RSS Feed MenuThe only good thing I can say about yesterday’s primaries is “It could have been worse.”
The biggest news is the self-destruction of the once mighty Florida Republican Party. The party was already facing a challenging future. Besides the fact that hundreds of thousands of retired Northeastern liberals keep moving into the state, the Castro brothers will soon be dead and the Cubans will start voting more and more like Puerto Ricans. In order to survive and thrive in a changing environment, the Florida GOP needed to foster party unity, broaden its appeal to centrist voters and, in preparation for future re-election battles, try to fill the most important elected offices (especially those near the top of the ticket – such as governor and senator) with experienced mainstream politicians with a demonstrated ability to win statewide elections and attract independent voters. On each and every one of these counts Florida Republicans chose to do exactly the opposite. And not only do they now face a very real chance of losing easily winnable races for both governor and senator, but the future looks quite bleak.
It is still unknown who won the senate primary in Alaska, but the numbers do not look good for Murkowski. I doubt Miller is in much danger of losing the general election (although re-election in 2016 may be a different story). However the problem with Tea Party backed candidates is not just that they are less likely to win (which they are), but also that they may drag other candidates down as well as damage the GOP’s ability to govern. Miller is already being attacked by Democrats for wanting to privatize Social Security, phase out Medicare and abolish unemployment insurance. Republican candidates in other states may find themselves being asked time and again whether they share these positions.
The Democrats already promised to run as defenders of Social Security, and that issue may become potent, given that: (1) besides Miller, some other Tea Party backed candidates for Senate (Angle and Buck) are on record advocating the abolition of Social Security (even if they may now be backpedaling) and (2) the Republicans are talking a lot about deficits without ever getting around to actually offering a plausible plan to cut spending dramatically — leaving them open to charges that they have a secret plan to cut entitlements (which just happen to constitute the biggest part of the federal budget – not to mention that it is in fact mathematically impossible to balance the budget without reforming entitlements). Some Democratic candidates may in effect start running against Miller, Angle and Buck rather than against their actual opponents.
Furthermore, quite a few Republican candidates may find it expedient to pledge not to touch Social Security, and such a pledge might seriously limit the ability of the party to govern in the future, since Social Security will indeed have to be cut sooner or later – perhaps a lot sooner than we think. I can easily imagine a scenario: the real estate bubble bursts in China, their banking system faces imminent collapse, the government desperately tries to raise cash for the rescue and sells off almost a trillion dollars of U.S. debt that they hold, the bond market repercussions are unpleasant, the rating agencies threaten to lower the U.S. credit rating within weeks unless the government cuts future deficits dramatically and voila! – Congress starts discussing raising the retirement age and lowering the benefits for younger workers).
About the only bright spot in the primaries (and the reason I classify them as merely a disaster rather than a catastrophe) is McCain’s decisive win. The last thing the GOP needed was a birther running for Senate. Still, all in all it looks like the Republicans right now are more interested in “sending a message” than in less important stuff like, you know, winning elections.
DFL // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:04 am
According to the author, it looks like another big election year for the Democrats. Republican primary voters are not biding the yuppie Beltway Republicans, not listening to David Frum, so they are doomed.
Fairy Hardcastle // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:10 am
It’s so refreshing to see new people in the GOP. GOP should consider a self-imposed term limit for its members. That would probably insure continued election victories as the stale Dem retreads continue on their plodding way.
dante // Aug 26, 2010 at 10:42 am
Andrew – Care to explain a little bit more why we have to “reform SS”? The system has enough funds promised to it to last until 2037, at which point it will be able to pay out 75% of it’s benefits. The problem isn’t SS, it’s rather in the Federal Government’s ability to pay back what it owes. We should absolutely NOT be using SS (which is a regressive tax) to fix problems with our federal budget (funded by a progressive tax, the income tax). Remember, every single man woman and child with a job pays SS taxes equal to about 12.5% of their salary (half by them, half by their employer). This is phased out after $106,000, meaning people making a million dollars/year pay a far lower effective SS tax rate than someone making 1/10th as much.
Is this really how you want to balance or reduce our deficit, on the backs of the poor and middle class through a regressive tax system? We didn’t even have a surplus during the Clinton years after the “free money” from the SS system is taken out. And yet that (a budget surplus) was the justification given by GWB for his 2001 tax cuts… So in effect, SS taxpayers subsidized the income tax payers in 2001.
I’m all for having a rational, open dialogue on this, but can we at least be honest about what we’re “saving”? I’ve paid into the SS system for the past ~20 years or so, and during that time I’d be shocked if my effective federal income tax rate ever got up above the 12.5% SS tax that I’m paying each year.
