Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy
I have not seen the film, but as I see it, the problem was never really Mitt Romney, the problem was Mitt Romney being saddled with the current incantation of the Republican Party. One need only think back to fiasco of the Republican primaries with Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Michelle Bachman. On top of that is the crazy base that gets so energized for the primaries.
How exactly can you appeal to the Republican base to win the Presidential nomination and then after that try to appeal to all Americans in the general election?
It's been done before. The Republican strategy was actually quite successful during the 1980s, and it seems that they wanted to repeat that strategy in the past couple of elections. The problem is that most of the people who elected Reagan in '80 and '84 have likely passed on by now. The so-called "Moral Majority" was no different than the "crazy base" you're referring to now. But the next generation of college Republican Reaganites were never anything more than robots and spineless followers - not leaders. They don't really have anyone with the same level of staying power or charisma that Reagan had. The crop of Republican candidates in the last election was nothing more than a bunch of toadies - people who worked their way up the ladder on somebody else's coattails.
It's really kind of odd in a way. Back in the 1970s, the Republicans looked they were down and out forever, but for whatever reason, the country's politics shifted. That can likely happen again, which is why I'm usually reticent to make any kind of long-term political predictions.
As for the difference between the primaries and the general election, this too is a problem. The staggered nature of the primary season is the main issue, as the primary should be a national primary with all states voting on the same day. None of this favoritism for Iowa or New Hampshire - every state and every voter should be on an equal level. If and when the American people ever develop enough backbone to demand a national primary on a single day (and get rid of the conventions, too), then a lot of the problems you're addressing would go away.
Another thing I've noticed is that a lot of the political elite (at both ends of the spectrum) tend to be out of touch and don't really know what appeals to *all* Americans. All they really know is their own immediate circles and their own factional support, but they don't really know or care what it's like on the "other side of the hill," so to speak. I've even seen this occur in the political discussions here, such as the many times we've seen posters accuse other posters of using strawman arguments or otherwise misrepresenting the other side's point of view. From what I can tell, liberals and conservatives really don't understand each other all that much, almost as if they come from different planets.
No one candidate can ever appeal to *all* Americans, but at the very least, different factions have generally understood each other well enough to be able to negotiate and compromise effectively. But that's not really happening as much as it used to.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of people don't tend to vote on the basis of ideology or even their pocketbook. Sometimes, they base their decision on intangibles, such as character and personality. Someone who exudes uncompromising toughness, hard-driving determination, and other leadership qualities might be seen as better suited to national leadership than a weedy intellectual or wimp. Voters might also try to decide whom they perceive to be more honest and/or confident, and sometimes this can be based only on superficial observation, such as what one might conclude from watching a debate on TV.
One thing that always sticks in my mind is the 1960 Presidential debate where people who listened to it on radio claimed that Nixon won, while those who watched it on TV claimed that Kennedy won. Things like that are very revealing about how the minds of American voters actually work when deciding who to vote for.
quote:
In the primaries you have to:
(1) Hate on Government as you seek the office of running it;
True, although both parties have made a point of having perceived "anti-establishment" candidates as a selling point. State governors might also have a certain edge, since they're seen as coming outside of the Washington establishment.
As far as I can tell, up and down the spectrum, everybody hates the government to some degree or another. That's the American way. The President will always get lampooned and satirized in the media. There's always been a certain anti-establishment bent in popular culture as well, at least since the 1960s. Cynicism and mistrust of the government has been quite common throughout my lifetime, although during the Nixon and Reagan eras, I recall that the Republicans were very much pro-establishment and pro-government back then.
quote:
(2) Hate on Immigration as the country's demographics are shifting;
I think there are variances of opinion on the question of immigration within the Republican Party. It's also a potential source of division and internal conflict, since the business elite favors immigration (both legal and illegal) because it provides them with a supply of cheap labor - which can save them money and lead to higher profits. However, at the lower ranks of the GOP, they don't see it that way, as a good part of their core ideology has been somewhat xenophobic, isolationist, and very much anti-immigrant - and that attitude goes back a long way.
The Democrats also have a bit of an internal conflict themselves on this issue, since working class Democrats might be inclined to oppose immigration for economic reasons.
quote:
(3) Hate of gays because the bible say's they are sinners;
I think some might try to skirt around this issue, although it may be hard to avoid in some districts.
quote:
(4) Advocate policies that enrich the elite (tax cuts-deregulation, etc.) while claiming they help Joe-the-plumber;
This might be one of their biggest Achilles' Heels, and it was likely a serious detriment to Romney's and McCain's campaigns. The main reason why the Republicans are even still breathing is because the Democrats never really pressed them on this issue (probably because the elite Democrats have benefited from the very same policies).
quote:
(5) Deny global warming and other problems;
Perhaps, although I don't think this would be much of a deal-breaker in most voters' eyes, since most people don't seem to care about it anyway. We still remain big consumers and polluters, and it's clear that people have no real desire to change their habits. That's the real truth behind global warming that few people want to face, even most Democrats, quite frankly.
quote:
(6) Have no proposals for exploding health care costs, environmental protections, public transportation, and income inequality;
Neither party has made any great accomplishments in any of these areas, not in recent decades anyway. Some great strides were made in the post-WW2 decades, but after that, things just started to fizzle out.
quote:
(7) Distance yourself from the failed policies of the Bush Administration (Tax cuts, deregulation, over-militarization) while advocating for more of the same.
It's the same policies that Republicans have been arguing for since the Reagan years, and since Reagan is still a Sacred Idol Who Must Never Be Criticized in the eyes of many Republicans, they can't very easily come out and distance themselves from those actual policies, since they weren't Bush's policies, they were Reagan's policies. Bush just rode in on the coattails of his father, who rode in on the coattails of Reagan, so the connection and legacy remained clear in the eyes of many voters.
|
Mitt Romney - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread