What Republican Resurgence?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2010 Election, Democrats, RepublicansIt bugs me when either party peddles a false meme before a certain event, as was the case last night with the “GOP is making a comeback if we win anything” talking points.
And yet today the media is grabbing it hook, line and sinker.
But why?
Let’s look at the facts…
Republicans won the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. And hey, good for them. They ran good races. But Governors have little effect on the national agenda when it comes to policy. So while it may be a nice night for the GOP at the state level, it doesn’t really do much for their counterparts in Washington. Well, except give them a false meme to spread.
But let’s dig in more…
Virginians voted for Obama in 2008, but before that you have to go back to 1964 to find the last time the voted for a Dem for prez. And while they’ve had Dem governors in the past 8 years, that hasn’t been a hard and fast rule. Also, anybody watching that race knows that Creigh Deeds didn’t run a very impressive race, while Bob McDonnell ran an incredible campaign and could be poised for bigger things in 8 years if Dems are still in power on the national level (Although he could do with a little charisma injection).
In New Jersey, while many think it’s a Democratic stronghold, Christine Todd Whitman was Governor for 7 years (until she foolishly left to join the Bush administration in 2001). Plus, Corzine has been an ineffectual Governor (he bought his way in with his Goldman Sachs war chest), his approval rating has been low for quite some time now and there has been some pretty bad corruption scandals in NJ. So the fact that this swung back red isn’t a huge shock.
However, in the two Congressional races, Dems won BOTH and actually added to the number of Dems that are in the House.
Let me repeat that…Dems added to their majority in the House last night.
In California the seat was already Democratic, but in New York the Dems gained one.
Didn’t hear that particular nugget in today’s news? Only hearing about how Dems are nervous? How conservatives are rejoicing? How curious! It couldn’t be because the media wants something to talk about, could it? Nawww…
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…the only people that voters like less than Congressional Dems are Congressional Repubs. The gubernatorial pick ups were fine, but they mean very little when put in proper context.
So I ask again…what Republican resurgence?
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 and is filed under 2010 Election, Democrats, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Justin:
There was no surge in what’s so ever and what could really hurt the GOP if they continue go so far to the right. Example: NY-23 the wingnut Tea Party forced a moderate out of the race in which they took their chances with Conservative Party canidate Doug Hoffman and they lost.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Come on, Justin, this is just plain silly. At the barest miminum, there’s been a Republican “resurgence” in Virginia and NJ where GOP governors have been relected to succeed or replace Democratic governors.
Far more importantly, this outcome — yes, even accounting for a genuine Dem pickup in NY-23 where the right wing basically gave a seat to the Dems — puts an end to all that triumphalist talk about Obama’s election heralding a new realignment, the end of the GOP except as a permanent minority party of angry southern white men, the reshaping of the electoral map, coloring Virginia and other southern and western “red” states “blue,” due to vast demographic changes, blah, blah and blah.
If I’m not mistaken (and I apologize if I am), you partook of that triumphant spirit in some of your posts at the end of last year and the earlier months of this year.
All that was foolishness. As the guy who runs Donklephant, you should know better than most that the country remains largely “purple” with independents, moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats always up for grabs, depending on the time, the issues and the candidates. I started a blog called The Purple Center on election night 2008 to hammer home that essential bit of understanding of American politics. I’ve written time and time again that GOPers could still capture races in NJ, NY, Connecticut the rest of New England and elsewhere, much less make a comeback in Virginia, so that Democrats should be cautious about governing too far to the left and mindful that their power arises from two elections in which the center supported them.
That’s already shifting. To look at the plain evidence of a massive swing of independents from the Democratic to the Republican candidate in Virginia in one year and pronounce it unimportant because it was a gubernatorial race is, well, defying reality that’s staring you in the face.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Justin, just wondering what you make of the Independent vote for Mike Bloomberg in NYC — one of the “third party” independent runs in this mid-term election.
Nancy
November 5th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
If you think the governors races were unimportant, let’s see what happens when two Republican governors “opt out” of offering a public option in a couple years for purely political reasons, leaving tens of thousands of people uninsured.
I do think the Republican resurgence is overstated, but let’s not understate it, either. Obama invested some political capital in the New Jersey race and the local voters basically told him “no thanks.”
That is relevant.
