Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Campaign Spot

Election-driven news and views . . . by Jim Geraghty.


Print   |  Text
 

Can Tea Party Candidates Win Statewide in Swing States?

At some point, the question of GOP statewide candidates and the Tea Party style will have to be hashed out; Jonah touches on this a bit in the Corner in discussing Pete Spiliakos’s concept of “RightWorld Provincial.”

When Sharron Angle was in the Nevada state legislature, she was the most conservative lawmaker in the state. Nevada is not a deeply conservative state; with Bush winning it twice and Obama winning it once, and a split Senate and House delegation, it is a classic “purple” state. It is exceptionally rare to see purple states electing the most conservative lawmaker in the state to statewide office. In this light, Angle and her team are to be saluted for doing as well as they did.

Was Ken Buck too conservative for Colorado? Perhaps; it too is a classic purple state: won by Bush twice and Obama once, two Democratic senators, Democratic governor, divided House delegation. Republicans dominated the state’s politics in the first half of the past decade; Democrats, the second half.

Carly Fiorina’s defeat in California, by a wider margin than many expected, proves that sometimes you can have an “establishment” candidate who stumbles and falls, too. We can argue whether Dino Rossi or Linda McMahon fit the definition of “Tea Party” candidates, and acknowledge that the Tea Parties explicitly seek to build a better and more principled political movement, not just a winning one.

But if Republicans want to win Senate seats, they need their primary voters to have a sense of how conservative a candidate they can nominate and still win. In Kentucky, you can nominate a Rand Paul. In Utah, you can replace a Bob Bennett with a Mike Lee and still win handily. In South Carolina, Republicans will be able to nominate someone much more conservative than Lindsey Graham in 2014.

But in other states, particularly the blue Northeast and West Coast, Republicans are probably not going to win statewide races with candidates who stir the hearts of Tea Partiers. (Remember, Chris Christie was allegedly the “establishment moderate” in the New Jersey governor’s primary.)

You can sense where this is headed, right?

Delaware is a dark-blue state. It scores D+7 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index, it has a Democratic governor who won by 36 points and another Democratic senator who won by 50 points in 2006, and Democrats control the state senate and state house. The last Republican besides Mike Castle to win a big statewide race was Bill Roth in 1994; the last Republican besides Mike Castle to win the governorship was Pete du Pont in 1980.

If somebody wants to argue that Mike Castle was too much of a squish for them to support, that’s fine — I can’t begrudge someone making cap-and-trade their line in the sand — but what was particularly troubling during the whole primary fight was the number of conservatives, including some I really admire and respect, pretending that a conservative firebrand had a serious possibility of being elected in this state. Even in a big Republican wave year, Christine O’Donnell never had a chance. Out of respect for her and her supporters (and my readers who were big fans of her), I didn’t beat this drum during the general election. But now that the votes have been cast and counted, and the result is a 16-point margin of victory for Coons, it is time to look clearly at political realities.

O’Donnell had a few shining moments as a candidate, and got a raw deal in much of the coverage. But in the end, this state’s current electorate would never elect the kind of Republican who would score . . . oh, 80 to 100 in the ACU ratings, as O’Donnell almost certainly would. The realistic options were either the guy with the lifetime 52 ACU rating (Castle) or the guy who will probably have the 10 ACU rating (Senator-elect Coons).

In 2012, Republicans will need challengers for Senate races in Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, and California, as well as friendlier territory. In these blue states, perhaps they will discover a staunch conservative who can win over independents by sheer charisma. (I support human cloning of Marco Rubio.) But more likely, for a Republican to win in these states, they’ll need a challenger who can emphasize some Tea Party points while still strongly appealing to independents and deviating from the party line periodically. The template would seem to be Scott Brown or Chris Christie, but perhaps Paul LePage, the new Republican governor of Maine, is another example . . .

UPDATE: One of my readers, a Republican in Delaware who’s plugged into state GOP circles, offers these thoughts:

My assessment is that only three states in the nation did not experience some benefit of the “wave” on Tuesday – California, Hawaii, and Delaware.  Even New York picked up unanticipated congressional seats and out-performed in other congressional races; and clearly without any help from the top of the ticket.  The two congressional losses in Connecticut were a disappointment, but as of this writing, the GOP candidate for Governor may yet win.  So the states and regions varied from a ripple to a tsunami.

