Dede Scozzafava’s sudden and surprise withdrawal from Tuesday’s special congressional election has spurred renewed calls for third-party candidate Chris Daggett to do the same in New Jersey.
At National Review Online, for instance, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum argues that “Daggett should follow the Scozzafava lead.”
“Like Scozzafava [in New York], Daggett is not going to win [New Jersey’s Gubernatorial] election on Tuesday,” Santorum writes. “Scozzafava withdrew because she put what is best for her district and her country above her personal aspirations. Let’s see if Daggett can exhibit the same selflessness.”
Newt Gingrich and Hugh Hewitt, likewise, are angry with Daggett because, they say, he is a spoiler with no chance of winning. Daggett, these conservatives whine, is simply siphoning off votes from the Republican Party candidate, Chris Christie; and, as a result, the dreaded leftist Democrat, Jon Corzine, may win yet again.
But of course, if Christie were such a great candidate, then Daggett wouldn’t be registering double-digit polling numbers.
Christie’s problem has been that he’s run, as the Wall Street Journal points out, a “content-free” campaign. Indeed, he’s offered few ideas for substantive change in a state (New Jersey) that is rife with corruption.
“To the extent that Mr. Christie has deigned to discuss taxes at all,” laments the Journal, “it’s usually been to criticize the reform proposals of others.”
Adds Karl Rove: “Neither major party candidate in New Jersey has offered a compelling or comprehensive agenda. [And] at times,” Rove notes, “the independent candidate, Chris Daggett, has appeared the only contender with an agenda to rein in property taxes.”
Daggett, in fact, appears to be a far more compelling candidate, with a pledge to cut property taxes by 25% for all homeowners, according to the Journal. Christie, the party apparatchik, has denounced Daggett’s tax-cutting proposal as a tax increase; but as David Frum reports, this really isn’t fair or true:
[Daggett’s] proposals for balancing the state’s books are detailed and workable. He’d extend the state’s 7% sales [tax] to cover services as well as goods.
He’d end the hodge-podge of property tax rebates. He’d then use the money gained to finance an across-the-board property tax cut and also reductions in corporate income taxes.
The lesson in this election cycle is that campaigns and issues matter. Substantive ideas matter. Being responsive to voters’ concerns matters. And sometimes, pace Gingrich, Hewitt and Santorum, party loyalty demands too much.
Scozzafava withdrew from the congressional race precisely because she was, like Christie, a weak candidate. She was a poor fit for her district and yet, the New York GOP party bosses made her their anointed pet candidate. Thus, they denied Hoffman the right to participate in a primary against Scozzafava.
But Hoffman has ideas, passion, and popular support. He also is on the ballot as New York State’s Conservative Party nominee. And so he drove Scozzafava from the race. Consequently, Hoffman may well be the next congressman from New York state’s 23rd congressional district.
New Jersey’s Christie did win a primary battle; however, he has run a lackluster general election campaign that should serve as a cautionary warning to the GOP.
Indeed, as the Journal reports, “Daggett’s appeal has grown because he’s offering voters precisely what Mr. Christie isn’t: a specific plan for controlling runaway taxes and spending.” As for Christie, his “idea of a brilliant campaign idea is to tell the press that he’s attended 120 concerts of [Bruce] Springsteen, who may end up endorsing Mr. Corzine.”
For these reasons, the New Jersey Republican Party may well deserve to lose: because it hasn’t offered voters real change. Chastened by defeat, perhaps next time the Jersey GOP will run an issue-oriented reform campaign aimed at improving the quality of life for Garden State residents.
Seen in this context, Chris Daggett is performing a useful public service, which ultimately will help the Republican Party.
Doug Hoffman performed this same public service in New York state’s 23rd congressional district and realized success much sooner than anyone ever expected. He knocked out of the race a weak and non-substantive candidate, who had been selected by the party bosses, and not the people or voters.
Successful reform of the New Jersey GOP surely will take longer than one election cycle, but is still worth pursuing.
That’s why conservatives and Republicans should embrace Hoffman and Daggett: because both men are helping to rectify and clean up a brain-dead and all too often corrupt Republican Party.
Moreover, free-market conservatives should welcome competition, especially substantive political competition: because it makes everyone better and stronger.
