TPMDC makes a notable catch--Marco Rubio, darling of insurgent conservative candidates everywhere, has not actually been embraced by the Florida tea parties:
In the midst of Sunday's heated Florida Republican Senate primary debate on Fox News Sunday, moderator Chris Wallace asked Marco Rubio a question that surprised many viewers up early on a Sunday to watch the festivities.
Wallace read Rubio a viewer email. "'Ask Marco Rubio why he refuses to be vetted by the Florida Tea Parties. I want to hear from Rubio or I will not vote for him,'" Wallace said. "We got this from a bunch of Tea Parties all over the state."
Behind the question is an interesting discovery: Despite carrying the torch for insurgent conservatives everywhere, Rubio actually has a problem connecting with the tea parties in his home state, according to several tea partiers I spoke with yesterday.
Wait-so tea parties actually have nothing to do with Rubio's success? But, at least they elected a guy from Massachusetts who stopped health care, and who has stayed true to tea party principles while in office! Oh wait...
Monday night, Brown announced that he would join four other Republicans in voting to block a GOP filibuster and move forward with a $15-billion jobs bill designed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Almost immediately, the political blogosphere exploded.
Cries of "letdown," "betrayal," "sellout," and "RINO" -- "Republican in name only" -- flew around Twitter. By late Tuesday afternoon, more than 4,200 people had left comments on Brown's Facebook page, most harshly negative. (And liberals engaged in some cyber-schadenfreude at the same time.)
Even the supposed tea-party success in the NY-23 special election, where conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman managed to push Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava out of the race, was actually engineered more by well-established groups like The Club for Growth than any new grassroots movement. The Club endorsed Hoffman early in the campaign (September 28th), and spent over $300,000 in support of Hoffman. This is several orders of magnitude beyond any material support offered by the tea-parties.
It is also worth noting that unlike the tea-parties, the Club for Growth has a long record of making huge impacts, including several big victories, in Republican primaries. Compared to the established success of the Republican primary-challenge machine, the tea parties are a new, and laughably ineffective addition.
OK, so elections where the Club for Growth isn't pulling the strings in the background haven't gone well for the tea partiers. But, at least they made a big impact, independent of existing right-wing infrastructure, on the health care debate with their town halls, right?
Despite conventional wisdom, polling indicates that the health reform plan actually increased in popularity last August during the tea-party assault on town halls. They were entirely ineffective at swaying popular opinion against the bill.
Even all of the protests, rallies and other grassroots enthusiasm around the tea-parties was clearly evident in 2008, after Sarah Palin's nomination, long before the term tea party was even coined. The anti-Obama rhetoric, and cries of socialism, was there too. About all tea parties have done is provide a long-standing right-wing political machine with a new image. This is actually a useful development for conservatives, since portraying their movement as based in grassroots energy, rather in than large corporate donations to the Club For Growth, plays better in the media. The new branding is undeniably a positive for the conservative movement, but really it is about all the tea parties have actually accomplished that existing right-wing infrastructure would not have achieved on its own.
It will be weeks, if not months, before the analysis of 2009's off year election results fade from the forefront of political commentary, particularly among conservatives. While the White House spin machine is content with downplaying the results as purely a function of local issues, conservatives have attempted to paint these contests as a referendum on the Obama Administration, or more bizarrely, the next step in "the American people taking back their country". Most seasoned political observers know that off year, special and mid-term elections are characterized by low voter turnout and that party activists play a much greater role in determining the outcome. Viewed through that prism, the 2009 contests fall clearly into the pattern of typical off year elections. Thus, the primary question is this: If the 2009 elections exhibit all of the characteristics of other off year elections, how can they logically be seen as a referendum on the Obama presidency or the opening volley in some great populist uprising. After all, if the American people are so disgusted with the Obama Administration, would the rising chorus of conservative opposition not propel them to action and would we not observe a significant up tick in voter turnout?
Analyzing the Gubernatorial races first, it is impossible to deny that local issues dominated. Democratic strategist Steve McMahon pointed out that property taxes and the increase in insurance rates, both of which are state level issues, are a big part of why Jon Corzine was not re-elected. While not directly involved, scandals played a role in Corzine's demise as well, culminating in last summer's roundup of a cast of characters from politicians to rabbis. Corzine's affiliation with the investment firm Goldman Sachs and his aloof political style did nothing to endear him to the people of New Jersey. As one NPR reporter put it: "Corzine never mastered the art of retail politics." Political columnist A.P. Stoddard pointed on November the 3rd that if Corzine lost it would not be Barack Obama's fault as in New Jersey; Obama had an approval rating in the vicinity of sixty percent in contrast to Corzine's thirty nine percent. In the end, Corzine wound up losing by four percentage points to Chris Christie.
In Virginia, the issues that Republican Bob McDonnell focused on were improving the state's economy, job creation and solving longstanding statewide transportation problems. Of these, only job creation could conceivably be linked back to the Obama Administration. While many voters are skeptical as to just how many jobs the Administration's stimulus has created, most people still believe that Obama inherited a difficult situation, the blame for which cannot be laid at the door of his White House. In contrast to McDonnell, the Democratic challenger, Creigh Deeds was a relative unknown who struggled with name recognition till the very end.
What is notable about both races is that the Republican winners eschewed the currently fashionable conservative think tank groupthink, which prescribes a political philosophy that hews to the hard right. As you will recall, following the defeat in the 2008 election cycle, most of the outspoken conservative commentators and theorists claimed that when the G.O.P. moved to the center it lost elections and that future electoral victory could only come by moving further to the right, the further, the better. Neither of the winners in New Jersey or Virginia dwelled on aspects of the "Culture Wars" nor did they resort to the now hackneyed rant about "a slide toward European Socialism." Moreover, both Christie and McDonnell ran upbeat, politically moderate campaigns, devoid of the shrill histrionics that have come to dominate rightwing talk radio or the "political commentators" currently practicing their craft on Fox News. In contrast both Corzine and Deeds ran very negative campaigns to which the voting public now turns an increasingly deaf ear.
Another big issue that can't be ignored is voter turnout. Political writer Paul Loeb summarizes voter turnout as follows: "In exit polls, Virginia voters under 30 dropped from 21% of the 2008 electorate to 10% this year and from 17% to 9% in New Jersey. Minority voting saw a similar decline. In both states, over half the Obama voters of a year ago simply stayed home, more than a million people in both Virginia and New Jersey. With this collapse of the Democratic base, even relatively modest Republican turnout could carry the day, and did." That said if this off year election is characterized by such low turn out levels, how could conservatives make an argument that there is such a dramatic rejection of the Obama agenda? Were the races in New Jersey and Virginia truly a referendum on Obama? If exit polls are any indication, they apparently were not. Edison Research provided a view as to whether or not Obama was a factor in people's decision to vote by way of these exit poll results:
New Jersey:
Support for Obama - 19%
Oppose Obama - 20%
Obama not a factor - 60%
Virginia:
Support for Obama - 18%
Oppose Obama - 24%
Obama not a factor - 55%
Thus in both races over 70% of those who answered exit polls said that Barack Obama did not play a role in their getting out to vote in what were essentially local elections. So much for the idea that the results of this past election constitute a rejection of Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have only moved up since the August Town Hall Follies. Meanwhile, the G.O.P. is polling its lowest approval rating since polling began and only twenty percent of Americans identify with the Republican Party.
Let's now turn to New York's 23rd Election District, where a Republican has held the Congressional seat since 1871. It is in the 23rd, a district that has all of the demographics that favor Republicans, that the newly energized national Conservative movement chose to show just how effective it can be in both defeating a Democrat, upending a moderate Republican and turning the tide on Barack Obama. Prior to the election the district was besieged with conservatives from all over the country including volunteers from prominent conservative grass roots organizations like, The National Organization for Marriage, FreedomWorks, of Tea Party fame, and the Club For Growth, which spent one million dollars backing the conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. Such conservative luminaries like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who predicted a conservative victory, tried in vain to nationalize the election. The cause of Mr. Hoffman was championed by both the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and by the NeoConservative organ, the Weekly Standard. In the face of this unprecedented conservative effort, Bill Owens won by endorsing the Obama Agenda, in an economically depressed region where unemployment has been north of ten percent for some time. This is the second time since the election of Barack Obama, that a Democrat endorsing Obama's agenda has beaten a Republican with national conservative support in a district that demographically favored the G.O.P. The other instance is the special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's vacated Congressional seat earlier this year.
What the outcome of the election in New York's 23rd Congressional District shows is that beyond the world of right wing talk shows, the blogosphere, tea parties and grass roots activism, the appeal of the radical right may be much more limited than had been previously assumed. Could it be that the "August Town Hall Follies" with their tenor of rejection, vitriol and political dramatics have convinced few that conservatives have anything meaningful to offer an electorate that is essentially moderate, but that has been trending to the left over the previous two election cycles? It certainly leaves one to wonder just how effective Sarah Palin can be as a national political figure, seeing as she has yet to have any significant outcome on any race in which she has been involved. After all, isn't she the darling of the base, the one individual that can really turn out a crowd?
Don't get me wrong; there is a wake up call for the Democrats in the results of the 2009 elections and in 2010 there is no guarantee that they won't lose more seats, the incumbent party usually does. If it happened to Ronald Reagan, it can certainly happen to Barack Obama. Obama has clearly lost support among independents and people are rightly concerned about the upward growth in federal spending. At the same time, Americans know that this is no ordinary time and that the situation we currently find ourselves in is not the work of the Obama Administration. But those jumping to the conclusion that 2009 is all that meaningful should heed the words of Purdue University Professor of Political Science, Bert Rockman: "I see no particular harbingers for 2010. While people are deeply unhappy about current conditions, they are also keenly suspicious of Republicans." But the bigger takeaway from all of this is that as far as 2009 is concerned, rumors of Barack Obama's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Based on the facts cited above, claims that a great anti-Obama populist revolution is underway cannot be substantiated. More to the point, the great citizen's revolt to "take back their country" seems only to be alive and well in the delusional fantasyland of tea parties, birthers and far right conservatives who can't seem to abide a climate of much needed political change.
In an interesting twist yesterday, the FEC ruled that donors who contributed to the Specter campaign while he was a Republican can now be contacted and informed of their right to request a refund.
The FEC voted 4-2 to advise the Club for Growth -- a conservative group tied to Specter's main GOP rival -- that it was within its legal rights to contact Specter donors and remind them of his pledge to provide refunds to any contributors unhappy with his party switch. When Specter announced he was leaving the GOP earlier this year, he promised to return campaign contributions from the 2010 cycle "upon request."
[...]
The FEC, which keeps tight restrictions on the use of donor lists, ruled that the Club for Growth can send one letter or make one telephone call to each donor, but the group cannot sell their names, addresses and telephone numbers to others, or request contributions.
In one sense, I see this as a marginal violation of privacy. If you give to a candidate more than $200 in an election cycle, campaigns are required to disclose you publicly, and you show up in public records. But there are lots of donors to campaigns who never show up. Is the Club for Growth now able to access the Specter campaign's entire donor list, even those who gave him $25 and $100? To me, I don't relish the prospect that the Club is able to view the names, addresses, occupations and employers of the entire Specter donor list, even if they are unable to use that information for their own fundraising purposes. I would hope the FEC required safeguards to keep the process blind should the Club decide to call or mail a donor.
Also, does this only apply to the Club, or can a group like National Right to Life contact these donors if they wanted to? I haven't seen answers to this anywhere.
