Quote:
Originally Posted by Orruar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Keep in mind that there were 15 million fewer voters this year than in 2008. Voter turnout was below 60%. I'd imagine a big chunk of that were people completely disallusioned with both candidates, whether they are leaning left or right. I know a lot of usual Republican voters who couldn't vote for the moderate Romney. I know the media paints Romney as a right winger, but he is very much in the middle. The Republicans keep putting up these moderates and they keep losing. A Ron Paul would have brought in a lot of people who otherwise were not voting. He also would have picked up a good chunk of Obama voters who were simply voting anti-Romney.
|
I disagree that Ron Paul would've been a net positive with independents as compared to Romney, but even granting that point, you're continuing to work from a starting point of ceding Latinos, blacks, and gays. You cannot do that and win. The country's electorate has changed. It's not 1950. If you want to take Louisiana and Alabama, you can fight for the independent vote and ignore minorities. If you want to win Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia -- the states that actually decide the election -- you MUST compete in minority demos.
I believe that you know a lot of people that are sick of the Republican party running moderates. Rush was complaining about it just the other day. But if you think the Republicans stand to gain more than they lose by shifting even further right, particularly in the states that matter, I think you're kidding yourself. The Republican party is in bad shape and it's only going to get worse. Young people are overwhelmingly Democrat and minority populations are growing by vast margins.