Of course, the GOP party bosses don’t like competition. That’s why they conspired against Hoffman; and that’s why they’re angry at Daggett.
It’s also why they have conspired against Marco Rubio in Florida: by siding with Rubio’s primary opponent, Charlie Crist, in the race for Florida’s 2010 Senate seat.
Again, the party bosses fear substantive competition; but we voters should demand it, for competition is the surest route to real and sustainable political success and true reform.
39 responses so far
1 aronscott // Nov 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Does the fact that Daggett doesn’t register double-digit polling numbers, but is down to 8 percent (and fading) in three of the past four NJ surveys, suggest that Christie has become a great candidate?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2009/governor/nj/new_jersey_governor_corzine_vs_christie-1051.html#polls
2 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 1:13 pm
aronscott:
All that’s happening is that those voters who used to prefer Daggett, may still do so but realize he can’t win. Third-party candidates often make a splash earlier in the campaign. But as the general election approaches, they tend to fade for that reason–voters always remember that we have a two-party system and it’s not going to change.
What about Hoffman in NY-23? NY is exceptional, one of the few states with truly vibrant third (and fourth and fifth!) parties. Because NY is one of the few states that allows fusion tickets (the same candidate running on more than one party line). NJ isn’t like that.
3 John Guardiano // Nov 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Asonscott,
We’ll see how Daggett ultimately fares in this election. He may fade because the party hacks and bosses, aided by weak-minded pundits, are prematurely trying to write his obituary. The hacks and bosses want to see Daggett fail; that’s why they’re arguing, a la Gingrich, that a vote for Daggett is a wasted vote.
In fact, a vote for Daggett may ultimately help to rectify and reform the Jersey GOP. A vote for Daggett may ultimately aid and abet the GOP’s longer-term prospects in the Garden State.
But my larger-scale point is the need for greater and more robust political competition, which is not short-circuited by the party hacks and bosses. Does anyone now doubt that the Clinton-Obama race was invigorating for the Democratic Party? That it energized the Left, and inspired millions of new Democratic Party activists? Would that the GOP had similar electoral competition on a similarly high and inspiriting level.
The hacks and bosses always fear dissension within the ranks. They always fear electoral disruption and disorder. It is my contention that we should welcome dissent and invite disagreement: because dissent and disagreement foster thought, ingenuity and ideas — all of which are in short supply in today’s Republican Party.
Thus, win or lose, Daggett is a serious breath of fresh air. He has performed a useful public service and ought to be commended for his civic involvement and civic leadership. We need, I think, more like him in public life today.
V/R
John
4 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:14 pm
john-guardiano // Nov 1, 2009 at 1:42 pm
…….On this occasion I largely agree with you John, but the Daggett and Hoffmann candidacies are somewhat different in nature. Daggett is a very local to NJ, ideology has little to do with it, he just saw Christie as a flawed candidate to lead to a reform of NJ politics. Good luck with that one btw. Hoffman is totally different. He’s a proxy for a national ideological struggle who was flown into the district from outside over the wishes of the locals, or at least a majority of them. It’s all about ideology and the party doctrinaires have thrown huge amounts of money into the race to sway the outcome. Whoever wins in NJ it will soon be forgotten but the waves from NY 23, again whoever wins, are going to be around for awhile.
5 aronscott // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:26 pm
It is my contention that we should welcome dissent and invite disagreement: because dissent and disagreement foster thought, ingenuity and ideas — all of which are in short supply in today’s Republican Party.
Daggett is a serious breath of fresh air. He has performed a useful public service and ought to be commended for his civic involvement and civic leadership. We need, I think, more like him in public life today.
But my larger-scale point is the need for greater and more robust political competition, which is not short-circuited by the party hacks and bosses.
John,
I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, but how does Daggett facilitating the re-election of Corzine benefit the Jersey GOP long-term? Were Christie and Lonegan distinctions without a difference in your estimation?
6 John Guardiano // Nov 1, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Aronscott,
Yes, you’re right. The New Jersey Republican Party, to its great credit, did sponsor a primary campaign for governor. However, Christie has run a very poor general election campaign, which the Wall Street Journal has rightly derided as “content free.”
