Inside-out thinking and how not to blow the 2010 elections

During the majority years, the GOP did not endear itself to either the base or the swing voters from which majorities are made; this much is clear.

The base was unhappy with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, NCLB, immigration and earmarks.  The swing voters on the other hand,  did not like the way the Terri Schaivo matter was handled, turned against the Iraq War and got tired of hearing how every single domestic problem could be solved by tax cuts.  

Thinking as a member of the base and talking with members of the base about the party's problem will lead you to focus on base issues, which is fine if they generally track with what the wider electorate thinks.  To a great extent, corruption and transparency are issues everyone can get behind - so-called valence issues.  Investigating Chris Dodd et. al. and purging similar types from our own ranks makes everyone happy and should be a no-brainer.

The DeMint, Limbaugh, RedState et. al. strategy is "inside out," based on the idea that voters are fungible and making your most reliable voters happy will improve a party's standing with marginal voters down the scale.  In other words, they say that an ideological purge applauded by some Freeper with a bookshelf that spans from Sean Hannity to Ollie North will appeal to a low information swing voter who has two or three core issues that he cares about when (and if) he pays attention.

This is insane.

Attempting to gain a majority by addressing base concerns will get you a happy base and DeMint's 30 Senators in perpetuity.

Of course a happy base means happier door-to-door volunteers and more generous donors.  However, this makes party goals into one big game of inside baseball.  Instead, an "outside in" strategy focuses on growth over purity.  If you look at where the otherwise ascendent Democrats are flailing, it is because of unpopular or incompetent personalities like Govs. Corzine and Patterson.  Instead of an endless series of litmus tests, no-tax pledges and vote-my-way-or-you're-dead-to-me votes, the GOP and conservatives should recruit candidates who are personally appealing, collegial, not gaffe-prone and ethically clean.  Just because some state senator voted for an increase in the beer tax a decade ago shouldn't doom him in a Senate primary.  The same thing goes for any manner of social and fiscal issues.  The vast majority of voters choose between individuals, not between ACU or NRA scores.  Pick good individuals and you win, even in unfriendly districts.

This may be anathema to some, but I truly think that most conservatives would be happy with a majority that votes their way 75% of the time than an ineffectual minority that votes in lockstep but can walk into CPAC with their heads held high.   You make the call.