The argument that the Republican Establishment, those sycophantic Washington DC insiders who move all the chess pieces in the party, make is that Mittens is a moderate, and moderates can reach out to "independent voters". The problem with Mittens, however, is that he's a husk. You can't be everything to everybody. It doesn't work that way. And you can't count on getting the fabled "independent voter" without alienating your base.
Who donates to your campaign? It's not independents. It's those true believers, those small businessmen and women in small-town America who donate to you because they believe in your message. While Mittens is raising a lot of money, most of it is from corporations and insiders, not because they believe in his message (let's face it, Mittens doesn't have a message), but because they want to hedge their bets. They spend money, to curry favor with whoever they hope is the nominee (in case he gets elected, they can call in those favors).
Sadly, in American politics, money talks, and bullsh*t walks. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's the reality.
If you want a look at what Obama's strategy for the general election, all you need to do is look at Mittens' performance in the primary election maps by county. Let's take Ohio as an example: Santorum took a huge geographical chunk of the map. Huge. Romney's support was based almost exclusively in the urban centers of the state: Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Guess what Obama's goal is going to be during the general election for Ohio?
Here's the core issue: who do Obama's policies hurt the most? People in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland, with their citizen's exposure and dependency to the government bureaucracy? Or those struggling small-town citizens and farmers who now have to swallow the high cost of gasoline and tax increases? If you can't solidify the base (Republicans, Rural America is your base.) and their small town sensibilities, you'll lose the election. The problem is, you need to take as many counties, as many precincts, as possible. You can't take them for granted. Besides taking the counties, you need to push your way, nibble away at the suburbs and the fringes of those urban centers. The closer you get to minimizing your opponent's support in the urban centers, the higher the chance you'll minimize their impact.
Now for the bad news: we have a moderate as our presumptive nominee. We've had eleven presidential elections since the birth of modern conservatism. Six of the candidates were Republican conservatives. Five were moderate Republicans. Of the six conservatives (framed by the media and the party as conservative), all six won their elections. Of the five moderates, four lost. Of the six Conservative candidates, the more Right-leaning, the larger the number of electoral votes he won, the more overwhelming the victory. Consider that in 1980 and 1984, Ronald Reagan was the Antichrist Incarnate as far as the media was concerned. Not only did he decimate Jimma Cahta in the '80 election, but he absolutely destroyed and embarrassed (and took his lunch money, to boot) Walter Mondale in '84.
To contrast, John McCain, while an admirable war hero, tried to offset his ideological mushiness with his war record and his reputation for bucking his party when he needed to. The result? The 2008 election was a wipeout.
Here's the bottom line: an ideologue isn't necessarily a bad thing. People need to be presented a contrast in order to get emotional in their support. If Obama says "Yes", our guy needs to have the moral courage to say "No". That's why support for Bachmann and Perry was so rabid at the beginning. Only when they started getting mushy in their platforms, did support start to wane. (In the case of Perry, that "you don't have a heart" bullsh*t during the debates did him in.)
The people who back Santorum, back him because of his stance on social issues. They respect him because of his strong moral convictions and willingness to put it all out on the line. Mittens, on the other hand, has support a mile wide and an inch deep.
Think of the most popular Conservatives since 1980: Reagan, Dubya, Cheney, and Palin. Why do we love them so much? Because they drive the left (and the leftist media) batsh*t crazy. They drive them crazy because of their earthiness, their values, and their rural sensibilities. Can you imagine Obama flying in a fighter jet? Jogging and cycling with wounded warriors? Hunting? (And shooting somebody in the face?) Riding horses on their ranch? Of course not. These are things rural, regular people do (well, besides shooting people in the face.) We don't go to musicals, order Wagyu beef, drive wind-up electric cars,and we DAMN sure don't eat arugula. (I had to look up what an arugula is.) We go out to eat at Texas Roadhouse, order Angus steaks, pop a few rounds off at the range, and drive trucks and Jeeps.
This is the most important election of my lifetime. Four more years of the current administration will 1) change the face of the Supreme Court, 2) rack up more debt than all other administrations combined, 3) implement the most invasive and comprehensive government entitlement program in history, and 4) continue to
Shouldn't we field the candidate who offers the starkest contrast, instead of the most ideologically moderate?
What do you think?
that was a case study in exactly what happens when a society falls off of the Socialism Cliff.