It is pretty obvious now that Romeney got second class tech help for his campaign even if he paid big money for it.
Why couldn’t Romney attract the passionate talent and guidance Obama and the Democrats have? Nate Silver may have provided the answer.
Perhaps a different type of Republican candidate, one whose views on social policy were more in line with the tolerant and multicultural values of the Bay Area, and the youthful cultures of the leading companies here, could gather more support among information technology professionals.
Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican, raised about $42,000 from Google employees, considerably more than Mr. Romney did.
Well, yes. In fact, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has correctly warned that the GOP “risks extinction” unless it becomes more libertarian.
BTW it is interesting that the libertarian faction on the right has this former ACORN worker scared:
In the last year, I have been ramping up for the push to legalize marijuana in Illinois. For some reason my liberal friends are silent on this. Why?
Instead, Rand Paul is vocally in support of ending the drug war, or at least decriminalizing it. Is this what you want? Republicans to take up the mantle of legalization and rise to power on a wedge that will increasingly show democrats to be just as politically clueless as republicans?
But still, our democrat friends remain silent.
This is not right. Two states have voted to legalize Cannabis! Marijuana is the new swing vote. It’s time for liberals, and democrats to jump on this change.
Don’t let republicans turn this into a wedge issue.
Well good. Now if the trogdolytes of the party would just get on board and present a unified front the Party might have a chance at a win. Of course if the R Party gets tagged with their Life Begins At Conception obsession they could easily go down in flames. Especially since Rand Paul is making both ending the “Drug War” and ramping up the “War On Women” centerpieces of his campaign.
Comments
8 responses to “Democrats Tell Republicans How To Win The Big One”
Actually, I think Rand Paul’s formulation makes a lot of sense. Mind you, I’m not looking at this philosophically. Just at the voter demographic dynamics.
The Democrats are badly stuck between their policy requirements, their funding sources, and their base. The base wants legalization, but the party needs material from large police unions. They also need the legal and police infrastructure in order to implement their coercive nanny state. They simply can’t go there in any meaningful way.
The Republicans face the mirror-image problem. Legalization helps them on the policy and electoral front, but their base is mostly against it (partly for understandable reasons–meth is really tearing up the rural areas, partly for cultural reasons).
Rand Paul might be able to split the D coalition by supporting legalization, but he has to then do something to keep the base on-side. Mild restrictions on abortion would certainly do the trick–the religious right would go nuts, and the fact is that Americans broadly favor some restrictions on abortion. At the same time, it would be hard to paint him as illiberal when he’s advocating legalization–he might even pick off a percentage of the black and hispanic vote. The two positions, drug legalization and abortion restriction cover for each other, and both are broadly popular. If he picks the right policies and sells them the right way, he could single-handedly rebrand the Republicans (agree or not, it’s certainly a break with the past) and build a new majority coalition.
Neil,
I think you are correct in general.
Except his “Life Begins At Conception” bill is so easy to counter.
Start with this:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/19/kentucky-governor-firmly-rejects-religious-hospital-merger/
and then read the comments here:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/03/25/dont-take-her-to-catholic-hospital/
He has to know about Kentucky. So I think he is sure footed on the legalization side and losing it on abortion.
That’s a pro-choice site, if the malapropism “Reproductive Justice” is any indicator, so I’m not sure what the comments prove about the public in general. Anyway, Paul doesn’t have to actually succeed at implementing anything in order to reap the benefits. He just has to be seen trying.
As a campaign tactic, he might be better off not actually getting anything done at all.
As a campaign tactic, he might be better off not actually getting anything done at all.
Totally agree.
Sorry, I just realized I wasn’t much of a policy sparring partner on this post. Lately, I care much more about likely outcomes than about the whichness of what. We’re sort of down to brass tacks now.
That is surprising. I thought you were excellent.
Thank you very much. I always enjoy our discussions. I was referring to my refusal of the actual policy debate about drugs/abortions.
Yes. But the actual topic was winning elections so you were exactly on point.