I think it’s important for voters to register their dissatisfaction with politicians who do not seriously and substantively address the great issues of our time. Christie ought not win this election simply because he is not Jon Corzine; that bar is far too low in my estimation. Instead, he ought to win the race because he offers voters a substantive and reform-minded path forward.
Christie really hasn’t done this, unfortunately; and so his election poses a real danger to the Republican party. The danger is that the party will think that it can get electorally by by simply saying what it is not, and what it is against — as opposed to saying what it is, and what it is for.
The danger is that the GOP will continue to give short-shrift to substantive policy proposals, a reform agenda, and ideas. The danger is that the party will continue to be brain dead and think that is OK: because voters nonetheless will reward the GOP (at the polls) for not being the other guy.
A Christie loss, though, may cause the Jersey GOP to reexamine its mistaken electoral assumptions and to seriously consider, once again, ideas and policy. A vote for Daggett may cause the GOP to realize that voters aren’t stupid and ought not be taken for granted.
For these reasons, I think, Chris Daggett’s candidacy may ultimately benefit the party’s longer-term health and electoral prospects.
V/R
John
7 Thanos // Nov 1, 2009 at 3:24 pm
The notion of Hoffman as a Reformer is ridiculous, since the same monied out of state PACs which support him are those who created such a great record with the C st Band during the Bush years. Currently Todd Tiarht is under ethics scrutiny, and he carries the Club for Growth “cloaking device for Socons” endorsement along with that of Santorum. This just smells like when we replaced Lowery with Cunningham, now that was a great reform wasn’t it?
8 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“Whoever wins in NJ it will soon be forgotten but the waves from NY 23, again whoever wins, are going to be around for awhile.”
…….I see Scozza has now publicly endorsed the Democrat Owens…..as I said earlier the waves are going to be around for a awhile. Either way this is really a win for the Democrats. If Hoffmann wins which has to be the most likely outcome it just pours more gas on the ideological war in the GOP and if Owens squeaks out a win even better from Pelosi’s point of view. In terms of balance in house voting it couldn’t be less important but as an indicator of where the Republican party is headed it’s loaded with significance.
9 John Guardiano // Nov 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Ottovbvs,
You are only half right. There is an ideological component to the intramural fights within the Republican Party. But more important and more significant than ideology is competence and substance.
Indeed, the most important fights today do not pit so-called GOP moderates against conservatives. The most important fight pits those who want to seriously and substantively address public policy questions, be they on the right or in the center, and those who do not. The most important fights pit those who really do harbor ideas about public policy and those who are clueless about ideas.
I am a conservative. But as a conservative I candidly acknowledge that the most important issues today do not pit the left against the right. Instead, they pit those who want to move forward against those who want to stay put. They pit those who believe in progress and those who are wedded to the status quo.
V/R
John
10 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 4:56 pm
9 john-guardiano // Nov 1, 2009 at 4:33 pm
…….it’s the ideological component that I think separates the Daggett and Hoffman situations……otherwise I don’t disagree with a lot of your comments…….historically the GOP has been perceived as the party of management competence…. it was one of those things you felt instinctively about them ……the move to a more ideological stance plus the massive management failures of the Bush administration have completely destroyed that perception…… Competence and substance are indeed paramount but at the moment the fact is that the Republican party doesn’t actually want to engage with the problems of governance. The combined federal and state budgets total around $5 trillion (they were approaching $4.5 trillion before Bush left office). These are several times larger than the govt outlays of any other sovereign state so talk of small govt is nonsense. None of this reality is ever going away as Bruce Bartlett has so clearly explained. And yet it’s a central tenet of today’s GOP that it, or at least a large part of it, can be made to go away. Until reality reasserts itself on this central matter the GOP is going to remain in eclipse and I see no sign of it. Instead the preoccupations are ideology and ephemera.
11 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 5:02 pm
john-guardiano:
I don’t know which base Republicans you’ve been listening to.
But the ones I’ve been listening to on Redstate.com aren’t framing the issue that way.
Rather, they see the national GOP as foisting a series of “RINO,” “liberal,” and “squish” candidates on an unwilling conservative base. And they demand the most conservative candidate possible who is still capable of winning.
