Politico: Conservative state will worsen with Independent Revolt

by smkovalinsky | November 9, 2009 at 09:15 am

180 views | 16 Recommendations | 19 comments

Regardless of the fact that Doug Hoffman was defeated in the 23rd Congressional district of New York on election night, the fact that this defeat was narrow, and occurred on a stellar election night for Republicans will add fuel to the fire burning within conservative camps.

The right will feel newly energized about abandoning the old GOP and going independent in a more broad and realistic venue. The talk of independent revolt will reach a new fever pitch, particularly among tea partiers and Beck fans.

Politico's Gary Bauer makes a strong statement about why it would be a disaster if conservatives were to follow this route.

"Third-party talk has become a perennial post-election pastime among some conservatives. Republicans faced a similar scenario during the 2008 campaign. . . Today, Hoffman’s success and the deep sense of political alienation felt by many Americans might make it seem like the right time for another third-party revolt." ~Gary Bauer, Politico, 11/9/09

As a staunch conservative Republican whose political action committee invested much in Hoffman’s campaign, I believe nothing would hurt the conservative movement, or the GOP, more. National Democrats would love nothing more than for conservatives to start looking for third-party candidates all across the country, because third-party candidates almost always lose.. . .
At the national level, while third-party candidacies can be an important way to draw attention to issues that the two major parties are ignoring, they always fail. In 1992, Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot focused his campaign on the out-of-control federal deficit. And within a few years, the budget was balanced. But no third-party presidential candidate has won a plurality or a majority of the popular vote in a single state since 1968.

A third-party vote is usually a vote for the political enemy. When President Theodore Roosevelt bolted the Republican Party to form his Bull Moose Party a century ago, he managed to win six states, 88 electoral votes and 27 percent of the popular vote. But the main result was to allow Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency with just 42 percent of the vote, while incumbent Republican President William Taft lost.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

albertacowpoke

at 09:23 on November 9th, 2009

Hoffman actually only lost by 3% points. 6% of the vote went to the withdrawn Republican candidate. Where might these votes have gone, if she wasn't in the picture?

smkovalinsky

at 09:25 on November 9th, 2009

ah ha, i thought so as well, and Bauer may be wrong....

nanute

at 09:36 on November 9th, 2009

The fact that Hoffman lost at all is the more telling story, in my opinion. This district is predominantly rural, white and conservative. As has been pointed out, Democrats have not sent a member to Congress from this district since Reconstruction. Outsiders are not looked upon favorably, and the independent mindedness of the North Country doesn't like being "told who to vote for." I found it rather ironic that Glenn Beck came down with appendicitis, and couldn't be available for post election coverage of his chosen candidate. I hope this recent illness turns out better than his hemorrhoid surgery.

Hugh Askew

at 11:34 on November 9th, 2009

Correct, nanute. They are so stinkin' conservation and white, they voted Obama last year.

Pretty good margin, too. O, that's right....the only other choice was John McCa.................

nanute

at 12:22 on November 9th, 2009

They are so stinkin' conservation and white.... Are you saying whites are stinkin? I didn't. I lived in this district for 25 years, and I know the make up pretty well. Not surprised by the Obama victory considering the alternative. I'd guess a large segment of the independent/Republican base stayed home. McCain has a serious credibility issue with the "conservatives" and picking Palin only confirmed the suspicion, and said volumes about his judgment.

a211423

at 09:41 on November 9th, 2009

The current divide between the Democrats and Republicans seems to me, and I could be wrong, between liberal and conservative ideals. If the Republicans believe in reviving Conservatism then why not just become the party of the Conservatives? Then they won't split the party and risk deluting votes. They can be the party for the fundamentalists and big business. Why try and pretend to be "for the people" when their voting records do not reflect this? Not all Democrats are liberals, but the majority vote in favor of social agendas.

rng

at 10:02 on November 9th, 2009

The GOP does have a problem. It is failing to appeal to Hispanics, African-Anericans and the young. This gives them a longer term demographic problem. Plus the party is absent a though leader so is being dominated by the far right personalities such as Palin and Limbaugh. The Republicans demo (and their own pollsters admit this) is predominantly aged and white which is on the decline. In addition, the social conservatives alienate many central fiscal conservatives. if they can't pull substantially from the center they are going to have a longer term electoral problem

Karen Hatter

at 19:50 on November 9th, 2009

And as they seem more hell bent on the continued lurching motion toward the far out Right Wing everyday, Rng, it doesn't seem the GOP is concerned with addressing the appeal problem they have.

QueensHart

at 09:56 on November 9th, 2009

The Republican party is not just BIG BUSINESS and FUNDAMENTALISTS. Please no polls or statistics shot back for everything is "changing" and not in the way Obummy says.

smkovalinsky

at 10:01 on November 9th, 2009

Well: I would say Big Business, Fundamentalism, Founding Father Fundamentalism, Constitutional Fundamentalism, Libertarianism combined with Tea Party Stoicism, Ruralism, Regionalism, anti-Politcal Correctness; James Madion worship; Jeffersonian Principles Idealism; Glen Beckian Idealism; Equity Classical Liberalism without recent global Europeanism ....

a211423

at 10:19 on November 9th, 2009

We talked about the need for an emerging hero of the GOP in order to unite the party, but besides Palin, no one comes to mind. They thought it was McCain who appeared to be a centrist, but even with Palin who rallied the fundamentalists, he lost. In a nation that is struggling economically, conservative points of view do not play well, and thats why Obama got elected. He appealed to the needs of the majority of Americans. Having said this, he needs to deliver at least with job creation in the next three years, or the GOP will have a hay day with this in 2012, and might be able to put anyone on the ballot and have a chance to win.

If you consider the demographics are changing with the growing numbers of those 65 and over, they might consider appealing to the older voter. The ethnic disparity has to be along fiscal lines with minorities belonging to middle and lower income groups. Unless the GOP expands their platform to include representation on social issues effecting these groups, I don't see how they can ever hope to gain minority votes.

rng

at 10:33 on November 9th, 2009

I think you are correct. The GOP experience is not unique. It is not uncommon for a party to be a little in disarray after losing a Presidential election. They will repoistion and regroup. Their new leader is out there but just isn't apparent yet. Obama will get slapped in 2010 but I believe the young voters will turn out again which they didn't in the last. Obama has to act decisively, push his policies, forget the bi-partisan posturing this opposition won't play that way. Then he can be judged on what he did. If he dithers and doesn't act for fear of criticism then he becomes a sitting duck, IMHO

smkovalinsky

at 10:30 on November 9th, 2009

I agree, A, and the GOP needs to appeal to a growing populism, and that is not going to change, except by increasing.

a211423

at 10:50 on November 9th, 2009

Bi-partisanship was an ideal, but we have seen the realities. I agree Obama needs to move now with intention to fulfill the Democratic platform, and in this he can be true to himself and those of us who voted for him.

The only Republican who voted for the house Health Care Reform bill was Joseph Cao. He voted in the best interests of the people of his district, not the Republican party. I think both parties can take his actions of setting a precedence as those of conscience, not of personal or political reward or gain. To me, he is the hope for a new kind of politician. If the Republicans are looking for leaders, I hope they don't pass up people like Mr. Cao.

rng

at 11:00 on November 9th, 2009

I think the Republicans are none too happy with Mr Cao just at the moment. Just hold your nose, take a deep breath and pop over to Michelle Malkin's site and see the lambasting in the comments section he is taking there. Ouch!

a211423

at 11:13 on November 9th, 2009

If they are really upset, then we can be sure he did the right thing. : )

Being on the right side of the people who voted for you is more important than being on the right of side your party, no matter which party it is. Likewise, if the Democrats that voted "no" are representing their constiuency, this should be their guide. It's difficult to say this knowing how badly we need health care reform, but we have to have faith in how our system works because if it doesnt work for all of us, it doesnt work for anyone. (Someone elso said that, but I dont know who.)