Republican National Committee Chair Reince Preibus deserves kudos from his party for the exhaustive report produced by his staff about what the party needs to do to recover from its defeat last November. The “Growth and Opportunity Project” is must reading for Republicans who continue to grouse about the party’s problems amid recriminations about Mitt Romney’s loss. It contains valuable insights that ought to be heeded by conservatives about how to win elections in the future. Its sections on messaging, fundraising, voter registration, technology, turnout efforts, outreach to neglected sections of the electorate like Hispanics and youth voters and candidate selection all reflect both an honest assessment of what went wrong and what needs be done in the future to ensure the GOP returns to majority status. Other suggestions like limiting presidential candidate debates during the primaries, streamlining the nominating process and moving up the date of the national convention are also smart.
It’s not clear yet whether ornery conservatives who resent the idea of a party rebranding will now start calling Preibus a RINO for suggesting some things have to change if a Republican is going to win the White House in the foreseeable future. To the extent that they believe–as some speakers at CPAC seemed to suggest–all the GOP needs to do is to ignore the problems and simply be more faithful to conservative ideology, they are part of the problem rather than the solution. As Our Pete Wehner and Michael Gerson wrote in their seminal article on the future of the Republicans in the March issue of COMMENTARY (which was quoted in the RNC report), serious thought must be given to rethinking the way the party approaches elections and some issues without abandoning its principles.
But the debate about this necessary report should not overlook one salient fact. No matter how smart the Republicans get in the next four years, they won’t win the presidency back until they nominate a better candidate than their opponents. That may seem to be such an obvious conclusion that it doesn’t merit discussion, let alone debate. But even as Republicans are rightly urged to heed the conclusions of the RNC report, it is still worth remembering.
It’s easy and fun to spin out counter-factual scenarios and to imagine different results. Yet even if the Republicans had not bored everyone silly with nearly two dozen candidate debates that drove the discussion to the margins rather than the center; if their convention wasn’t overshadowed by hurricane coverage; if their get-out-the-vote effort not been a fiasco; and their candidate hadn’t alienated Hispanics or failed to connect with young voters, Mitt Romney was not going to defeat Barack Obama.
This was more the function of Obama’s strengths as a historic president with a built-in advantage with the media than it was of Romney’s weaknesses. Romney was, after all, the most electable of all the Republican contenders and it’s doubtful that any of his competitors would have done as well as he did.
But not even a Republican Party that was technologically up-to-date and appealing to Hispanics rather than turning them off with threats of “self-deportation” would have been strong enough to overcome Obama, especially with a candidate like Romney who lacked the ability to connect with ordinary Americans (a trait that was only exacerbated by his fatal “47 percent” gaffe).
None of this should serve as an argument in favor of ignoring the RNC report, whose conclusions should be heeded if the GOP is going to continue to compete in the future. Building the party is, however, not quite the same thing as winning a presidential election, which hinges on two specific personalities more than it does on the strengths of their parties.
Fortunately for the Republicans they now have a deep bench from which to choose a better candidate than Romney. Equally fortunate for them is the fact that Barack Obama won’t be on the ballot in 2016 and if Hillary Clinton fails to run, it will be the Democrats who will probably be fielding a less able vote getter.
However, no one can tell yet whether the GOP contenders will pan out or if some Democrat surges to the fore as Obama did in 2008. Even if the RNC achieves all of its stated goals and Republicans embrace immigration reform, it won’t matter if the next matchup is as lopsided as it was in 2012.
"Embracing immigration reform" is code for importing millions more Democratic voters in the pathetic, crazed hope that for some mysterious reason they will vote Republican in the future. This is just dumb as hell. What we need is a moratorium on ALL immigration; but I think the die is cast and the Balkanization of America is our future.
By better candidate, I assume you mean a more savvy politician. That Obama was. But not a better candidate if you mean better president once elected.
In addition to the guidance provided by the RNC's ruling class (which effectively says "Go Democrat Lite") pointing toward support for amnesty and gay marriage, there was some advice from GOP conservatives that was ignored. I think it interesting that Priebus did not defend the RNC report contents (it wasn't his recommendations!) but simply outlined the decision to blow $10 million talking to Mexicans, legal and otherwise. n nCPAC forum participants made it clear to a conference panel that a change in immigration policy that included a path to citizenship was not in the cards. The subject of kowtowing to the relatively small minority that represents homosexuals was not even discussed. House Republicans have said the same thing. n nChanging the GOP credo while ignoring the conservative base will never work. The only result will be a further splintering and a movement to align the TEA Party with the Libertarians.
Let's get real for a moment. The problem was Mitt Romney was a RINO who only felt more at home going after Republicans in the primaries and who became a spineless jellyfish when it came to Obama. And maybe the other lesson is that when you have a winning issue before you in the form of Obamacare, then MAYBE it makes sense to not nominate the ONLY candidate who had a vested interest in NOT going after Obamacare? n nAnd don't get me started on the notion that the GOP has to suddenly embrace the Rob Portman philosophy on gay marriage. That isn't going to make the GOP win elections because that will be my cue and the cue of all other social conservatives to walk out of the party for good because I will not accept this second-rate treatment from RINO's who expect us to be good party loyalists for one of them and who then turn around and make common cause with left-win extremists on all social issues so we can look like the ogres in the closet who need to be kept on a leash and know our place merely because we still stand for the mainstream positions on these issues.
The other Republicans came after Romney also. Remember calling Bain "vulture capitalism". Romney was pummeled in the primaries, but the reason he lost the general election was because the Democrats were able to depict Republicans like lunatics on social issues. If Republicans truly believe in individual liberty, they must accept that some will adopt behavior that they abhor. My main issue is the future of free enterprise in the US. I vote Republican despite my disagreement with the so-called base on social issues. So-called because it appears that the majority of Republicans vote for the more moderate candidates ot be their standard bearers in presidential elections. True, they have lost the last two elections. No Republican could possibly have won in 2008 after the October financial meltdown that was blamed entirely on Bush by almost everyone. In 2012, unfortunate utterings by social conservatives also made a Romney victory highly unlikely. I think that Romney would have made a very excellent president, Romneycare notwithstanding. It was not his fault that others like Ryan and Christie refused to run. One of those others probably would have been nominated instead of him if they had run.
Lunatics on social issues? Yeah, right because the GOP swallowed the RINO mentality and didn't pummel Obama for his real war on religous freedom in this country and didn't push back on that phony "war on women" mantra, which evidently you believe in. Strange how the only time we nominate candiates though who are STRONG on the social issues, they actually WIN in Presidential elections (Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush who motivated the social conservative base).