 |
| RANDY STAPILUS / Washington |
A few minutes before writing this I was reading a column by conservative Myra Adams in the Daily Beast, inquiring about whether a Republican can win the 270 electoral votes needed to become president in 2016, and concluding that as matters sit, probably not.
She started with this: "As I was chatting with a man in his mid-30s, the conversation turned to the 2016 presidential race. When I asked him who he was supporting as the Republican nominee, his answer was Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. Then I was prompted to ask the question I ask every Republican after they tell me their preferred candidate: “Do you think Rand Paul can win 270 electoral votes?†The man immediately replied, “I never thought about that.†... let me state that the concept of nominating someone more conservative than ever in 2016 is a foregone conclusion among the Republican base."
But, she suggested, a general election win by a Republican is extremely unlikely under those conditions.
In a somewhat different context, Danny Westneat of the Seattle Times makes a similar point in a column today, in considering the prospective candidates for state Republican Party chair.
He quoted one: “American before partisan, conservative before republican, dead before liberal.â€
Another: “Will the Jews face another Holocaust? We know that babies have been facing their Holocaust. Abortions and infanticides.â€
A third: “Social Security: The Statist Fraud that Undermines Everything Else.â€
And then there's state Senator Pam Roach who, he notes, may be running "to lead a party that has tried to bar her in the past for bad behavior."
And sundry others who argue that the party's big mistake has been trying to cave to the political center.
Odds are that the Republican Party will make a political recovery one day. But that day does not seem to be soon.