As a follow-up to my post from earlier this afternoon, I was able to track down NRA ratings for each of the 40 Republican Senators as of their most recent election (this is much harder to do than you might think). The ratings suggest that the NRA’s pledge to rate a ‘yea’ vote on Sonia Sotomayor as blemish on a Senator’s record may indeed have swayed a few votes.
Consider that six Republican senators – Jim Bunning, Saxby Chambliss, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jim Inhofe, and Jeff Sessions -- have an NRA rating of A+. All six voted against Sotomayor.
Meanwhile, 28 Republican senators have an NRA grade of a straight ‘A’. Just four of the 28 – Lamar Alexander, Kit Bond (who is retiring), Mel Martinez (ditto) and Lindsay Graham -- voted for Sotomayor.
Lastly, the remaining six Republican senators have NRA grades of C+ or lower. Five of the six voted for Sotomayor, the lone exception being John McCain, whom the NRA (somewhat hesitantly) endorsed for President last year and who had received higher ratings from the group in the past.
Granted, the senators who receive high grades from the NRA tend to be conservative on other issues as well. But the NRA grades are a much stronger predictor of voting than overall ideological ratings, when we plop both into a regression model. Some senators who have a reputation for being moderates on judicial appointments, like Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley, but who have excellent NRA ratings, chose to vote against Sotomayor. So did Lisa Murkowski, who is one of the 3-5 most moderate Republican senators according to most rating systems but comes from a big gun-ownership state. Kay Bailey Hutchison, likewise, who has voted fairly moderately on some issues this year and comes from a state with a huge Hispanic population, was not about to jeopardize her A+ rating when going up against Rick Perry, who also has an A+.
The question is whether the NRA was really doing the Republicans any favors – particularly given that the outcome of the vote was not really in doubt. I don't hink that this vote will turn out to be a particularly big deal – but it’s going to turn off a few Hispanic voters for seemingly little upside, as there are rather few Americans who are strongly opposed to Sotomayor and as individual Supreme Court justices rarely make news once they join the bench. Overall, it speaks to a Republican Party that remains convinced that catering to its narrowing base – rather than hoping to expand it – is the way to win elections. That might not actually be a horrible strategy in 2010, when I expect the Republican base to be more enthusiastic than the Democratic one and for their higher turnout to swing a few -- or maybe more than a few -- elections. But I think it’s a mistake, in all likelihood, for 2012 and beyond.
8.06.2009
The NRA's Pyrrhic "Victory" on Sotomayor
@ 10:51 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments
A) Why are you doing this stuff this late?
B) Isn't calling it Pyrrhic and putting victory in quotes redundant?
The NRA is meaningless to the GOP in the task that lies ahead of it—attracting new voters to the party. Yet the farther right they can serve to push the Republicans, the better not only for Democrats and Independents but the country as well.
Marsha Mason…
Ha! Excellent point. A punctuational tautology…
:o)
Nate…
You need to amp up your bandwidth, or reduce the wattage drain from the ads. It’s taking forever to load your pages any more.
Does the greater enthusiasm make up for the shrinking Republican base?
Not so much: a Pyrrhic victory is one that you win, but one that was not worth winning considering the cost. Of course, the NRA didn't actually prevent Sotomayor from being elected, so it's hard to call it a victory.
And I submit it's an appropriate headline for the blog because it's got people complaining about whether the title's redundant, which means pageviews. As Drudge has proven, credibility is not as important as reach.
The second amendment is the right's "line in the sand" in much the same way the first amendment is the left's. Discounting the NRA means discounting the millions of dollars they bring to the Republican party. I agree with Nate, the NRA pull was likely not the main impetus for the vote, but alienating the NRA is a very poor choice for any Republican seeking to further his or her political future.
merus…
I think the victory was the NRA’s, for being able to force GOP legislators to toe its line. The Pyrrhic aspect was that, in the larger scope of American politics, it was demonstrably a very costly win. The further the GOP sinks in relevance, the less the NRA will matter.
The Repubs run on three main themes: Gays, Guns, and God, (this has been coined before, so I'm not taking credit for it).
The NRA controls 1/3 of that list and the remaining repubs are ever so more beholden to that far right base as they make an increasingly large percentage of their ranks as time goes on.
