From what I've read in articles covering this, his style works much better on the ground than in televised debates and people are very charmed by him.
I don't doubt that Carson is a charming candidate in person. He seems like a very kind, down to earth guy with integrity. Maybe it's just a rap, but I'd like to think I've got a pretty good ******** sniffer when it comes to politicians, and he seems pretty authentic to me. However, very few voters actually meet presidential candidates or even see them in person at speeches or rallies, and the vast majority of them are already militant supporters. You have to be able to connect on television.
s JFK to the Moon analogy on how to respond to 9/11 lost me on that issue.
He lost me when he suggested that as an alternative to war and said he would have opposed the war in Afghanistan. Taking out the Taliban and destroying Al Qaeda's presence there was a must. However, I actually thought the idea of a large, coordinated national effort to make the US energy independent in addition to military action would have been a smart move.
rson, may be too uncompromising on what is a very big wedge issue. And it's not that I vehemently disagree with his opinions, it's that his major talking points on this evoke slippery slope arguments. That divides people, very much how like Obama divides people.
I agree, but that's going to be a challenge for any GOP nominee. They desperately need colossal turnout by white evangelicals, and many of them are motivated by strong condemnation of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. While the bestiality comparisons are turning SH's stomach, they're inspiring fist pumping by an evangelical who thought Mitt Romney wasn't worth voting for. However, they also need at least a significant number of the SHs (white, educated voters from urban areas) of the world to decide to vote GOP despite differences of opinion on this issue. That's the dilemma.
Personally, I think they should go after the SHs for three reasons. First, the fist pumping evangelical is going to be more motivated to turn out than he was in 2012 even if this issue is deemphasized, because all of the candidates under serious consideration are overall more conservative than Romney was and because they'll be more desperate after 8 years of Democratic rule. He just isn't going to have be appeased as much.
Second, the SHs of the world aren't as tough to attract as many Republicans think. They don't need to fully endorse gay marriage and alienate the evangelical. If that was necessary, guys like SH would already have their minds made up to vote Democratic and wouldn't even be considering any Republicans. He knows he's going to have disagreement with the GOP nominee on the issue just as he has had disagreement with the Democrats on fiscal, some non-social domestic issues, and perhaps foreign policy issues. All they really have to do is avoid becoming polarized on the gay issues and show the SHs that their priority will be fiscal and economic policies where they have agreement.
Finally, attracting the SHs can fundamentally change the electoral map. Not only does it turn the true swing states red, it makes some blue states winnable. Further motivating the evangelical might flip some swing states, but at best, you get a very narrow victory if you run an otherwise perfect campaign (rarely happens). I'd rather build a dominant electoral coalition built around a sound center-Right economic policy and a strong national defense.