I’m all for a fiscally responsible government, but in my mind that’s raising income taxes and cutting spending so that we *can* afford to pay out our Social Security promises.
abj // Aug 26, 2010 at 11:23 am
I’ll grant that Scott’s victory was an unmitigated disaster. Look, I’m a Republican, and the last thing I want to see is a Democrat in the governor’s mansion in such a critical state right before redistricting happens, but I don’t think I could even vote for Scott if I were a Floridian. The outcome in the Senate primaries, on the other hand, was ideal – with Kendrick Meek as the Dem nominee, the Dem establishment has no choice but to back its nominee, dashing Crist’s hopes of running as a stealth Democrat.
Other than Scott, what was so horrible about the outcome? Yes, it’s likely Murkowski will go down, but Alaska’s a very red state that’s likely to stay Republican anyway.
Miller is already being attacked by Democrats for wanting to privatize Social Security, phase out Medicare and abolish unemployment insurance. Republican candidates in other states may find themselves being asked time and again whether they share these positions.
Which creates a problem for Joe Miller, not Republicans writ large. Any GOP candidate with half a brain could easily sidestep the issue by saying, “I don’t support that position,” or “look, my opponent wants to talk about a Republican candidate for office in faraway Alaska, and I want to talk about X, and local issues affecting X, and getting people back to work in X.” I just don’t see it being terribly effective.
mpolito // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Andrew, you really do not actually make any of your points here. You concede that Miller is most likely going to win the general if he is the nominee, so what’s the problem? He “can’t govern?” Has Murkowski really been such a great senator? Or do you just like her because she is pro-choice? Miller has steller credentials, as a West Point and Yale Law grad. What’s there not to like?
As for Rick Scott in Florida, there is no reason to think that if he loses it will have any effect on redistricting, because redistricting in Florida is sorted out by the legislature with no role for the governor at all. Both houses of the legislature are comfortably GOP-controlled.
Carney // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Good stuff, DFL.
And personally, I’d have been happy to have the insurgent candidates in all other primaries lose, if Hayworth could have bagged McCain. That would have been a “shot heard ’round the world”, particularly south of the border all the way to Tierra del Fuego, deterring some illegal immigration. The political earthquake it would have produced in DC would also have been satisfying, as the weathervanes there began scrambling to out-tough each other on immigration.
forkboy1965 // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Yes. Thank the heavens AZ re-nominated McCain the flip-flopper, to coin the GOP phrase. Very… um… progressive.
Oldskool // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“the problem with Tea Party backed candidates is not just that they are less likely to win (which they are), but also that they may ….. damage the GOP’s ability to govern.”
That made me lol. Since when does the GOP try to govern? I’m pretty sure they’re all about gaining and keeping power. “Govern” implies acting responsibly and that kind of nonsense will get you tossed out of the GOP faster than you can say “tax increase”.
LauraNo // Aug 26, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Well you can’t blame republican voters for wanting to send a message, even at the expense of one mid-term election (which is doubtful anyway). They’ve been voting for the conservative party and getting anything but, plus their politicians play them for fools over and over again. Maybe they just want some respect?
medinnus // Aug 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm
More GOP and Tea Partiers declaring what a whomping the dems are going to take in November, and more Dems crowing about how many Tea Partier candidates are on the slate and how they’ll marginalize themselves in November. How about this? Everyone STFU about how big your victories will be until after you earn them.
easton // Aug 26, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Carney, I live by where La Bestia comes by and talk to some of the migrants coming up from Central America, these are indigent peasants, do you really think they have the remotest clue who Hayworth or McCain are? they are lucky to have electricity and you expect them to be following state elections. Quick who won the Governors races in Mexico, name one without googling.
abj, generally I agree, but Ben Quayle? He of the rent a family and porn addict? That lemon did not fall far from the tree. There are too many whackjob Republicans in this cycle, some will slip in but why would Republicans want people who will be embarrassments to their own home districts?
I might not like McCollum, but he sure as hell was qualified and not corrupt. At least Rubio is a smart guy provided he keeps his head about him (for a little while he let the glowing Conservative press get to him and said some pretty dumb things which he knew would give him more glowing press, but he got off that cycle of cheap egoism quick)
Carney // Aug 27, 2010 at 8:44 am
easton, even among illiterates, rumors spread quickly. That’s why illegals suddenly vanish from public view for a while in an area after a high-profile raid. I suspect there are few who do not know the name of the President of the United States, and if a man who almost became the president were defeated over the issue of immigration, that fact would become well-known in Latin America.
mbus // Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56 am
I’m one of those who don’t show up in polls:
I disapprove of Obama’s performance, and would vote for him again.
Mulva // Aug 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm
” Congress starts discussing raising the retirement age and lowering the benefits for younger workers).”
Raising the retirement age? Who is going to employ all these senior citizens? 50 year olds can’t find work, how is a 65 year old supposed to find a job?