[Note from Jim: Massachusetts readers are probably lamenting that they feel on par with California, Hawaii, and Delaware.]

As to Delaware, as I feared, Christine O’Donnell not only lost badly to Coons, she precipitated a down-ballot disaster for the GOP, an outcome that would never have occurred with Castle running for, and likely winning, the U.S. Senate seat.  O’Donnell claimed on Tuesday night that she forever changed the Republican Party in Delaware and she is right: she has put the GOP on life support, transitioning Delaware from dark blue to navy blue.  O’Donnell’s negative coattails were as follows:  State Senator Colin Bonini, a genuine conservative running for state Treasurer, had counted on Castle being at the top of the ticket – as did all House and Senate challengers throughout the state.  Bonini lost 51-49.  Our GOP state auditor, Tom Wagner, barely held on by 0.5 percent and may yet face a recount.  In the State House of Representatives, the GOP needed a net gain of 5 sets to flip the chamber back to the GOP (held by the Ds 24-17).  The GOP had held the House chamber since Pete du Pont’s days as Governor until the Obama-Biden landslide of 2008.  Instead of gaining seats on Tuesday, the GOP lost additional seats, giving the House a liberal veto-proof majority over a Democratic governor.  GOP challengers in Brandywine Hundred, the most Republican suburbs of New Castle County, went down to defeat in two races that were deemed an easy flip.  In one seat held by a freshman GOP House member won in a special election in December 2008 in a slightly more challenging suburban district, this GOP incumbent was defeated in the Democratic tide.  In other areas of New Castle County, polished and well-recruited GOP challengers in the Newark and Middletown suburbs lost by 2-1 or worse.  In Kent County, a Democratic member arrested for DUI in mid-October, who was expected to lose by partisans on both sides, was re-elected.

The GOP base obviously had its issues with Mike Castle, culminating with the congressman’s cap-and-trade vote in 2009, but this was the wrong moment to punish Castle: cutting off their nose to spite their face.  Not only were the in-state consequences horrifying, Delaware threw away a senator who would have been #1 in seniority among the freshman class, given his 9 terms in the House, his former governorship, and his immediate swearing-in to fill the Biden vacancy.  In addition to losing a GOP seat in the United States Senate and giving the Delaware GOP some badly-needed life to continue a rebuilding process, we are left with ashes.  We burned down the village to save it.  Moreover, Castle was only going to serve the remaining 4 years of the Biden vacancy and then retire.  At least the GOP would have had the opportunity to groom a successor from a growing conservative bench.  We now have nothing – zip, zero, nada.

That is not to say that Castle wasn’t warned of what was coming: according to the Weekly Standard, NRSC officials pleaded with Castle to get back to his base, take off the $600 suits, and win the GOP primary fair and square.  He had more than adequate warning, with conservative victories on the march from Nevada to Colorado to Alaska – just weeks before the late Delaware primary.  If Fred Barnes is correct, Castle refused the advice of the NRSC and badly mishandled the O’Donnell threat.

However, in the final analysis I do not understand the logic of demanding ideological purity when the choices are as follows: a near-guaranteed win for someone who agrees with you 60% of the time; or taking a long-shot risk with someone who agrees with you 100% of the time.  Instead we got, perhaps for life, a new senator who agrees with us zero percent of the time.  Castle has been wrong on environmental issues for years.  So be it.  You take the good with the bad in this business.  Cap-and-trade wasn’t going to be enacted with a GOP Senate majority in any case.  We accomplish nothing if we are out of power.  Moreover, Castle wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, cut spending, repeal and replace Obamacare, and strengthen national defense.  This is a good start for me.  Senator-elect Coons shares none of these objectives.

I am not pleased or impressed with Palin’s track record this cycle: she has proven that she cannot carry water in her own state; and she, Levin, Hannity and DeMint made a serious miscalculation in Delaware.  Palin’s lame explanation that Castle would not have necessarily won the seat and that it was “worth a shot” is not only wrong, but it further demonstrates that she is not worthy of being the GOP standard bearer in 2012.  Everyone recognizes that the Tea Party movement has been a tremendous asset to the GOP and that the two institutions can work together to rebuild a center-right coalition for the foreseeable future.  But the Tea Party types must recognize that there are limits to which an electorate will move in blue states, and that you must nominate, in Bill Buckley’s theorem, the most electable conservative. 

