Interpreting the election results…
…is somewhat of a fool’s errand.
People will use the results to say they send all sorts of messages. “See, a very conservative Tea Party candidate loses.” Or “See, a more moderate candidate wins.”
I don’t think that’s what they say at all. I think elections turn only somewhat on the stated political principles and stands of the candidates. The deciding factors are always something about people’s reactions to the candidates themselves on a more gut level, and other issues such as money and ads, and the demographics of a particular state.
In the Virginia race, the Republican civil war—among RINOs and soc-cons and libertarians—has been activated, big time. “The establishment didn’t go to bat for Cucinelli and that’s why he lost” (see this excellent post by Ace for some reflection on that argument). And while “The libertarians are at fault in Virginia; they took votes from Cucinelli” may indeed be true, one of the hallmarks of libertarians is always going to be their fierce independence from the GOP and their “plague on both your houses” attitude, which all too often ends up electing those with whom they are least simpatico (see this for a fuller discussion).
New York City is New York City, somewhat of a law unto itself. It will reap what it sows, and I don’t think the results there have much national significance, although they are sad for my hometown, which seems determined to commit economic suicide and to reverse all the gains of the last two decades in fighting crime. Here’s the mayor-elect De Blasio:
To maintain that greatness and to ensure that our brightest days are ahead of us, we must commit ourselves to progressive ideas that will lift us all.
Ah, yes; progressive ideas are well-known for being a rising tide that lifts all boats. De Blasio’s campaign was a very model of class warfare, PC condemnation of stop-and-frisk, and cluelessness on how to work with an Albany that is almost certain to oppose him. Should be interesting.
But before you can give De Blasio’s victory an interpretation like, “liberals are getting further and further to the left,” you have to look at Christie’s enormous victory in neighboring New Jersay. It proves my point, I think, which is that candidates’ personalities matter, not just their philosophies. Christie has a straight-shooter, man-of-the-people demeanor that people find really appealing. In New Jersey it has enabled him to transcend the usual categories. And before you say “What are you talking about, Christie’s no conservative,” let me just say that by New Jersey standards he’s an ultraconservative.
Cristie has the gift of seeming to be (and perhaps even actually being) the kind of person I was surrounded with where I grew up, a neighborhood that was heavily Italian and heavily working-class, and where people were very much in your face and called it like it is (and were pretty quick with the humor, as well). So to me, Christie’s like home.
The first time I ever saw him speak, I knew he was a great politician, a natural. Don’t knock it; it’s important, and very very very rare in Republicans. A lot of you will be mad at the media for building Christie up and “shoving him down your throat.” You also may not like his emphasis on working with Democrats, although it’s not just good politics, in a state like New Jersey it’s absolutely essential for any Republican. But I know much better than to try to talk anyone into anything with Christie; just watch and judge for yourself.
So, what conclusions can we draw from all of this that are more universal?
Personalities matter.
The Democrats play dirty; be prepared for it (i.e. the libertarian challenger in Virginia was bankrolled by an Obama bundler).
Obamacare hurt McAuliffe, just not fast enough and strongly enough to make a big enough difference. If things keep going poorly for Obamacare, it will matter in a lot of races.
And Republicans will keep fighting—each other, and deflecting precious energy from the more important battle. As for me, I think William F. Buckley’s rule still makes sense: in primaries, vote for the most conservative candidate with a chance of winning. The problem is figuring out who that might be.
The problem is that primaries are controlled by Democrats. What are left are given to Republican allies of the Democrats. Which leaves….
“plague on both your houses”
Perhaps they have learned that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend but merely the enemy of my enemy.
Libertarians share most of their propaganda points with the Left, via some unknown distribution network. For example, WMDs and Iraq were something the Libertarian crowd touted above all else.
They do not really have as fine a control over their propaganda points as they think. Which means external forces can often “mold” their opinions easily.
Even with all the negatives about the Tea Party (some true some not) they are either winning elections are coming close in losing them. The Dems are in trouble. “The Democrats play dirty; be prepared for it” you better believe it! Once the TPers (Conservatives) eliminate most of their problems they’ll be pretty unstoppable.
I think Chris Christie is an excellent governor for the state of New Jersey. The Presidency of the United States is much much larger than NJ, and this will be his downfall. He does not appeal in the South or the Midwest (the West has long been co-opted to the Dems). Additionally, he is another attorney. He is a creature of compromise for political reasons and this is the deal breaker for me. Pro-choice, pro gay marriage does not equal practicing Catholic. It wins elections in liberal states, but not much of anywhere else.
I vote no.
Maybe with Susana Martinez as his VP, he could carry some of those places that might not find him all that appealing. He got 51% of the Latino vote in New Jersey yesterday, in comparison to the 32% he carried in 2009 — and Susana Martinez was there to help him out in the closing days of the race.
