Sep 15 2010
Reality Strikes Back In DE
As expected, Christine O’Donnell has a huge hole to climb out of to demonstrate purity to the right is better than winning seats in Congress:
Republicans more than likely cost themselves a Senate seat last night. Chris Coons begins the general election in Delaware with a 50-34 lead over Christine O’Donnell. Mike Castle would have led Coons by a 45-35 margin.
While O’Donnell may have ingratiated herself to Delaware’s small group of registered Republicans over the last month she’s turned off everyone else. An August Daily Kos/PPP poll in Delaware found her favorability rating at 23/33. It’s now 29/50.
If Castle had won he would have received more Democratic support than any other Republican Senate candidate in the country. Now our polling suggests with O’Donnell’s victory that Coons will win more Republicans than any other Democratic Senate candidate in the country. That’s because of a general unwillingness to support O’Donnell from Castle’s moderate base- folks from the centrist wing of the GOP are planning to support Coons 54-31.
Look, you can be pure all day long, but if you cannot guide the direction of Congress you are completely impotent. Why get out and vote or run candidates if your preference is to sit out the decision process in the bliss of purity? If we are not fighting to redirect the country with a broad coalition, we are wasting everyone’s time and money. You cannot win if your platform is to attack centrists. Geez, How did Obama and the Dems get into such deep trouble this year? Ignoring the center of course. The end result of this easily could be that DE traded a right of center moderate for a far left marxist, and the nation traded a chance for changing our path away from economic hell in 2011 to now having to wait until 2013. This is what is known as a Pyrrhic Victory.
I hate relearning hard lessons that should be learnt by now.
Update: I must note Coon’s being right at 50% means O’Donnell could get within striking distance, as has happened in CT, WI, WV, WA & CA. The only question is besides being possible – what is probable.
AJ,
Pyrrhic Victory means a tactical victory that leads to or is a strategic defeat, right? For example, the battle that is won by causing the opponent to cede the field of battle but the winning general destroys his own army in the process. He has the field but cannot pursue the next battle.
I just don’t understand how a primary won and can lead to the motivation of more “troops” can be Pyrrhic.
Political parties’ strategic success is measured by the rate of increase of adherence to the party either through party membership (i.e., money from paying members) or party affiliation (i.e., voter registration, particularly in closed primaries).
A tactical victory is what Republicans have become accustomed to. They won when Maine selected two senators, or Pennsylvania selected a senator. The question after those victories is what can be done to advance the party’s strategy (i.e., the party platform).
If your sapeurs or vanguard is as reliable as Specter, how can your army have confidence when it advances on the enemy’s position that the troops will even survive first contact with enemy? A general with those types of “first contact” troops is not likely to expose his flank or push his troops to move quickly. This can become quickly demoralizing for the troops. They don’t feel victorious even in victory. They feel like they are hanging on for their lives.
Let’s use an example, AJ, from your home territory. Gen. Robert E. Lee. Gen. Lee was such a superlative tactician, he could invent strategic victories through troop movements and battles-never-had. He preserved his army against the Army of the Potomac when historians now tells us that the Union theoretically had the strategic advantage.
Frankly, for the last several decades, the GOP has played the role of McClellan with great success while the Democrats have played Gen. Lee. The Dems have out maneuvered the GOP to make it act inferior. The GOP has been afraid of its own shadow. The GOP has cheered for Specter as the Grand Army of the Potomac cheered for McClellan.
I will take Christine O’Donnell as Lincoln took Grant. I will take her as I find her. McClellan had Castle credentials. I want Grant success.
Well Hektor,
That is because you fail to understand that RINO hunting motivates independents and centrists to vote against the GOP.
Duh – This ain’t all that complicated. Anybody who doesn’t agree with the far right is chased out of the GOP, and you get a pure, insignificant, powerless GOP.
If anyone thinks O’Donnell is ATTRACTING centrists and independents they are delusional. And I mean that in the full sense of the word.
Given recent history it is too early to predict what will happen in this race. There is a great deal of emotion and passion, and that is difficult to quantify.
What we do know is that the establishment Republicans are very angry and frustrated. Rove has never been so openly angry. They want to re-gain power and serve up the SOS big government republicanism. He is a big part of why the GOP got their butts kicked in 2006.
If this is really a viable small government revolution, and the center is ready for smaller government, they will vote for reform instead of a plate of the SOS. While I understand and agree with AJ about pragmatic approaches to governing there is a time for passion. In a moment of passion Centrists were more than happy to vote for an extreme left candidate in Obama. What might happen now? Newt , Steele and now Rove, need to go home, their time is past.