The two main gripes that they had against Scozzafava were:
a) her liberal stands on abortion and gay marriage
b) her willingness to back TARP and the economic stimulus package
The GOP base isn’t looking for centrist reformers. Rather, they’re looking for candidates to carry the banner of conservatism.
12 ProfNickD // Nov 1, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Scozzafava’s endorsement of the Democrat is quite typical of moderate Republican sore losers –Erick over at Redstate has the rundown on how much this occurred during the ‘06 and ‘08 cycles.
The way I see it, moderate Republicans not only don’t believe in mainstream Republican ideas (traditional values, spending cuts, tax cuts, etc.), they often don’t even endorse the Republican candidate if it turns out the candidate is conservative.
So who says that moderate Republicans are really “Republican?”
13 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 5:23 pm
profnickd:
That’s not how it used to be.
Newt Gingrich had the support of moderate Republicans, when he took over Congress in 1994. The two Maine ladies NEVER endorsed Democrats to stop his takeover of Congress. Do you recall ANY House Republicans (and there used to be plenty of moderates back then) endorsing Democrats to stop Gingrich?
In 1980, Reagan had the support of not only moderate Republicans, but even the remaining liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits. Javits worked hard to help Reagan win New York (and it worked). The only major Republican who broke with the Reagan campaign was John Anderson–and that was only after Anderson had already drifted so far to the left that he was to the left of Jimmy Carter.
So what’s changed? What’s changed is that the conservatives have declared open warfare on the moderates. The GOP is now badly split, to the point that conservatives refused to endorse Scozzafava and (as Redstate points out) some moderate Republicans refused to endorse conservatives.
In my younger days, it was taken for granted that the GOP was a far more unified party than the Dems: The Republican moderates would help conservatives, and the conservatives would help moderates.
14 sinz54 // Nov 1, 2009 at 5:26 pm
From Redstate.com:
“Dede Scozzafava is out. We must now do to Crist what we did to Scozzafava. He’s even more a potential menace simply by virtue of being a potential Senator.”
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/11/01/charlie-crist-delenda-est-2/
15 balconesfault // Nov 1, 2009 at 6:20 pm
We must now do to Crist what we did to Scozzafava. He’s even more a potential menace simply by virtue of being a potential Senator.
I’ll actually agree with Redstate on this one – Crist will not be a reliable 40th vote against cloture if he’s elected Senator.
While he’s a conservative, he’s already shown that he’s not a reliable partisan brawler. Last fall when it was clear that an 8-hour open poll day during the early voting period was limiting the number of people who could vote early … and when all observers were contenting that expanding the hours would likely benefit Obama … Crist went ahead and expanded the early polling schedule to a 12 hour day.
In other words, don’t count on Crist to be part of the procedural obstruction crew to grind progressive legislation to a halt. Instead, he may well replace Snowe as the Republican who most easily persuaded to make a deal on certain pieces of legislation, particularly if he believes that some aspect of it will benefit his state.
Crist strikes me as the sort who would go home feeling dirty at the end of the day if all he did was keep anything from happening.
16 rbottoms // Nov 1, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Oh snap.
Nicely done.
17 balconesfault // Nov 1, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Well, if you look at Owens’ biography:
- Owens is a managing partner at Stafford, Owens, Piller, Murnane & Trombley, where he specializes in business, estate and tax law
- an adjunct professor in business law at State University of New York at Plattsburgh, in 2004 he was appointed by Republican Governor George Pataki to the College Council at that university
- When the Plattsburgh Air Force Base closed in 1995, he help create and worked for the Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corp. (formerly the Plattsburgh Inter-municipal Development Council), which recruited private companies to reuse the space.
- Roman Catholic and married with two daughters
- former Captain in the United States Air Force
- supports an estate tax exemption for up to $5 million
A guy like Owens would have been comfortable running as a New England Republican only 10 years ago.
18 Arch // Nov 1, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I like that John Guardiano engages with us in the comments sections, on top of writing pieces for the site.
That’s my big controversial comment for the day.
19 balconesfault // Nov 1, 2009 at 8:16 pm
lol – and I agree heartily with you, arch. And I really like his words in his response, as well – they provide a framework for constuctive dialogue, which is really the greatest value this site can offer, imo.