At the same time, the GOP dismissing New York-23 is equally idiotic. The election of Bill Owens may indeed be a short-lived victory, but it was a repudiation of the hard right wingnuts and Sarah Palin–even more so than the rejection of Obama in the New Jersey governor race.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Learn the meaning of “meme” and try to use it correctly in the future. Other than that ignorant error, incisive and accurate commentary.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
John,
First off, I was talking about federal elections and you know it. I could care less about gubernatorial races since they don’t make policy at the federal level. But to gerryf’s point…I would LOVE to see some Republican governors turn down the public option in their state and see how that plays with the voters. Especially since so many state insurance companies run virtual monopolies. Yeah, that won’t become a campaign issue the next time arond…
But yes, if Republicans keep going down the path they’re going (anti-gay, anti-reform) and stop moderates Repubs from running, they’ll be marginalized. Evidence…NY-23! That was a Republican seat. Alistair points that out perfectly. So, even though you think you’re taking me to task, guess what? I’m agreeing with you!
Nancy,
Bloomberg’s money puts him a very, very unique position. He spent $80+ million and his competitor spent $6M. And yet he only won by 4 points? I’m not exactly sure what it means, but it can’t be a good sign for Bloomberg. Of course it could just be fatigue for seeing him on the TV for years on end. Who knows.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
There wasnt a resurgence. In evaluating the election you have to take relevant variables into account like the incredible unpopularity of the incumbent and the ineptness of a candidate. Corzine should have lost huge. His approval rating was only 30%. The only thing that made this race close was the corruption stuff that surrounds christie.
in virgina deeds was a terrible candidate. He alienated the electorate he needed to turnout for a win. his policy positions were more in line with the gop than the dems. He was just bad. A better candidate may have made a difference in this race.
the media is trying to overgeneralize from this small unique sample size.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Justin said:
“But yes, if Republicans keep going down the path they’re going (anti-gay, anti-reform) and stop moderates Repubs from running, they’ll be marginalized. Evidence…NY-23!”
That is an incredibly ignorant statement and that’s the problem with arrogant Dems. Repubs are anti-gay? Just like they are anti-choice and not pro-life, right? It’s a spin you’re putting on the issue when it’s really an issue of marriage. And by the way, this is a cross-party issue.
Repubs are anti-reform? Wrong. Repubs are anti-your reform. But I guess they’re not entitled to their opinions because they’re dumb rednecks right?
NY-23 was a lesson learned. You cannot have a small group of people choose your candidate – you need to have a primary and put it up to the people. Done and done.
What the gubernatorial elections show, especially in NJ, is this… Obama may be able to sway voters to vote for him, but he is far less effective in getting them to vote for others. People voted for OBAMA, his personality and charisma, more than they voted on the issues. So to me, his political capital (aka I’ll campaign for you if you support my agenda) is severely damaged.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
If everyone gets a dollar for every GOP governor who opts out of the public option(should it pass), no one will be richer. Period.
Everyone’s entitled to make whatever they want of low level activity of these few 2009 races. I fully expected the dems to suffer here and there, it always happens to the party that just took the white house. I’m very unshocked that VA showed its usual stripes by opting for a GOP governor. It’s way, way, WAY less of a surprise than their voting for Obama just a year ago. I find the idea that the outcome of either race reflects on Obama to be beyond uncompelling. Politics is local, and each state’s voters picked the candidate they liked. Period.
Talk of a GOP resurgence feels like 99% spin to me. I never bought into the progressive triumphalism of a year ago, so I don’t take any of this year’s developments as a repudiation. I never thought the GOP was on its way to oblivion or permanent minority status. But if they want to gnaw their way to any sort of legitimate comeback, there’s still an awful lot of meat on that bone.
Sensible, concrete, positive alternatives, that’s what the GOP needs to shop. Whining that suggests that blame for the economic fix we are in should be laid at Obama’s feet is at best premature, and at worst sad and embarrassing. I’ve never claimed the public is genius, but they aint stupid. Obama has been in office for less than 10 months. Americans are well aware of this, and grading accordingly.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:11 am
“the media is trying to overgeneralize from this small unique sample size.”
Bingo.
It’s the media, stupid.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:16 am
NY-23 is a win for the Democrats, but the Republican dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat. He should have had 95% of the vote in that case, so there were quite a few Republicans who voted independent. The Democrat was helped by his moderate views; he’s a fiscally responsible former Air Force officer with small business ownership credentials, and a supporter of 2nd Amendment gun rights. More like a Blue Dog Democrat, a variety that has been successful in taking away GOP seats the last three congressional elections across the south.
The real story is that the independents in NJ and Virginia backed the Republican candidates. In Virginia, it was a sweep completely down the ticket. Last year, we heard about “permanent” majorities for the Dems, just as we heard that Karl Rove had found the way to a “permanent majority” for the Republicans in 2004. But the people of Virginia weren’t listening. The people have proven, time and time again, that they will trade off between the parties, pundits be damned.