True to form, strong conservative women are painted as “nut jobs” conservative men are “dumb.”
Say what you want, Christine is a “Babe” to look at.
[…] backing O’Donnell, giving maximum donation – hotair.com 09/15/2010 Unity. more… Reality Strikes Back In DE – strata-sphere.com 09/15/2010 As expected, Christine O’Donnell has a huge hole to […]
One more thing…
Now that Christine is seen as opposed to (and by) the GOP establishment, her chances are very much ENHANCED, given the mood of the country and the track record of the previous repubic administration.
Therefore, the repubics are again wrong.
The Tea Party changes everything.
In two elections cycles, our country will be be transformed for the better.
It is up to GOP to decide if they want to be part of the solution or to remain, more or less, part of the problem.
I think the labels “rino” and “far right” are coloring the debate and leading to some unsupportable conclusions.
Instead of “rino”, how about “Establishment Candidate.”
And suddenly it isn’t ridiculous at all to think that independants will be attracted to the party most willing to toss out the Establishment in BOTH parties. Every independant that I know personally wants exactly that. They couldn’t care less about O’Donnell, but they’re excited that the GOP estabishment got a big black eye last night. They want BOTH parties to suffer – if you don’t understand that, you don’t understand where the independants really are. Maybe Coons wins in Delaware, maybe not. Outisde of Delaware all anybody knows is that the Establishment got kicked in the teeth last night and they love it.
And instead of “far right”, how about “anti-Washington?” It doesn’t seem preposterous at all to think that the Republicans could do very well indeed if they chased a large number of the Washington insiders out of office. That already happened 2 years ago, and it’s continuing this year. It’s not what the Establishment wants, but it’s exactly what the voters want.
With all of his terms in office and with his wholehearted Establishment support, Castle was the consummate Washington Insider. This might be hard to see if you’re too close to D.C., but this election really isn’t about “liberal” or “conservative” or “left” or “right” or “rino” or “dino” or any of those labels. It’s actually much, much simpler than that.
Everyone that I know, even people who have been apolitical all their life, are feeling absolute and unbridled hatred and contempt for Washington D.C. right now, and for everything it stands for. It’s so palpable it hangs in the room at every gathering – I’ve never felt anything like this before in my life. It’s not just Obama and the Dems, it’s ALL of Washington that they hate! Fair, unfair, whatever – that’s how it is.
Whoever convinces the voters that THEY hate Washington and everyone in it as much as the Voters do right now is going to win this election. It really is as simple as that.
O’Donnell herself isn’t going to attract Independants, and she may lose Delaware – but kicking the Establishment in the Teeth? You better believe they’re lovin’ that! And outside of Delaware and outside of DC, that’s all anybody sees.
Polling isn’t going to matter much in these elections and I will tell you why:
Polling is generally done in two ways. Either the proportion of Democrats/Independents/Republicans is chosen based on previous election turnout (“likely voter” polls) or based on voter registration numbers (polls of “adults” or “registered voters”). Those polling numbers only hold up when turnout matches the polling samples for the parties involved.
This year, I believe we are going to see Republicans MUCH more motivated to vote than normal for a mid-term election. And primary voting so far shows Democrats not particularly interested with turnout numbers below normal for even “off year” elections.
So if Republicans are motivated and Democrats are not and turnout skews much differently than polling samples are skewed, combined with what appears to be a massive repudiation of Democrats by Independent voters, we could see a year where the actual elections numbers do not resemble the polling at ALL.
The Democrats are in deep trouble and the only thing they have to offer is “we can’t let the Republicans win” though they have nothing to show as to why that might be. Obama is today whining that Republicans would “deprive government” of 4 trillion dollars when the fact is that government needs to be “deprived” of much more than that. That the Republicans want to leave 4 trillion dollars in the pockets of Americans and not blow it on idiotic Democrat pork projects is a GOOD thing.
The Democrats are still not understanding that when they complain that the Republicans want to “deprive” government of that kind of money, the people are going YEAH!
The Democrats are worse that stuck on stupid, they are so completely out of touch in their echo chambers that they don’t even understand how completely opposite their thinking is from the people who elect them.
