DailyCaller: A Mitt Romney loss wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster

[Ruby the Liberal]

Setting expectations?

Don’t buy the doom and gloom pronouncements from conservatives telling you, “this is the most important election in history.” A loss for Mitt Romney would not necessarily spell long lasting disaster for Republicans, nor would it be the death-knell to conservatism. In fact, it’s possible a 2012 loss could lay the groundwork for a stronger Republican party and conservative movement.

Elections are almost always seen as urgent and morally imperative. But sometimes major victories can only come in the aftermath of what appear to be devastating defeats. John Kerry‘s loss in 2004 laid the groundwork for a Democratic takeover in 2006 and 2008, and Jimmy Carter‘s defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976 paved the way for the Ronald Reagan in 1980. In other words, it is a mistake to assume losing a presidential election is a permanent defeat.

“This should be the most important election since 1980, but so far it is not,” says Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. “Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle postulated the ‘great man’ theory of history, and indeed this was true with Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR and Reagan. But history has not summoned forth great men in 2012 and in fact our history today is small.”

This is not to say Republicans should concede the election, but conservatives should keep November in proper perspective.

-snip-

And while most conservatives would advise working hard to elect Mitt Romney, they should not assume that Obama’s re-election, should it happen, would be any more destructive to the cause of conservatism than Bush’s re-election was to the cause of liberalism.

Full: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/03/a-mitt-romney-loss-wouldnt-be-a-disaster/#ixzz22UkwAM62

[ProSense]

1. Maybe this

tax debacle could wind up bringing down the entire Republican Party.

"Setting expectations? "

Me too.

[WCGreen]

2. It's not the history of voting that anyone should be looking at...

It's the country's changing demographics that will set the tone for the next five to ten national elections.

[samsingh]

3. this is good news for us - they are preparing to lose

[brush]

4. What about demographics?

Not mentioned in the post is the growing demographic shift of the electorate. The mostly whites-only repug party is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. Many are older and will soon "age out." The repugs can only suppress or steal so many votes each cycle (and that tactic is just not going to work forever. Believe me, the dems are working on putting a stop to it). Meanwhile, the browning of America continues at an accelerated rate, illustrated by the fact that now less than 50% of babies born in the country are white. Babies born now will be able to vote in 18 years. Census studies have projected by 2030 that the white population will be less than 50% of the country, in other words, another minority population. And you can believe this will probably happen sooner than that if they willing to put that 2030 number out there. And there are many progressive whites who the repugs can't count in their column so this ELECTION IS PRETTY DAMN IMPORTANT. Where do the repugs go from the disaster that of richie rich, no tax paying Mitt the Twit? Who's on the horizon even, Jeb, Jindal, Palin? I don't think so.

[Fozzledick]

5. So those grapes are looking sour already!

[Jim Lane]

6. We should encourage this line of thought.

Some conservatives who think Romney is too liberal are considering staying home or voting for Virgil Goode on the Constitution Party line. The arguments are the mirror image of discussions on the left about Nader (vote for what you really want and teach the major party a lesson, versus face the fact that one of two people will become President and support the one who disgusts you the less).

Those of us hostile to the Nader candidacy have emphasized the differences between the major parties, with the resulting enormous human cost to Republican electoral success. Nader and his allies downplayed these differences, arguing in effect that a Bush presidency wouldn't be all that bad.

I think some of the wingnuts genuinely fear that, if Obama wins, he'll take away all their guns and leave them powerless when he cancels the 2016 election and declares his administration to be extended indefinitely. We want them seeing this as just another election, not the last chance for freedom in America. That way they'll be less likely to hold their noses and vote for Romney.

Some of you Naderites might consider pseudonymously posting on right-wing sites in support of Goode's candidacy. Just take your old posts here and make a few minor changes. The underlying logic is pretty much the same.

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. I didn't repaste the premise of the article,

but it was that they should refocus on down-ticket races. If I were in the shoes of the Carlson fishwrap, I would say the same thing.

Don't know that promoting that is the best idea though, and I don't think either Constitution or Libertarian are going to see any headway.

I prefer to let them think that they are fighting for the future of liberty and taking their country back (or whatever bumpersticker meme sticks) and let them fight right up to the end.

I have already had 2 family members inform me that they will not be voting this year because of "sleazy" Romney (surprised me, too). I'm not going to give them any ideas. Heh.