RNC releases 100-page election postmortem on how to rebuild party’s image with voters
At our core, Republicans have comfortably remained the Party of Reagan without figuring out what comes next. Ronald Reagan is a Republican hero and role model who was first elected 33 years ago— meaning no one under the age of 51 today was old enough to vote for Reagan when he first ran for President. Our Party knows how to appeal to older voters, but we have lost our way with younger ones. We sound increasingly out of touch.
As Mike Gerson and Pete Wehner wrote recently, “It is no wonder that Republican policies can seem stale; they are very nearly identical to those offered up by the Party more than 30 years ago.For Republicans to design an agenda that applies to the conditions of 1980 is as if Ronald Reagan designed his agenda or conditions that existed in the Truman years.”
The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.
Instead of driving around in circles on an ideological cul-de-sac, we need a Party whose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us. We need to remain America’s conservative alternative to big-government, redistribution-to-extremes liberalism, while building a route into our Party that a non-traditional Republican will want to travel. Our standard should not be universal purity; it should be a more welcoming conservatism.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Too bad Ann Coulter is shrill and unlikeable in all other ways.
And have 70 year old men talk about magic rape pregnancy defenses!
The Republicans want center right candidates that can appeal to different groups and explain what Republicans stand for in the correct way. This doesn’t mean tax and spend all the time. But it does mean emphasizing kitchen table issues such as education reform, etc. School vouchers and charter schools sell really well in the inner city. And why can’t the Republicans be the part that questions why the hell it costs $100K+ for a Bachelor’s degree?
Image and style matter a lot. It doesn’t mean that the Republicans have to abandon their positions. I think that some (like abortion)actually are winners if messaged right (i.e. no legitimate rape!!). The pro-life movement in this country has been successful because they’ve understood messaging, social media, etc. (See crisis pregnancy centers.)
Again, I emphasize my point that even the elderly white men who run the Catholic Church now understand this. If 70+ year old white men who run a 2,000 year old institution with A 15th century bureaucracy figured out the importance of messaging, then a major political party whose job is to win elections should be able to.
Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM
But those two yahoos lost us two winnable Senate races.
Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Should be Oh, wait
One more thing on the subject.
Palin said in her CPAC speech,”We are not here to rebrand the party. We are here to rebuild a country!”
This should be our rallying cry.
fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Exactly, let’s moisten our finger, stick it up in the breeze and see what we believe today.
We have stopped explaining to people why conservatism matters in their daily lives. Reagan was able to illustrate things in a way that the average low information voter could connect with. He didn’t change his beliefs to attract voters, he brought voters to his beliefs.
jnelchef on March 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM
B
And Romney and McCain lost winnable elections. So what is your point? Notice how the RINOs never bring up the national elections that they lose.
fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM
I agree completely on these positions. And I think that they should be part of a general election campaign, particularly that last question. If we want to shed our image as the party of big business, a good place to start would be working to point out what a rip-off the university system is and how much it seeks to bilk people while providing them with little to nothing useful for the real world.
I agree again. The framing of issues is highly important. We should be able to frame the abortion issue primarily on elective abortion, without requiring candidates to give up on opposition to exemptions. But if we say that we want to “find common ground with Democrats on making it rare” and that a good place to start would be the elimination of elective abortions, then I think we can win on that.
Of course, the Democrats will immediately bring up contraception, so the trick is keeping the framing of the issue on why they want to dodge the matter of elective abortions. And supplying an argument with the details of what actually occurs during an abortion is a superb way to make Democrats squirm.
Stoic Patriot on March 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM
I agree: The GOP will start winning elections when they effectively become the sensible party of the middle class.
Punchenko on March 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM
She delivered a better line when she said, “And Ted Kennedy has the only confirmed kill in the War on Women.”
BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM
This is why so many Republican reps did better than Romney in their district. It’s not just gerrymandering. The MSM can’t destroy everyone and it more difficult to do at the local level where a candidate actually lives in the community. They focus on the high profile candidates and will pick on some state-wide or district candidates if there is ammunition like with Mourdock and Akin.
Wigglesworth on March 18, 2013 at 10:25 AM
It’s federal subsidy of college administrators.
Ever look at a post-election map of any red or purple state? Here, Boehner’s district in SW Ohio is a sea of red except for a sea of blue representing Oxford, Ohio, a town whose virtual existence begins and ends with Miami University.
BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2013 at 10:28 AM
McCain’s election wasn’t winnable, especially after the banks collapsed in October. Non-incumbent elections are always difficult for the party that holds the presidency, Bush was very unpopular, and the U.S. banking system nearly sent us into a great depression.
Romney was the best of a bad bunch. Because of 2006 and 2008, the bench got wiped out. The more appealing candidates from 2010 were too new to mount seriously presidential campaigns and the 40-something trio (Rubio, Ryan, and Jindal) were too young.
I think that rare involves placing reasonable restrictions on the types of abortions, young people getting abortions, etc. The reason why the pro-life movement was able to move the needle is by personal outreach (the crisis pregnancy centers) and reasonable restrictions (parental notification and partial birth abortion.) Legalized elective abortion is always going to be with us in some form I think; the idea is to make it less widespread.
Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Why not be the party that takes on paying football coaches $1.5 million at public universities and VP’s of diversity administration six figures?
Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Yeah, but that is not what they are doing at the national level. There are certainly some governors and state legislatures getting some good things done. Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, McConnell, McCain and Graham are doing the exact opposite. They are going along with a left-wing agenda
Wigglesworth on March 18, 2013 at 10:32 AM
Including social conservatives? I mean, are we going to be welcome or not? Or is your intent to replace us?
cptacek on March 18, 2013 at 10:33 AM
My background is in market research, mission statements etc…and all I can say reading this silly document this morning is Blah blah blah…
I have found a few salient points, and I will post them one at a time later.
