GOP Post Post Mortem

The title of this post may seem redundant, but that's because the first post "GOP Post Mortem" is here. Like the first post, this one has been written by my blogging partner Old Soldier. Thank you, Old Soldier!

I've turned off Comment Moderation because I don't have the time to check them as often as usual. This post will stand for awhile. As I said on my last post, I'm very busy.

*********************GOP Post Post Mortem

Yesterday I opined that to regain relevancy the GOP needed to return to core conservative values; that centrism was not a winning position for Republican presidential candidates. Michael Medved, whom I admire, offered up this analysis which basically argues that the Republican politicians are more successful when they move toward the center; to which I am compelled to disagree. Sorry, Michael.

First of all, the comparison is drawn between McCain’s bid for the presidency, and senator’s and representative’s bids for congressional seats. This is an apples and oranges comparison in that congressional politicians have a localized base to which they must appeal; be it a state or a district. A presidential candidate must appeal to the whole nation or at least enough to garner 271 electoral votes. There is a world of difference between local and national level constituency bases.

"The exit polling for 2008 showed that only 34% of voters called themselves “conservative” (and McCain won an overwhelming 78% of those votes). Meanwhile, 45% of this year’s voters said they were “moderate.”

Let’s look at the exit poll data a little differently. Stipulations: voter turn out = 122 M, conservative turnout (34%) = 41M, moderate turnout (45%) = 55M, 26M remain (accounting for Democrats?), Obama received 65M and McCain received 57M votes.

McCain received 78 percent of 34 percent of the votes; or in numbers, McCain received 32 M conservative votes leaving 9 M conservative votes going to Obama. Since the margin of victory for Obama was 8 M votes (over McCain, what would have been the outcome if those 9 M “conservatives” had voted for a conservative candidate. Too, I believe the conservative base would have turned out another 5 to 10 M voters had a true conservative been running on the GOP ticket. The additional base would have compensated for or marginalized any “moderate” shift toward Obama.

Before anyone ridicules me for it, I realize very well that aggregate voter numbers does not account for the Electoral College – the real determiner in the presidential election. I just wanted to demonstrate that different logic produces different results.

Other than numbers, the McCain campaign could not overcome Obama’s linkage of McCain to President Bush. Right, wrong or indifferent, President Bush is not popular at this time and that linkage hurt McCain. He attempted to shed the link during the debate, unfortunately his Senatorial voting record supported Obama’s claim more so than McCain’s recant.

I believe McCain’s length of Senatorial service was a liability. He had too much of a voting record which was used against him. Obama on the other hand had little political history which prevented it being used against him. Note to the GOP: stick to conservative governors for presidential candidates.

There are innumerable other McCain defeat contributors, but I still maintain the most significant one was his self portrayal of being a [moderate] maverick. Advertising that you have; “taken on the leadership of your own party,” only serves to reinforce a rather undesirable characteristic. John McCain is a patriot who has earned the respect and admiration of this nation through his selfless service. This Old Soldier certainly respect john McCain; I may not agree with all of his political positions, but I certainly revere the path that has brought to where he is today.