Among independents, there is an anti-incumbent sentiment. NJ is evidence of that. It spells trouble for the majority party in the mid-terms coming up; it almost always does (only two Presidents have avoided losing seats in the mid-term elections, FDR and … GW Bush). But Justin is right about this election: it was more about local issues than it was national issues.
While gay rights are favorable to the anti people right now, that will change. Same sex marriage has never won a popular vote, but the pro gay rights folks get closer with each election. Their loss in Maine has to be a shock for them; New England courts and the legislature of Maine has been very open to gay rights. But even in the most liberal states, the popular vote remains against gay rights. How will that change? If you look at the demographic data, young people tend to support gay rights much more than older people. As they become voters, the numbers keep moving in the direction of eventual legalization (California was 20 points against a decade ago, and in the last vote was only 10 points behind). The GOP would do well to focus on the real core conservative principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual freedom, and recognize that the social conservatives will never win a majority vote, as independents will never go their way.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Justin: “First off, I was talking about federal elections and you know it. I could care less about gubernatorial races since they don’t make policy at the federal level.”
But of course you were talking about gubernatorial elections. In fact, you devoted several long paragraphs to describing what about them makes them unimportant. But you’re wrong. That governors “don’t make policy at the federal level” is a given — by definition. But we’re discussing politics here, are we not? The contention is that the wins in Va. and NJ were signs of a major change from last year and a “resurgence” of the GOP. You’re post was designed to refute that political contention.
You’ll have to do more than say you don’t care about state races to make that point effectively. Can we think of any governors or gubernatorial elections that have been significant to the nation’s politics? Do
Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Tom Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, George W, Bush, Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, Tim Pawlenty or even Sarah Palin ring any bells? Aren’t you aware of the extent to which a powerful, well-liked governor can sway the politics of his or her state? Of the extent to which state policies — from the labor reforms of FDR as Governor of New York to the environmental policies of California in recent years — create national trends and frame the national agenda? Are you forgetting that Carter’s and Clinton”s service as governors of southern states were crucial to reshaping the politics of the “new South?”
And are we suddenly to believe that voters have a split political personality — with one set of beliefs, loyalties and biases summoned up for federal elections and another for state races? If so, why bother with partisan elections and primaries in strictly state elections? What happens when a President tops the ticket with state officials down ballot? Don’t we usually expect to see some “coat tails” — or not, depending on how popular the President is?
Sure, local issues affect state races, and off-year elections don’t always presage anything. Those are truisms. But a 20 or 30 point swing of independent voters in a single year in a big state like Virginia that Democrats have said over and over is a major target for them and where they have won state elections in the recent past is a BIG DEAL. Let’s not kid ourselves; had Deeds and Corzine both won, the White House and the entire liberal commentariat would be trumpeting it as the last nail in the GOP’s coffin. And here’s the thing: they wouldn’t be altogether wrong.
But that didn’t happen. That doesn’t mean that the GOP will win back Congress next year or that Obama is washed up early. But it does mean that the GOP is alive and well, even in New Jersey, and the much ballyhooed realignment has not happened.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:43 am
A few Democrats are in where a few Republicans are out. A few Republicans are in where a few Democrats are out. Conservatives got what they wanted on some measures; liberals got what they wanted on others. This election looks like a wash to me.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Justin,
Here’s the problem with “loving” a Republican governor turning down a public option…you’re loving it for a political reason (it will give an opponant the ability to make hay in the following election), which is just as bad as the governor turning it down for a political reason.
If one believes healthcare reform is a moral and economic necessity, playing politics HURTS people.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Gerryf: I live in NJ. Gaucho is right, this had everything to do with Corzine (people HATE him) and nothing to do with telling Obama “no thanks”. I wish Obama didn’t spend so much time here trying to prop him up.
I supported Daggett. Most of the people I talked to wanted to vote for Daggett but didn’t want to waste their vote – SOOOO frustrating – they ended up wasting their votes anyway.
I’m willing to give Christie a chance but the corruption and the smarmy Karl Rove connection gives me pause.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Liberals: “Winning a single GOP Congressional district where the liberal Republican bowed out of the race and endorsed the Democrat, by a 4 point plurality, is a huge national victory for the Dems,” while “Winning statewide elections, across party lines, in both a firmly Blue state, and a state that voted for Obama a year ago and was a tight election between the same two candidates just 4 years ago, means nothing.”