And, ultimately, candidate quality counts – particularly to independent voters.  O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle were not ready for prime-time and the scrutiny that accompanies conservative candidates in races of this magnitude.  Is this fair to GOP conservatives? No.  But it is reality.

Tags: Christine O'Donnell, Ken Buck, Mike Castle, Sharron Angle

New on The Campaign Spot. . .


COMMENTS   51

EXPAND  

   11/04/10 11:15

I don't entirely disagree, but let me offer some other points for consideration.

In neighboring Maryland, Bob Ehrlich, an eminently reasonable, establishment, "electable" Republican, lost his bid for Governor by a margin similar to O'Donnell's. He had beaten the Palin-endorsed Brian Murphy in his primary.

And exit polls in Delaware suggest it might not have been quite the shoo-in for Castle that some keep insisting. (I recognize that's not your argument.) CT, MA, MD, DE...some states were mighty resistant to the wave, regardless of the candidates.

Additionally, part of the dynamic in the Delaware primary, it seems to me, is that the national party had been fine with O'Donnell as a Senate candidate twice before. What were they telling Delaware this year? "Normally, we don't care and make no effort in your state. Go ahead an nominate a witch. Whatever. But this year it matters, so vote for who we tell you to vote for."

This was a really bad year to try to sell that message to the grassroots.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:15

Oh Jim, you've done it now. Mark Levin on Line 1 for you, and Dan Riehl is holding on Line 2.....

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:24

The "most conservative candidate who is electable" standard is correct, and it's a shame so many people got overly emotional in the Delaware primary. There aren't many places where Castle is the best we can hope for, but Delaware is one of them. We can afford to be picky in Utah and South Carolina, and for all the money that poured into O'Donnell's campaign we could buy Senate seats in the Montana/Dakota area for DECADES.

We need to pick our battles and be realistic. Lasting change won't happen overnight.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:24

I understand both sides of the O'Donnell argument. But why did anyone expect the primary voters to vote for Castle, when he continually let them know he despised them and all that they stood for? All Castle had to do was give lip-service to Conservative causes. Mike Castle was as much to blame for the Delaware fiasco as anyone else.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:39

Can Tea Party candidates win statewide office in swing states? Let me be clear: yes they can.

Via Mark Tapscott, here are some reasons Buck lost:

* In Colorado, and this is the biggie, Ken Buck barely lost. The NRSC, shortly before the end of the Colorado Primary, sent millions to Jane Norton freeing her up to attack Ken Buck to be anti-women. Michael Bennet then picked up Norton’s campaign attacks and clobbered Buck.

* Likewise in Colorado, neither the NRSC nor the RNC funded a GOTV program. They relied on the Republican Governor’s Association, which left Colorado when Dan Maes cratered.

* Instead of pouring in additional resources to Washington, Colorado, etc., the NRSC sent $8 million to California in the last week for Carly Fiorina who lost by somewhere around ten points.

* GOP Senate candidates underperformed their polling at around 3% in most races. Why? Because the NRSC did not fund a ground game operation, nor did the RNC. They either left it to Karl Rove or Haley Barbour. There was not, as in past years, a mass exodus of GOP Hill Staffers from Washington to the ground in swing states.

Also Buck didn't do himself any favors with his comments on homosexuality, which helped fuel perceptions of him as an extremist on social issues, which -- while it might work in CO Springs -- won't fly among swing voters in the Denver suburbs.

As for Angle, let's keep in mind she was up against the freakin' Senate majority leader who was able to call in a lot of favors. He had the support of many in the business establishment, including nominal Republicans who enjoy having a direct line to Reid's office, and won the Hispanic vote big-time. We also know that Hill staffers descended on Nevada to help with GOTV.

Neither Buck nor Angle lost because they want to cut government, which is the heart of the Tea Party philosophy. Indeed, Bennett-supported ads hit Buck for favoring a 23% increase in the sales tax (an obvious distortion of support for the fair tax). Philosophically, there isn't a ton of daylight between those two and Toomey or Rubio. They lost because of too many gaffes and errors (also thinking Joe Miller here).