O’Donnell finally convinced Howard Fineman that the voters really are coming with torches and ptich forks for the powers that be.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/o-donell-win-shows-voters-are-in-a-mood-to-wreak-vengeance.print.html
Democrats are busy trying to convince themselves that the GOP is hopelessly divided. I didn’t see that in Newark, Dela. Many of the O’Donnell voters were women, interestingly, and cared about party unity. I didn’t find a single Castle voter who said he or she would vote for Democrat Chris Coons if O’Donnell won.
This theme is probably wishful thinking on the part of the Dems. The GOP will be united around a few simple ideas: tax cuts, budget cuts, spending cuts, and rolling back Obama’s health-care and environmental agenda. That message seems likely to power the GOP to big gains, maybe even to control of Congress.
and
But an attack unanswered is an attack accepted, and the White House has let the GOP frame these issues. I wrote in NEWSWEEK last week that the health-care law was a loser. Well, it’s the president’s job to prove me wrong—and I think it can be done.
A classroom speech is not an answer. If Obama can’t do better, he may soon be dealing with Sen. O’Donnell from Delaware.
AJ,
Is “RINO hunting” the same as differentiating moderates from more doctrinal conservatives?
To the extent the doctrinaire are identifying which persons may have no doctrine in which to ground their future choices, I think the GOP would do itself a disservice by not differentiating the candidates. The core of the party becomes larger and more motivated the more there is a history of success that has a rationale explanation for that success. This “best practices” explanation then can be tested and repeated in other races.
To the extent RINO hunting amounts to a participation in the Church of Holier than Thou, I have no use for it.
If a person suggests that you hire him to do work on your toilet and presents himself as a licensed, professional plumber, are you going to get mad at your neighbor for calling this supposed plumber a “fraud.”
This supposed plumber is a fraud worthy of the name if he is not licensed and is looking to defraud you of your money while making your toilet problem even smellier.
The supposed plumber is the victim of name calling if he is licensed and capable but your neighbor hates the plumber because his bill was too high but the work was done right.
If a candidate claims to be a Republican and votes with the Democrats when the chips are down, what characterization would you use for that Republican?
We, mere human beings, need to be able to accurately group and label things in order to have educated analyses and discussions.
Would you call yourself a Global Warming Skeptic? Al Gore finds that to be an insulting name. Yet, you seem to (rightfully) take glee in claiming this label.
The senators from Maine and one from South Carolina are not like the others. They deserve a label. What would you call them and not be insulting?
One thing really bothers me about the “RINO” name calling. It generally comes from “RINO”s … basically people who consider themselves conservatives first, republicans second. THEY are the RINOs.
This is the Republican Party we are talking about, not the Conservative Party. The Republican Party includes people across a wide political range from center to the right of center. It seems to me that too many “conservatives” have a mistaken believe that Republican equals conservative. It doesn’t. There are pro-choice Republicans, there are gay Republicans, there are Republicans who absolutely do not want “intelligent design” anywhere near our classrooms. The difference is in the role of government. Democrats believe the people are subordinate to the government, Republicans believe the government is subordinate to the people. That is basically the fundamental difference.
Yes, conservative values exist easier in the Republican side of things but to say that Republican IS Conservative is wrong. People who consider themselves conservative first are the real RINOs.
The “rino” issue is really a rehash of the old social-con fight going back to the Clinton years that really doesn’t apply this year.
The Tea Party movement is not focused on abortion issues, or gay rights issues, or any of things that drove the big “rino” fights in the past. The label keeps getting used because it makes a nice little soundbite, but it doesn’t really apply. I think most people who are objecting to the name, like Crosspatch and AJ, are worried that those old divisive social-con fights are going to come up again – but I don’t see that happening, because that’s not the motivator of the Wave this time around. Hatred of Washington and all it stands for is the Motivator.
Here’s why the “RINO” label doesn’t mean much this time: A lot of the purest “Republicans” of all, the big government big spending Washington insiders, are the ones that this movement is going to drive out of power. The big problem with the social cons (Huckabee is a perfect example) is that they wanted to keep government big and simply redirect it towards new goals.
That’s not what’s animating the movment this year – We want to blow the whole damned thing up!!!
and that reminds me of a clip of Karl Rove today, where he still has sour grapes in his mouth and he’s moaning about all the problems with Christine O’Donnell’s resume. The bit about her problems with the IRS struck a chord: ordinarily, I would consider this to be a mark against her, but this year, my very FIRST thought was “wow! If she gets elected we’ll finally have a Senator who truly HATES the IRS as much as I do! Maybe she’ll cut their funding just to screw them over like they screwed her over!”
I guarantee you that gets my vote and the votes of a whole lotta people just like me no matter WHAT else she has done! I don’t want to vote for anybody “reasonable” – I want someone that I KNOW will have a pitchfork in her hand!
AJ:
All this hand wringing because conservatives prefer a conservative to a RINO? Why is it that conservatives should have compromised and gone for Castle? Why not have the “moderates” compromise and go for O’Donnell? Or, at the very least, now that their guy has lost, why not “compromise” and go for the conservative?
Your indignation over the “purity test” make me laugh. Your devotion to moderation and compromise is almost the exact same type of purity test. If someone is “rigidly conservative” then they are not pure enough for you on the moderation scale, so you tear them down and belittle them.
I suggest anyone serious about stopping this Administration get behind O’Donnell and quit worrying about if she’s too conservative, or too damaged, or too (fill in the blank). She can win if all the moderates quit wringing their hands and back her.
WWS, I agree that the handy pejorative is used despite the context shift just because it is so handy. But the ONE issue I have a problem with is that you aren’t going to get people who fundamentally believe that it is the responsibility of the government to “take care” of people to vote for someone who stands for smaller government and people taking care of themselves. They see problems such as poverty, unemployment, and homelessness as proof that people can’t take care of themselves and they believe that government must step in to do the job.
In a state like Delaware, people who believe that are the overwhelming majority of the electorate. A candidate that believes government must be shrunk, budgets slashed, and that people and markets should be left alone to work things out is completely against their fundamental mindset. It goes against their basic belief of what the role of government is. They are likely to be motivated to oppose such a candidate.
“Staunch” conservatives fall into the same trap that “staunch” liberals do. They believe that if a candidate is conservative enough, everyone will run to them and vote for them. Liberals feel the reason Democrats are in such serious trouble is that they haven’t been liberal enough. They misread disaffection with the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 as affection for them.
And I am with Reagan when it comes to getting half of something instead of 100% of nothing. “Conservatives” hated Reagan until about the time of the Grenada invasion. California conservatives considered Reagan a “RINO”. Prop 13, for example, was the biggest California state tax grab in history. What most people don’t know about Prop 13 is that yes, it limited property taxes but it also took those taxes out of county hands and gave it to the state. The county or city assesses the taxes but the taxes now go to the state. The state takes a cut for itself, and redistributes the rest back to the counties. What a county gets back is not what the county collected. It could be more, it could be less. But the state always gets a cut AND the state is allowed to take even more as a forced loan from the counties to the state which it has been doing the last two budget cycles.
Conservatives howled at that portion of Prop 13 and called Reagan a RINO. In 1976 he lost the party nomination under considerable fire that he was a know-nothing movie star. George HW Bush called Reagan’s economic policy “voodoo economics” even though Reagan is the only modern day President with a college degree in economics.
The point is, what we need is not a return to “conservatism”, we need a return to liberty. Liberty means allowing people to make their own decisions, even if those decisions are different than you would make for yourself. What most galls me about “conservatives” is they would want to outlaw the things they don’t like and mandate the things they do like. They are no different than the Taliban. What we need is to get government the hell out of dictating what decisions people can make and to stop mandating so much crap on us.
I don’t believe the far right of the Republican party is the “base” of the party though they make a lot of noise. I believe the “base” is closer to the center. And I don’t believe the center is “moderate” at all. I am very much not at all moderate in my belief that I should be left alone to make my own decisions and my neighbor should be left alone to make theirs, even of they would choose things I disagree with. There is nothing “moderate” about that. But the far right and far left have in common the notion that their ideology should be mandated from government onto the people. They are ideological bullies.
People on the fringes strike me as insecure and see anyone making decisions different from the ones they themselves would make as someone invalidating of their own decisions. Someone on the right sees gay marriage as somehow lessening of the institution of their own marriage or someone choosing to have an abortion as somehow lessening the sanctity of the lives of their own children or something. They project their own values onto society and want to see their beliefs mandated across the country. It’s crap.
Left to their own devices long enough, Liberals would eventually chop down every single tree on the planet as sticks can poke someone’s eye out so all sources of sticks must be eliminated (or at the very least carefully regulated) with only those having a stick permit issued by the government allowed to have one. They are absolute control freaks who project their own insecurities and fears onto the nation. It is much easier to be no allowed to do something than to educate someone and take it as their personal failure when they see something bad happen to someone else.
