In a final round of primaries before the November mid-terms, several non-establishment conservative candidates won again. This narrative has been going on for months now across the country, but last night in one GOP primary, the anti-establishment fervor may have cost the Republicans a winnable seat in Delaware and a majority in the Senate.
Last night, Christine O’Donnell defeated Mike Castle, former Governor, Lt. Governor, and 17 year Congressman in the GOP primary. Mike Castle was supported by popular NJ Governor Chris Christie, and numerous intellectual Republican commentators such as, Michael Medved, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Scarborough and Karl Rove. Christine O’Donnell, the relatively unknown outsider was being advocated strongly by some of the stronger conservative pundits in the business; Sarah Palin, Michele Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. No one would argue that all of the people mentioned have contributed to conservatism. But the short-sightedness of the populus punditry has created a huge fundamental gap in the strategy of the Republican Party. Rove and Hannity debated this divide last night – two guys who rarely disagree, but have two different opinions on which candidates strengthen the party.
This fundamental gap is not between what is right and wrong, it’s about governance and fielding strong local candidates. I can accuse Palin and Limbaugh of using candidates to further their own name-value. While I think it’s true, that’s not the point. The tea party-backed candidates that are winning primaries or fighting against established candidates in moderate districts are chipping away and weakening what should be a golden opportunity to win back both chambers of Congress. The national conservative pundits that push a strong agenda do not take into account the local issues that affect each race.
While I don’t believe, Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc…are “Leaders of the Republican Party” like David Plouffe and the Obama administration like to contend, they are vocal leaders of conservatives with influence over millions of voters. Their influence in a race can be felt. Look at last year’s congressional race in NY-23, when the moderate Republican candidate was beat out by the tea-party candidate Doug Hoffman. They got their candidate in, but it cost them the general election because the guy was unelectable (Hoffman also lost a primary last night). The voting base for a primary can not be compared to the voting electorate in a general election. The purpose of a primary should be to nominate the most electable candidate with comparable values to the seat, not necessarily the most conservative.
So now what happens in Delaware? Well, the national pundits get to spout victory today. Meanwhile, a race that was leaning 12 points to Castle and the Democrats had conceded, now is a 10 point lead for Coons, the Democrat, against O’Donnell. O’Donnell reportedly only has $20,000 in her campaign — hopefully those same pundits can use their network to spruce up that campaign funding. The NRSC has back-tracked on initial reports and said they would support her candidacy, but it will be interesting to see who comes out publicly to help campaign other than Jim DeMint. Reporters will start to dig up things about her past such as Maddow did last night, to reflect her negatively. All homework that typically the RNC would do if they had backed her, but not one of these pundits has done so far. And while it certainly is not impossible that O’Donnell can comeback to win, the chances of winning a moderate state such as Delaware, and of the Republicans taking over the Senate are less likely. Statistics on FiveThirtyEight.com lower the chances from 30% to 21% (if Ovide Lamontagne pulls off a too-close-to-call race in New Hampshire, it lowers to 16%) of a Republican takeover of the Senate.
There is a strong counter-argument to my opinion that I understand. It’s based on not backing down from your principles regardless of the political outcome. Not compromising your beliefs that conservative principles are superior and unyielding. But the question is what is more important; unwavering far right conservatism or a governing majority that can set the agenda in Washington D.C.? It is my opinion the short-sightedness of unwavering support could cost the Republicans one chamber of Congress this November which is far more important than winning a primary and flexing your muscles in a race that would have been a foregone conclusion for the Right.
Often it is rightly pointed out that this nation is a center-right nation. Fielding candidates such as O’Donnell is steering the Republican Party out of ‘right to center-right’ and into ‘far right to right’. Eventually I feel this will have the same negative reaction as the Democrats got as they over-reached their mandate and tried to govern from the ‘left to far left’. If you ignore the center, the nation will at some point turn against you. We are a conservative country. But part of being conservative is understanding the world we live in, when to push for stronger conservative values, and when to compromise and be moderate. The national pundits need to stop fighting these meaningless battles to prove minor superiority in primaries and instead focus on the never-ending war between conservative and liberal governance.
3conservativebros
MacGregor
Johnny M
Timmy K
Even though I’m someone left-of-center, I basically agree with you.
“But the question is what is more important; unwavering far right conservatism or a governing majority that can set the agenda in Washington D.C.?”
Far right conservatism…. I think you have let the media portray the tea party for you. Honestly, I don’t know her record or what kind of damage her far rightness could do but I do know that I don’t want a republican in the senate anywhere that supports cap and trade.
governing majority that sets the agenda… first of all we both know that its going to take a lot more than one seat to repeal health care or privatize social security. We also know that center friendly republicans passed a couple of bailouts, unpaid for medicare benefits, and continued to ignore immigration.
I believe right now there isn’t much of a center. You have the tax and entitle democrats pushing full force one way and you have the tea parties rallying the other. I just don’t see much middle ground on the big issues of the economy. For tax cuts or against, for health care or against, for larger government or against… etc
Ill take your point: I shouldn’t necessarily use tea party and far right interchangeably. But its definitely “right-er” than most establishment Republicans. And I do agree with most all the fiscal reasoning by the tea party.
But you did understand the reason I wrote this. I don’t think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer. Its just a matter of opinion on what is more important. The discussion had the night of the primary was a good debate. I hate to see that it has now developed into friction within the party and name-calling from some on the Right. Hopefully that is all short-lived and everyone realizes its still an important election, and O’Donnell won her nomination fair and square…get behind her now and quit bitching about it.
I think winning both the House and Senate are a bigger deal than not running a regionally strong candidate. I hope O’Donnell wins now, but I do think having the majority is a huge benefit. Maybe it wont overturn things, but more conservative policies will get voted on. Until we run both chambers, I find it hard to believe we will see any policies we want enacted ever happening. Why wait til 2012 and chance it when that can happen now? Castle gave us a more clearer choice to that ownership.
Both parties bitch about their moderates (RINO’s vs Blue Dogs), but they are essential to the debate. Otherwise we just become a stalemated society between hard-nosed conservatives vs hard-nosed liberals and nothing becomes done. The better policy should win out, something that didn’t happen because we were out-numbered in the Health Care debate.
And I disagree that there in no center. There is a vast center. I know many folks like me, that would lean to the right on all the topics that you mention and include in immigration reform – but do not lean as far that way on social issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, and to an extent abortion & drugs. Same with fiscally conservative liberals. You can get that vote with the right candidate.
I know what your saying. The party unifying is important and the fighting within is just a headline.
There is a center and those independents are very important. What I mean is the center has vanished for this election cycle. The social engineering and flat out burning of money the last 4 years or so has rendered the social issues meaningless for now. The pendulum has tipped so far to the left that the middle and the right have converged. This is the reason for some republicans polling so strongly in democratic strongholds. The moderates/independents are jumping off the runaway liberal train all over the country.
This was much of my worry when the tea parties sprouted up over the past year and change. Would they create division amongst the talking heads and establishment repubs? or actually unite those afraid of larger government and our societies western european evolution? It was actually pretty hard to get a gauge of who stood for what, and was O’Donnell a kook or a genuine conservative who can articulate the American values that we desperately need at the moment. But obviously, this Isnt a national election, and Delaware is a Liberal State.
My gut tells me that of course we would rather have someone like Castle in there instead of a Dem, but it also tells me that ive despised most of the “establishment” Repubs for quite some time and I largely blame them for the mess were are in today. They not only defaulted on their duty to the citizens, but they failed miserably in fighting against a liberal media and to sell their ideas and articulate their positions. Here’s a few of the votes Castle has placed.
Voted YES on TARP
Voted YES on Cap and Trade
Voted YES on Cash for Clunkers
Voted YES on the auto bailout
Voted YES on bailing out Fannie and Freddie
Voted YES on SCHIP (w/ tax increase)
Voted YES to increase taxes on oil and gas companies
Voted YES to increase the minimum wage
Voted NO to open up ANWR
Voted NO to restrict eminent domain abuse
Voted YES on McCain-Feingold
So in the end, I would never support someone like Castle,
BUT, this is still a Delaware issue, and i hope the Tea Partiers who mean well in principle, havent overstepped their boundaries and pushed for a crappy and “un-electable” candidate to try and prove a point.
Litmus tests for candidates are a bad route to take, and if the Repubs and Tea Partiers dont realize in a hurry that they are natural allies, they’re gonna end up Ralph Nadering the election.
Finally, aside from the tea partiers and Rush Limbaughites possibly ending any GOP chance at House AND Senate Majorities, I dont think it will be that big of a deal.
It appears to be a shoe in for Repubs to take the House, and I believe Conservatives need a little more time to get their house in order and formulate detailed plans to educate the folks on what makes America America. It’s an easy message to sell, but currently pretty difficult given the media slant and division in the country. Putting more moderate Repubs in who will only stall the Democrats agenda WHILTE NOT outlining clear foundational principles will hurt us going into 2012. In my opinion.