As such, I see the NRA actually increasing in its power and influence in this party that is becoming more of a regional force and as the percentage of its membership that is southern, old, white, and male increases.
Look at it this way, if a Repub pisses off the NRA, where can they turn within the party for enough support to get re-elected?
I am very pro gun, but the NRA is disgusting sometimes. There is no reason to have rated this vote other than as a chest beating.
lol my main man Voinovich, who I voted for once, who as he said recently is retiring because he's tired of all the ignorant, racist, yahoo baffoons in the South that is bringing his party down and on the verge of extinction.
ok, those weren't his exact words ;) but that's my translation of what he said! IOW, he sees the track the party of No! is on and being in the wilderness may be prolonged indefinitely.
He gets a 'D' which makes me smile, part of the reason I voted for him was many times he marches to the beat of his own drummer and doesn't give a crap re: party loyalty. Also, he was mayor of Cleveland elected because he's a moderate Rep.
And his replacement in 2010 will be a good indication of how well Obama will do in 2012. If, as I believe, the Taft legacy will continue and Ohio will elect another Dem senator, especially since the Rep nominee will be Rob Portman, Bush's Dir. of OMB. Yea, picking someone who can be associated w/both Bob Taft and Bush43, that's the key to winning in Ohio lol, I digress.
Yea, that Rep NRA list is one list you want to be at the bottom.
ciao
Reps are totally bought and sold by special interest, no surprise!
McCain's vote might be explained by his far-right 2010 Senate race challenger.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html
It'll be interesting to see how he (or the other guy) fare against a Democratic challenger in an increasingly Hispanic state.
Slightly off-topic:
I'd feel better about guns if
a) assault weapons were banned for non-military, non-law enforcement people.
b) handgun owners were required to get as much training as, say, a 16 year-old gets in driver's ed, with plenty of info about legal liability and interviews with gun owners who had shot people by accident or whose children had gotten hold of their weapons. And how about some pictures of the results? Not to mention some psychological screening, like the military (in theory) requires before they give you a gun.
c) severe criminal and civil penalties for gun dealers who fail to properly identify unqualified buyers (who haven't been properly trained as per part b). We do it for alcohol sellers and bartenders.
In the second amendment, why bring up the idea of a well-regulated militia in the context of the right to bear arms, unless the bearing of arms is meant to entail some serious regulation? Where are the originalists on that one?
Right to bear arms? You bet! The first meeting is at the hospital trauma center Thursday from 7 to 10. Sign here, here, here and here. See you there!
wv: chances--what you take when you decide to shoot somebody
"McCain's vote might be explained by his far-right 2010 Senate race challenger. "
I just don't see why McCain would be afraid of his primary opponent, the founder of the Minutemen. McCain is not going to outflank that nutjob to the right. Apparently, when McCain feels a little heat, he wants to throw a Hail Mary (e.g. Palin, "lets suspend the campaign"). Can you imagine this totally erratic guy as President?
You would think by now he would have learned that appealing to his base is a fool's strategy.
cheap ed hardy
cheap ed hardy
ugg boots
It seems odd to me that the NRA hold such a crazy hold over so many GOP Senators. I am not suggesting anything aboutthe NRA or its position necesarily, but is the NRA threat really a likely reason for so many GOPers to line up to oppose Sotomayor? Are GOP types really so scared of the NRA? If so many seem very gutless to me. Especially McCain, who surely has enough standing to stand up to the NRA, based on previous ratings etc etc.
Do Democratic Senators react in such a chicken *ss way towards say labor unions?
"B) Isn't calling it Pyrrhic and putting victory in quotes redundant?"
I don't read it as such. [And redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing.] As we all know a Pyrrhic victory is when you win something, but at costs more significant than the win. The NRA really didn't win anything as Sotomayor was easily confirmed hence the quotes around victory, but may have suffered significant costs. [Can you really consider getting NRA-friendly voters to cast a meaningless vote against a justice who will be confirmed a win? The political benefit of voting yea may have been better for the NRA in the long run.] Now the already NRA-friendly senators may have trouble getting some moderate voters to vote for them in the next election.
Or in summary: Pyrrhic because they suffered great costs, quotes because its hard to justify it as an NRA victory in any meaningful sense of the word.
