Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 2137 times)

Sitting in a state which swung to Obama in 2008, my perception, acquired through rigorous market research (drinking beer with neighbors in suburbia), is that Obama didn't so much capture the middle, is that the middle (which included lifelong Republicans) ran in disgust from a party that would put Palin on the ticket.

 

We'll see if the Republican Party has learned their lesson this time, or will rely on someone who'll bring the fringe out and hope that a bad economy keeps enough of the left and middle way from the polling stations. If I were them, I'd pick someone who wasn't so offensive to the middle. 

Aren't people all scientific about these thingsnow? Basing campaigns on polling data and what-all. My intuitions are the same as yours, but maybe the polling data shows Obama to be unbeatable on a centrist platform... this is why I made that assumption.

Surely that was just laziness. SURELY they've learned their lesson -- vet your candidate. I mean, surely everyone has learned that lesson. Even you bozos on a running board know that.

You say funny things.

That was one of many stupid desperation moves McCain made when polls started to swing in Obama's favor.  My personal guess was that Palin was supposed to be some sort of grasp for the Hilary vote, but its mishandling was epic.

 

2008 was all about branding and marketing.  "Not Bush", "Hope and Change", a candidate who had a campaign that actually knew how to leverage online and social media vs one that did not know how to turn on a computer.  The problem is "Not Bush" will be irrelevant this time around, and after 4 years I am not so sure the aspirational marketing is going to be nearly as impactful.

Agree with a lot of this.  I think that another reason for Palin to be on the ticket was to offset the "change" campaign that Obama was running, i.e., offset McCain being establishment / like Bush.

Events could not have fallen into place more perfectly for Obama in 2008.  Independents and even many Republicans were tired of the the Republican party.  The financial industry was out of control and on the ropes, for which it is easy to blame the right.  Obama offered change and that's exactly what he was.  He said that he wasn't Bush and that is certainly true.

The thing is that now I think that there are more than a few independents out there who are thinking that this isn't the change that they were looking for.  Ironically their fear of more change may keep them from voting against Obama in 2012.  For this reason I don't see the Republican candidate as a slam dunk even if the economy is still in the tank. 

As an independent (that's right, I am not a Republican) I am going to take a wait and see attitude.  I can honestly say that I am no better off than I was in 2008.  That will weigh into my decision, but I need to wait and see if a) things improve and b) who the Republicans put on their ticket.

I'd put greater odds on some Republican antics alienating people, or putting forward a candidate who is not broadly supportable, botching their chances over people's fear of more change.  Good chance the Republicans could be their own worst enemy if they are not careful.

Yeah, that too.

Sounds like you guys will be voting for Obama in 2012.

Not so fast, hippie!

 

2008 was all about branding and marketing.  "Not Bush", "Hope and Change", 

For some, marketing may have been a key part for the young vote. But as I said, most of the older more cynical folks I know had a lot of respect for McCain (with negatives of age and being too hawkish), while Obama got credit for the optimism factor in his speeches (Reagan-lite ) and with negatives of big lack of experience and another damn lawyer.

Then Palin the clown gets added to the ticket and Republicans feel them embarrassment and humiliation of the Redskins fan in recent years when you can't believe your supposedly professional team has done something that incompetent.

I can honestly say that I am no better off than I was in 2008.  That will weigh into my decision, ...

Honest question (and with apologies if it's a tangent): why is this a strong factor, let alone a litmus test?  My two thoughts:

1. Not to go semi-JFK on you, but is it your civic duty to select a presidential candidate based on what's best for you or what's best for your country?  What happens when the two aren't perfectly coincident?

2. Are you relatively better off today than you were on 9/1/2008?  If things went to shit but your things only went a quarter of the way to shit, that's a net improvement, right?  I'm not looking to defend Obama, just digging into this particular line of thinking a little bit.

Honest question (and with apologies if it's a tangent): why is this a strong factor, let alone a litmus test?  My two thoughts:

 

1. Not to go semi-JFK on you, but is it your civic duty to select a presidential candidate based on what's best for you or what's best for your country?  What happens when the two aren't perfectly coincident?

 

 As Scout said, wonderful question.

I don't yet know whether you're asking the question for the same reason as I would ask the question, nor answer it the same way you would, but that's a great question.