20 ottovbvs // Nov 1, 2009 at 9:54 pm
irreign:
Actually Scozza’s voting record was basically in the middle of voting patterns for Republicans within NYS as has been illustrated by several published studies. By definition those patterns are going to be somewhat to the left of Republican voting patterns in say GA or Alabama. Just how different voting pattern are in today’s Republican heartland as opposed to the rest of the US is neatly illustrated by the breakdown on appro and disapproval for Obama. In voting intentions the south is becoming another country.
BARACK OBAMA
FAV UNFAV NO OPINION
ALL 56 36 8
Men 46 47 7
Women 66 25 9
DEM 89 4 7
REP 5 91 4
IND 56 33 11
Other 51 36 13
Non Vote 63 28 9
White 47 45 8
Black 89 4 7
Latino 69 24 7
Oth/Ref 69 23 8
18-29 81 12 7
30-44 44 46 10
45-59 64 28 8
60+ 41 53 6
NORTHEAST 84 5 11
SOUTH 28 67 5
MIDWEST 62 30 8
WEST 60 31 9
Rest of USA 68 23 9
21 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:13 am
Huh.
a) Frum changed the name of the blog. I hope this doesn’t signal surrender on the goal of a “New Majority”, in the face of so many on the right who are quite happy with a smaller but more ideologically pure minority
b) my last response here was deleted. odd … I shan’t repeat it, but I assure you there was nothing that attacked any posters or commentors here, nor used offensive language (unless you consider quoting William Congreve to be offensive)
22 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 8:44 am
“Please stop ruining threads with your shrill and factually wrong attacks.”
……..Would you like to tell me precisely who I “attacked” in 24?…..Only days ago there were several press reports that I assume were accurate on her voting record in NYS and put her in the middle of her caucus …..she may be liberal by your lights but not by the lights of New York state Republicans apparently…..and then I provided some polling info on just how different the south is becoming…
23 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 8:59 am
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:13 am
Huh.
“a) Frum changed the name of the blog. I hope this doesn’t signal surrender on the goal of a “New Majority”, in the face of so many on the right who are quite happy with a smaller but more ideologically pure minority”
………Probably…….this was in any case a forlorn hope since the GOP is hoist on it’s own petard of southernization and polarisation……these strategies have made the party a hostage of social/nationalist conservatives while the economic/management conservatives are peeling away outside of Dixie/Utah. The results are in that poll I posted above that seems to have caused much distress but are confirmed in many others. They seem horrific to me for a national party but most conservatives are apparently delighted and want more of it so who are we to stand in their way……..sorry to have missed the Congreve……nothing too sexual I hope
24 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:01 am
One comment that jumped out at me by him – I don’t think you can draw any larger lessons from NY-23 except that you have to have primaries and you can’t have party bosses nominating the district’s candidate.
This simply shows a youthful ignorance of process. This was a special election, which means that the local jurisdiction wouldn’t have been picking up the tab for a primary – and in a district as big as NY23 this could easily have been upwards of a million bucks.
25 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:10 am
………Probably…….this was in any case a forlorn hope since the GOP is hoist on it’s own petard of southernization and polarisation……these strategies have made the party a hostage of social/nationalist conservatives while the economic/management conservatives are peeling away outside of Dixie/Utah.
It is an interesting phenomena. The electoral map in 2008 showed the GOP becoming a party of Southern/Appalacian states with a few western states tossed in. I think that they really believe that the obnoxious screamers showing up at tea bag rallies in some Northern states represent a movement that could swing those states … not wanting to face the fact that the falling Obama numbers mainly represent the deep seated and well cultivated antipathy to the President in the south.
And winning the state races in traditionally Republican Virginia are just going to convince them further that Obama is on the wane.
26 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:58 am
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:10 am
“And winning the state races in traditionally Republican Virginia are just going to convince them further that Obama is on the wane.”