You can keep saying it, but it won’t make it any more true. It will, however, make 2010 that much funnier to watch.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I don’t remember the last time that you were bugged enough by a false meme peddled by the Democrats to post about it, whereas you’ve frequently cast a GOP claim as false in order to be bugged by it. John’s comments above are quite right. Yes, Democrats won both the federal races. Nevertheless, NY23 was an extraordinary situation whose resolution well-served Republican interests, and Cal10 hasn’t sent a Republican to Congress since Bill Baker in ‘94. And he was aberrational: Baker served two terms, and before him, the district hadn’t elected a Republican since 1972. So we’re talking about an unusual circumstance in New York and a very, very Democratic district in California.
As John points out, however, you can’t simply ignore the gubernatorial elections because they “have little effect on the national agenda when it comes to policy.” In the last two election cycles, voters hammered Republicans at every level—state, federal, and local—because they were unhappy with the previous administration and its Congressional enablers. The GOP lost independents across the board, not only in federal races. That changed this week. The elections in Virginia and New Jersey represent people voting for Republican candidates in statewide races who are statistically unlikely to have done so last election.
“Resurgence” does not mean what you seem to think it means (or what it is convenient for you to define it as for purposes of this post). Voters are moving back to the GOP, which is winning races again. That those elections are statewide rather than federal is irrelevant.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Every time I see the NY-23 backroom selected “GOP” candidate who had ACORN credentials, supported higher taxes, the bail outs and CHECK CARD (of all things) as a “moderate” I have to chuckle. Not even “moderate” Democrats hold all those positions, much less Republicans. BTW, I hear all the “Palin supported” crowing now, but when people pointed out that Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers supported Obama we were told that “guilt by association” politics were evil. How are those flexible standards doing for you?
Those of you claiming the Tuesdays results mean nothing, despite Obama’s deep investment in the failed re-election of Corzine are whistling past the graveyard. All that triumphant “GOP is the permanent minority party”, “a regional party of angry old white men” of just a few months ago was proved to be delusional. Ask the Democrats in the House from districts that McCain took or that were marginally Obama in ’08 are feeling now. Think they like being in the position of foot soldier for one of the most unpopular politicians in the entire nation?
November 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“…liberals got what they wanted on others.”
Where did liberals get what they wanted, aside from two House races in California?
November 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am
gerryf,
“Loving” was a poor word choice and I apologize for that. I wouldn’t love that people are still denied health care, but when voters revolt because they want an option, that I would love. But this is the back and forth of politics and if Republican Governors deny their constituents options, well, let the chips fall where they may.
Simon,
Here ya go. Just because you don’t remember it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
As for your other points, hey, you very well could be right in the long run. I don’t know. But what keeps getting ignored is the fact that Dems picked up seats in the House. I’m not saying the same thing will happen next year, and the GOP will probably pick up a couple seats. But 40 or 50 like in 1994? No way, no how.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Frank, how do you figure? There was still a Republican running in the race. And 95% of any vote is unheard of.
Also, I believe the Indy only got 6% of the overall vote. My guess is that you didn’t have a whole lot of Republicans voting for him.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, LeTip WestEssex. LeTip WestEssex said: Donklephant » Blog Archive » What Republican Resurgence? http://bit.ly/1Lbq22 [...]
November 6th, 2009 at 11:25 am
1. It wasn’t so much a a republican reassurance, as it was a repudiation of Obamamania. VA was supposed to turn purple to bright blue in the coming years and ride the democrat wave. That wave turned out to be more of a ripple of Obama’s uniqueness.
2. NY23- who cares. A Dem beating a 3rd party candidate is not “a big win” as Pelosi put it. The R was the most liberal candidate. Hoffman was also not that good of a candidate either. Going from 12% to 42% in a few weeks is amazing. It also shows why we are stuck in a 2 party system. Having ground troops on hand for weeks helps. In any case ny23 is up for another election in 2010 so it may go back to R if they have a true moderate center right candidate and not the extremes.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Simon:
Please explain why you think this served Republican interests?
——
I don’t think this weeks elections portend anything for the mid-term elections – but we’ll really have to wait and see.
I wish we could stop hating on “the other”. The fact is Republicans aren’t conservative and Democrats aren’t liberal. We need to be fighting for viable third party options and more accessible government. Instead we foam at the mouth and attack our fellow countrymen. We’re all American – even the liberals.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Jason, where to begin…
First off, you took an incredibly unkind reading of what I said, while simultaneously lacing it with things I didn’t say (rednecks?). I don’t appreciate that and I’d ask you be a little more careful next time.
But let’s get to the heart of the matter…
There are a lot of Republicans on the far right that are rigidly anti-gay because they believe it to be morally wrong, against religious dogma and they literally do not want the LGBT lifestyle to exist in any form. Case in point, numerous mainstream Republican politicians bemoaned the overturning of anti-sodomy laws and tried to get a vote to put the definition of marriage in the constitution! I don’t know how you get much more anti-gay than trying to criminalize their sexuality and deny their rights FOREVER.