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:41

In purple/light-red states, I think the conservative/tea-party base also needs to avoid a more conservative-than-thou way of selecting nominees. When you’ve got someone like Sharron Angle running for the nomination, it may make someone like Danny Tarkanian or Sue Lowden seem like RINOs in comparison, but on what issues of substance would they vote against the conservative cause? It may feel good to reject mainstream conservatives in favor of an Angle or Buck, but what do you get? Reid and Bennet again. This is not to say Angle and Buck shouldn’t have been elected---if I lived in Nevada or Colorado, I would have been very excited to vote for either, and I think Nevada and Colorado voters were foolish in sending back those two pathetic Democrats, but tea-partiers and hardcore conservatives need to better understand that swing voters are much more likely to vote for a subtly conservative candidates than ones who freak them out a bit. A lot of the most successful Democrats know this well; they talk like moderates but vote just as far to the left as their more outspokenly liberal colleagues. Liberals seem to be more tolerant of their candidates speaking in a moderate tone than we are, and I think that’s to our detriment. Unless you have a state like South Carolina or Oklahoma, getting someone who doesn’t come off as mainstream is asking for trouble. Besides, what do you gain by electing the most conservative member of the House or Senate? You can only pass legislation if the median member is conservative enough. And our parties biggest stars---Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and others---are our biggest assets because of their competence, intelligence, speaking ability, and charisma, not because they form the right flank of the Republican party.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 JEM
   11/04/10 11:47

A way to get fiscal conservatives on our side in the NE and left coast is to try and drive to a federalist model on social issues. On abortion Roe v. Wade (and Doe)is an abomination of constitutional jurisprudence, why shouldn't those issues be fought out closer to where the people actually live and work and raise their families?

That is what freaks the NE and left coasters out. I realize the left tries to nationalize these issues and get a sympathetic ruling because they could never get it passed, but since the tea partiers are most worried about fiscal issues as well, why couldn't they play a two pronged approach based upon location - all conservative where it can be, both social and fiscal - and go after the fiscal in liberal states. The advantage here is if you can get enough tough fiscal and consitutionalist members in congress and start to shrink the government and reign in the areas it plays can't you force the social back to the states and fight the battles there?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:48

Self identified "Tea Party" organizers need to remember that being the most conservative candidate doesn't make you the best candidate, Marco Rubio is probably just as conservative as Angle or O'Donnell or Buck or Miller, but its his ability to explain his views in a clear, compelling and reasonable manner that made him a exceptional candidate and the others complete duds. Santorum did a great job being a real conservative in a blue state (until he ran into the most conservative pre-manchin) democratic senate candidate in the country. It can be done, but it's the quality of the candidate at least as much as thier ideology or the temperment of the state's electorate that decide elections.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:53

Second mypalfish's comment. Castle didn't bother to give Republican primary voters a reason to vote FOR him.

It doesn't matter who the opponent is. If you're in a contested primary, you have to give the party base some reason to vote for you. Tout some aspect of conservatism that you consistently support -- be it opposing big spending bills or anything else. There had to be something within that 52% ACU rating he could have run an ad about.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 11:54

Jim, a handful of points.

1) I saw an analysis yesterday (forget where) that showed Castle wouldn't have won, either, so I'm not sure Delaware is the right race to argue.

2) But, since we're arguing Delaware: is the problem with running a conservative, or running the right conservative at the right time? O'Donnell was competitive early. It wasn't until her past caught up to her that she nosedived. If you really believe it's impossible that an actual conservative can win in a blue state, perhaps it's time to devote those resources to the purple ones instead (although your implicit argument that a conservative can't win in Nevada either would seem to mean conservatives should only stick to red states).

3) Most of us who aren't GOPers don't have a problem with a GOP that includes more "moderates" of the McCain / Graham / Bush 43 stripe. Or even some Snowes. Maybe even a Lincoln Chaffee, if you keep him on his meds and away from the cameras.

What we don't want is a party run by those types, which is largely what we've seen over the past 20+ years. That's the major reason why conservatives like myself aren't Republicans: the GOP has shown little interest in using conservatives as anything more than dupes for its center-left members to achieve power. There's a serious trust gap with many conservatives the party has to make up. Anonymous post-election sniping at DeMint (to use one example) doesn't do much for that trust.

We don't mind a big tent. We mind a big tent run by a bunch of clowns.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 12:00

mcgruff: "Liberals seem to be more tolerant of their candidates speaking in a moderate tone than we are"

Joe Lieberman might beg to differ.

Indeed, find me a Senator on the left in the past decade who's the equivalent of a Snowe or a Voinovich.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 12:06
   11/04/10 12:14

Are we supposed to concede that these states will be off-limits to conservative candidates forever?

