Some people think that Romney lost (and GOP lost seats in the Senate) because Americans don't buy the economic message:
the vital issue of this election was clearly the economy, and the Grand Old Party’s Grand Old economic ideas just didn’t sufficiently convince the American population. Their liberal economic notions suggested a form of trickledown economics more appropriate to a previous age, unable to ensure future advancement. I believe the inadequacy of this ideology was exposed to many Americans through the Great Recession; there is now a more common acceptance that the capitalist system is flawed and requires to be kept in check by at least a moderate form of government intervention. Mitt Romney’s policy to decrease business regulations {ed: I don't remember hearing anything about this--Romney said in the debate that he LOVES regulation} therefore didn’t sit too well with many Americans. However, I do not believe that more traditional, economically liberal policies are set to come to an end in the States; they just need to modernise, to encapsulate the American notions of individual freedom and liberty in a 21st Century context.
Pundits want the GOP to make changes in order to "stay relevant," but these pundits seem to recommend the changes that they personally would like to see, as opposed to asking "What does this party need to do to drive more votes?"
Many people are saying that the socially conservative issues need an overhaul. The two issues that get the most play/votes are: abortion and gay marriage. Let's look at both.
Marriage: It's certainly the case that gay marriage is going to be a reality. SCOTUS is likely to hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act in the spring, and the Obama administration has not been fighting it. A candidate would have to win the nomination from a party where 74% of the people think gay marriage should not be legal, then win in a general election with half of Americans in support of legal gay marriage, including 57% of independents. This is a difficult conundrum.
Abortion: My feeling (and I don't yet have data to support this, so feel free to post in the comments) is that, when it comes to gay marriage, most of the passion is on the "pro" side. On this issue, there is passion on both sides. Gallop says that pro-life Americans are at an all time high, but Rassmusen reports that pro-choice voters are at an all time high. And voters trump non voters, every time.
Even some Right to Life groups show that most Americans would support abortion under some circumstances. In this poll, only 20% think that it should be illegal, no matter what.
But here's what's interesting. Remember Richard Mourdock, who, while running for Senate, famously said that "even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen"? Well, he lost to a pro-life Democrat, Joe Connelly. In Indiana.
The issue this year was the economy, and Romney just didn't do a good job of articulating why his plan was better. He didn't talk about social issues, either. There was really no reason to vote for the former governor this year, other than he was not Obama. As a Republican or independent, if you don't see differences between the two candidates, why vote for either? If the GOP is to win in 2016, there's no secret. The party doesn't really have to change, either. All they have to do is successfully nominate a candidate that can raise enthusiasm in the base, and among some independents. It's all about the candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment