Anyone want to guess when the national Republicans are going to learn their lesson?
Democrats picked up a northern Mississippi House seat in one of the most conservative-minded districts in the country Tuesday night -- an upset that will reverberate darkly through a House Republican caucus already reeling from losses in special elections in Illinois and Louisiana.
With 411 of 462 precincts reporting, the Democratic nominee, Prentiss County Chancery Clerk Travis Childers, leads Republican Greg Davis, 52 to 48 percent. The Associated Press has called the race for Childers.
The victory marks the Democrats’ third straight special election pickup in three months. It will be a serious blow to the Republican Party’s already-flagging morale and will surely prompt a new round of finger-pointing among the already fractured GOP caucus.
The special election was held to fill the seat of former Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who was appointed to serve out the remainder of Sen. Trent Lott’s term last December. Wicker had never faced a competitive race since first elected in 1994, and the district gave President Bush 62 percent of the vote in 2004.
My guess is 2012.
UPDATE: A remarkable statement from the Chair of the NRCC:
Think about this Cole statement - "Democrats are running as conservatives, and Republicans can't beat 'em." So take that club out the GOP arsenal heading into November.
That tells me two things. The first is that conservative ideas are still popular, at least in some parts of the country. And the second is that national Republicans have no credibility to claim that they're conservative and Democrats aren't. And the reasons for that are clear: earmarks, corruption, out-of-control spending, entitlement expansion, border security, energy policy. And the list goes on and on. National Republicans, especially in the House and Senate, don't stand for anything. And when you don't stand for anything, you will be beaten in surprising places and in surprising ways by people who do stand for something, and you will have no standing to criticize them for doing so.
What exactly is the lesson you think Republicans should learn, IP? They spent a lot of money. They sent heavy hitters like Cheney and Laura Bush to campaign. They tried to tie Childers to Pelosi and Obama. What exactly should they do? Repudiate Bush's invasion of Iraq? Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?
Repudiate Bush's invasion of Iraq?
That would be a good place to start....
They should try standing for something, rather than merely standing against Pelosi and Obama.
They should realize that all politics are local, even US House races in Mississippi.
They should realize that when a Democrat can win in a R+10 district by being more credibly conservative than the Republican, perhaps it's time to realize that there's a credibility problem on conservative issues that extends beyond the President's miserable approval ratings.
Issues matter. Principles matter. Let's start with that.
Remember way back when Oberweis was the only Republican in the country who could possibly lose a safe Republican district to some obscure Democrat? Wait, that was two months ago. Hardly unique.
I hope Republicans take your advice, IP. The problem is that Oberweis, et. al. just have not been conservative enough. Americans want more tax cuts for the wealthy. Global warming is a myth. Less regulation of business, particularly the mortgage banking industry. We like paying more than anyone else in the world for a health care system that isn't in the top 10 for results. One hundred years in Iraq. (I know, I know, McCain said he meant stay there if no Americans are getting killed, but what does that mean exactly -- to pull out if Americans are getting killed, like now?) If McCain loses in the fall, it's because he's too liberal. If only the Republicans would have had the foresight to nominate a real conservative, like Mitt Romney (at least on some days) things would be looking a lot better in the fall.
I agree with what you said about national Republicans, but you should also add to that list the near total failure of Bush's post re-election presidency. He's a huge albatross on the neck of every Republican running for office, regardless of the individual's records, message, or ideas. The GOP won't even begin to successfully re-brand themselves until GWB has left office, and until then we should expect further congressional losses. Having said all that, I find it interesting that Democrats still felt if necessary to go dirty in the last days before this special election with a big lie of racism against GOP candidate Greg Davis. Is D. Boon consulting for the DCCC?
"I hope Republicans take your advice, IP. The problem is that Oberweis, et. al. just have not been conservative enough. Americans want more tax cuts for the wealthy. Global warming is a myth. Less regulation of business, particularly the mortgage banking industry. We like paying more than anyone else in the world for a health care system that isn't in the top 10 for results. One hundred years in Iraq."
The problem isn't just crappy framing of issues, although you do a nice job of that above - almost as nice as the national media. ;-)
It's that even when Republican candidates frame an issue correctly and campaign on it, they have no credibility, because they've not stood for anything for six years or longer.
A great issue on which to take a stand would be an abosolute, 100 percent moratorium on earmarks, with a permanent ban on undisclosed/unattributed earmarks. But the GOP Reps. and Senators aren't interested in that, and so if earmark reform progresses, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats will (rightly) get credit for it.
"Is D. Boon consulting for the DCCC?"
No. But D.Boon is smarter than the NRCC, and knows that trotting out frightening images of Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright aren't going to be enough to win elections, even in Mississippi.
Issues matter. Principles matter. All politics is local.
It's not rocket science, but it seems to be beyond the understanding of the geniuses in Washington.
IP says, "All politics is local. "
A nice sentiment and it has some truth, but top-down is killing the Republican Party.
As far as all politics is local, why then is the Champaign County Republican Party so weak? This is still a Republican county, isn't it? The loss of the County Board years ago which allowed a new districting map keeping the Rs out, the loss of the State's Attorney, the trouncing by Naomi, the election of Frerichs, the uber-lib Urbana council with only 1 R, none of that looks good and none of it bodes well. On top of that, the R party locally is now dominated by young turks, the older members having given up, mostly, their interest.
All politics is local, so why the repeated losses? Is it maybe the local party is tied too closely philosophically with GWB? Is it that the message doesn't get out? Is it that the message is just old, worn out, and not appealing to the wave after wave of new young voters coming into the system? Is it just because being too conservative is too easy because it is a reaction against the libs, instead of what it should be, a progressive moderately conservative direction?