Some quantitative evidence, please, that voting against a Supreme Court confirmation is going to have a meaningful effect on Republican poll numbers among Hispanics.
.
So, the National Redneck Association likes rednecks in Congress? Quelle f'n' surprise! What's next, a Klan endorsement for Saxby? Why, he could go all the way to the Very White House on that!
Oh, wait, it's the BLACK House now. A Republican told me so. And the dinosaurs ate Jesus.
Hey, ya believe the Bible, you'll believe anything.
.
"Overall, it speaks to a Republican Party that remains convinced that catering to its narrowing base – rather than hoping to expand it – is the way to win elections."
I would agree with Nate's sentence more if in lieu of saying 'elections' he had said 'primaries'. The reality is that, for most of these people in the Senate (and, to a greater degree, in the House) most of them have a greater risk of being knocked off by a primary opponent than a general election candidate. Do you think Kay Baily would have voted "No" on this confirmation if she wasn't trying to impress Republican primary voters in the Texas Gubanatorial primary?
I want to support Pragmatus in his complaint about the large quantity of seconds it is taking for this site to load.
And also to generally rant that the Publican Party these days seems to be following a play book first written by Mussolini. But they are mostly more pathetic than frightening.
Wow, talk about grade inflation. I'd think the value of those A's would decrease when 85% of Republicans have them.
"I have an A from the NRA!" Whoopty-freaking-do, so does everyone else.
And no B's! Are there no Republicans willing to be just mildly above average when it comes to guns?
I wonder if Mel Martinez's resignation this morning has anything to do with his vote on Sotomayor?
After reading these comments, I guess "Pyrrhic 'victory'" is acceptable. A Pyrrhic victory refers to something that suffers great costs, but is still an actual victory. You can further put victory in quotes since the NRA didn't win what it putatively wanted, namely Sotomayor's defeat. Getting a few more votes against her may still be a victory to them, sure, but her confirmation is still a loss on the scoreboard for the right.
Ho Chi - the military requires psychological screening? I was only in the Army reserves, but I don't recall any psychological screening before I got handed my gun in basic. I suppose the ASVAB may have had some psychological questions on it though, I really can't recall.
Also - didn't Chuck Grassley say he was going to vote for Sotomayor?
Off the topic:
Is Charlie Crist going to appoint himself as the new senator from Florida?
Dear Nate,
I realize it is hard not to get caught up in all the hoopla re: recent coverage of all the screaming at town hall meetings, but an energized fringe it not the same as an energized party or even an energized base. (We need to particularly hold judgement re this political theater until it is known whether any of these actors have been paid for their efforts, or even whether transportation/lodging costs have been covered for these screamers, which would amount to the same thing.) As you well know, 2010 is not as close as it looks now; we have a whole winter/spring/summer for the economy to improve until the fall elections. Even a slow recovery which keeps a steady upward trend will be a huge victory for Obama and Democratic policies. A big if perhaps, but hardly impossible. Voters have not forgotten how we got in this mess.
I think also the reform mentality, or perhaps it will just be fatigue on the voters part, will give the Dems a big lift as people tire of all these antics scantily dressed up as 'policy' positions. 15 months is also a lot of time for these screamers and their GOP enablers to go too far and for all this 'energy' to turn into horror on the general public's part and/or digust at every politician on the birther/screamer's part. The GOP could easily be playing this 'southern' strategy too hard and too fast so that by November 2010 these people will burn out and not show up at all. Should Obama prevail on the public option (should he finally decide to really commit to it) this will further thin their ranks. Many Obama haters will simply decide to wait it out until their reagan returns at some future moment.
I am dissappointed that no political/election analyst has taken a longer view of this election cycle but have rather largely accepted the notion that the president's party suffers loses in the mid-terms. Given the state of crisis in this land the closest analogy for the current election cycles are probably '32 and '34. Roosevelt was swept into office with a huge Dem majority in the House (Rubs lost over a 100 seats in a single election), and built on this majority by adding 7 more in '34. This would clearly make Wolf Blitzer's head explode today. The GOP actually lost a total of 13 seats in '34 because of the Wisconsin Progressive Party.
All things being equal (ie no great screw up leading to '10 elections) the Dems have all the momentum and the GOPers have nothing to help them to gain in the Senate (a couple loses more likely) or keep them from losing more in the House.
As has been often noted of late the culture wars are losing steam, well connected to this is the increasing voter desire to see things happening in Washington. The GOP has not set themselves up as the party who wants to accomplish anything. Their tactics may help raise cynicism about Obama and reform, but how does cynicism help them? How many voters make the effort to go out and cast a 'fuck you' vote? Not many I'd gather.
Nate -- Is there any polling on views on Sotomayor that breaks out Puerto Rican voters vs. non-PR hispanics? I would think that hispanics in the West, more likely to be Mexican-Americans, would be somewhat less offended by a nay vote than would those in the East who are more likely to be Puerto Rican.
Persuter,
I would say it is more likely that the Sotomayor vote has something to do with the timing of Martinez' resignation. Meaning, he had already determined he would retire, but waited to after the vote (by one day) to announce, therefore enabling his successor to enter the Senate without the baggage of this vote on their record.
"I would say it is more likely that the Sotomayor vote has something to do with the timing of Martinez' resignation. Meaning, he had already determined he would retire, but waited to after the vote (by one day) to announce, therefore enabling his successor to enter the Senate without the baggage of this vote on their record."
Delorian,
I don't think it's a valid point, since an expedited mid-term appointment, something in a matter of days, would be very unlikely, especially days before summer break.
You need to amp up your bandwidth, or reduce the wattage drain from the ads. It’s taking forever to load your pages any more.
More bandwidth on either end won't help much with loading all these bloated ads.
Ad Block FTW
Matt,
From what I've heard, the Puerto Rican Hispanics are much closer in most beliefs to the non-Cuban Hispanics than to the South Florida Cuban Hispanics, and vice-versa.
Cuban Hispanics have traditionally voted by a large margin for the GOOPers (although that GOOPer loyalty is fading to some degree now), while non-Cuban Hispanics have voted more for the Democratic candidates, no matter where they live - East Coast, Southwest, Plains states, etc.
Most non-Cuban Hispanics resent the disparate method that Cubans can gain admittance to the US - the whole wet foot/dry foot policy. If the Cuban illegals can get a foot on 'dry land', they can stay, whereas no other illegal gets that treatment. Non-Cuban Hispanics are in danger of arrest and deportation at any time, no matter how many years they may have lived in the US, no matter the circumstances, if they are illegals.
For instance, one of the news programs earlier this week had a report of an Hispanic high school senior who had been told by his mother he was born in the US. He needed his birth certificate for some reason, and that is when he found out his mother was an illegal who had brought him to the US when he was less than 4 years old, thus he also was an illegal, and subject to deportation for being an illegal.
Some of what I've heard might be wrong, but I've heard it from multiple sources with no significant variation, so I would place quite a bit of veracity to those observations I've heard.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596
I don't think the NRA had squat to do with the Sotomayor votes.
Look, the Republican Party is dominated today by anti-tax hard liners and has been since Reagan took office. For them, being out of power (as they are now) means exposing their "low taxes are good for the economy" Big Lie as the economy responds to things that have nothing to do with taxes (principal among which is the availability of cheap credit). The REAL reason the Republicans hated Clinton so much was that he raised taxes on the wealthy and his Presidency boomed, for the most part. They hate Obama because they know he's going to do the same thing.
And if Obama converts the inherited "worst crisis since WWII" and the economy turns around by 2012, even if it's only a relatively weak recovery, it will be another generation before a serious candidate for office can claim tax cuts for the rich are good for anybody except the rich.
What this means, in terms of practical politics, is that the dominant force in the Republican Party has nothing to lose. If it fails to drag Obama down, it's going to be out of power for a very long time. Therefore, anything it can do to oppose his agenda -- even futile votes -- it must do because its only hope to make it back to power is to fight him as hard as it can and hope that the conditions in the country get so bad that Obama is rejected in 2012.
In this context, the NRA is like the anti-abortion forces. It's nice (for the GOP) to have them on your side, but nobody in the anti-tax camp really gives a fuck about guns one way or the other.
Nate's chart is very nice, but what it really shows -- to my mind -- is that the Republicans who voted for Sotomayor are either from the moderate wing of the party (what's left of it) or else so secure in their seats (e.g., Graham) that they could afford to.
Post a Comment