we had 242 seats going into the race and we have 233 coming away from it. We lost ground though we held the battlefield for now.
Reagan was the best at articulating the conservative message directly to the people and Michelle failed at that with her shrill attacks on Rick Perry.
Articulating the message is important as the article says, but my point is it is a combination of both being a great communicator and most importantly being a great conservative which Mitt being a career liberal was not.
It was therefore, I submit, not conservativism that was defeated, but instead liberalism that was defeated.
Mitt lost because he is a liberal. It was still a close race though, and if the conservatives who stayed home and the third party voters had voted for him there would've been more than enough vote to propel him to victory.....had he been a conservative.
Had the base been energized and the turnout high enough for a conservative to win that same turnout would have presumably also voted for the other conservatives on the ballot.
Since they stayed home the other races missed those votes as well.
My opinion only of course, but I did predict Mitt and the GOPs failure as early as last January.
I see the GOP only continuing with their move to the left by moving even further left.
What's that saying about insanity? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?