Moderates Want Competence not Mush

The question arises: To win, the GOP needs a share of moderates as well as conservatives, so how do we win them both simultaneously? What do we do?

I had multiple conversations in this election where it became clear people were voting with practically zero ideological inkling at all. And in reviewing the election results, seeing how moderate and conservative Republicans were hit equally, it hit me as to why the GOP was losing moderate voters who seemed to lemming like run to liberal Democrats: This was not an ideological loss at all - ie neither the RINOs nor the conservatives were rejected for their respected ideologies. ALL the Rs were rejected for a simple reason: Failure to perform up to snuff in office.

We've been here before. Here's a study from 1982 from an academic who figured out that the Reagan win did not indicate a conservative shift in the electorate:

http://www.csulb.edu/~astevens/posc420/files/hibbs.html

Moderates and conservatives picked Reagan because Carter was a failed President. Some voted for Reagan because he shared their values, others because they just wanted

I mean, think about it - how many people actually up and decided "I am voting for Obama because he is very liberal and so am I." With only about 20% of the electorate self-identified liberals, perhaps no more than half did that. They voted for "change". but change from what? Change from things getting screwed up.

The lesson here is simple: THERE IS NO IDEOLOGICAL CURE WHEN THE PROBLEM IS NOT IDEOLOGY IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT WAS PERFORMANCE, COMPETENCE & RESULTS.

Stop trying to pander to liberal moderates; address moderates as a group.

We have tried pandering to moderates by chucking out our principles, or by pandering too much. It ends up not working. Why? For the simple reason that you end up serving mush and its not "MUSH" the moderates want - its COMPETENCE. They want what works and are not actually "in between" conservatives and liberals, but are rather like cafeteria pickers, they have picked some from column A and some from column B. they want to go with what WORKS.

So what they really need out of us is COMPETENCE. So how to win them:

• Stick to our core principles, but present them in reasoned and non-threatening ways. Don't be extreme.
• Don't be meanspirited/racist/denigrating towards any group
• I suspect that negative campaigning that paints the other side as extreme without making you look shrill would work (but shrillness backfires viz. Dole ad)
• Exhibit and excude confidence and competence - show that you are for what WORKS and can deliver on it.
• Similarly, you will want to win them on other character traits, ie , openness, honesty, integrity, ethics, intelligence/thoughtfulness, caring/compassion, willingness to listen to voters, pragmatism

I dont think right-wing elected officials lose based on ideology per se, they lose the middle voters when they can be cast in negative personal light due to their positions. Did they not listen to voters, did the come across as too rigid, or did they fail to show that they are thinkng and caring? If you CAN show you are thoughtful, caring and are listening to voters, then you CAN win the voters over while still holding to conservative principles (although they may need to bend to pragmatic considerations from time to time).

Moderates want COMPETENCE not mush. And if we deliver it consistently, we can get back to winning.

Maybe this whole article calling out competence as an issues is a "Doh!" comment, but it should put to rest that silly notion that a particular ideological position is the linchpin to success or failure. It should put to rest the discreditable view that moderation is the only way to win elections. The real way to win elections is to score high on character, competence as well as vision.

UPDATE: 11/16/08 - NRO has an article by James Gimpel that shows that So -called moderate voters are actually just less informed and attached and amenable to social influence in voting:

What characterizes the centrist voter is not some peculiar set of policy positions, but rather ignorance of policy issues in general, coupled with vague impressions of the “goodness” or “badness” of the times. So-called centrist or moderate voters can’t even be counted on to vote.

Consequently, they make a lousy starting point from which to frame a campaign platform. A campaign doesn’t move toward them, but instead attempts to inspire them to come in the candidate’s direction. The incoherent center moves to the left or to the right, inspired by the candidate’s enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of his supporters. It is foolish for the candidate to move to the center, because the center is never a fixed position to move toward.

Moving centrists toward one’s candidacy is not a process that hinges on taking the right policy stands, either. Instead, it involves the enthusiasm and social contagion that builds around exciting candidates. We know from several volumes of political-science research that less-informed voters commonly substitute someone else’s judgment for their own. That someone else is often a spouse, workmate, or neighbor knowledgeable and enthusiastic about one of the candidates. Support for a candidate spreads through social influence processes.

In short, less-informed voters will go for the popular guy who is liked by people who this person knows. Yes, Obama used this technique to the hilt, using modern technology to effect it.