………..Absolutely right(the politics in the VA race seem very local), and the same goes for NY 23 that Hoffmann is probably going to win…….the effect is going to be to lure them ever further out onto thawing ice……..on Obama’s numbers Pollster has him at around 56 % which is where he was when elected but a loss of 10% from inauguration so basically he’s holding his coalition together and there’s no viable competition on the horizon……Palin the tea baggers darlin has appros of 29%!……I’ve no doubt if they re ran Obama/Biden v McCain/Palin he’d probably pull around 60% of the vote …….Judging by David Frum’s comments where he announces the name change(a smart move btw) he clearly recognizes the seriousness of the GOP’s predicament but as a generalisation they are in total denial…….my electoral memories go back to the fifties and I’ve never seen anything like this on the Republican side …….even in 1964 when the Goldwaterites grabbed the steering wheel nobody gave a damn because they knew LBJ was unbeatable in 64…….but as I said who are we to stand in their way
27 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 am
ottovbs:
But for NY-23, Scozzafava was much more liberal than her predecessor, McHugh. McHugh got a rating of 71 from the American Conservative Union. And in 2008, when Obama won a big victory, McHugh won with 65% of the vote.
Hoffman is closer to McHugh’s political views than Scozzafava is.
Some reporter should have asked Scozzafava if she agreed with McHugh’s stands on issues.
28 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:17 am
balconesfault:
The Dems were also worried about a loss in VA being bad publicity for them.
Politico.com reported that the reason why the Obama administration took such a big role in the Deeds campaign, is that they were worried that a double loss (NJ and VA) would have all the pundits talking about erosion of Obama’s support. Instead, they will now do their best to spin NJ as an endorsement of Obama and VA as meaningless.
And you’re helping them with their spin. Why am I not surprised.
29 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
balconesfault:
Frum was always vague (perhaps deliberately) as to what his envisioned “New Majority” would look like. He didn’t start off this blog with a manifesto explaining just what he would like to see happen to American conservatism. Whereas Buckley was quite specific when he launched National Review: “Standing athwart history and yelling STOP!!!”
So what’s the point in continuing to wave one’s hands about a “New Majority” without ever explaining what it would look like.
30 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:14 am
……..Scozza voting recocrd was middle of the road in the NYS Republican caucus……whether Hoffman is closer to McHugh is purely your personal opinion there’s not quantitive way of knowing…….McHugh’s vote was the consequence of this being a solid Republican seat and years of incumbency…….why do you keep producing non sequiturs.
31 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:26 am
34 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:17 am
“Politico.com reported that the reason why the Obama administration took such a big role in the Deeds campaign,”
……..Actually the Dem in VA has notoriously run his campaign on local issues….and not well…..but who are we to stand in your way if this is what you want to believe
32 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:40 am
The interesting thing about the Hoffman – Scozzafava challenge is that it is a very instructive lesson to Blue Dog Democrats … don’t even think about crossing party lines, because you don’t have a home there.
I know there will be attempts to compare this to Lieberman-Lamont, but one should remember that Lieberman was actively attacking other Democrats on the issue the Democratic Party considered the most important of the time in 2006 – the nation accepting what an error it was to invade and occupy Iraq. This issue was enough of a litmus test for Dems that I truly believe it is what cost Hillary the nomination, and thus the Presidency.
It is not unreasonable for parties to have litmus tests, no matter what the Broderian/Brooksian pundits might say.
But the Hoffman race illustrates that for Republicans, potentially EVERYTHING is a litmus test today. Their litmus test isn’t an issue, but an SAT where anything but a perfect score means you’re not qualified to bear the GOP standard.
So if you’re a Nelson … a Baucus … a Schuler … you might be aggravated by DailyKos attacks on your character and ideology – but you know that as long as y0u stay with the Democrats on procedural matters, you will still be supported by the party. A Republican now has no such assurance, and thus any Blue Dog knows that crossing the aisle will mean the end of their political career in a very short time.
33 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 10:54 am
sinz: And you’re helping them with their spin. Why am I not surprised.
Hard to call it spin. I’m glad that Obama made an effort for Deeds, because the Democratic Party in Virginia definitely busted their butts for him in 2008, and he owed them for that. But there was nothing ever particularly compelling about Deeds, except that he was a far better candidate than Terry McAuliffe, who gives most people I know the creeps.