However, you’ll note I said “stop moderate Repubs from running” which is exactly what happened in NY-23. Go read the blogs. The fact that Scofazza was pro-gay rights was a big factor in the blogosphere and a key reason Palin came in and threw her weight around…which ended up turning a Republican seat into a Democratic seat. So the proof is in the electoral pudding.
Moreover, I’m one of the first to applaud Republicans when they come out in favor of gay rights, so your criticisms about my credibility are not only unkind, they’re also unfounded.
As far as anti-choice vs. pro-life, I’ve never used the term “anti choice” on this blog. Ever. So who’s spinning here?
Concerning anti-reform, the whole idea behind the conservative ideology is to prevent change via government intervention (well, unless it’s militarily). Strip off regulations, open up markets and strict constitutionalism, yes? For a current example of this, just look at the health care debate. Many conservative thinkers and politicians still argue against overturning the practices of denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions and/or allowing the practice of rescission to continue.
However, I’ll give you that “reform” is a fairly broad word, but in the context of the competing ideologies, I think it still holds true.
As far as the gubernatorial elections, I’ll say what I said before…they have little effect on national policy. And you can think that people voted for Obama’s personality all you want, but that’s more wishful thinking. Independents didn’t vote for Obama because they liked his smile. They liked his ideas more than McCain’s. They liked Christie’s and McDonnell’s ideas better too.
But hey, if you want to think it was repudiation of Obama, even when exit polls suggested that he still has a positive favorability rating in Virginia and New Jersey, go right ahead.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Where I grew up we call this “whistling past the graveyard”. It don’t mean a thing – if you say so.
We should really go back to 2005, when it was obvious that the elections of Corzine and Kaine were of tremendous significance in foreshadowing the 2006 GOP washout. Obviously things are very different now
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/04/2119573.aspx
Democratic House campaign committee chair Rahm Emanuel, calling First Read immediately after Kaine’s and Corzine’s victories were announced, argued that it’s clear Democratic voters were already energized earlier in the year when Democrat Paul Hackett nearly won a traditionally GOP-leaning Ohio House district. “I think that’s even more true today.” He also pointed out that the mayors of Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Paul, MN were all losing. “A lot of incumbents are losing to change,” he said (although he neglected to mention that these three mayors are Democrats, though the one from St. Paul endorsed Bush last year).
*** UPDATE *** Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office also sends along this Nov. 2005 Roll Call piece. “In an interview last week, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said that regardless of the results, the gubernatorial outcomes stand to have a huge effect on how 2006 is viewed. ‘Whatever the outcome of those elections, it will have an impact on people’s interpretations of the upcoming election,’ Emanuel said, adding that Democratic wins across the board could have a positive impact on the party’s 2006 recruiting efforts.”
Actually, you should look at Kimberly Strassel’s very detailed analysis of what the VA results mean in three blue-dog Congressional districts in that state
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517924229019190.html
November 6th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Justin,
Thoughtful analysis, and you raise some fair points. I don’t think you’re completely wrong here, but you’re definitely engaging in your own spin.
Yes, I agree with your conclusion – that Tuesday’s results don’t signal a Republican resurgence per se – but they certainly cannot be read as a vote of confidence in Democratic leadership; they’re definitely a sign of potential danger. Virginia is, much more so than NJ. When you look at the results there – a Republican sweep across the board, with each statewide candidate taking over 60% of the vote, and Republicans picking up seats in the House of Delegates – you can’t just blame a bumbling Creigh Deeds. It’s clear the political reality in Virginia has changed markedly since last year. There’s no other conclusion one could reach.
You also over-emphasize the importance of NY-23. Yes, the danger for Republicans is clear (which is why this may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the GOP…we shall see), but let’s look at the facts: You have a district that voted for Obama 52-47, so one would have to assume it’s becoming amenable to Democrats; the Republcian base fractured; the third party conservative candidate neither lived in the district nor apparently knew anything about local issues; the Republican candidate endorsed the Democrat on the eve of the election; and yet, Owens could ONLY muster a 4% win, despite all these advantages! Apparently, 45% of people living in that district knowingly voted for someone who doesn’t even live there and doesn’t even understand the district’s issues for solely ideological reasons. That’s nothing for the Democrats to celebrate. It’s pretty clear Owens couldn’t have beaten a candidate supported by a unified Republican party.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
It puts an end to talk of an immediate and total realignment. That talk was premature at best.
The 2010 electorate, tho, will almost certainly favor the GOP more than the 2008 electorate for the soimple reason that young people and minorities tend to skip mid-term elections.
