Putting the fun back into GOP fundamentals
I'm sure you've all heard the theory that Americans tend vote for optimistic presidential candidates. I won't go too far back in history but will just take a look at the presidential elections that have happened in my life-time.
Gloomy Adlai Stevenson lost twice, in 1952 and 1956, to up-beat Eisenhower. In 1960 optimistic JFK beat ponderous Nixon. But it's not quite so simplistic. After JFK's assassination the USA was pretty demoralized and voted for Johnson against Goldwater in 1964 probably because Johnson was safe and not controversial like Goldwater. The doom and gloom of JFK's death still hung over the country when Nixon ran in 1968 and 1972. Nixon wasn't exactly Mr Cheerful but he was at least more up-beat about America than his really gloomy opponents, Humphrey and McGovern.
Then Nixon's disgrace smacked down an already depressed nation and turned people against the GOP. In 1976 Mr Smiley Face Jimmy Carter seemed like a more cheerful choice than Gerald Ford who was tainted by his association with Nixon and was not able to really hold his head up high. But people soon saw through Carter's phony smile and realized that he was really a prophet of doom and Reagan won easily in 1980. In 1984 Mondale ran against Reagan and, let's face it, Mondale was probably the gloomiest and most pessimistic man to ever run for the WH.
Bush Sr was not as cheerful as Reagan but some of Reagan's optimism had rubbed off on him and his opponent in 1988, Dukakis, was only one degree less gloomy than Mondale. But then Bush Sr lost to the really cheerful Clinton in 1992. Clinton had perfected his beaming grin and did give the impression that he was optimistic and positive. In 1996 dreary Bob Dole didn't stand a chance against Bill "Mr Bubbly" Clinton. You also have to take into account that both times that Clinton ran, Perot drew votes away from the GOP candidate. In 2000 Bush Jr beat Al Gore partly because Gore is a bore but probably mostly because Nader sucked Democrat votes away from Gore. However Nader didn't run in 2004 and W beat Kerry for the obvious reason that Kerry not only looked like Lurch but sounded even gloomier than a grave-digger.
Yep, in 2008 we need to field an up-beat candidate and propagate an optimistic and positive message.
I take most polls with a pinch of salt but the more reliable ones are indicators of which way the wind is blowing.
The latest Rasmussen poll reports that 45% of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district, 35% would pull the voting lever for a Republican, 6% favor a third-party option and 15% are not sure. Democrats lead by 5% among men and by 14% among women and 30% among voters under 30.
This confirms the study released last month by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press which analyzed "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007."[PDF] Pew's conclusion was that the "political landscape is more favorable to Democrats." The Pew study is so huge and examines so many different trends over the past 20 years that I still haven't finished reading it 3 weeks after it was published but the gist of it is the same as the Rasmussen poll.
So there's a big possibility that the GOP won't win a majority in Congress or the Presidency in 2008. Do we just roll over and play dead? Obviously not. In the short-term we should play to win the 2008 election but at the same time we need to make some long-term plans. Karl Rove's strategy for GOP victory worked in 2000 and 2004 but it also cost us in the long-run. Rove used "wedge issues" (like gays and abortion) to fire up the conservative base but emphasizing what the GOP is against rather than what we are for drove away the non-partisan people who had earlier been drawn to the GOP by Reagan's optimism. And we need to attract independents and swing-voters to win.
Americans do not like pessimists and party-poopers and we need to start emphasizing what the GOP can give them not what we want to take away from them. Like Reagan, we need to remind people that America is still "a shining city on a hill." We need to get back to Reagan's ideas of smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, patriotism and an optimistic "we can win" foreign policy. Reagan didn't constantly nag and moralize the way many current GOP leaders do. He kept telling us what we could do not what we can't do. Leave the scolding to the Democrats.
Sure, we may still lose because Americans are war-weary. How could they not be given that the MSM only reports the bad stuff and is against the war and against Bush? But the MSM was pushing the same doom and gloom message in Reagan's presidency and always will do so and we just have to tune out their noise and stick with what we know is right for America in the long-run. Still, I'm sure we can win if we get back to pushing an optimistic message instead of constantly harping on how the country is going to hell in a hand-basket. Leave the doom and gloom to the Democrats.
