Roughly the only interesting factor in modern American presidential elections is how much enthusiasm (read turnout) the republican candidate can generate.
This failed for Obama '08, when we had an ahistoric youth and black vote, and Clinton '92 when Perot split the vote, and appears to work for the rest of the elections since '84.
FWIW, this lends support to my Republicans could have won with a more libertarian platform. But it fails to support that this would have been the best way to win.
Posts
5 comments:
I think that this is right. Need to think more about it.
"Perot split the vote" is compatible with "Bush didn't generate much enthusiasm among Republicans."
So are the Republicans working to make voting as easy as possible for their supporters? eg. Holiday on voting day? Postal votes that don't require lining up at all?
Dr. Pat,
They're called the stupid party for a reason. Most of their effort is currently, predictably, spent trying to ensure that "the other guys" don't cheat. Not, mind you, that this is unwarranted. But your ideas are probably more useful.
Aretae,
The libertarian-ish ideas that would actually be popular for the Republicans to adopt would be these:
1. War only when in the utmost interests of the US as a whole. In practice this means military disengagement from most areas of the world.
2. Ending the federal war on drugs by letting the states decide their own policies on the matter.
3. Ceasing to be the bitch of the banksters. Channel a bit of Andrew Jackson about their habit of socializing their losses while privatizing their profits
Honestly, I think promising to do just (1) would have been enough for Romney to take the election, as it would have distinguished Romney from Bush the younger.
Post a Comment