects a growing crankiness amongst conservative voters. Any article that talks about bad poll numbers for Romney has 2 kinds of responses: “media bias” and “the only poll the counts is Nov 6”.
I think in this election it would be possible (if Romney hadn’t had to damn himself in the primaries with lots of pretty right-wing rhetoric).
Obama wasn’t a particularly strong candidate this year - the economy is not great, and the deficit, while a bipartisan effort, has grown by 6 trillion on his watch. I think the moderates in America would be willing to consider a change. It’s just that Romney is imploding.
Considering where we were 4 years ago, “the economy is not that great” argument has never made that much sense to me, especially in comparison with where the country was 4 years after the 1929 stock market crash.
Fodder for that thread: according to this chart, it took FDR until 1936 (4 years) to get back to 0 net job loss (back to 1929 numbers). But then, he took radical steps and had a cooperative Congress.
My mom told me …rather hysterically after the last Mittens gaffe…that she was going to get an absentee ballot so she could vote for him RIGHT NOW. I think she’s scared that his next mistake may be bad enough to change her mind and she wants to avoid that eventuality.