I read an interesting column today by Michael Medved called “A Winning Formula for the GOP”. He argues for a “more conservative message delivered by a more moderate voice.” In the summer of Obamacare, Joe Wilson, and the Tea Party movement, is Michael Medved’s strategy a winning one or a formula for Republican retreat? You be the judge:

President Obama’s recent decline in the polls represents a comeback opportunity for Republicans, but they will squander that chance if they follow either of the two most frequently promoted strategies for party revival. The GOP’s remaining moderates want a shift to the center, while the right wing demands uncompromising, confrontational, us-vs.-them rhetoric. Both road maps will lead to political dead ends for a struggling party that actually needs a new combination of conservative substance and moderate tone.

Most obviously, there’s no reason for struggling Republicans to abandon their conservative brand in a nation that prefers the conservative label to the liberal designation in every corner of the country. A recent Gallup Poll shows more people in all 50 states who identify as conservatives than as liberals. Only in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Vermont is the contest even close. In the 2008 election, even though Barack Obama won the popular vote by seven percentage points, exit polling showed a landslide victory of 12 percentage points for self-identified conservatives over liberals.

There’s no evidence, in other words, that it would help the GOP to blur the conservative label, as suggested by centrist Republican leaders (including Sen. Arlen Specter — before he switched to the Democrats). In fact, conservatism remains vastly more popular than Republicanism. That same Gallup Poll revealed significant advantages for Democrats in party preference in 30 states and for Republicans in only four. In crucial battleground states such as Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina, those who identify themselves as conservatives outnumber liberals by 20 percentage points. Yet when identifying themselves by party in those states, Democrats top Republicans by at least 10 percentage points. To renew the party, Republicans need to identify themselves more clearly with conservative values, not less so.

Political warfare

This recognition leads to the other commonly expressed (and misguided) formula for reviving the Republican Party: a new emphasis on hyperpartisan, take-no-prisoners political warfare against the Obama regime. According to nearly all my talk radio colleagues, this sort of full-throated denunciation of the president’s alleged “march to socialism” mobilizes the nation’s permanent conservative majority.

Unfortunately, that majority doesn’t exist — not even in the most reliably red states. Nowhere (not even in Alabama or Utah) do self-styled “conservatives” number more than 50%, which means that even with solid right-wing support, the GOP still needs some moderate backing to win. Yes, conservatives greatly outnumber liberals, but the number of self-described “moderates” dwarfs both the other groups. Success among this “mushy middle” (44% of the electorate, according to exit polls) turned the election to Obama, not conservative disillusionment with John McCain. Even if the GOP nominee had won every single conservative vote cast for the victorious George W. Bush in 2004, he still would have lost the election decisively because Obama crushed him among moderates by 21 percentage points.

On the surface, this centrist landslide for the Democrats makes no sense, since Obama compiled a voting record as the most liberal U.S. senator, while McCain earned a reputation as an independent-minded maverick. Why, then, did moderate voters prefer Obama in such overwhelming numbers?

The answer involves his moderate tone, not the ideological substance of his program. As the clear front-runner from the time he locked up the nomination, Obama could emphasize gauzy themes of “hope” and “change” and avoid resorting to angry rhetoric. Republicans, on the other hand, played catch-up throughout the campaign, adopting a style that struck the public (according to surveys) as more negative than their Democratic opponents. Attempts to raise the issue of Obama’s one-time friendship with radical Bill Ayers, or Joe the Plumber’s warnings of socialism, only served to make the GOP ticket look immoderate, despite the fact that its issues positions were, if anything, more mainstream and less ideological than the Democratic platform.

History and recent polling send clear messages regarding the right strategy for rebuilding the GOP. Republicans don’t need less conservatism, and won’t benefit from a more confrontational style. They actually need more conservatism, and a less confrontational style.

They must renew the same combination that worked for Republican winners for some 30 years. Ronald Reagan never abandoned conservative positions, but his genial approach to political combat won him the moderate voters he needed for two landslide victories. Similarly, the George W. Bush slogan “compassionate conservatism” (much derided on the right) allowed him to contest moderate votes with Al Gore and John Kerry and to win two hard-fought victories.

Courting the moderates

The point to remember about those citizens in the political middle who decide every national election is that they’re the least philosophically committed, issues-oriented voters in the electorate. Interviews and conversation make it obvious that many citizens describe themselves as “moderate” because they feel uncertain of their place on the political spectrum, less engaged with the roiling controversies of the day. Moderates famously respond to personalities or atmospherics (”hope and change” or “compassionate conservatism”) more than they react to nine-point plans or detailed position papers. They also dislike strident, the other-guy-is-Hitler rhetoric because such appeals seem like a rebuke to their own uncertainty.

