I like how this thread went from "will we nominate a moderate" to "will we nominate Romney?"
Does anyone care to discuss the question posed?
Hahaha, good point.
Well I think it would be in the GOP's best interest to start nominating moderates. It seems the party planners in the GOP have forgotten that politics are regional. For example, my state is so far right wing that alot of the Democrats in the state (at least in elected office) are almost as conservative as the average Republican! While I think they should be at least a little more liberal (ie be prochoice, support alternate energy, nothing too excessive), this strategy is a little bit more effective than nominating a super liberal because that would be suicide. In fact, Oklahoma Libertarians are probably considered "far left" here compared to the Republicans and the Democrats. The point: Democrats are using regional politics to their advantage and thus moderates and even conservatives flock to their party. If the GOP just lets up a little bit on their stances and lets moderates run in pretty liberal areas like the Northeast or the Pacific Coast they could see some improvement. I mean if Republicans ran somebody in Oregon who is favorable to gay marriage or prochoice they could raise their chances of success dramatically. Believe it or not some people in those areas might be fiscal conservatives it's just the social issues scare them away from the voting booth.
What the Republican Party needs to do is nominate pretty moderate candidates in areas with very liberal Democrat candidates, because believe it or not, there are plenty of people who think the very liberal politicians are annoying just like there are plenty of people in the South who think the very conservative politicians are annoying. Now I know people are thinking "but so and so wins by a so and so large margin", but I think that wouldn't be the case if the opposing party nominated someone sane to run against the crazy. I acknowledge that so far this theory has failed in my state on the federal level (US Senators and US Representatives), but that is because the Democrats are more conservative than they are moderate. There is a difference between being a moderate and almost completely agreeing with your opponent. You don't want to look like your opponent with a different shirt on, that means voters will see very little difference between who've they've been voting into office and you, thus decreasing your chances. That is the point of the moderate politician, to weaken the extremists in the opposing party. Nobody likes extremists.
Now do I think they will start nominating "moderates"? Yes, I think eventually self-preservation of the party will outweigh any blind ideological allegiances.