There are a few points…they says they should work in red states with minority communities…and I think that is wise. But the same education that minorities need about American values, the constitution and republican thinking are messages we all could benefit from. Don’t just target the minorities, target the uneducated white people too. All Americans.
Romney lost because the MSM framed every issue to make Obama look good and Romney to look clueless. Romney lost because in six states, democrats pile busses full of the 47% who were not headed to the polls to vote on their own, and ran the busses and kept the polls open until every one of their constituents got thru the line in early voting and on election day. Democrats call that democracy, they think the poor doing what they are told “in their own best interest” is democracy. They believe in voting themselves a living, stuff, phones, section 8 housing, food stamps. Get on the bus or the mean republicans will take it away.
Reince: address the MEAN REPUBLICANS theme. It’s not a minority only theme. We are TIRED of being called names.
Fleuries on March 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM
the most interesting part is the changes to primaries/debates
rotating regional super primaries and a June/July convention make a ton of sense
you could have one rotating state from each region go a week or two before the rest of the region to give the little guy a chance to build some momentum
commodore on March 18, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Mourdock did nothing wrong.
cptacek on March 18, 2013 at 10:37 AM
and above all, do not allow the MSM to moderate debates, or the entire time will be spent on immigration, gun control, gay marriage, and abortion
commodore on March 18, 2013 at 10:38 AM
So the answer for the GOPe is to move beyond Reagan…..shocked I tell you shocked….this is the same crap they tried to sell us after 2008 don’t believe me :
and here is another:
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/#ixzz2Nu0jFLzm
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
the GOPe still hasn’t learned a damn thing. It not time to move away from Reagan the Bushes have done that for the last 24 years. the answer is and will always be to move towards Reaganism. Abandon Bushism it has cost us so much as a party and as a nation we can not afford to listen to these idiots anymore.
unseen on March 18, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Most regional primaries include letting Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina hold their primaries first. I’m sure that Florida will also get to go early.
The MSM is liberal. Everyone knows that. Rather than whining about it, it is time to find a way to get around it.
Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 10:43 AM
romney lost not because he was framed to look clueless but because he was clueless. he had no ideology or blief system on which to make snap decisions. He relied on polls and focus groups so when he was asked questions he wasn’t prepared for or placed in positions he wasn’t ready for he was clueless on what to do and say.
Who let the dogs out…
unseen on March 18, 2013 at 10:44 AM
Then how do you explain Ronald Reagan, who ran and governed as an unabashed conservative? Moderates have never won in a general election, EVER. The only reason Bush I was elected is because he was Reagan’s vice-president. Bush II was elected because John Kerry was Bush-Lite.
eaglescout_1998 on March 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM
That should be re-elected.
eaglescout_1998 on March 18, 2013 at 10:46 AM
McCain could have won in 2008 if he had voted against the bailout and had gone after Obama’s shady past. He didn’t have a great chance, but he did have a chance and he blew it.
And Romney was the absolute worst candidate that we could have nominated in 2012. He could not take on Obamacare which was the issue that propelled millions to protest and was the catalyst for the formation of the Tea Party and the 2010 takeover of the House. Romney lost in 2012, against a President with an abysmal record, because he could not fight him on the defining issue of our time.
fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Are you in Indiana cptacek? Please explain it to us.
Pense won with 55+% of the vote. Romney won Indiana with 68% of the vote. Why did he lose? Why didn’t republicans there go door to door and make their friends vote for this guy? That’s the flaw. You really owe it to us to win after you make your choices.
Fleuries on March 18, 2013 at 11:08 AM
That is what your local media told you unseen, it wasn’t correct, didn’t you do any research on your own? it was there on the website. There isn’t any campaign money to come and spoon feed you in red states, you have to gin up your own enthusiasm with your red state governor, and for your local elections. Election campaigns are not entertainment for you, you have to study hard on your own if you are in a red state, not believe the media spin.
Fleuries on March 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM
Nope. McCain lost because of Bush running the country into the ground with two unpopular wars and the economic crisis. People really bought into the idea of “change” after eight years of Bush and the young Illinois Democrat — complete with the high-tech marketing cult — that was pushing it.
Punchenko on March 18, 2013 at 11:20 AM
No. The banking system in the U.S. nearly collapsed weeks before the election. The incumbent, Dubya, was going to be blamed. The only surprising thing is that it wasn’t more of a landslide for Obama.
Because Santorum or Gingrich didn’t help with the DNC’s war on womenz. Not to mention Herman Cain’s “issues.”
Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Conservatives can’t take back the country until they take back the Republican party.
The Republican party leadership is the greatest obstacle to our nation’s future right now. More so than Obama or any Democrat.
JellyToast on March 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Just a question – How much of a DISadvantage did Mourdock have from the beginning because Dick Lugar refused to endorse him and was, in fact, openly hostile to him?
Lugar had sour grapes and refused to make even the slightest attempt at healing the party after the bruising primary fight, no?
Were the majority of defections from Mourdock from moderate Republicans who were still smarting that their guy Lugar was defeated and Mourdock’s comments gave them the reason to say Lugar was right so let’s vote for the Democrat?
Greyledge Gal on March 18, 2013 at 11:47 AM
first off I live in a purple state. Elections are entertainment is a certain way and that is why Obama won and Mitt the loser lost. He was clueless to what captivates Americians. It wasn’t media spin Mitt was just handled by consultants until he had no soul.
unseen on March 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM
I do not live in Indiana.
Mourdock lost because he was painted as having said something atrocious (or, as Greyledge Gal said, because Lugar was a sulky pants), not because he actually said something atrocious.
cptacek on March 18, 2013 at 12:39 PM
They probably already know
cptacek on March 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2