Extremism Cost Conservatives the U.S. Presidency

I'll take my opponent's easier (to my mind) arguments first: "Radical Issues Had No Effect" His second paragraph first: He conflates pro-life with opposition to all legalized abortion. Very simply, I was talking about the more than 70% [consistently] over the last 37 years or so that have said that they think some choice should be legal. This in no way excludes all of them from the category of the 50% in 2012 [HG's (3)] of people who call themselves "pro-life." Since my opponent has allowed that I may include "no abortions, no exceptions" as extreme, though, it is immaterial that he conflated issues [IMHO] in discussing my case, and we can move on in agreement that the Republican platform's absolutist anti-abortion position, highly associated with the conservative movement and the Romney Ryan ticket, was extreme. ACCEPTED: The Republican platform position on abortion was "extreme." As to HG"s first paragraph in this section: He has confused what is the most important in an election with the concept that people will vote on something according to their preference as a "litmus issue." Simply put: the most important issue is rarely the only issue people consider in voting. Following on this idea: 1. Though 64% considered economic issues the most important issue, since this issue was very close, Mitt Romney often had a lead in people's estimation of his abilities on economics and; 2. played right, a campaign that was almost all, about the economy [cf Clinton 1992], should have gone to the moderately conservative, extremely successful businessman [prima facie]; 3. mathematically, 50% of 64% [even assuming that the most important issue was the only issue], this only gives a little more than 32% to either candidate. We have to explain the other 18+ percent that Obama took from Romney. The data in my [1] shows that as much as 9% of the vote likely was affected just by the abortion issue. I'll repeat: though it may have been the most important for only 1%, Gallup shows that over 15% will consistently say it is something that will qualify/disqualify a candidate. "Obama would have won, anyway." This may be valid as a point-in-time assessment (though I can think of few experienced people who I work with in politics--and also respect their ability--who would make such a claim for other than the very last days of a campaign.) However, my argument assumes, if not explicitly, then strongly implicitly and I now make it explicit, that the extremism occurred over enough time to be a factor in the race. As someone who works in politics, and again looking at the race over time--one would realistically look back at least to the beginning of an election year. [I was trained to (almost) NEVER think of a campaign as lost until 8:00 PM Election Day.] Nate Silver's 538 blog showed clearly that national polls alone do NOT predict outcome. What is important is how each candidate did in electoral votes in a state-by-state discussion. The key question: how did RR vs. OB do on key issues in the key states and how much impact did those issues have on the election in that state? "Many Americans See the Economy Improving" I believe I have addressed this argument above. To summarize: 1. While the economy was the most important issue is agreed; 2. The two candidates were extremely close on this issue, and had the Romney campaign been able to focus almost exclusively on this issue, he should have had a strong advantage, at least up until the economy started to improve, by which time he would have "inoculated" the campaign on this issue; 3. Other issues are important, as well [Gallup in my [1] from a prior round]. CONCLUSION: "Radical" or statistically extreme positions had an effect on the race. It is only a matter of providing enough examples to show that the tiny vote differences in swing states would have been erased and/or reversed. (I think abortion may have been enough, but will extrapolate.)