So "vastly better" that he still couldn't win. It doesn't matter that Gerald Ford was narrowing the gap by November 1976, but he still lost to Carter. I stated he was too flawed to win, and it was indeed the case. I also don't believe his conversion to Conservatism. He was just doing the same thing he's done over the past 18 years, just telling the folks what they want to hear to win. It worked precisely one time (twice, if you count that ridiculous and convoluted primary this year, but he couldn't muster actual majorities, just paltry pluralities).
Even had he managed to win, I think he would've comfortably settled into merely managing Socialist big government. No sweeping changes or reforms. That would've been less than useless. All reasons why I couldn't vote for him in good conscience (not that it mattered, Zero carried precisely 4 counties in TN out of 95, getting 1% lower than I predicted he would get -- 39%). Even carried a supermajority of Republicans into the state legislature, where we now have over 70% of the membership. Zero has been a boon for the GOP in TN for three consecutive cycles. There's almost literally nothing left for us to win.
"If anyone thinks Palin or any other magical candidate would have brought out more voters than they repelled, let me know what you're smokin."
The GOP put up one of THE most flawed candidates imaginable, one who was anathema to the base ! Imagine what running someone who wasn't would yield. We needed a street fighter, not a smiling used car salesman nodding his head in agreement during the debates and pulling his punches, scarcely different than the buffoon that was put up in 2008.
"This blame game misses the point that just as capitalism was from 1920 to about 1980, conservatism is entering a period where it is uncool, hard, and generally unpopular. That doesn't mean we change the message, but like Fredrich Von Hayek in the 30s, we must prepare for a very long haul until the cycle turns."
Baloney. The messenger was flawed. When you have someone running who doesn't even believe in what he says, you have a BIG problem, nevermind the image he projected that was decidely out of touch with average Americans. Now let's say we ran Gingrich. He'd have been better on message, but he was also flawed because of his personality and had sky-high unpopulars going back to after he became House Speaker. I got attacked here for pointing out that reality.
"However ranting about the moral condition, even if correct, doesn't address the solution. Simply saying, "we need mor(e) stable families," or "we have to end the gimme mentality" aren't strategies."
I wasn't addressing them as strategies, only as the side issue that Conservatives cannot resolve a lot of our ills exclusively through the political arena. Excuse me if I didn't emphasize that. We've got enormous work to do in insinuating overselves into the popular culture, education, et al. While we were winning political battles at the ballot box, the left has been busy for years winning the culture wars in the race to the bottom.
"We erroneously took the 2010 victories as evidence of a larger sentiment. Now, it looks as though those were the ceiling that can be reached in a non-presidential election (I.e. 40% of the regular turnout). Also, the 2010 elections came immediately after Obamacare. But 2 years later, that anger subsided. I could see it---but ignored it as most here did---when I spoke to these groups and they grew smaller. More important, they grew older."
I don't believe the anger has subsided at all. I think the GOP just didn't know what to do with it. We've still got the same people in charge and serving that did when we lost the Congress in 2006. Those folks have got to be replaced with forward-thinking individuals who can inspire the base and reach out to other disaffected persons. Millions didn't bother to show up in this election that might've voted for us had the party done a better job. This was inexcusable. But make no mistake, it was no victory for the left, either. If the numbers are correct at present, it will show Zero did not even get 50% of the vote. That is as sweeping a mandate as Clinton had in 1996, but with a difference... he got a higher % than his first race, Zero went the opposite way. Not since FDR in 1940 and 1944 has an incumbent President received a lower % in their successive election.
"Likewise, no amount of ranting about he moral correctness of conservatism is going to attract the majority of these younger people who are the energy of any movement. And four years ago when I saw how uniformly these college student and 20s disliked Palin and how even this could be observed at CPAC (despite her popular speech there) it finally dawned on me that they are gong to have to com to the realization on their own that not only is conservatism correct, but it is cool for civilization."
CPAC is rather a joke and not taken seriously by a lot of Conservatives. When you had either Ron Paul types or Willardbots flooding the events to buy or influence votes in disproportion to realistic support, it lost any and all credibility (much like with the left "nutroots" pimping Howard Dean in 2004). Palin remains a revered figure with the base, and any claims to the contrary are absurd. Outside the base, far too many don't know who she even is. They see the vicious attacks by the Hollyweird elites and the lying, insulting caricatures of Julianne Moore and Tina "Scarface" Fey and take them as gospel. It's remarkable to ponder what could've been done to an unaccomplished extremist far-left idealogue like Zero if the same culture similarly felt he was fair game.
Agree with that, not much else.
The notion that there are a lot of entrenched quasi-RINOS in Washington---while true---is not easily addressed as we saw in 2010 and 2012 with the Senate and House races. Some Tea Party candidates lost (i.e., IN, OH). Some won (TX), some never made it out of the primary (MO).
What I think you would agree with me about is that EVEN if we could get a clean sweep of (say) 20 Rs elected to the senate in one cycle and ALL of them were Tea Party candidates, there is slippage: Scott Brown drifted away after a few months. Rubio is already often off script. There are certainly stalwarts (Johnson, Paul, DeMint) but my point is that even if the Tea Party candidates are totally successful, you still end up needing to replace 1/3 of them within a couple of years when they "go Washington." So not only do you have to elect the right people once, but then you have to unelect them sometimes in the very next cycle. And the threat of unelecting them or primarying them never seems sufficient incentive for them to toe the line, partly because they only get home a couple of times a year.
TN is great. I'm sure TX is pretty close too. But future electoral success MUST be fought in all states. We cannot keep conceding 150 electoral votes before the counting even starts. And for that, we need a strategy and a better rationale than "Obama wasn't as strong as he was in 08)" or, "The Tea Party's not quite dead yet."