Republicans can’t win without rallying the plurality of Americans who prefer conservatism to liberalism, but they also can’t triumph (anywhere) with that group alone. Like Democrats, the GOP needs moderate votes for victory, and the only way to get them without sacrificing principle or core conservative voters involves deploying the same combination that has worked before: maintaining clearly conservative positions, but with those values presented in a manner that’s optimistic, constructive, reasonable and, yes, moderate.

Michael Medved is a nationally syndicated talk radio host and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors. He’s the author of the upcoming book The 5 Big Lies About American Business.

We’re adding a new feature to the RunSmart2Win blog: Five Questions With _______. We will talk to North Carolina’s news makers, political insiders and experts, asking them five questions — and five questions only — on politics and campaigning in the Old North State. I’m excited to bring you the first edition today: Five Questions with Peter Hans:

1. What do you like about politics? And what do you not like about politics? I like the excitement, the people, and the chance to accomplish something important. I dislike the pressures of raising money, the personal nature of many attacks, and losing.
2. What advice do you have for “the mob” (as the Democrats call them) of activists, concerned citizens, and political newcomers wanting to get involved, make a difference, or even run for office? People in our country and around the world have given their lives for freedom. But too often, we forget that democracy requires participation. So I love to see citizens, of every political persuasion, fulfill their civic responsibilities.
3. You’ve been in the trenches of some North Carolina’s biggest political battles in recent years, advising senators Lauch Faircloth, Elizabeth Dole, Richard Burr, and others. What have traditionally been “winning issues” for Republicans in North Carolina? Are these issues changing at all as the state grows, changes demographically, and becomes more urban/suburban? Traditionally our winning issues on the federal level have centered around family values, limited government, and national security. Our state is more moderate, philosophically, in years past so the tone of our political communications should reflect that reality while still staying true to our principles.
4. What will separate winning campaigns and candidates from losing ones, specifically in North Carolina, in upcoming elections? The same things that have always separated winning and losing campaigns: ideas, money, organization, and luck. The biggest difference is that “organization” used to mean yard signs and today it means social networking.
5. Do you have any predictions on the 2010 election (in the state or nationally)? I’m cautiously optimistic about 2010 even though the Republican “brand” continues to poll poorly. I believe Republicans will be energized and Democrats deflated going into next year. Our challenge now is to recruit good candidates, don’t take anything for granted, and work hard and smart.

Peter Hans provides strategic advice on government relations to business clients at SZD Wicker, a Raleigh law firm. His background in public policy, political campaigns, and media relations provides clients with a unique resource. Peter worked on Capitol Hill as senior policy advisor to former U.S. Senator Lauch Faircloth and then-U.S. Representative (now U.S. Senator) Richard Burr. He was a consultant to U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole in her successful 2002 campaign. He was elected by the N.C. House of Representatives in 1997 to a six-year-term on the State Board of Community Colleges. Peter was elected by the N.C. Senate in 2003 to a four-year-term on the University of North Carolina Board of Governors and was re-elected in 2007 for a second term. He was elected vice chairman of the Board in 2008. Peter is currently co-chairing a $5 million capital campaign for Urban Ministries of Wake County.

If you would like to answer “Five Questions” on RunSmart2Win.com, please contact Nathan Babcock.

NPR’s election coverage comes to North Carolina.

Representative Folwell and other North Carolina Conservatives get a chance to speak for the pro-immigration enforcement position late in the report.

Check out the article at NPR.org:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92243776&ft=1&f=1012

For Closed Capitioning:
http://dotsub.com/films/representativedale/index.php

Duration : 0:4:49

(more…)

North Carolina’s senior Senator, Richard Burr, speaks at the national convention.

A few interesting facts to show what the real value of a State Senate seat and a State House seat is worth in North Carolina. By looking at what incumbents spent on uncontested seats, we can extract the true value of a particular seat. These figures are taken from the 2006 election cycle and represent the top 3 expenditures in the State Senate and the top 5 expenditures in the State House. Keep in mind these candidates had no primary and no general election opposition. Uncontested Senate races (top 3 by expenditure): Hoyle: $230,801 Hagan: $221,411 Pittenger: $218,493 Avg. expenditure: $223,568.00

Uncontested House races (top 5 by expenditure): Brubaker: $201,369 Holliman: $85,869 Owens: $59172 Bordsen: $56,006 Crawford: $55,016 Avg. expenditure: $94,486 This tells us quite a bit about the value of the legislative seats and what it costs to play the game on Jones Street. Keep in mind these are UNCONTESTED races. Average cost for contested races the NC Senate seats for the 5 most expensive races is a staggering $903,400 and the the NC House top 5 most expensive races is a whopping $648,400.