In a paradigm shift, winning means losing!

Last night, I asked what I thought was a rhetorical question.

The goal is beating Obama, right?

Just thought I’d ask.

Several commenters replied that the goal is not beating Obama, so I guess my question was not as rhetorical as I thought.

If the goal is not beating Obama, despite the fact that the polls show he can be beaten, then I would say that the Republicans are simply victims of themselves. I say this as just another foolishly loyal Republican voter who will vote for the Republican candidate, whoever he turns out to be.

Here’s something I found at right wing WorldNetDaily of all places:

Romney also is within single digits of Obama, currently trailing, 48 percent to 41 percent. Obama leads both Gingrich and Rick Santorum Santorum by double-digits. Obama leads Gingrich, 50 percent to 36 percent, and Santorum, 49 percent to 34 percent.

Nearly one-quarter of Republicans abandon both Gingrich and Santorum, and Obama leads both men by big margins among independent voters.

And here, from the leftie CNN, is the clueless Donald Trump, trying in his silly way to be logical:

Trump says, “Rick Santorum was a sitting senator who in re-election lost by 19 points, to my knowledge the most in the history of this country for a sitting senator to lose by 19 points. It’s unheard of. Then he goes out and says oh ‘okay’ I just lost by the biggest margin in history and now I’m going to run for president. Tell me, how does that work? … That’s like me saying I just failed a test. Now I’m going to apply for admission to the Wharton School of Finance. Okay? He just failed a test…. And now he’s going to run for president. So, I don’t get Rick Santorum. I don’t get that whole thing.”

The problem I have is with the major assumption being made. The “dominant paradigm,” if you will. Trump is one of those guys who believes in winning elections as opposed to losing them. So are most people. And when I asked the rhetorical question last night, I was of course going along with the dominant paradigm.

But if winning is to be abandoned, that’s a major paradigm shift for the GOP. I think it’s a losing one, but that merely restates the question because if the goal is not to win, then it is silly to posit that losing is necessarily bad.

Is there consensus on changing the goal? If winning is to be abandoned as strategy, and the Republicans lose, what is to be done in the next five years with a lame duck Obama who can do as he wishes? Whine and complain? Get even more sick and tired of ever-more-entrenched Obamacare?  Start an armed revolution? Position another loser to head the 2016 ticket? I think a lot of Republicans will get tired of this new, losing paradigm. I know I will.

After all, if winning is not the goal, I would be much happier in the Libertarian Party. At least I agree with that pack of losers.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

9 responses to “In a paradigm shift, winning means losing!”

  1. Bram Avatar
    Bram

    That “winning by losing” righteous nonsense is the only thing keeping from voting Libertarian.

  2. TMI Avatar

    Horse race analysis versus first beliefs.

    I don’t thing this can be conflated to “chicken and egg” analysis. I think the race analysts are looking for a squishy guy who can “attract” the middle. And all race analysts, along with their kindred media and university allies, posit that nominating a clear conservative is a losing strategy. Period.

    That leaves it to the first beliefs guys to “come around” to the majority consensus. So you get guys like Dole, 43 and McCain. I guess one out of three isn’t bad. Thirty-three percent success rate choosing guys who can appeal to the middle. Wowser.

    No candidate that has clearly articulated conservative beliefs will ever win the Sports Illustrated Pre-Season Polling. Maybe a few pics in the Swimsuit Edition. Oh, and don’t forget all the derisive laughter. What are the Republicans drinking? They nominated someone who has a clear commitment to the principles of the American Experience!

    So we nominate the squishy guy. And then Those Who Are Our Masters wonder why we don’t get excited about the choice? It’s simple. Nominate a conservative, instead of Democrat-Lite.

    Just a thought.
    .

  3. John S. Avatar
    John S.

    Only problem is, there aren’t any conservatives running this time.

  4. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    I am an conservative, not a Republican. If the Republicans advance the cause, I am with them. If not, I am not. America can probably survive another 4 years of a socialist government. After all, we have before. But we can’t survive having no meaningful alternative. Priority One has got to be to remake or replace the Republican party.

  5. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    Richard,

    It is my experience that “Conservatives” are just as statist as the “Liberals”. Just about different things.

    As far as I can tell the “Cause” of liberals and conservatives is a bigger state. Differing in only details.

    “Conservatives” – socialists with a different purpose.

    Ever wonder why each party hardly ever undoes the work of the other? Will it would cramp their style for things they are planning to impose.

    I agree with Ronnie on this one:

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” – Ronald Reagan Reason Magazine July 1975

  6. R Daneel Avatar
    R Daneel

    Well, want to know how to really fix things? It is not at the General Election, there you get the choices the establishment allows you to have. Try this:

    http://www.campaign4primaryaccountability.org/

  7. […] response to Eric’s post about winning elections commenter Richard had this to say (among other things):I am an conservative, not a Republican. If […]

  8. […] OTOH, if winning isn’t the goal, then carry on. Print PDF Categories: Uncategorized 0 […]

  9. […] Obama is irrelevant. These people do not mind losing.  The problem is, it won’t only be their […]