But by 2012 the coalition that earned Reagan the White House twice loses to the coalition that Reagan stomped twice. Which means the GOP is going to have to grow it’s tent, or it will die as a national party.
And I have to agree with Justin on his main point. Gubenatorial elections are good for a party to win, but have almost no national implications. For example nobody would notice if the GOP forgot to run congressional candidates in CT, VT, or RI, but all three have GOP Governors.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Jacob, it served Republican interests because it offers a valuable lesson at no meaningful cost. The lesson is a simple but powerful and important lesson of party unity: NY23 teaches that the establishment can’t win without heeding the base, and that the base can’t win without the establishment. That second lesson is particularly important, because I had seen constant rumblings about third party runs and the like, something that would have been absolutely fatal to Republican and conservative interests. I feared that if Hoffman won, his backers—I’m thinking particularly but not exclusively of the tea partiers—would have misread the election as proof that third parties can work (they can’t) and created the real risk of a schism. Yet the first lesson is also important: forcing Scozzafaza out reminded the establishment that it cannot simply take for granted that the party will line up behind anyone on whom the leadership stamps the letter R.
Even if the lesson is learned, primary challenges to viable candidates will probably continue, and that is unfortunate (the attempt in California to derail the nomination of Fiorina, who can beat Boxer, in favor of DeVore, who cannot, is an particularly counterproductive example). Nevertheless, while primary challenges will continue, I think that the idea of abandoning the GOP for third party vehicles is now discredited, and that the establishment will think twice about which candidates to back. All this promotes party unity, which is very much to the good.
And that lesson has no meaningful cost for an obvious (if sometimes overlooked) reason: in the House, to paraphrase one of my heroes, the late, great Speaker Thomas B. Reed, the majority is there to govern, and the minority is there to watch. The House is institutionally structured to be a singularly submissive spouse to a united majority party, a story that you see replayed throughout its history in Robert Remini’s book on the subject. Given the dynamics and mechanics of the House of Representatives generally, and the party composition of this House specifically, one more (or less) Republican vote in the 111th U.S. House makes no difference at all to anything at all.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Justin:
That is not what happened in NY23. Your assumption is that Scozzafaza was a moderate republican. She was not. She was a liberal who obtained the GOP nomination in a back room deal.
The fact that Scofazza was pro-gay rights was a big factor in the blogosphere and a key reason Palin came in and threw her weight around…which ended up turning a Republican seat into a Democratic seat. So the proof is in the electoral pudding.
This is a very problematic statement. First, you conflate the sodomy laws with a change of the definition of marriage, although those are distinct issues. They don’t become any less distinct just because some people think they’re both important issues. Second, you phrase the marriage issue as if it involves the denial of a preexisting right, and that just isn’t so. The federal marriage amendment was misguided, but it didn’t deny anyone “their rights”: it prevented the creation of a new right, one not only unheard of but unthinkable until only a few years ago. Prior to all this hysteria, gays had the exact same rights as straights vis-à-vis marriage: they could marry a consenting member of the opposite sex. They may have lacked any desire to use that right, but they still had it, just as your Miranda rights exist independently of any occasion to use them. You may not ever exercise your second amendment rights, but you still have them. What the marriage movement wants is the creation of an entirely new, unprecedented right: the right to marry someone of the same sex. To say no to that is not to deny or curtail an existing right, it is to decline to grant a new right.
And maybe we should grant that right. I take no position on that point. It is faulty analysis, however, to deny that it is the creation vel non of a new right we are talking about, rather than abridgement of an existing one.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Today’s concrete proof that gubernatorial elections affect national policies:
1) A New Jersey House member elected on Obama’s coat tails announced that he’ll vote no on the health care bill
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/06/a-nj-democrat-says-no-to-health-bill/?mod=rss_WSJBlog
2) Steny Hoyer says he still doesn’t have the votes to pass the bill tomorrow and it may “slip” into Sunday or even next week.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29236.html
(Bet Hoyer wished he had that NJ vote.)
Then, there’s the Texas Democrat who chose today to announce’s changing parties.
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2009/nov/06/hopsons-choice/
(OK, he might have changed anyway, but he’s a conservative member who obviously thinks he’s no longer going to win as a Democrat.)
The health bill probably will still pass the House — but my bet as of now is that it will just barely squeak by as Pelosi and Hoyer and Obama promise the kitchen sink to woo a few more Blue Dogs. But a narrow vote (with zero Republicans) will tilt things toward the Senate where opposition is more solid and much less subject to pressure and blandishments.
Do we really imagine that everything would be the same if Deeds and Corzine had won?