Chris Christie is a former prosecutor, as is Susana Martinez. Such folks are never to be trusted. Most folks won’t think about their past jobs, however. I live in New Mexico, and Martinez could be a whole lot worse — for example, she could be like her predecessor, Bill Richardson. However, she is not overtly corrupt as Richardson plainly was. So, she could be worse. But, I still won’t vote for her as VP. And, to boot, Christie is absolutely horrible.
Why didn’t he campaign for Cucinelli?
I don’t want to get into the pander wars with the Dems. They always win.
This is another example of why all elections should be runoff elections. Next week, Cuccinelli and McAuliffe should square off against each other to see who the people of Virginia truly want.
No one should be allowed to govern in this country unless they receive more than 50% of the vote.
And please don’t insult me by saying Bush did it in 2000. The electoral college is completely different–if you want to change that, amend the Constitution.
The left can call stop and frisk “racist” if more “minorities” get stopped. As a conservative, I just call it an UnConstitutional search.
Propensity lines
the way of today.
Inheres all of us
who try; and makes us
Us . . . for all of us.
In other words, we’re
in this together.
Innovative! they cried.
The point was received.
We’ll make the future
and the past, obey;
the promise only
only the promise,
was free.
Leigh – I believe that Christie has been Pro Life since 1995 or 96 and is against gay marriage although in favor of civil unions.
London Trader, he recently as last week said he wasn’t going to veto legislation to stop gay marriage in NJ.
He’s done nothing to reform the outrageous taxation in NJ, the Land of Toll Booths or to reform the costs of auto insurance for its residents.
Worst of all, he’s a gun-grabber.
Argh. That should be that he was tacitly endorsing gay marriage by not vetoing the gay marriage bill.
Snackeater Says:
November 6th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Many people have suggested that “None of the Above” should be on the ballot in every election. If NOTA wins, then the election is held again, and none of the original candidates would be eligible.
leigh,
I understand your stance on Christie, but (most portentous word in english after if) I see him in a different light. He has many positions that I find repellent, positions that he would have a difficult time pushing through congress. However, he does exhibit an ability to achieve positive results (fiscal responsibility, curtailing the influence of public unions for example). Plus, he is combative, quick on his feet, and knows when to stick the knife in the heart and when not to.
I’m a life long resident of Iowa and I think Christie could take the caucus if he plays to his best attributes and deflects attacks on his weaknesses. Nonetheless, my favorite ticket is Walker/Cruz. The best executive on the block with a cool demenaor and a great track record to instill confidence and the street fighter who is willing to call spade a spade.
In the end, a Christie at the head of the ticket is like a Romney at the head of the ticket….. cut your nose to spite your face and when you look into the mirror are you more beautiful with BHO or Mitt?
“Many people have suggested that “None of the Above” should be on the ballot in every election. If NOTA wins, then the election is held again, and none of the original candidates would be eligible.”
I too favor NOTA on the ballot and the rule that if no candidate achieves a majority there must be another round of campaigns (short term of 2-4 weeks) and a new election held.
Parker, I’m done voting for the lesser of two evils. No, I don’t believe that there is a perfect candidate. All I ask is for a choice between a liberal and a conservative, not a liberal and a liberal republican (who calls himself moderate).
As it stands now, we don’t even have a two party system other than in name only. That’s the thing I love about the TEA Party. Like the libertarians (large or small “l”) they are a grab bag of idea, but the main idea being to shrink government and taxes not remake bad laws so that they go down a little easier. Bad laws are still bad medicine no matter how much sugar is stirred into them.
I’m with you of Walker, Cruz and I also like Paul. Cruz is my favorite and the establicans on both sides fear him or the demonizing wouldn’t have already begun.
Leigh – he did veto the gay marriage bill in NJ. A court ruled to allow gay marriage which he appealed. He recently withdrew that appeal after being warned by the court that he had little chance of prevailing.
His position on guns is a little more mixed but he did just refuse to sign three bills having previously signed others.
leigh,
I understand your frustration. I vote libertarian whenever I know the repub can not win (which was not the case in VA). But normally we do indeed vote for the lesser evil or we cast our vote to the wind…. a Reagan does not come around often in one’s lifetime; twice if one lives in very good times.
Seriously, who would you trust at the helm, BHO or someone like Mitt? To me the answer is obvious. I would perfer the hand basket destined for hell be slowed down to a crawl rather than inject it with steroids. The slowed down basket might just stop short of the abyss and a Reagan on steroids come to claim the title.
We are beings that will never be perfected (as I know you know), all we can expect is struggle, personal love of our selected friends and families, a need to stay vigilant, and finally a need to stay cocked and locked with a 1911 in our hand and a rifle ever handy.
Personally, I’m not hot to trot to water the tree of liberty. I will if I must but I desire a gradual correction that does not involve tens of millions of rotting corpses. I vote accordingly.