I don’t think NJ will be an endorsement of Obama, or Virginia a repudiation. Both races are far far deeper in the weeds than that – they really have everything to do with local issues, and nothing to do with national ones, particularly since none of the candidates involved are considered serious candidates for national office in the short term.
So what’s the point in continuing to wave one’s hands about a “New Majority” without ever explaining what it would look like.
I’m with you. This site has done a far better job simply of providing a relatively abuse-free public square for cross-ideology discussions, than providing any kind of a road map for how Republicans might reverse the erosion in their base.
otto whether Hoffman is closer to McHugh is purely your personal opinion there’s not quantitive way of knowing
I think there’s a very simple intellectual exercise here – does anyone believe that Hoffman, as a sitting Congressman, would accept an invitation to come work for the Obama Administration?
I suspect that if Hoffman is elected, he will end up with a 95-100 rating from the American Conservative Union … and that Scozzafava would have been more in the 50-60 range, depending on what votes are scored that year. Now which would be closer to McHugh’s 71?
34 Moderate // Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 am
Has anyone read which positions made Scozzafava a bad fit for the district?
Was the conservative uprising primarily motivated by:
1) fiscal issues (her support for tax/budget increases, card check, etc.)
2) social issues (gay marriage, abortion) or
3) anger stemming from the lack of a primary?
I realize that all three played a role, but is there specific issue polling available?
35 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm
balconesfault:
I’m hoping there will be some exit polls, that will tell us whether national or local issues were more important to the voters.
However, off-year elections are usually where the activists predominate, due to apathy among the ordinary non-activist voters. So if nothing else, these elections will be a test of whether the GOP organization, and/or the conservative movement, can still get its act together to turn out the vote for Republican candidates in VA.
36 sinz54 // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:26 pm
balconesfault:
Doesn’t matter.
Nobody wants to risk their political necks to join up with a loser anyway.
The GOP’s brand is still so tarnished with the public, that even if Scozzafava had fended off the Hoffman challenge and gone on to win the election, no Blue Dogs would give a moment’s thought to switching to the GOP. What’s in it for them? The GOP, being a minority party, can’t give them committee chairmanships.
Those Dems who switched or endorsed Republicans (Campbell, Miller, Lieberman) did so at a time when the GOP seemed ascendant.
37 balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:36 pm
So if nothing else, these elections will be a test of whether the GOP organization, and/or the conservative movement, can still get its act together to turn out the vote for Republican candidates in VA.
Well, I would hope that they would. Given that the Dems don’t really have much to write home about yet (ok, slowing the free-fall in the economy is nice, but it’s nothing to campaign on) and the rally to the ramparts by Republican activists in 2009, failure to win at least the governorship in Virginia would be a sign to call the Priest for last rites.
But there are so many balls in play right now that I think taking any meaning from this weeks election and projecting them to 2010 is a serious longshot, akin to predicting who will win the World Series based on who had the best month of September in the previous season (actually I read some NFL pundits touting SF this year based on their winning 4 of their last 5 last year … we see how well that worked).
38 ottovbvs // Nov 2, 2009 at 3:30 pm
balconesfault // Nov 2, 2009 at 1:36 pm
………..I don’t know too much about VA other than I’ve read in places like the WSJ or NYT but quite a lot about NJ which is definitely all local…..From what I’ve read VA seems to have a particularly crazy GOP party organization down there and after year of dominance now only control one house (I believe)…….Governors are limited to one term and they’ve had two or three democrats in a row and the Dem seems to have been a weak candidate……so with a bit of luck there will be some serious over reaching down in VA just in time for 2010…….. I’m sure if they notch up to or three wins in these elections the right will claim a deluge is about to happen but then what would they say that wouldn’t they….strategic thinking is not their strong point these days……..I will say the Democrats are going to have to get energized next fall if they want to stay on top as the base of the Republicans certainly will be coming out……but they probably will, the environment in congressional election years is fairly intense these days
39 John Guardiano // Nov 5, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Arch and Balconesfault,
Thanks — I enjoy many of the comments and like to take the time to engage — especially when responding can help to clarify or elucidate the issues. However, I must confess that I simply cannot take the time to respond in full to most comments. I have to work still for a living! However, it seems that many of the commenters are retired or live lives of leisure! : )
Regards,
John
You must log in to post a comment.