November 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
First of all, there is a resurgence. Any one can see that, but only those living in fear would deny it. People are sick of politicians…period. But one thing we learned from having all the power in one party for 12 years is that politicians can’t be trusted to do what is right when that happens. It becomes Party First over People First. We are watching that happen again…this time it’s Democrats (liberals) who can’t handle the power. There will be a shift and it has to happen or power-hungry politicians will walk all over us…again!
November 6th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
To say that this is a Republican resurgence is an overstatement given the number of races. The key to off year (or off-off year in this case) elections is avoid the wrong take-aways by just looking at if you won or lost. For the Dems you can make all the excuses you want, but you need to shore up Independent support and to get more of the newer voters to the polls when Obama is on the ticket. For Republicans, you won the governors races when the candidates didn’t play to their more right wing tendencies. In NY, the right-wing guy got thumped, so there still is not an appetite for style of politics.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Simon, people are demanding equal rights. They’re not saying they had the rights and then they were taken away. Also, the idea that somebody could have exercised rights as a gay person if they lied and acted straight is, to put it bluntly, absolutely nonsensical. Come on man, this is weird even for you. They could marry somebody they don’t want to marry to get the rights that married people have? Good lord.
As far as your claim that I’m saying that my points amount to a claim that there’s an abridgement of current laws…come on. That’s not what I said, that’s not what I meant and I’m done with these logic traps.
Fact: the conservative base would deny gays all special rights and have fought against them in the past.
Fact: the conservative base fought to keep sodomy outlawed, therefore trying to keep sex between gay men criminalized.
Fact: the conservative base pushed to create an amendment to our Constitution that would codify discrimination based on sexual orientation into one of our founding documents.
You can say I’m conflating things all you want, but I started this discussion talking about the right wingers being anti-gay and ALL of these things fall under that umbrella.
However, and back to my original point, all I’m saying is that NY-23 shows what happens when those forces get into the mix…Republicans lose a possible swing district.
As far as your claim that Scozzafava was a liberal who turned into a Republican…check your facts. She has been a Republican all of her life, and got the endorsement of Gingrich, King and the NRA. But was she a moderate Republican? Yep. And your party needs more of those if you hope to make a dent in the east. That’s how the Dems were able to make gains in the South and Midwest and it’s the only way Republicans will not become a regional party.
November 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Justin Gardner Says:
They have that now. What they are demanding is creation of a new right: the right to marry a person of the same sex. Whether that idea is good, bad, or indifferent, it is inescapably new. It’s almost a mirror image of the old saw—Anatole France’s coinage, I think—that the law, in its majesty, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges. You could argue that the rich are less likely to run afoul of that proscription than the poor, but you could not seriously deny that such a law affords poor and rich equal rights.
Interesting. First you say they’re just “demanding equal rights.” Two paragraphs later, you concede that it is a “[f]act” that the dispute is over the granting or denying of special rights. The latter is correct.
Nope. A moderate Republican has at least some identifiably Republican policy positions. Perhaps you should name any two of Scozzafaza’s before you start suggesting that I’m the one who should check their facts. The fact is that in all her public policy positions, she was a liberal. Not a moderate, a liberal. (And that she was a “liberal Republican” is irrelevant.) Not that there’s anything wrong with that, per se.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Stansays:
To name two off the top of my head: Maine voted to permit the use of medical marijuana, and Washington voted to grant gay and lesbian couples all the state-granted benefits given to heterosexual couples. There are others–local bond measures, mayoral candidates and such–which I’m sure you can find if you care to. This election really doesn’t signal a major shift for or against either party.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
ummm… There was no actual Republican still running in NY-23.
You cannot be serious. This is wishful thinking on an epic scale.
How about this – I am ready to double down on a second bottle of 15 year old Laphroiag against the libation of your choice. I’ll even give you a better proposition than I got from Reynolds (which is a locked and loaded wager) – I say the Dems lose ground in both the House and Senate in 2010.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
If the Evil Empire comes back in 2010, we’ll all need a drink.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
@word
No worries. They Reps have dug themselves into too deep a hole to retake any majorities in 2010, but the Dem majorities will shrink. Now 2012 – another story.
November 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am
What do you think I am, a sucker? OF COURSE the Repubs are going to gain ground. But the gains will be minimal at best.
Also, look at the polls…Congressional Republicans have a lower overall approval rating. That’s very different than 1994.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Having given Justin and others a hard time about Va. and NJ, I should add this for all our friendly conservatives: NY-23 should have been a relatively easu GOP pick-up and instead handed Dems another House seat which might well turn out to be the 218th vote needed to pass the House health care bill.