The far left and the far right are really birds of a feather and I don’t care much for either of them. Just leave me be, respect the sanctity of my home and my family, and I will give the same respect in return.
I will give you the reason social issues are not a big deal in 2010. Because the Social Cons have won. Not a complete victory mind you but enough to drive the social issues off the pages.
1) Abortion – Yes Roe v. Wade is still on the books, however partial birth abortion was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court for the first restriction of an abortion procedure since Roe. Parental notification is popular. In AK everyone was focused on Miller but didn’t notice that the parental notification law passed by double digits. To the pro abortion people these laws are evil because they decrease abortions like crazy without banning them. Once you notify the grandparents the chance of an abortion goes way down. Finally, state funding of abortions. You can be pro-choice but on the private persons dime. The pro abortion people know that without money abortions will not take place. The Stupak Amendment passed by 241-194 and with a republican house no money will be appropriated for abortion.
In effect one can claim to be pro choice but if you support all three of the positions above you are a de facto social con.
In 2010 purist have the advantage because nobody doubts their sincerity to the concept that the government is subordinate to the people. All politicians claim they support tax cuts, limited government, and reduced spending but an overwhelming majority of voters doubt their sincerity.
In this environment the differences between liberal, moderate, or conservative give way to the difference between sincerity and insincerity. Leaving the voters to decide who is sincere and who is not. That is why people are running “conservative democrats” off their property and establishment Republicans from office. They just don’t believe them anymore.
Woof, woof, woof! So Obama’s a dog and Harry has a brand new coonhound?
Seven hundred Fifty thousand dollars.
This is how much O’Donnell raised on her website today..even with it down for several hours due to massive amounts of people trying to get on it.
Dick Morris had it right tonight. The antedote to obama et al is a group in DC who will STAND TALL and STAND STRONG. This is what is needed *right now*. Wanna call them extremists? Go ahead. They are patriots, imho.
O’Donnell is going to win.
“O’Donnell is going to win.”
I sincerely hope so.
WWS,
Right now moderate/establishment/RINO type Republicans have done the following this election cycle:
1) Mike Castle is refusing to endorse Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,
2) Bill McCollum has refused to endorse Scott and is flirting with the Democrat in Florida,
3) Lisa Murkowski is considering going write-in campaign in Alaska.
4) And Crist is campaigning as an independent seeking Democratic votes against the Republican candidate Rubio in Florida
Any bets on whether Castle will pull a “Full Scozaffava” and endorse the Democrat Coons?
I am thinking the answer is yes.
Crosspatch wrote: “But the ONE issue I have a problem with is that you aren’t going to get people who fundamentally believe that it is the responsibility of the government to “take care” of people to vote for someone who stands for smaller government and people taking care of themselves.”
The man who gives me great hope that this may not be true is Chris Christie. If he can turn left-wing New Jersey around, *Anyplace* can be turned around! Just today I saw a clip of him telling the Unions that they may hate him now, but they will be thanking him in 10 years. And you know what? He’s exactly right!!!
When the threat of Bankruptcy becomes Very Real and not just a hypothetical that no one takes seriously, a lot of attitudes start to change. Don’t forget the great real world advantage for opposing all this spending – the Welfare State as it is currently constituted cannot survive, and is going to collapse sooner rather than later. There is no other endgame than that, and you know that as well as I. We simply do not have the money to take care of everyone who wants to be taken care of, and our society will hit the wall if we try. (actually that is already happening)
BUT – it’s possible that it will take a lot closer brush with national bankruptcy than we have seen so far for enough people to be convinced. This will sound harsh, but if that’s what it takes to get us on track, then it’s best for the country’s long term good for that to go ahead and happen. I would hope that a majority doesn’t have to learn this lesson the hard way, but if they do, then they do.
Republicans need to be the ones who stand apart and say This is WRONG, this is the Path to Destruction, this is the Road to Nowhere. Having any group of people on board who say “oh no, it’s not that bad, we can spend, we can take care of everyone” serves only to ruin the message and destroy the long term lesson that the nation needs to learn. That’s what was so damaging about the House and Senate leadership the last time the Republicans were in power – They stood for Nothing.
It may not be popular to say this, but there simply is no moderation possible on this point. Anyone who doesn’t realize the Truth of this is part of the problem, and we do ourselves no good by trying to cut short term bargains with them. If there truly are enough of them to make a majority, then let them take full responsibility for the destruction that will ensue.
Because as I said before, that is the only possible outcome if we follow their ideas.