There needs to be a concerted effort to persuade. Losing but informative candidates can sometimes help in this over the long run. The main thing is that they should realize that the public does not stand with them yet and needs to be educated.

Reagan didn't wake up one day to be the Reagan we know or to enjoy the political success he later had. This takes work and time.

In the meantime, we should avoid electing anyone who will roll over for the Democrats.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 12:21

re DrHorrible, "O'Donnell was competitive early."

No. No she was not. She had MAYBE one or two polls within single-digits, but right away she was down by double-digits in most polls, and a week later it was ~15 points.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 12:47

Ditch: "We need to pick our battles and be realistic. Lasting change won't happen overnight."

This is a fair point in general, but in the context of the Senate, the conservatives have been continually undermined by the 50-ACU rated Republicans. Getting to a majority with types like Castle, McCain, Collins, and Snowe is fool's gold.

Even though candidates with baggage like O'Donnell and J.D. Hayworth ran and didn't get elected, it may prompt conservatives with better pedigrees to run for these senate seats where they otherwise wouldn't.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 12:48

DrHorrible: "O'Donnell was competitive early. It wasn't until her past caught up to her that she nosedived."

Except we knew about her past before the primary. Maybe not the witchcraft specifically, but we knew she had tax issues and that she said wacky things on late-night TV in her youth. Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity et.al. all said that didn't matter ("Castle is as clean and pure as the wind driven snow?" was Rush's favorite go-to bit). But clearly, they were wrong.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 DBL1
   11/04/10 12:53

While being more moderate might've helped the difference between Rubio and Angle (or Miller or Buck...) is that he's a good candidate who isn't going to handcuff reporters and knows what to say and not say. None of these candidates won their primaries based on their skill. They won because their names were on the ballot. Then conservative activists and the Tea Party Express got them elected.

Marco Rubio knew how to run a campaign. So did Bob McDonnell, despite him allegedly being too socially conservative. Candidates need to lead. We can't drag them across the finish line.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 12:57

Jim's post and the comments make many good points about what he calls the Tea Party *style*. But I think half the issue is that the Tea Party name has been tarnished. Not by any actual wrongdoing, but simply by repetition from the chattering classes that it's extremist, frightening, racist, whatever. 15 months back, people found tea parties and town halls to be refreshing and examples of pure democracy. Now the movement has been demagogued to the point where the monicker is a net negative, and not just in blue and even purple states.

A similar dynamic is at work with Gov. Palin. Unfortunately she's so divisive a figure with so few people neutral on her, that a Palin endorsement costs her endorsee more votes that it gains them, just about anywhere. Maybe even Alaska.

I'm not saying we have to abandon tea party ideals. But the Tea Party name is unfortunately tainted. Now that conservatism has something of a voice in DC, there's less urgency about working outside the established GOP framework. Not that the usual suspects won't call the party itself extremist too, but the somewhat apolitical moderate voter the GOP needs is harder to persuade that the entire GOP, which he's been familiar with all his life, is extremist, than he is this one movement that he's only heard of since mid-2009.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 12:58

Primary voters choose the candidates they want to represent them in Washington and it is up to those voters to decide whether they want candidates who reflect their values and principles or candidates who are more likely to win. My personal preference is to trust that the candidates who reflect my values and principles will make sound arguments and offer reasonable alternatives that appeal to a wide-range of voters. If those candidates lose because a majority of the voters chose to go in a different direction, then so be it. That's what elections are for. But voting for a candidate who won't represent me well simply because he or she is a Republican is no better than voting for the Democrat.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/04/10 13:22

As jim has said over and over, we need to be realistic. Go ahead and primary Scott Brown, Collins, Snowe, the senator elect kirk, etc. with an O'Donnell and the D's will pick up all those seats for as long as they want.

Can we get someone a little more conservative than Snowe and Collins in Maine? Yeah, but certainly not someone with a ACU of 85. The enemy of good is perfect. I'd lose 100 R senators like Demint and Colburn but that isn't going to happen. Look at the D's, to get into the majority they needed Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, the ones from the dakotas, montana, virginia, etc. and while they all voted for obamacare, they are not chuck schumer/boxer liberals.

How did the D's win congress in '06? The ballerina recruited the Heath Schulers, etc to run as conservatives in R districts. He didn't run libs, he just used them to get into the majority to get the lib agenda passed. They were useful idiots who are now mostly unemployed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact