The Obama campaign was much more worried that John Huntsman would get the nomination than that Romney would. The reason is obvious — most of the Right would have held their nose to vote for a Republican moderate, and much of the middle might well have chosen Huntsman over Obama. (Heck, I might have considered it, given my unhappiness about some of Obama's record on national security matters.)
As long as the GOP keeps running to the Far Right (whether or not Romney was an extremist, he certainly actively campaigned to win their votes and their contributions), they will continue to lose on a national level, and lose increasingly worse. And while that should make my Democratic heart thump with glee, it means that the Democratic leadership will be able to be less responsive to their base and interests ("What're they gonna do, vote for Santorum?"), which means both sides lose.
Reshared post from +Les Jenkins
Huntsman was the only Republican candidate I would have given any consideration to at all.
Embedded Link
Obama Campaign Was Much More Worried About Huntsman Than Romney
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina revealed that Mitt Romney was not their primary concern (pun intended), telling the Salt Lake Tribune:
“We were honest about our concerns about Huntsman. I think Huntsman [as Republican nominee] would have been a tough general election campaign.”
Senior Obama adviser David Plouffe had expressed such concern even before Utah’s former governor launched his failed presidential bid, with one journalist noting that a…
Google+: View post on Google+
I’d love to see the Republican party moderate, because then the Democratic party could move to the left a bit. Issues could be examined in full perspective and people would actually have a choice again.
But will the Republicans move to become more moderate, or will they run even farther towards the right? That is the $64 question.
I think they're going to have to move more center.
One internal conflict, though, is that local races tend to be more extreme than national ones, in terms of how voters decide. So there's less incentive on the local / state / Congresssional level to change, vs. the Senatorial or, esp., Presidential level. The demographic trends still apply, but will be felt more slowly locally.
By “have to,” you are implying (or I am inferring it by reason of the fact that you did not qualify your statement) that they cannot stubbornly insist on remaining “true to their core values” or however they see their current stance. I’m not sure that I can credit them with that much reason. They have not shown themselves to be inherently logical beings.
Sorry, @Avo — that “have to” should have included “in order not to keep losing” on the end of it.