That would guarantee a democratic win.
Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is.
That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about?
