One of the problems with trying to interpret tomorrow's results as a referendum on the parties is that all of the major candidates seem to be trying their darndest to conceal their party affiliation from you. Here, for instance, is a screen capture of a Bob McDonnell ad from the Washington Post's website.
No mention at all that he's a Republican. Hell, he's even using the Democrats "traditional" blue color as his background, although he's wearing a sporty red tie.
Go to McDonnell's website, in fact, and the word "Republican" does not appear anywhere on his homepage. But McDonnell is not alone in this department. Chris Christie's homepage does not identify his party affiliation, nor does Creigh Deeds's (although the branding is very Obama-esque), nor does Jon Corzine's (although he not-so-subtly places an [R] by Chris Christie's name any time it appears in one of his commercials.) Bill Owens's homepage does twice identify him as the "Democratic candidate in New York's 23rd Congressional District", although both instances are below the fold, and this is a guy who desperately needs to boost his name recognition. Doug Hoffman does refer to himself in passing as a "Conservative Republican" -- even though, technically, he's not a Republican, and scared the Republican nominee out of the race.
The Democratic brand is marginal in about half the country, but the Republican brand is radioactive in about two-thirds of it. The biggest story of the cycle is that a non-Republican conservative, Doug Hoffman, might win. Counterfactual: if Hoffman had in fact been the Republican nominee in NY-23 all along, would he be in the same strong position that he finds himself in today? Methinks not: it would have been easier for Owens -- who isn't much of a Democrat -- to identify himself as the moderate in the race.
You can actually make the argument -- although maybe it's not a good one -- that Republicans should in fact find a way to pull a Blackwater and switch their party ID when nobody is looking, from Republican to capital-C Conservative. This would probably involve at least some degree of bona fide structural change, and undoubtedly some near-term trauma: an orchestrated chaos. But the 'conservative' brand is just as powerful as it ever was in America, whereas the Republican brand is as weak as it has been.
This deserves a deeper exposition, but I don't think it's entirely correct to characterize the fight between Hoffman and Scozzafava as a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Rather, its a fight between the institutional Republican Party and a group of people who feel like the Republican Party may not be worth fighting for. They might even prefer to be on their own, for while the upside is that Republicans are re-branded as conservatives, the risk is that conservatives are re-branded as Republicans.
11.02.2009
The Republicans' Branding Problem
@ 7:35 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments
Interesting observation. Partisanship has become so feverish in the US that people are trying to win by individual image rather than party affiliation.
I wonder if this is better or worse than the team favoritism approach that we've had in the past.
But it is showing that being loud and ignorant (tea party) can create political change. I just wonder if they'll be bright enough to keep their targets straight.
The Republican brand is too damaged to recover in the near term but the Democratic party is heading in the same direction. When one thinks of Democrat, the term 'liberal' is very close association. The Republicans are in the midst of purging themselves of unprincipled moderates (see Specter, Arlen) so they seem to be willing to be in the wilderness for the next election cycle in the hopes of winning in 2012.
Clearly, a 'conservative' tag is generally a winner in presidential elections (and Bush is included as he was a self-named "compassionate conservative"). Over the last 50 years, the conservative candidate has generally won:
1) 1960: Kennedy (moderate) vs. Nixon (moderate)
2) 1964: LBJ (liberal) vs. Goldwater (conservative)
3) 1968: Humphrey (liberal) vs. Nixon (moderate)
4) 1972: McGovern (liberal) vs. Nixon (moderate)
5) 1976: Carter (moderate) vs. Ford (moderate)
6) 1980: Carter (moderate) vs. Reagan (conservative)
7) 1984: Mondale (liberal) vs. Reagan (conservative)
8) 1988: Dukakis (liberal) vs. Bush I (moderate)
9) 1992: Clinton (moderate) vs. Bush I (moderate)
10) 1996: Clinton (moderate) vs. Dole (moderate)
11) 2000: Gore (moderate) vs. Bush II (conservative)
12) 2004: Kerry (liberal) vs. Bush II (conservative)
13) 2008: Obama (liberal) vs. McCain (moderate)
What does this mean? Essentially, if the Republicans run a conservative, they will do well (80% winning percentage) given the innate tendency to conservative in this country. For Democrats, pretty much every moderate that they have run has won initially (except Gore but that will be up for debate for long past my time on this planet).
As such, if the Republicans run a bona-fide conservative in 2012, they will probably do well. If they run a middle-of-the-rode guy like McCain, Dole or Ford, they will lose and probably lose badly as their base will stay home.
I had noticed the colors and the lack of party recognition some time ago.
I think Dems should repeat the word Republican and conservative over and over and associate with the economic collapse and lack of fiscal responsibility the last two Republican and supposedly conservative Presidents have shown.
Conservatism is just a big fairy tale that doesn't account for reality.
Unlike the MSM theme saying that the Repubs are marginalizing themselves in NY23, Nate has this one right. The exact opposite is occurring. Repub is a very bad brand name. Used to be one and ashamed to admit it. But Conservative is a good brand name, particularly when limited to economic and big government issues. Not so so good on all the social issue crap, but a true Conservative really doesn't care about those issues too much, one way or the other. And really, the Tea Party has a better name than the Repubs too. I respect those people alot. Why not? They're not Repubs and think that W and his Repubs are as bad as BO and his Dems. Not a dollar's worth of difference.
McCain isn't/wasn't a conservative?! Are we talking about the same guy? Sure, he tried to *position* himself in the last election as being fairly close to the middle, but his voting record in the Senate belies that. He's a conservative, and I think one of the reasons he lost is *because* of that.
Much the same could be said about Dole - he was far more conservative than he tried to pretend when he went for the big prize.
Call those two guys by their rightful tag and the "conservative winning percentage" takes a big dive....
Nate, Republican, Conservative, Whig, call it what you will, this doesn't change the fact that we're gonna whip some Democratic ass tomorrow night.
Pass the popcorn.
Fellow Patriots,
This is a foretaste of delicious things to come, an apéritif if you will.
The trifecta looms large and ominous on the White House. That would be McDonnell, Christie, and Huffman. McDonnell in an epic shellacking the likes of which have never been seen in Virginia gubernatorial politics.
In New Jersey, aka Chicago East, a state that went for Obama by something like 14.7% we will see a Republican beat an incumbant Democrat, the odious Corzine, by as suprising margin. When an incumbant runs on "But he's fat!" you know he's out of gas.
In upstate New York, a little known Conservative candidate will shake DC by only becoming the second non-Big Party congressmen since Bernie Sanders in 1990.
When it is all said and done, as I sip spiced and spiked beverages from atop my perfumed counch on Mt. Olympus (with Sweet Missy in tow, dressed coyly in a billowing dress), I will savor the moment remembering how crappy the election nights of 2006 and 2008 were.
The true joy I will recieve, however, besides seeing Quieff Overbite's bulbous head explode from out of his obnoxious Guys and Dolls striped zootsuit, will be the moderate, Blue Dog Dems immediately distance themselves from Obama, Reid, and Pelosi's agenda.
This is onver folks. The Dems blew it. They over-reached and are about to get their greedy little hands slapped.
I actually live in Virginia. The republican party here is NOT conservative but far right wacko. I am a true moderate and have voted republican in the past. I will NOT vote that way now. In letters in the papers Virginia republicans have said clearly they do NOT want folks like me in their party calling us names like "simple-minded degenerates" The Democrats should be been able to sink these wackos using their own words. This potential fiasco is nothing more than the results of poor campaigning.
NJ
your self-assigned tags for POTUS candidates above are really rather laughable [as is your own tag as a 'moderate']
projecting much perhaps ???
Obama is NOT a 'liberal' by any stretch of the imagination [nor a socialist]
although I wish he was a real liberal or even true progressive
but attaching labels is hard since most of the people above moved left or right on individual issues rather than toe the hard-line...
how many GOPers & CONs really consider Bush 43 a 'conservative' ???
you made a very poor argument that fails on the face of it imho
plus many elections turned on outside events [including Reagan 80 when he sabotaged the Iran hostage situation to game the election], and Gore arguably 'beat' Bush in 2000, and 'liberal' Humphrey lost to Nixon by a hair [only because he ran out of time], and Kerry very narrowly lost to Bush in 2004 [took massive OH 'fraud' to ensure Bush re-election
so it is not the label that wins an election - facts & the economy & other variables have a greater impact
McCain might easily have won in 2008 except that Bush 43 poisoned the well for him [and then Palin/CON] then finished him off by capping his maximum appeal to 45%]
so forget the labels, the candidate & issues matter & the economy is the trump card
same in NJ this year - even though Corzine is no prize... he would have probably cruised to re-election IF the economy had not wreaked havoc on the tax base & state income
this doesn't change the fact that we're gonna whip some Democratic ass tomorrow night.
ooooh, a couple of races everybody already knows the outcome. I'm scared. What a big ass whoopin'. Puhleez, dude. If that's your benchmark for a shellacking then you got a pretty big row to hoe. I mean I realize you guys could use SOME kind of victory about now, but an ass whoopin'? Really?
I'm still practicing my happy dance for NY-23. I think the results are going to be surprising.
Bob McDonnell took out print ads in the spanish-language weekly El Tiempo Latino ("Apoyamos a Bob McDonnell porque el trabaja duro por nuestra comunidad."). No mention of party affiliation. The lack of party affiliation is not new for Republicans in this area - Connie Morella had yard signs that just said "Connie" - but it does cut against the narrative of resurgent GOP pride.
It's an interesting observation, and a potential counterpoint to the idea that elections like this serve as a referendum on the parties more than the individuals in each race.
Still, I perceive it as a roadbump, rather than a change of direction, or even name, for the Republican party.
Why? They're just better at branding. Over the past 15-20 years, they managed to turn the word "liberal" into something nearly radioactive - Democratic candidates tended to jump all over themselves to say "I am not a liberal!" It's not that there's anything inherently negative or bothersome to the population in the word; it's more that the Republican machine has been very effective at turning it into something "bad."
Compare that with recent Republican self-presentations. I believe it was Michael Steele who, running for the RNC chairmanship, had to avow, "I'm no moderate!" Granted, with the party approval at a nadir, you're right that the word "Republican" isn't exactly positive in most of the country. Still, the Repubs have time and agian shown themselves to be skilled at branding and marketing an image.
I guess the big question in my mind, as they push themselves ever away from "moderate" as if it's a bad thing, whether they'll become victims of their own self-marginalizing success.
In Virginia, it is usual and customary to NOT put party affiliation on the campaign posters, yard signs, web sites, etc.
You will see Dem AND GOOPer AND any other party's candidates with red, blue, yellow, green, white, black or any other color background, but NO indication of party affiliation (or lack thereof) on the poster, yard sign, web site, etc.
Mike in Maryland
2 Problems with your R to C swtich.
1) It's too honest. The people that would do this, are incapable of doing something so honest and sincere.
2) It would cut them off from the rest of America. v America does not like extremism and this would be viewed as an act of extremism. The voters would regret it wholeheartedly.
One of the dumbest things pundits in America do is try to treat odd-year elections as national referenda.
Virginians and New Jerseyites elect governors based largely on local and state forces, just like everywhere else. The streaky nature of VA elections favors electing out-o-White-House party governors.
NY-23, a Republican district since 1850-whatever, is having a special election -- those contests generally behave like open seats in regularly-scheduled elections and are poor national bellwethers.
Nate, it seems like you guys are suddenly running into lots of events where some training in political science might come in handy . . .
Adam said...
"Over the past 15-20 years, they managed to turn the word "liberal" into something nearly radioactive - Democratic candidates tended to jump all over themselves to say "I am not a liberal!" It's not that there's anything inherently negative or bothersome to the population in the word; it's more that the Republican machine has been very effective at turning it into something "bad."
It makes you wonder when you see polls that show that more people identify as "conservative" than "liberal," and the pundit class takes that as an indication that the country is moving in a "conservative" direction.
Well no s**t people don't self identify as liberal, given the associations of the word. I mean how many people would claim to be religious if we substitute "religious beliefs" with "belief in magic." It's no different conceptually, but language is very important.
The words "crazy-azzed Christian fundamentalist" don't appear anywhere either .... but they will after his inauguration.
The Gallup data to which Nate links merely shows that the "conservative" self-identification has been surprisingly constant since basically the end of the civil rights era and the domestic divide over the Vietnam War. It dipped in the last couple of years due to the damage to the brand sustained as a result of the Bush presidency. But it is only trending back to the norm now, there is no groundswell at all.
Nonetheless, conservatives are probably the single largest voting bloc in the country. But they aren't close to half the country, and if they insist upon rejecting people who actually want to align themselves with them, I can't imagine that that's going to pay dividends long-term (I would also be wary of equating self-identified conservatives with the tea-party insurgency).
Nate:
You can actually make the argument -- although maybe it's not a good one -- that Republicans should in fact find a way to pull a Blackwater and switch their party ID when nobody is looking, from Republican to capital-C Conservative. This would probably involve at least some degree of bona fide structural change, and undoubtedly some near-term trauma: an orchestrated chaos. But the 'conservative' brand is just as powerful as it ever was in America, whereas the Republican brand is as weak as it has been.
You are beginning, albeit reluctantly, to catch on. The quick GOP leadership shift toward Hoffman once it became obvious he was going to win offers some hope they will catch on as well. Maybe Newt will channel his inner rebel again.
The Democratic brand is marginal in about half the country, but the Republican brand is radioactive in about two-thirds of it.
______________
Whoa! There are probably some areas of the country where the Republican brand is radioactive, but TWO THIRDS?! Come on, Nate, you should know better than that!
And no polls or evidence to back it up? Shame on you! ;-)
Nate, your thesis isn't backed up by your examples. Therefore, it's not confirmed (although obviously, these aren't enough examples to refute it).
Evidently, the people whose professional livelihoods depend on this branding don't think the GOP brand is 'radioactive' in areas where you think it is, and the polls indicate that voters seem to agree. Of course, we'll find out how true that is in 24 hours or so.
For all you conservatives claiming America is rejecting Obama's radicalism...what do you make of the Republican trounce that Reagan took in the off year election?
Was it because America rejected his radicalism?
I'm just curious.
fyi. I love THIS CHART.
I think Palin, Pawlenty etc. are going to form their own party. It will be called the Tea Party, naturally.
BDP:
I don't think Newt has an inner rebel. He has, through and through, a political opportunist.
Remember: Politicians can try to brand themselves, but it's the people and the media who accept it.
What if Palin said she was pro-choice, just one time? She'd be instantly branded a traitor/RINO/Turncoat and get deaththreats from her formerly adoring supporters.
Newt was blasted for suggesting that being able to have a big tent was a good idea, that being able to reach outside of the fringe would help the party.
What part of that makes him not a rebel? In the current political climate, it seems like trying to BE able to compromise is rebellious.
My guess is that Walker went off his meds because the GOP is so desperate for any whiff of possible success. He just couldn’t hold his enthusiasm—it was either make all those breathless predictions or pee his pants…
Never mind that none of the elections have been held yet, and this is not even an off-year election but and off-off-year electoin, and that there is no Republican running in NY-23. All in all I’d say it’s a little early just yet for either side to crow, although I do think the Democrats have already won a big victory in NY-23 no matter what takes place there tomorrow.
liberal_defender_of_freedom said...
For all you conservatives claiming America is rejecting Obama's radicalism...what do you make of the Republican trounce that Reagan took in the off year election? Was it because America rejected his radicalism?
The GOP lost 27 seats in 1982 in the middle of a worse recession than this one.
The Dems will lose more in 2010.
The difference will be Obama and the Dem Congress.
Drowzee said...
Newt was blasted for suggesting that being able to have a big tent was a good idea, that being able to reach outside of the fringe would help the party.
Newt appears to have forgotten his own formula for a GOP majority. Unify around principled conservatism and welcome anyone, no matter their beliefs, who will vote for the conservative platform. The mushy middle admires principles and will follow even if they do not fully believe in the principles.
BDP:
Unless he knows well what principled conservatism is, and does not think that this describes the Tea Party brand of conservatism.
You also appear to be claiming that extremism is good for the country, and that moderates are 'sheeple' merely because they disagree with fervently-held dogma, but will go along with zealots because they have such strong beliefs.
Well, I'll just invoke Godwin here, and save myself the comparison. Don't want to undervalue the big 'H', after all.
he danger of this whole internecine warfare for the GOP/Con, whatever it decides to call itself, is that at the end of the day these are the same people that wrote the PATRIOT act, the same people that concocted a foreign policy to rival the hubris of Icarus, that implemented some of the most fiscally irresponsible policies this country has seen since the latter days of the Hoover Administration, and is frighteningly unapologetic about it.
These ACTS of Governance (such as they were) were acts with intellectual roots, no matter what you call it, in "Red" America. This is the part of the country that thinks we should shoot first and ask questions later, that thinks "negotiate" is a 4 syllable synonym for "weak," that thinks that the rights of parties to contract is more important that the rights of the people to abrogate those contracts when the holders are saved from ruin by the government. Whatever label you slap on it, these conservative values of economic libertarianism at home and foreign policy hegemony abroad aren't going anywhere with the change of a label.
These True Believer conservatives actually believe that the solution to the economic crisis that happened as a proximate result of a lack of federal regulatory oversight of key financial sectors of the economy is even less government oversight. The GOP leadership doesn't disagree with the base on this cardinal, party-defining issue. The disagreement appears completely tactical: based on who is more electable. These are not deep rooted ideological battles the GOP is waging against its Base (or vice versa). They are merely tactical considerations about whether to stand firm on ideas or to slowly reshape the role of government once in power. This is Fabian Socialism vs. Bolshevism.
The real problem as I see it is that the insurgent Conservatives value ideology over practicality, value Ayn Rand's half-baked distillation of Nietzsche's Narcissistic Nihilism over pragmatic responses to real problems. This is not a governing philosophy.
These people, as a class, think that government is always the problem, even when the problem is lack of government. They can only roll back. They can't offer pragmatic, real, workable policies where government intervenes however selectively because they cannot accept a world where ANY government action is valid.
Tom said...
I think Palin, Pawlenty etc. are going to form their own party. It will be called the Tea Party, naturally.
~~~~~~~~~~
Coincidentally currently both palin and Pawlenty lose to Obama around 60/40 in 2012 ~ but, but, but there's still time for that mavericky rogue from Wasilla to turn things around in the interim ... you bet'cha!
JF
and what a scary world that would be !
these Ayn Rand acolytes remind me of Scientologists & their amazing ability to completely suspend logic & rationality to toe a line od self-serving drivel concocted by a SciFi novelist [and a poor one at that]
but they both seem to find it easy to comply & peace in rigid belief structure...
sad & pathetic if it was not so tragic because their actions & hatred for others not willling to suspend all belief has a terrible toll on our society imho
So "conservative" loses 56-40 to "liberal and moderate".
And those people who said "moderate" rightly consider to be "moderate" what the nutzoid gang of right wingers who post here consider to be "socialist".
And you can bet your bottom dollar that that 40% includes a lot of people who are repelled by the sexism, homophobia, and general nuttiness of what is supported by the "conservatives" who post here.
Sounds to me like a recipe for the permanent defeat of the wingnut agenda, no matter how you try to "brand" it.
It's not at all surprising that candidates like Christie and McDonnell are trying to not associate with the national party. That often happens after an electoral drubbing or two.
Jon Tester avoided "Democrat" like the plague in 2006 - two years after Bush carried the state by twenty points.
Bart De ’Publican said…
“Newt appears to have forgotten his own formula for a GOP majority. Unify around principled conservatism and welcome anyone, no matter their beliefs, who will vote for the conservative platform.”
Ah yes, the GOP unifying around principled conservatism. That will result in—Goldwater in ’64.
Good call, Bart.
Both Goldwater and Reagan unified around principled conservatism. The difference is that Goldwater scared the hell out of the center.
Palin is much more like Goldwater and much less than Reagan.
I know I'm probably in the wingnut minority here, but I would honestly take having 40% of the electorate vote along very conservative principles in 2012. Take our beating, but slowly but surely we can build a majority this way.
Speaking of re-branding lol How do you run a convention on a record of failure? ... Invoke 9/11 ~ Know Your Enemy ~ Handle the Bin Laden matter appropriately ~ And Above All, Spread Fear!
Hey scorched earth tactics worked in 2004 ~ 2008, not so much.
gotta love them oldies, but goodies as cheney/bush left a plethora, eh.
btw, whatever happened to that wascally wabbit Bin Laden?
stay the course, you're either w/us or against us, freedom fries
and Patton would not be happy with stay the course ie I don't want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We're not holding anything. Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding onto anything -- except the enemy. We're going to hold onto him by the nose, and we're gonna kick him in the ass. We're gonna kick the hell out of him all the time, and we're gonna go through him like crap through a goose!
Tippecanoe and Tyler too ...
carry on
Ironically, there's a Bob McDonnell ad on this page...
NJ_Moderate said...
1) 1960: Kennedy (moderate)
Except, when JFK was accepting the Liberal Party of New York's nomination, he CLEARLY and LOUDLY proclaimed that he was a liberal:
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
Then again, the poster who stated that Kennedy was a moderate, not a liberal, is a Conservatard, and we all know that Conservatards are totally incapable of stating the truth.
Conservatives? Sometimes.
Republicans? Sometimes.
Conservatards? Never.
Mike in Maryland
I'm not sure what the big deal is with the lack of party affiliation (on either side). Living in Northern VA and suffering through several months of these ads...outside of the recent Obama / Deeds spots neither candidate has gone out of the way to identify which party they are...outside of the Arlington / Alexandria city council races (which highlight D/R for X spot) both Deeds and McDonnell have barely said a thing (other than the brief "thesis" kerfuffle).
Besides, both Bush/Cheney and McCain were predominately blue when it came to website design...red is simply too harsh on the eyes. Makes for easy commentariat shorthand but somewhat poor design.
Maybe one should really look at the Virginia Sportsmen ads (bright orange)...sportsmen for warner, sportsmen for kaine...and sportsmen for mcdonnell. just about the only memorable (and visually consistent) ads in the Commonwealth
@keith: regarding your advice about training in political science, I'm not sure political scientists know how or when to call 'em if there's a critical election on the horizon. They haven't even reached complete consensus about historical cases.
Yes, a few odd-numbered year elections don't mean a heckuva lot, but the larger question that Nate and some others are beginning to address is the fate (and the labeling) of the two major parties.
The facts that Nate based this column on and recent events in the policy sphere suggest the possibility of a "Conservative Party" displacing the Republican party over time, perhaps mainly via relabeling of candidates (but also keeping in mind all the legal issues in our federal system of regulating parties and nominations).
Would such rebranding be a winning or a losing strategy for conservatives on a national level?
I find it odd that the "conservative" brand is being affiliated with what amounts to the Christian right (at least in the NY-23 race). Considering the fact that younger generations appear to be less susceptible to a lot of the culture war rhetoric the Christian right espouses, it seems like a "conservative" relabel will have minimal impact in the long term.
It would be different if the "conservative" brand was being adopted by a Goldwater-esque group of small government advocates. Instead it's the same old crowd of nosy parkers who want a small government unless that means staying out of people's bedrooms or letting women make their own reproductive decisions.
I guess I was expecting the new conservative movement to be more Ron Paul than Sarah Palin. This is just a repackaging of the same tired rhetoric with a new shiny bow, which doesn't sound promising beyond a few news cycles.
[as posted on the 'NY-23 Re-Re-Re-Reconsidered' thread]
NATE
any prediction for the other special election today in CA-10 ?
how come no play at all on this one ?
just because it has a recent history of DEM winning, the 'odds' up front should have been just as strong that NY-23 would remain GOP since both districts had given the winning party over 60% in the 2008 election...
that would be comparing an apple to another apple - because IF CA-10 was to flip [or even be close] THAT would be a real story
but NY-23 NOT flipping should hardly be a story [unless the DEMs win or even come close]
this is all just a MSM & CON meme
please ADD CA-10 to the election watch list
All this talk of 3rd parties and rebranding etc has been going on for generations. But in the end nothing ever changes.
But i think its an interesting thing that the problem, to be honest with both parties is the branding. I think that is more of a judgement on the success of American politicians over the last generation. Seriously, who was the last President to leave office with a seriously worthwhile legacy? Over and above a 'he didn't screw it up' level and something that was tangible and real to people in there lives? I think you have to go back to FDR. I think thats why polticians are held in generally low esteem at the moment. Lots of talk, no real achievement.
but NY-23 NOT flipping should hardly be a story [unless the DEMs win or even come close]
I think this is a story because it speaks to the influence, or lack thereof, of the Obama presidency thus far, particularly in a district that favored Obama by 5 points last November.
We're constantly told by the left that convservatism is dead. The country is moving left fast. Conservatism doesn't work. People want Big Government as the answer to all problems. If this is true, how is it possible that a district that favored Obama by 5 points would vote for a Conservative Party candidate?
And this is a shot across the bow of the Republican Party. The GOP needs to nominate conservatives. When they do, they will win elections. It will be an iteresting night.
GROG:
"If this is true, how is it possible that a district that favored Obama by 5 points would vote for a Conservative Party candidate?"
Because Bill Owens is not really a Democrat. It's the same thing that's going to happen in VA today: McDonnell hasn't really recruited over many Obama voters, but Deeds has offered nothing to Obama voters. (Unlike many of them, I'm going to vote anyway because I'm hoping the down ballot races are closer, and Deeds would be better than McDonnell.)
Off-year elections are all about turnout, as any reader of this blog should know. I don't know the NY-23 race as well, but I imagine many liberal voters feel like they don't have a candidate in the race.
Nate, while your idea of the Republican Party rebranding itself as the Conservative Party is an intriguing one, I think the premise of this particular post is, ah, bunk.
This is not new and hasn't been for many years. Look at campaign Web sites from past cycles. Hell, look at official Web sites of those already in office. The vast, vast majority are and have been careful to limit explicit mentions of the candidate's/politician's party affiliation, as are many of their advertisements.
I suspect this is because both parties realize that about 60 percent of Americans start to tune out when they've decided how to pigeon-hole a candidate, and party ID is the single easiest way to do that.
I think it would be great if the Republicans became the Conservatives. Once the Conservative Party began trying to govern, they would find themselves subject to all the compromises and hair-splitting that comes along with institutional power, and the word "conservative" would quickly become just as tarnished among the ideological purists as the word "Republican." Since the liberals in this country can't seem to muster the rhetorical strength or discipline to puncture the conservative myth, I say let them do it to themselves.
Liberal Defender:
Interesting how you they forgot to put Obama's deficits on your chart.
Also, interesting you forgot to note that Reagan inherited a dismal economy from Carter and had to battle a tax and spend Congress much of his presidency. Clinton walked into a period that followed the greatest expansion of economy and prosperity in the country's history.
Bush inherited Clinton's recession and his national security policy of ignoring terrorist threats.
"Liberal Defender:
Interesting how you they forgot to put Obama's deficits on your chart."
Because as of now, most of the "Obama deficit" are from Bush holdovers. It's funny you don't think Reagan should be held responsible but Obama should, and he hasn't even been president for a year yet. Reagan was no where near the conservative that you guys have made him into either. For all the drubbing Bush has taken, he was probably, in practice, more conservative than Reagan. The difference is Reagan talked a big game.
And you're comment about Clinton ignoring terrorist threats has been proven bunk for several years now, as he was very concerned, more so than Bush and Condi were at the beginning when Clinton intelligence hold-overs were practically begging them to pay attention in the weeks running up to 9/11. Dude, you need to get out of the Fox News/Weekly Standard bubble that you live in.
Chris1974 -
For all the drubbing Bush has taken, he was probably, in practice, more conservative than Reagan.
That's putting it mildly. Nixon was a flaming liberal by today's wingnut standards, and Reagan was far less right wing than Bush in many ways.
However, Reagan set the table for Bush.
Prior to the mid-seventies, the two dominant branches of the Republican party were the now-exterminated Northeastern-style, moderate "Rockefeller Republican" (such as, ironically,
Senator Prescott Bush, grandfather of Dubya Bush), and the somewhat related Wild West "Goldwater Republican" (also now long extinct).
Both of these were hostile to religious authoritarians.
Religion in politics was also associated with the "liberal" policy of ending segregation.
Reagan was instrumental in welcoming the hating religious right into the party, in word if not in deed.
That is now the crux of the movement. My dime says that if a candidate who advocated homophobia, coded racism, and pointless wars against weak opponents were running against a "socially liberal fiscal conservative", the former would get all of the "conservative movement" votes.
That's certainly 100% exactly what happened in NY-23 (no matter who wins the election today).
I live in the 10th Congressional district in CA and I have noticed that on all of the signs for the democratic canidate John Garamendi he uses the tag "the proven democrat" while his oppenent does not use republican on his advertising. It is pretty stricking.
Republican, Conservative, Whig, call it what you will
Speaking of which, I found something interesting the other day: The Modern Whig Party.
Their basic pillars:
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
EDUCATION/SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT
STATES RIGHTS
SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE
VETERANS AFFAIRS
If the Republican brand falls apart, I could certainly see a three-party system with Conservative, Democrat, and Whig. Seems like the Whigs have something to offer moderates from both parties.
(Of course, it's a tiny little party right now, but if the Republican brand is irreparably damaged (which I really don't think it is), there's presumably going to be something that will replace it.)
Walker, you count your chickens before they hatch. Or, you count your turkeys before they are slaughtered while a rethug giggles in the foreground.
And frankly, you'd be annoying even if you were a progressive.
We can conclude from NY-23 that having a hard-line conservative face a Democrat means the Dem party gets 10 to 15% more votes than they did the prior election. NO WAY is NY-23 going to be an approval for conservative principles.
For VA: the Repub Gov margin of 59% is not much higher than last time they won in 1997 with 55%. Likewise in NJ, Christie can't even quite grab half the vote. I think Corzine's approval ratings dropoff is no different than that suffered by Republican govs in similar situations of financial stress (Schwarzenegger, for example).
Post a Comment