Let's pick a positive, optimistic candidate and start putting the fun back into GOP fundamentals.
Gloomy Adlai Stevenson lost twice, in 1952 and 1956, to up-beat Eisenhower. In 1960 optimistic JFK beat ponderous Nixon. But it's not quite so simplistic. After JFK's assassination the USA was pretty demoralized and voted for Johnson against Goldwater in 1964 probably because Johnson was safe and not controversial like Goldwater. The doom and gloom of JFK's death still hung over the country when Nixon ran in 1968 and 1972. Nixon wasn't exactly Mr Cheerful but he was at least more up-beat about America than his really gloomy opponents, Humphrey and McGovern.
Then Nixon's disgrace smacked down an already depressed nation and turned people against the GOP. In 1976 Mr Smiley Face Jimmy Carter seemed like a more cheerful choice than Gerald Ford who was tainted by his association with Nixon and was not able to really hold his head up high. But people soon saw through Carter's phony smile and realized that he was really a prophet of doom and Reagan won easily in 1980. In 1984 Mondale ran against Reagan and, let's face it, Mondale was probably the gloomiest and most pessimistic man to ever run for the WH.
Bush Sr was not as cheerful as Reagan but some of Reagan's optimism had rubbed off on him and his opponent in 1988, Dukakis, was only one degree less gloomy than Mondale. But then Bush Sr lost to the really cheerful Clinton in 1992. Clinton had perfected his beaming grin and did give the impression that he was optimistic and positive. In 1996 dreary Bob Dole didn't stand a chance against Bill "Mr Bubbly" Clinton. You also have to take into account that both times that Clinton ran, Perot drew votes away from the GOP candidate. In 2000 Bush Jr beat Al Gore partly because Gore is a bore but probably mostly because Nader sucked Democrat votes away from Gore. However Nader didn't run in 2004 and W beat Kerry for the obvious reason that Kerry not only looked like Lurch but sounded even gloomier than a grave-digger.
Yep, in 2008 we need to field an up-beat candidate and propagate an optimistic and positive message.
I take most polls with a pinch of salt but the more reliable ones are indicators of which way the wind is blowing.
The latest Rasmussen poll reports that 45% of American voters say they would currently vote for the Democrat in their district, 35% would pull the voting lever for a Republican, 6% favor a third-party option and 15% are not sure. Democrats lead by 5% among men and by 14% among women and 30% among voters under 30.
This confirms the study released last month by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press which analyzed "Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007."[PDF] Pew's conclusion was that the "political landscape is more favorable to Democrats." The Pew study is so huge and examines so many different trends over the past 20 years that I still haven't finished reading it 3 weeks after it was published but the gist of it is the same as the Rasmussen poll.
So there's a big possibility that the GOP won't win a majority in Congress or the Presidency in 2008. Do we just roll over and play dead? Obviously not. In the short-term we should play to win the 2008 election but at the same time we need to make some long-term plans. Karl Rove's strategy for GOP victory worked in 2000 and 2004 but it also cost us in the long-run. Rove used "wedge issues" (like gays and abortion) to fire up the conservative base but emphasizing what the GOP is against rather than what we are for drove away the non-partisan people who had earlier been drawn to the GOP by Reagan's optimism. And we need to attract independents and swing-voters to win.
Americans do not like pessimists and party-poopers and we need to start emphasizing what the GOP can give them not what we want to take away from them. Like Reagan, we need to remind people that America is still "a shining city on a hill." We need to get back to Reagan's ideas of smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, patriotism and an optimistic "we can win" foreign policy. Reagan didn't constantly nag and moralize the way many current GOP leaders do. He kept telling us what we could do not what we can't do. Leave the scolding to the Democrats.
Sure, we may still lose because Americans are war-weary. How could they not be given that the MSM only reports the bad stuff and is against the war and against Bush? But the MSM was pushing the same doom and gloom message in Reagan's presidency and always will do so and we just have to tune out their noise and stick with what we know is right for America in the long-run. Still, I'm sure we can win if we get back to pushing an optimistic message instead of constantly harping on how the country is going to hell in a hand-basket. Leave the doom and gloom to the Democrats.
Let's pick a positive, optimistic candidate and start putting the fun back into GOP fundamentals.
posted by Joubert at 9:24 AM
The Alliance
<< Home