Thanks for that. You're in the definite minority of Obama supporters I've heard from in that respect.Ian wrote:Anyway, one thing I WON’T do on this post is try to proclaim this election as a moral victory for Obama, or gloat about how the country collectively made the right choice.
The rest of your paragraph here is wrong on a critical point. Contrary to the press distortions, Romney was every bit as moderate during the primary as during the general election. It doesn't take any second guessing for the conservatives to say Romney was a moderate, because that's what they were saying throughout the winter and spring. There was no disguise, except for the press filter than only affected the left. Romney was nominated specifically because he was moderate, because moderates were believed to be more electable.except for one important takeaway point: I sincerely hope that in the aftermath of this loss, Republicans will not chalk up Romney’s defeat to his not being conservative enough.
Romney didn't tack to the center in that first debate at all - he just finally had an opportunity to cut through the press distortions by talking directly to the American people. If anything, the conservative base must have seen it as a tack to the right, since that was when there was finally a ground swell of popular support for him from the base.
That said, you are correct - being too moderate was not what did Romney in. Rather, what did Romney in was the natural advantages of an incumbent. Here's my nutshell analysis to my google+ conservative friends:
I want to make three observations about the 2012 election:
1. Incumbent presidents have been defeated only 3 times in the last 80 years. It is extremely difficult to defeat an incumbent.
2. The Republicans' victory in the house of representatives demonstrates that the Tea Party issues and activists that drove the 2010 election are still alive and well. We are not going away.
3. The destruction of the Akin and Mourdock campaigns, and the resultant failure of the Republicans to gain control of the senate, shows that the Tea Party formula is not the same as extreme conservatism. The Tea Party was about economic freedom and liberty, not about whose social views to impose.
It's amazing that you consider Ryan and Rubio to be "far right". Where do you put people like Santorum and Huckabee - you know, the people who really want to impose their religious beliefs on the whole country?It’ll happen, too – keep an eye on guys like Ryan, Rubio and others on the far right – they’ll be rising stars on the path to 2016.
Hillary Clinton. And she'll be defeated by Mitt Romney.And who the heck will the Democrats nominate in four years?