On the other hand, this is good news for the Sestak camp- last FEC filing had Specter at $7.5 million and Sestak at $4.3 million. Specter had $5.8 million in the bank four weeks before he switched parties, which he had been raising since 2004, meaning almost 3/4 of his money was from people giving to a Republican. This may have a significant effect on draining his coffers.
Update: Over e-mail, a friend and campaign finance attorney says that the Club will only get to use information of those donors who are publicly available, e.g. contributors over $200 to the campaign per cycle. The Club is not allowed to use that information for resolicitation on their behalf.
Regarding the ability of conservative groups to "pile on" and each get one phone call and mail solicitation encouraging donors to ask for their money back, he writes:
As long as they're truly working independently, yes. The Commission seemed to place great weight on the privacy concerns of contributors and CfG's assurance that this was a one-shot letter or phone call.
To date, Specter has returned just $126,000 in individual contributions and $97,000 in PAC contributions. This could grow significantly if the Club and other groups all mobilize, although there are resource costs to them of doing that. I have doubts that a lot of people understood the vagueries of campaign finance law and knew they could get their money back.
I'm putting together a spreadsheet of electoral votes, adjusting for the massive swing in self-identified party membership over the last few years. In 2004, 42% of voters thought of themselves as Democrats, and 42% as voters. Today, 50% of voters self-identify as Democrats, and only 35% as Republicans. That is, well, stunning.
To put that into perspective, if you translate the party self-identification shift straight across the country and adjust percentages from 2004, we're talking about going into an election where the Republicans can count as safe 'red' states where they will have 55% majorities as Alabama, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. That's about 30 electoral votes. Democrats will actually have a majority of the electoral college as a base, just from states like Ohio and Nevada becoming safe 'blue' states. We'll start in a position to just run up the score.
That sounds crazy, I know, but it's not unreasonable to believe that over the past three years, 10-15% of the voting population has changed their mind and felt a sense of betrayal towards the Republican Party combined with a new sense of liberalism. In fact, it would be strange if that hadn't happened. Now, self-identified registration changes aren't evenly distributed, but it is useful as a thought experiment to think about what kind of impact they will have on the electoral map. To understand the upcoming election, we have to understand this new bloc of 'betrayed' voters and throw away the conventional wisdom of 2000-2006 red and blue modeling of politics. We're in landslide territory.
Newt Gingrich and the rest of the GOP leadership is praying that the Sarkozy model will apply here. Sarkozy is the conservative French President who was able to succeed an unpopular conservative French President by running as a change candidate. I don't think that's likely, because of the organization of the Republican Party and its authoritarian base. Matthew Yglesias points to this Ron Brownstein Op-Ed on how Republican Senators and House member are facing primary challenges.
Hagel, the most outspoken Republican critic of the war, has already drawn a serious primary opponent (Nebraska Atty. Gen. Jon Bruning) for next year, and Graham and Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens could face challenges in the primaries too -- which would make 2008 the first time since 1978 that more than one Republican senator has faced such a challenge. More than half a dozen House Republicans, all of them in Republican-leaning districts, also have attracted primary challengers.
I've hit this theme before, and I think it's one of the most underreported storylines out there. Republicans are responsive to a prowar right-wing elite and an authoritarian base, which is making them much less appealing to 70% of the country. They are living in la la land, where the economy is great and we're winning the war in Iraq. And their moderates are basically dead, or nearly so.
It's time to begin planning for a Democratic landslide election, and working to think through how to position progressive Democrats. I'm working on a piece on 'extractive industry state Democrats', progressives who come from mining and energy intensive states like Alaska, Wyoming, and Texas. But I'm not sure if that's the right place to look.
How to appeal to these 'betrayed voters' is one of the key questions we have to work through. Who are they? What do they want? And how can we make them permanently part of our coalition?
STATE BLOGS
