Crazy Person Pushes Lunatic Theory that Casting Hard-Right Votes is Sometimes Politically Problematic for Republicans
As everyone knows, when the Democratic president and Democratic congressional majorities press for the progressive legislation they campaigned on, it’s very politically risky. Meanwhile, nobody faces any risks for obstructing that agenda. After all, these Democrats all got elected by accident, not because any of them or anything they stand for is popular. That’s why Dave Weigel’s post about how Beau Biden is now leading Mike Castle by five points in polling instead of trailing hum by 20 is so nuts:
What’s responsible for the Biden surge? He’s grabbed the lead in vote-rich New Castle County, built up a 41-point lead among Democratic voters, and moved to only 5 points behind Castle among independents. According to the pollster, the shift “may be a result of negative publicity [Castle] received in the state after casting a ‘no’ vote for President Obama’s health care reform bill in the U.S. Congress.” Castle, who has thrived as a moderate Republican in an increasingly Democratic state, has been casting more partisan votes — against the stimulus package, for the Stupak amendment — that have been well-reported in Delaware.
Crazy talk! Meanwhile, the right is trying to give Rep. Kendrick Meeks (D-FL) a fighting chance of making it to the senate by spiking Charlie Crist’s effort to secure the GOP nomination and an easy win.
21 Responses to “Crazy Person Pushes Lunatic Theory that Casting Hard-Right Votes is Sometimes Politically Problematic for Republicans”
Leave a Reply
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 16th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
There’s a bit of context that never seems to make it into stories about polling: a lot of people who were moderate independents have become Democrats over the past four or so years, and a lot of conservatives who aren’t wingnuts have left the Republican Party and become independents.
This changes both the relative size of the three groups – we’re used to thinking of them as each being about 1/3 of the electorate – but also their composition. Independents have lost a big chunk of their more liberal voters, and gained a big chunk of former Republicans, making independents in 2009, in the aggregate, much more conservative than independents in 2002 or 1998.
For a Democrat to be losing 2009-era independents by only 5 points is pretty impressive.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Wait, so which is it? Do incumbent senator have a great deal of ideological flexibility, or does your voting record matter?
November 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
In all fairness, the dems do owe their healthy majorities to the incompetence of the GOP (esp. the Decider and his crew). I doubt how much of the votes were based on actual policy proposals. Also a lot of voters are irrational … they want the services but they don’t want to pay for it.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
At least in Florida, from the right-wing point of view, Rubio is still likely to win a general election fight against Meeks. This is more like the Republican equivalent to the “better” half of “more and better Democrats” that dailykos and other netroots groups pushed in ‘06 and ‘08, rather than simply pushing out the only candidate that might win in the district. Which is exactly what’s going on with Castle’s move to the right, by forcing him to run so far to the right. To go from a 61% win last year in a statewide race, with Obama-fueled turnout, to being down 45-40? Beau Biden can’t be a 30-points stronger candidate than Karen Hartley-Nagle, can he?
November 16th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Kendrick Meeks ? Why not Theresa LePore ?
Why are we giving up a senate seat in advance ?
November 16th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
If we’re really lucky (or devious), the Crist/Rubio smackdown will be so acrimonious that the loser goes on to wage a third party spoiler bid. Siphoning off even 5% of the GOP vote should be enough to hand Meeks the victory.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
A note to commenters and Matt: Kendrick Meek (no ’s’) is the candidate. As I imagine we will be using his name a lot more as the election approaches, we should get it right (sorry for the nitpick – hes my congressman – it just bothered me).
He isn’t a totally inconceivable candidate. He has good a good fundraising apparatus (thanks to the well-oiled Clinton machine in South FL), a clear shot to the nomination, broad appeal to down-the-line dems, a respectable voting record in the house (courtesy of the most liberal district south of Atlanta) and genuine charisma. He doesn’t have the statewide brand of either republican…yet. But that isn’t an insurmountable problem – he just isn’t getting any genuine coverage right now as Crist/Rubio crowd the paint.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Is there any part of Crist’s ideology that would prevent him from becoming a democrat? He seems like he’d be to the left of some of the more conservative democratic senators. If a progressive democrat can win Florida then great, but if not, trying for a defection might be the second best option.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
On the contrary, most who have left the Republicans have left because it isn’t conservative enough. And what exactly is the difference between a wingnut and a conservative? Who would be a non-wingnut conservative, somebody like David Brooks? He isn’t a conservative.
I don’t know what’s going to happen with Biden Jr. v Castle, and I really don’t care, but I will say that denying Obama a Republican vote for Health Care Reform in the House is more than worth the price of potentially losing a seat in the Senate. The only thing the Republicans are currently capable of doing is preventing Obama from getting bipartisan support for his policies, and they are doing a great job in that.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
On the contrary, most who have left the Republicans have left because it isn’t conservative enough.
That is, of course, a total fantasy that exists only inside your own brain and on the pages of worldnetdaily.
http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes
Cliff notes:
1)Republican party becoming MORE conservative and smaller. which would not be the case if conservatives were leaving, it would be becoming more moderate.
2) Independents are continuing to have views more similar to democrats, independents are not becoming more conservative, as you say.
Also this delicious headline:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx?CSTS=alert
Gallup Poll: Republicans Lose In All Demographic Groups Except Conservatives, Churchgoers And Seniors
Conservatives may someday begin leaving the Republican party, but it hasn’t happened yet, conservatives are the republican party’s most loyal following. On the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that moderates have been abandoning the republican party in droves.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Gallup Poll: Republicans Lose In All Demographic Groups Except Conservatives, Churchgoers And Seniors
===========================================================
Except of course, more people would like to see them running Congress
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124226/Republicans-Edge-Ahead-Democrats-2010-Vote.aspx
Republicans Edge Ahead of Democrats in 2010 VoteRegistered voters prefer Republicans for the House, 48% to 44%
And Conservatives outnumber Liberals almost 2 to 1
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
November 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
“Who would be a non-wingnut conservative, somebody like David Brooks? He isn’t a conservative.”
Of course he isn’t! You’re from the fine tradition of wackos who have told me that Anthony Kennedy isn’t conservative (a liberal judge, in fact!) and that George W. Bush isn’t conservative. Remember, folks, real conservatism has never been tried!
November 16th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
As everyone knows, when the Democratic president and Democratic congressional majorities press for the progressive legislation they campaigned on, it’s very politically risky. Meanwhile, nobody faces any risks for obstructing that agenda. After all, these Democrats all got elected by accident, not because any of them or anything they stand for is popular. That’s why Dave Weigel’s post about how Beau Biden is now leading Mike Castle by five points in polling instead of trailing hum by 20 is so nuts:
============================================================
Actually, it’s probably too soon to tell if Biden really is leading Castle.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/de/delaware_senate_castle_vs_biden-1068.html#polls
DKos has Castle up 46 – 45 and Rasmussen has him up 47 -42. One poll does not necessarily a trend make. We’ll see over the next month
November 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Of course, Delaware doesn’t seem to be all red-hot in favor of health care reform anyway, so why should that throw opinion to Biden?
Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?
Strongly favor 33%
Somewhat favor 15%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 39%
http://race42008.com/2009/10/01/poll-watch-rasmussen-delaware-political-survey/
November 16th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Re: “Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
Since these surveys generally allow people to self-label, I’d be careful of reading too much into that. Unlike “liberal” which almost became a swear word, “conservative” retains a respectable connotation for many, and lots of people will use the label while not buying in to much the big-C “Conservative” agenda. Bruce Bartlett considers himself a conservative, as does Andrew Sullivan. Both are caustic in their criticism of big “C” Conservatives.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
This is a liberal district that a moderate Republican can win if he’s smart. But being smart eliminates any candidate from the Republican primary, as does being moderate. So unless he’s a Democrat, he’s toast. And if switches to a Democrat, he’s way too conservative to win the primary. So we can chalk this seat up for the Democrats regardless who’s running. The moderate Republican loses the primary to someone who should be put into a psychiatric institution. The liberal Democrat wins against the moderate, both of which are actually sane. Assuming the Republican candidate actually makes it through the general election without being institutionalized, the Democrat wins simply by being sane. The only variable is that the electorate is completely insane too. The question is who is really sane. I’m considered to be clinically insane, yet everyone who knows me thinks I’m the most rational person they ever met. So I just admit that I’m insane and challenge those of you claim to be sane to act that way. Can you? I doubt it. Regardless, I think where the Republicans want to go is bad. They want to eliminate the Constitution and replace it with Biblical Law. And then I’ll have to buy far more frankincense and myrrh than I already do, build a huge pit in in my yard, and I don’t even know where I’ll find the oxen to burn. I can find the lambs, but those cost a hell of a lot. When the Christian freaks want to force me to abide by Leviticus, I can say my guns and ammo cost a whole lot less then the oxen, frankincense and myrrh they expect me to buy. Want to go there? If not, then shut the fuck up about the one line you chose from Leviticus.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
And don’t give me that shit about Jesus exempting Christians from previous Biblical law. He did, but he exempted all of Leviticus and Exodus and made no exceptions. Matthew does makes exceptions, but he says you can’t have sex with the opposite sex, either. Want to go there? At some point, Christians need to decide who they really believe, and aside from the Catholics, they haven’t. The Catholics have at least pulled their doctrine from a long and broad basis of writings that are entirely inconsistent to make a single doctrine that is still inconsistent, but less so. The Protestants wallow in the mire of “whatever we do is right” crap. And I have no problem with religions having disagreements, but when they say their word is divine, then it is either consistent, or their divine source has some severe psychological disorder. Multiple personality? Schizophrenia? Borderline? Psychosis? Whatever. But the deliberate belief in contradictions is strange and cannot be construed as a normal behavior. Once again, I am insane only because the rest of the world is truly insane. And I’m okay with people calling me crazy, yet nobody has ever been able to defend society as being sane. So why am I the crazy one for pointing that out?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Campy <======== cherry-picker
November 17th, 2009 at 5:48 am
No. I didn’t say that the Republicans were losing voters because of being insufficiently conservative but rather that they were losing members. Big difference.
After 8 years of Bush and the nomination of a RINO like McCain, many conservatives left the party in disgust. Very few Olympia Snowe types have left the party… yet. They will eventually leave but only after their leaders have been purged.
That is actually correct. True fiscal conservatism has proven to be impossible in practice. I will grant that Bush was a genuine social and foreign policy conservative (both are issues I agree with liberals on), but he was radical left on spending and on immigration.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Over 2% of moderate Republican senators have become Democrats, specifically due to the rightward careening of the Republican party.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
pseudonymous in nc ================> hates “inconvenient” polls