After Tuesday, Democrats, incredibly, hold a majority of the congressional delegation in only three states—Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont—that don’t directly touch an ocean. Republicans similarly routed Democrats in gubernatorial races across the Midwest and the border states, from Ohio and Tennessee to Wisconsin and Iowa.
So Democrats emerge from this week confronting a huge demographic hole: their meager performance among all white voters except women with college degrees (who tend to be both more socially liberal and more receptive to activist government). And they face a huge geographic hole: a collapse in the interior states, which tend to be whiter and older than the coastal states, with fewer college graduates. After the first red-blue map entered our consciousness following the 2000 presidential race, I wrote that it was possible to drive east for three days from San Francisco without crossing a county that voted Democratic; it is now possible to do the same thing with House districts. Still strong (if somewhat diminished) on the coasts, but routed in the heartland, Democrats look like a bridge with two pillars, but no span in between.
Democrats don’t need to win most white voters or most interior states to compete. But they can’t get annihilated on those battlefields either, and that’s exactly what happened as the party stumbled to its historic collapse this week.
Frankly, I think the Tea Party / classical liberal message will eventually make inroads among the minority group coalition the Dems count on to hold their voting bloc together — especially once it’s had time to further distance itself from the GOP establishment. And that’s because not only does the ideology resonate with people who wish to be governed by their peers rather than ruled by elitist despots — individual autonomy, a smaller, less-intrusive government, private property rights, equality under the law — but because it further clarifies the differences between Democrats and establishment GOP candidates, who heretofore of late have been barely indistinguishable, save for the poor branding the GOP enjoys, despite an election strategy that seems to be always on the defensive, and always looking to show they can pander almost as well as the Democrats.
But why take a chance on a second-rate client-state party when you can have the real thing for free? Why vote for the GOP — and endure the stigma that the Democrats have managed to attach to doing so — when you can simply vote for the Dems themselves?
There has to be a clear distinction between the parties — and the Dem caucus, which is now hard left, will either move to the center as a result of having to confront classically liberal opposition, or else they will hold their ground, assert the progressive/socialist impulse that defines their ideology, and give the American people the kind of stark choices they haven’t had in quite some time.
The strategy moving forward, then, has to be that classical liberal ideals — the ideals upon which this country was founded — are what will win out in the marketplace of ideas, and that we must now go full bore in selling those ideals to a public long ago made jaded by politicians who seem nearly indistinguishable, save for the letter in front of their names.
Those who continue to preach that our strategy should begin and end with the number of “our” candidates we can seat in Congress — without care that “our” candidates are ours only inasmuch as they run under the GOP banner — need to be shouted down, mocked, and shown up for the phony “realists” and “pragmatists” they pretend to be.
Because what they really are are anything but — and in fact, they show time and again that they are willing to sell out the principles they ostensibly advocate for in exchange for whatever kind of temporary power they can collect. As should be obvious by looking at who exactly supports their narrative.
I don’t stand for the Republican Party. I stand for constitutional principles. And I won’t back another candidate who doesn’t do the same.
If that leaves me in the political wilderness — as some have warned — so be it. But I don’t think it will, and I’m willing to fight to make sure it does not, precisely because I believe in the rectitude of the ideals I have come to cherish.
as of today this query gets only 469 results
There’s not much to add to this, really. I am of the same bent of mind. I am uninterested in winning horse races with candidates that do not represent my principles. That has been proven to not work. If a region or state is “too liberal” to support a classically liberal candidate, they should have the representation they want and get a progressive.
When a classical liberal tries something, and it doesn’t work, he notes the failure as a learning experience and tries something else. He does not double down and try it again.
I don’t stand for the Republican Party. I stand for constitutional principles
I heard Prager on 11/3 state that the success of the Republicans was NOT due to running as Republicans but in running on “conservative principles”. And that their biggest success was in getting an debate over “Big Government” into the public square (since Reagan, when had that ever been part of any election season?)
I agree completely, and have said for some time, that real conservative principles would make headway within the various minority communities in America; it was only a matter of time. Once enough of “whatever” group had truly made it into the middle class, and as such were subject to the weight of government, they would reject the faustian bargain that as a group they had made with the Democrats. We witnessed that in the results of this last election.
And there will be more to come, as guys like Col West and Rubio are increasingly on the national stage, if you’ll forgive the old cliche, and make it OK for like minded members of racial minorities to come forward; to embrace freedom over statist pandering.
You know, I still chafe a bit at your pejoritive use of “GOP establishment”, but that may be a visceral thing on my part. Intellectually I realize that the Rockefeller wing took over the party when Bush the elder was President, and in truth it was more of the same for GWBush too, regardless of what good he accomplished. Perhaps it’s a sign of my age, but I have always thought of the modern GOP’s ideology as a Goldwater legacy, primarily molded by Reagan in the 80’s. But I admit that with respect to domestic issues they’ve strayed far afield from that baseline. They lost their staunchness :)
The Republican Establshment would not back and actually worked against some of the nominees from the Tea Party ranks. I too, hope they find their backbone. Or they will face a primary opponent and a different future than they may have planned on.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, I’m looking at you.
Tangential to the main point, but:
…except women with college degrees (who tend to be both more socially liberal and more receptive to activist government)…
Am I the only one who’d like to see a breakdown of voting preference by major? It’s just an assumption, but I’d guess that Business and Engineering majors vote differently than do Education and Angry Studies majors, and that gender preference is a correlating factor.
And I don’t think you’re to be consigned to the wilderness, Jeff. Rather, I’m betting that a lot of those who’ve been so denigrating toward you will soon insist that they’ve really agreed with you all along, and it’s just the damned armadillo that kept them from embracing you fully.
Which will probably seem quite reasonable once the armored maniac is through having his way with them…
We are asking a lot of people to go to DC and actually cut. It’s easier to say that on a campign stump than do. It is brutal the pressure that will be brought to bear on people who by nature are “pleasers”; Add in the issue of the power they will find themselves wielding (as opposed to restraining themselves) and I suspect we need to dial expectations down. To think that “Red” budget priorities will get the ax pari-passu to Dept. of Ed et al. is too much perhaps. That any of this is done with tax reform and future spending restraint in mind is fiction. [I’m not even going near entitlements.]
If they can cut the growth of spending and check asinine initiatives as they spring up, maybe roll a few back, thats about as good as we’ll get for now.
Really, Squid?
repost:
What’s interesting is that the Democrats are now, REALLY, a regional party, not the because of the proclamations of some liberal commentator’s fever dream, but because the American people have rejected them completely.
Since we had a Teapocalypse and all.
I’d love to see the same voter breakdown Squid.
So we’ll vote them out and try again, Roddy.
That’s the way forward.
I don’t see the dems going centrist. Pelosi’s already saying she may run for minority leader. They think they’re right and we’re just too stupid to understand that socialism is good and works. We should just trust them.
The people running the GOP are the same people who wanted Toomey to win over Socter because Specter was “more electable”. If they had backed O’Donnell after the election instead of telling the world that they wouldn’t spend an money on her they would have won. Really. They can spin it any way they want, but Republicans who voted for Coons would have voted the other way. So that loss, and Miller’s if he loses and any other candidate who lost after winning a primary, is all on the NRC. The Republicans did not win this election, the Democrats lost it, if the GOP and its cheerleaders think otherwise, the next election will be U-G-L-Y.
I guess they haven’t figured out why exactly there were so may primary challenges this time. Good for them, I hope they enjoy the historic beating they’ll get in 2012.
Oddly enough, when it’s someone thoughtful hitting the theme, I’m finding it useful in that it’s forcing me to reappraise some folks with a more jaundiced eye. Even if I end up liking them on the whole and view them as contributors, I can more accurately describe what it is that’s a bit off.
Take Daniels. I like the guy but while looking at him coldly I find a few instances where he seemed to view targeted tax increases as acceptable forms of budget discipline while I think the spending was to high to warrant that conclusion. Likewise Gillespie, he’s still a good guy in my book (he did some great work this cycle at the state level) but I’m thinking I should review some of the RNC’s decisions in 2004 when he was running the show. Christie is another on this list.
Lest this seems like an attack on those guys, it honestly isn’t. Any more than saying Clay Matthews doesn’t always force the play inside when it’s his responsibility. Still think he’s a fantastic player. But, after watching the tape, I could tell him where I find his game the weakest. Hey, maybe he’d even listen. At a Packer townhall meeting or something.
My hope is that while we’re appraising and reappraising our politicians according to principle, we all do so honestly. At the moment, I don’t find this to be the case. If it becomes a bludgeon to smash one set of people while another set skates because we’re simply assured they’re authentic with no verification of their inclinations and policies then… well, it’s a bludgeon to smash one set of people. Just more bullshit.*
* I’m not speaking about Jeff or the vast majority of commenters here. Check Hot Air’s comments to see some of the folks I’m referencing. They care not a bit about examining principles.
I see the point you’re underscoring with that link JeffG.
I also think that Today simply asked her on as a way to push back against the results of the election and embarrass the Tea Party/GOP/Both. I also think she should have at least had the intellectual honesty to include among the reasons for her defeat the overwhelmingly Democrat affiliation in DE as well as the shortcomings in her own “resume”. I personally think playing what amounts to a vitim card on national television lacks in grace and class, and something I wouldn’t recommend for someone who might be thinking of running again at another time. YMMV.
It’s not a vote of support for the candidacy of Castle, which I was against from day one, to recognize her weaknesses as a candidate. The Republican primary voters of Delaware rightly chose her to represent them instead of Castle for many of the reasons we have discussed for some time here. As we’ve been over many times, the actions of the national GOP also lacked class and grace, following the defeat of Castle, who they shouldn’t have been backing in the first place. I hope that they come to realize that as well as that they shouldn’t be backing primary candidates at all, but backing the choice of the voters in those same primary races.
But like Squid, I believe that your calls for intellectual and ideological honesty, as opposed to “whatever it talkes to win!” are ascendant again. They got lost in the zeal to defeat Clinton. But one positive of the tumult of the last couple of years will be a refocusing on underlying ideas and principle; at least I hope so.
And for ACE? He’s admitted over the last couple of days that he’s let partisanship cloud his reason, especially as of late as the election cycle heated up. I think taht a lot of folks would do the same on reflection. I’m not defending him, just adding context :)
hee hee — Olbermann has been suspended (how long will it last? I give it 72 hours) and Lawrence O’Donnell is now openly proclaiming his extreme leftism
Actually with Lindsey and Trett (and a host of others) taking shots at her and by extension, Palin, I think it’s fair that she respond. The vote for Coons, is only going to seem more foolhardy as time goes on, not less.
I agree bh,
My admission was as much a recognition of a potential for closed-mindedness as it was any kind of excuse/mea culpa. As you mentioned, we should all be willing to recognize shortcomings, in ourself and the folks we’re backing. Too often it’s easy to view such assessments and the accompanying criticisms as an assault on ourselves by extention; on our ability to reason, our judgement, ethos, and our “authenticity”.
Which is another reason I generally avoid reading, or participating, in the comment threads at HotAir.
#8
Ace is still on the pragmatism kick. We’ll see how this shakes out as time passes.
We are going to end up with two camps vying for attention. The Outlaw! camp is looking forward to voting for principled candidates, and voting them out if and when those principles become secondary to being re-elected. The pragmatic camp would, perhaps, like true classical liberals to run, but is willing to accept much less as long as the horse race is won. We’ll see which side prevails.
Jeff, I’ll bet you a dollar that in six months’ time, Ace is so on-board that you’d be hard-pressed to get him to admit to his recent stupidity.
(Not saying this will be a good thing, just that I think it’s likely.)
Mainstream voters on the Dem side will need to put on their own Tea Party-type movement, if they know how. Otherwise the third party everybody keeps talking about will be one that splits the Donks.
I really do believe the GOP will begin to revolve around the new Tea Party center of gravity over the next few cycles in spite of the Establicans. So-called Pragmatists will either have to do the pragmatic thing and go along so’s to have a seat at the table, or go sit in the back of the bus.
I imagine none of them will like that choice, but it’s the one they thought they were entitled to offer their “inferiors” for years, so it must be The Right Thing.
From that Ace link:
What I’d like to know is on which of these five does Castle pass? None.
So, it’s his number #6. Castle was leftist enough for leftists to vote for. Yay! Let’s hit the phones and knock on some doors! What, that doesn’t fire you guys up?
I won’t slam Ace for his GOTV thingy. I think he was correct on that.
I keep hearing how DE is overwhelmingly Democrat. So why would anyone think that an overwhelmingly Democrat state would vote for a Republican who votes Democrat over a Democrat who votes Democrat? If people voted 100% on party lines, would the Republican have won or the Democrat? If the Tea Party folks were the ones who voted for O’Donnell, and the Tea Party wasn’t (supposedly) 100% Republican, who’s fault is it that O’Donnell lost? Are we to assume that the Republicans who didn’t vote for O’Donnell in the primary also didn’t vote for O’Donnell in the general election? Who’s fault would that be?