London Trader,
I stand corrected. Thanks.
parker,
Certainly I would trust Mitt Romney and I voted for him. That said, I really think a good and decent man dodged a bullet when he lost. We all knew this house of cards was going to collapse in 2013 and I for one am glad Obama has to deal with his own mess. It may be the only time in his Potemkin life he has been held responsible for anything.
As much buzz as there is today about Christie, I say to give it a month or two. The “disgruntled” employees will spill their tales of woe to the press. Unattributed sources will relate stories of double-dealing and other criminal activity—that may or may not be verifiable
We’ve all seen this movie before. It’s part of the reason I love Ted Cruz. He’s been called every name in the book and accused of so much already it’s becoming laughable. He’ll be rehabilitated enough to be a credible spokesman if not a candidate by next year.
From an article by Cal Thomas — some of the things Christie has accomplished:
– Reversed a $2.2 billion deficit and brought it into balance without raising taxes, largely by reduced spending and eliminating wasteful and unaffordable programs, allowing for a projected fiscal 2014 budget surplus of $300 million.
– Brought about bipartisan pension and benefits reforms, saving the state $120 billion over 30 years.
– Streamlined government by eliminating 5,200 government jobs.
– Vetoed tax increase bills three times while cutting taxes for job creators.
– Reformed the nation’s oldest teacher tenure law by making it conditional on teacher performance in the classroom.
– Reduced property tax increases to a 21-year low and capped them at a maximum 2 percent.
Those are not conservative initiatives?
“As much buzz as there is today about Christie, I say to give it a month or two.”
I’m not buzzed by Christie and have no doubt the MSM will soon begin to stick pins into the voodoo doll. I too really like Cruz’s attitude. I see him much in the same light as I see Palin. Both are willing to hit back hard. IMO the best executive (and most electable on a nationwide playing field), currently serving in office is Walker.
Ann – “Those are not conservative initiatives?”
Those are indeed conservative initiatives. And I would not hesitate to vote for Christie in a national election if he was on the ticket. While I do detest his positions on issues such as my inherit right to possess firearms and abortion, I also realize it would be very difficult for him (as POTUS) to push such legislation through congress; assuming he desired to use his position as POTUS for such purposes
There are elements of the tea party that are Republicans at their best. –Christie
Conclusion: Republicans are opposed to balanced budgets, liberty, and the American Constitution. Vote Christie for a New America. Christie like Republican presidents before him will conserve his predecessor’s innovations. That’s what conservatives do.
Fools Errand, yea. Nevertheless, we fools go on, masochists to the end.
Unless you want to go somewhere and start your own country, elections will always be a choice between non-perfect alternatives. To me, it’s very simple: Christie, whom I agree with maybe 65-70% of the time, or Hillary (or Heaven forfend, Michelle) whom I agree with 0% of the time.
I don’t understand how anyone who considers himself (or herself) to be a conservative has to even think twice about the answer.
Richard Saunders:
My sentiments exactly.
Except I have come to understand (at least a little) where those conservatives who don’t agree are coming from. I think they are tragically mistaken, and could be helping to sow the seeds of their and our own destruction. But they feel they’ve been ignored and betrayed for too long. And they’re angry. So they want to turn their backs on the whole bloody, imperfect, mess and go for purity of heart, because they think those are the only ones they can trust.
Unfortunately, what happens is this instead (he’s addressing libertarians, but it could also apply to quite a few conservatives). There’s a reason for the old saying “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” The perfect is also the enemy of the less-bad. I’ll even take the less-bad.
I think the “purist” position is closer to:
Liberals are an express train-wreck. RINOs are a slow train-wreck. But both are train-wrecks and are unacceptable.
Coupled to that: responsible conservatives (who happen to be Republican) are implicated in RINO’s failures…whether they supported them or not, it was still a Republican “thing.” Like Bush 43 with TARP, Medicare part D, Iraq War, et.
After 2012, I decided that it was nigh impossible to have an effective opposition party with squishes like McCain stabbing us in the back. Therefore, the priority switched to purging the party. (yes, I understand that Christie is as good as we’re going to get in NJ)
This necessarily shifts the timeframe for effective action farther into the future, but what can one do?
Matt_SE:
One can do both: support the best viable candidates who are running now, especially when they are running against terrible candidates, and work on the long game as well.
I was on that train when it crashed in 1964, and it wasn’t full of liberals and RINOs, Matt. I have no desire to go through that again. Better to take the switch, even though it leads to a track that isn’t quite as far to the right as we’d like.
Neo: I had no idea there were Frenchmen around who were that smart. Except for Comte St. Charles Armand Gabriel de Gramont, but he became an American.
Christie is the incoming chair of the Republican Governors Association. He plans on blocking the “extremists” from having a voice in Party policy.
Great.
I think your suggestion would be helpful for me. I will let you know if its work for me too.” ‘Thank you for this blog. That’s all I can say.