Who’s fault is that? Dede’s, a moderate or liberal Republican who has served as such for years in the NYS Assembly for the offense of being a moderate or a liberal GOPer? For a lot of reasons, I strongly suspect that left to a head-to-head turn-out contest in a special, Dede would have won handlly over Owens.
Or the fault of the Hoffman-Palin-Beck-Hannity-Thompson-Pawlenty-Conservative Party axis which asserted that Dede was just a bridge too far? Well, they blew up that bridge; the NY GOP is not polluted by Dede’s deviationism, and Hoffman (who not incidentally struck me as a really bad candidate and maybe even a bit dim-witted) has a shot at running against Owens next year. Meanwhile, Pelosi has another vote to pass bills — not just healthcare — that everyone agrees will be really hard to pass. Good job, guys.
And they want to take this act on the road — to knock Kirk and Simmons and Christ and others up side the head!
November 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Justin, in NY-23, the Conservative candidate was Hoffman. The Conservative Party in NY often nominates the same candidate as the Republican Party, and that candidate then appears in both places on the ballot. In this case, Hoffman didn’t appear at the top of the ballot with the Democrat and Republican, he appeared down below, among the other third party candidates. Props go to the people of NY-23, as only about 6% of them voted for the Republican candidate that dropped out.
I haven’t seen the exit polling, but I’ll bet Democrat Bill Owens won by grabbing a large share of the independent, moderate voters who were ticked off at having a side-show of far-right Republicans come into their district. NY-23 may revert to Republican hands in 2010 if the GOP puts up a fiscal conservative, small government candidate that doesn’t stress social issues.
Hoffman was not running as a Republican, even though national Republicans came into the district to campaign for him. He had a number of other problems that showed him as far to the right as the committee-picked Republican candidate was far left, and I think he scared the electorate. I heard (but haven’t verified) that he appeared on Glen Beck’s show a few days before the election and called Beck his “mentor”. And he didn’t live in the district. He was a third party candidate that would have never won a primary in the district.
The lesson of the campaign is that while President Obama is still very popular, he doesn’t have “coat tails”. People like him, but they aren’t buying his soap. He campaigned pretty vigorously in NJ, but couldn’t help Corzine recover his reputation. The independents who decide our elections still like Obama, but they evaluate each race based on “the man” and not the party.
Blue Dog Democrats have to be worried about this. Even if the leader of their party comes to campaign for them, an immensely popular president who draws huge crowds, they know that doesn’t translate into votes for them on election day. That probably means that Cap and Trade is done for, and Health Insurance Reform is going to be difficult in its current (?) form.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Frank -
I’d be happy if everyone got elected on their worth not their party affiliation, so I don’t see a problem here.
November 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I agree with both the Burke and Hagan comments. NY-23 should have been an easy GOP win (although the district did vote 53%-47% for Obama – identical to the national popular vote). Losing the seat may have been the very best thing to happen as far as GOP prospects in 2010 are concerned. The loss reinforced a lesson that both fiscal and social conservatives need to have pounded into their heads on a regular basis. The fusionist alliance between fiscal and social conservatives has been the only path to electoral success for the GOP since Reagan (well documented in Ryan Sager’s 2006 book “The Elephant in the Room”). If the GOP puts forward candidates that both fiscal and social conservatives can support, they win. If they don’t, they lose. It is just that simple.
Given the fiscal train wreck that is the Obama administration, fiscal issues should take priority in that equation. Hopefully the social conservatives will now understand that they need to take the back seat in 2010. In the car – a necessary navigator – but from the back seat. If the fiscal conservatives are driving, the independents are on board.
EDITED: Wanted to get this in – The ultimate irony will be if Bill Owens casts the deciding in what is promising to be a very close vote in the House today. If that happens, perhaps conservatives will have their “Nader moment” and finally understand the consequences of not unifying behind a single conservative candidate.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
She* is anti-gun control, and wants to extend the Bush tax cuts. That’s two. She was opposed to health reform. Three.
Granted in the context of the GOP she’d be left-wing. But the GOP hasn’t managed 51% of the popular vote since 1988. And in 1988 young people were strongly opposed to socialism.
*I won’t even try to spell her name. My poor anglo brain can handle names up to three syllables, but her name has four. Also double-consonants, and ambiguous vowel sounds.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Simon: Thanks. Do you think third, fourth and fifth parties could work?
MW: Good to see ya’ out. I like the way you talk
November 8th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Just wanted to point out that the word “resurgence,” whatever it means, clearly has the word “surge” in it. I don’t think it’s worth quarreling with any conservatives who choose to see some positive signs for their side in these results?
But a “surge?” C’mon now. Whatever they are, they’re decidedly not a dramatic change or a strong forward rush.