I think the answer is pretty clear. All this “she’s too stupid to be a senator” stuff was started by people who were just smart enough to get a job where they watch TV for a living. Experience means shit in politics, the fucking guy in the White House has exactly jack shit experience and had even less when he got elected to the Senate, what he did have was the backing of the party machine. So fuck the pragmatists and the “electable” bullshit artists. Half of congress are pedophiles and rapists and the other half are wife-beating onanists and we’re supposed to worry that someone said something stupid on TV once and went bankrupt? Fuck you NRC, newspaper bastards and beltloop pundits. You suck and you’re the reason we had to have this election in the first place.
and I hope you fail. You fucking bastards… oh wait… you already did.
Is that in reference to my last paragraph, cranky?
Perhaps I wasn’t clear because I was also pleased with that campaign overall. My point was that this “pragmatism” actually depresses the GOTV effort amongst activists in a state where an amazing GOTV push is the only chance for victory.
Yeah, bh, it looked like you were mocking him for GOTV. I guess I didn’t connect the dots you put out there well enough.
There were so many worthy candidates, Bielat, McClung, Van TRan, Pantano, who should have won, some like Ellmers did win, but they won’t let that get in the way of anything, Oh and btw, Christie has not joined the antiObamacare suit
Heh, I’ll take settle for being unclear, cranky. I’ve entered into a two day typo and grammatical error streak that might be one for the record books.
I’m sick. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking with it.
“take settle”!!!!!!!!
The streak continues. Geez. I should take some sudafed and take a nap.
Reaching for a metaphor: Democrats are like gin, “establishment” Republicans are like brandy, and TEA Party supporters are like, well, tea. And if you happen to be a nation that needs to get free from a very damaging addiction, you had better just stick with tea for the rest of your life.
I don’t need context on a situation where someone joins in in the savaging of a candidate running then complains when the candidate complains of the savaging after the fact.
Many of the GOP “pragmatists” are lawyerly types who fight consistently against me on intentionialism, as well. My response is that they simply don’t get that they are damning us all to lose more slowly by refusing to take on the structural issues that lead to progressive ascendancy.
We have to fight back philosophically, not merely by seating people with Rs in front of their names.
I think Democrats have been more like Everclear.
JeffG,
I was trying to be ironic when I added the, “adding context”, remarks at the end; because I’m aware that for reasons I find odd, personally, attorneys often seem to have problems with intentionalism; my wife the DA not being one of those-perhaps it has something to do with defending the indefensible or something.
Anyway, I was only trying to be jocular, not antagonistic, but clearly don’t share your ability to convey irony.
A joke’s obviously not funny of you have to explain it.
“So I don’t pretend that my views, which would ban all guns in America…”
Aaaaahahahahaha!! No, Larry, they wouldn’t ban all guns in America, they’d just all be pointing at you for a few seconds. Then we’d go on our happy way.
I’m boycotting Harrah’s… Harry Reid’s ground game in the heavily unionized casinos was the clincher… or make that: the ground game that the unions and the hundreds of out of state of democratic operatives ran on behalf of Harry Reid…. because Reid himself is horrible.
Going forward, the problems I see revolve around those blue islands in the red states that happen to correspond to locations of state universities…. and the message those schools send out that educated, smart people should always vote democrat, and everyone else is stupid.
How articulate of a voice do we demand?
What if our candidate can’t name the Prime Minister of India or the last time they read the NYT?
We will need to drag a few of our own elitists back into the fold and cut the rest like Charlie Crist adrift (best thing about this election was watching his true colors shine… that unprincipled Murkowski lady in Alaska too)
So the host and a good half of the commenters there had the good fortune of their parents naming them “California”? Digging that Castle Came-a-lot they are.
Weird. It’s only her campaign donations that arouse this curiosity in him. Castle had been running for office as long as she’s been alive… wonder how much moolah he has stashed away for a rainy campaign.
Reid sure can count on his friends in organized crime.
So, I’m not insane? Never mind. Don’t answer that question.
“A joke’s obviously not funny of you have to explain it.”
Bob,
That’s why I’ve cornered the market on these: ;^)