We need better screeners
The Tea Party has done a good job of purging one kind of Republican, what you might call the Total Squish – the Republican who just offers nothing on any issue to Republican voters. But to my mind, there are three other species of candidate that we need to do a better job of vetting and avoiding in the primaries, both national and statewide:
1) The Clueless Rich Guy: The wealthy or self-funded candidate with little or no political experience, no firm principles and, as a result, often an undue reliance on political consultants. Romney was not the only candidate of this species – Linda MacMahon also failed in Connecticut for a second consecutive cycle. Rookie politicians aren’t all bad (see Ron Johnson, for example), but as a group they make a lot of mistakes, and wealthy ones are often poor messengers for our ideas.
2) The Pulled Hand Grenade So-Con: Social conservatives are a crucial part of the Republican coalition, and I’d be the last person to want to run them out of the party. But it takes a high level of self-delusion to avoid the fact that candidates like Todd Akin simply have no clue how bad their pronouncements sound to voters outside their corner of the base – and in Akin’s case, he won the nomination over two equally plausible alternatives who would have beaten Claire McCaskill. Richard Mourdock, unlike Akin, had won statewide races and didn’t have a real record of saying things that would set off alarm bells – plus he won his primary against an incumbent far past his sell-by date – but one poor answer in a debate finished him. Social conservatives as a group need to accept the fact that communication and tone matter; people will respect your issue stances, but not if you seem to them like a frightening extremist. We need to find better ways of identifying people who just won’t fly with the general electorate before it’s too late.
3) The Retread: Two of the failed Senate candidates (Tommy Thompson and George Allen) were excellent statewide candidates…in the 90s. But much like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, they found it hard to adjust to the current political environment. Voters looking for change are a lot less likely to pull the lever for a guy who has been out of the fight that long.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I would add one more thing that the GOP needs. We need to learn how to run circles around a hostile media.
melle1228 on November 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM
Completely wrong about Christie. If he ran in 2016, he’d win.
DarthBrooks on November 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM
Think he can start his campaign fund with the thirty pieces of silver?
KingGold on November 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM
And when Obama blames anything bad from Sandy on him, and the media blares it….then what?
Zaggs on November 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM
We need to change social issue talk to federalism talk, bringing in libertarians to the party. It’s the only way to hold onto principles while expanding the base. If the church lady gets pissed that some in their party are against the War on Some Drugs, you can calmly explain the beauty and original intent of federalism.
SirGawain on November 7, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Obama left an ambassador to die, I dont understand how Christie think he will get anything.
the_nile on November 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM
One of the best things I’ve read since the election was over.
vegconservative on November 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM
One poor answer! Sorry honey. Not only did God want you to be raped, it’s His will that you are pregnant, so suck it up.
And Mitt Romney was a terrific candidate who would have made an excellent president. He’s the only executive in the country worthy of the job.
There is a real need for pundits who aren’t painfully stupid.
Basilsbest on November 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Romney did better then I thought he’d do. He had and his pros and cons. But in the end he was an OK candidate with this one fatal flaw.
This blogger is right on. Thanks for linking it HA.
Next time(if there is one) remember that it’s the BASE TURNOUT not the INDEPENDENTS that wins elections!!!!!!!! Don’t let all of these moderates fool you again. They owned TH , this site and most of the other blog sites this cycle. They are now discredited. The base wasn’t there and the indies showed up for Romney and WE LOST!
BoxHead1 on November 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM
No more RINOs. We sucked it up after the primary, but that’s it. Most of us conservatives (note I didn’t say republicans) won’t do it again.
kim roy on November 7, 2012 at 3:52 PM
+100
ChrisSandy ChristieBlubbering estrogen filled hack.
portlandon on November 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM
A base which would choose Obama over Romney is moronic.
Basilsbest on November 7, 2012 at 3:54 PM
I have to agree, and I think we need to start this now with an eye on 2014. Even if the electorate has realigned we’ve shown we can win big in the midterms. We can’t stop Obama on most of the things he’s going to do to us but we can be there when he utterly fails to lead the way to something better.
Kronos on November 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM
Gov Big Turd.
the_nile on November 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM
They didn’t choose Obama. They were not not fired up enough to vote. The majority of the country are not politically active. They need a clear, simple and understandable reason to get off their butts and get to the pols.
Obamacare would have worked. Benghazi might have worked. F&F might have worked. A clear and consistent attack on cronyism, bailouts, green fraud… would have worked. Calling out Obama as the dangerous socialist he is would have worked.
BoxHead1 on November 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM
And he was this careless after Akin had dropped his bomb.
the_nile on November 7, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Romney didn’t fare much better than McCain did. McCain was facing a war-weary populus, during a financial crisis pinned on Republicans. Romney had every advantage we can expect a GOP candidate to have, and barely improved.
It would seem that we can get 46% of the vote regardless of the circumstances. The question is, what must the GOP do to get 5% more?
Obama certainly provides one blueprint. Demonize your enemey, attack them early and often, with accusations of all stripes. Make empty promises to every demographic group you can think of.
Put another way – if one candidate in the election says his opponent is a nice guy who happens to be wrong, and the other says his opponent is an evil plutocrat intent on destroying your way of life, who will you vote for?
hawksruleva on November 7, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Not that I doubt you or anything, but what’s your basis for saying that ‘the base wasn’t there’?
ElectricPhase on November 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM
And sadly, Romney and his team did none of this.
MustLoveBlogs on November 7, 2012 at 4:17 PM
A base that wouldn’t turn out to vote out Obama?
Yeah, we need that like a hole in the head.
Santorum or any of the others would have done even worse in the general election.
cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Romney did better then Mcain with indies but had less total votes.
You might be right. Romney still might of been the best we had.
BoxHead1 on November 7, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Here’s is Mourdock’s actual quote in response to a question about abortion in cases of rape:
He basically says life is a gift from God and even when it has bad origins, life is still something God intended.
He doesn’t say God wanted you to be raped.
If what he said was actually so awful (that God intends life) people would be arguing against that rather than a fabrication of what the man said.
JadeNYU on November 7, 2012 at 4:42 PM
That was still enough to cost Mourdock the election. No other explanation is possible.
How much more evidence do you need that politically this is an extreme, untenable position, no matter how elegantly it is worded, that cannot be uttered without causing enough voters to vote for your opponent to cost you the election?
cool breeze on November 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Too bad. A GOP male cannot – can not – give a politically incorrect answer on rape and abortion in front of a camera.
But what if Mourdoch deeply believes in the sanctity of all life (as many people and most Republicans do)?
Tough. Lie. If you can’t do that, you need to be “screened,” as per Dan. It’s not like you’re going to be held to your answer on rape-abortion once in office. There aren’t a whole heck of a lot of rape bills before the US Senate.
A political campaign is not a seminary course. Voters are not going to respect your philosophy reduced to a three second soundbite. And the media is most certainly not on your side.
HitNRun on November 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM
To call my aunt a staunch conservative would be a gross understatement. I’ve looked up her political contributions on-line, and they were staggering. For much of her life, she visited seminars at Hillsdale College for fun. Now she lives in a nursing home in Ohio, and is too ill to vote.
Multiply that by a generation–that’s where those votes went.
ElectricPhase on November 7, 2012 at 4:58 PM
The problem is, the kind of candidate we want to run, will NOT put their life through the ringer. The process simply scares away the kind of people we truly need.
michaelo on November 7, 2012 at 5:55 PM