Moderates are branded by Limbaugh, and that branding is carried down to the local level, at least around here. Maybe a more "moderate" platform that appeals to the average voter would be better than the reactionary one that is the same old same old.
Bush spent 8 years trying to "take issues away" from the Dems, and the GOP Congress went along mostly. Medicare drugs, NCLB, plenty of pork for home districts, and plenty of money for the farm bill. They stood up to him on the immigration bill - to their credit.
Maybe it will take a Pres. Obama for the R's in Congress to remember their principals. Local GOP's everywhere need to be getting folks ready for runs in 2010.
"As far as all politics is local, why then is the Champaign County Republican Party so weak? This is still a Republican county, isn't it? The loss of the County Board years ago which allowed a new districting map keeping the Rs out, the loss of the State's Attorney, the trouncing by Naomi, the election of Frerichs, the uber-lib Urbana council with only 1 R, none of that looks good and none of it bodes well. On top of that, the R party locally is now dominated by young turks, the older members having given up, mostly, their interest."
One, I don't really follow your logic that because the Champaign County GOP lost some races that all politics isn't local.
Two, I don't think the Champaign County GOP is particularly weak, at least not in comparison to its lowest point in 2002 or 2004. In 2006, for example, Republicans in Champaign County nearly won a solidly Democrat seat on the County Board, despite it being a huge Democrat year nationally, and despite it being the beginning of a rebuilding effort for the local GOP. Ditto for Frerichs' State Senate race - my expectations were that Frerichs would do significantly better in Champaign County (and that's what I wrote at the time, too). I argued at the time and still argue that focusing that campaign on Blagojevich rather than local issues was a mistake. In addition, the 2007 local elections went very well for local Republicans.
Three, I could offer the converse of your argument about local party strength: if the local Democratic Party is so dominant and the local GOP so weak, then why have local Democrats lost so many local races? Why the clean sweep of Champaign Council and School Board seats in 2007? Why is there even one GOP council member in uber-Democratic Urbana? Why no opponent for Mayor Schweighart? Why the lack of challengers to GOP County Board and Countywide officeholders? Why no opposition for Reps. Rose or Cultra, or Sens. Rutherford or Righter? Why do the Democrats have one less seat on the CB than they had in 2004?
I'm not trying to make the argument that the Champaign County GOP is stronger than the Dems, as I don't think that it is (yet!), but rather that cherry-picking results (especially in a handful of gerrymandered districts) can make either party look better or worse than it really is.
Four, in a comparison to the national Republicans that makes a little more sense: there has been no clear difference between Champaign County Board Democrats and Republicans on many issues of significance: electing Wysocki and Beckett to lead the Board, accountability on the CCNH construction debacle and subsequent mismanagement, firing Deedrich and appointing Jenkins.
"Maybe a more "moderate" platform that appeals to the average voter would be better than the reactionary one that is the same old same old."
Actually, my point is that it doesn't matter what the platform says if nobody trusts you to follow the platform. Right now, the national Democrats have more credibility than Republicans, even on issues like tax cuts, spending, earmarks, corruption, etc. because the Republicans have so often broken their promises on those issues.
It is the good fortune of a local nature of politics that will save a remnant of Republican candidates who are truly good men. For the rest of them, they will go right on spiraling merrily down the toilet, rope around their ankle as the deadweight "true war hero" McCain pulls them down...down...down.... It's a matter of honor to them and they are more than willing to give their life for the party. Some of them dont even seem to mind the rope, in fact some of them seem to like it.
Blame GWBush all you want, but compared to John S. McCain III, GWBush looks like Reagan. And you should know for sure that you are in deep deep trouble when people start saying (other than in jest) that Mitt Romney is a "true conservative". This crushing destruction of the GOP in Nov 2008 may be the only way to rid us of the scourge of warmongering neoconservatism, but 4 years of Obama seems a horribly tragic price for us to pay for the "cleansing". Exchanging GWBush for Obama will be like driving out the rats to make room for scorpions. It's just that McCain seems like so much worse of a rat than GWB that folks dont notice what the Pied Piper of Obamalin has got in his satchel.
They should not repudiate Bush's invasion of Iraq. They should repudiate his performance as Commander-in-Chief for not going in with adequate force. That's what Colin Powell wanted, and that's why he's no longer around. By not going in with enough force to secure the borders and disarm the internal ruffians of which Muqtada al-Sadr is a bitter ender, we allowed the enemy to regain his footing, external enemies to enter, the info war to convince the world that America is evil, and all of that to inflict terror on the people and to dishearten Americans. That's why we're in the mess we're in, and you can lay that totally at the feet of (the I think well-intentioned) Bush and Rumsfeld.
"Tax cuts for the wealthy"? I got a tax cut, and I'm far from wealthy. But beside that, who do you suppose should get a tax cut, but the people who pay taxes? If it is anyone else, then you are proposing government handouts, wealth redistribution. Which is it that you oppose, that anyone got a tax cut, or that the wealthy (you say) did?
-
See the Academy, where we start at pretension and never look back.
Tax cuts are only relevant and useful if spending is curtailed as well. The current administration has cut social programs, but upped overall spending more than any in history.
With lower taxes and focused spending to developing programs, you get massive growth. With lower taxes and overspending you get debt and long-term contraction.
Tax cuts are only relevant and useful if spending is curtailed as well. The current administration has cut social programs, but upped overall spending more than any in history.
With lower taxes and focused spending to developing programs, you get massive growth. With lower taxes and overspending you get debt and long-term contraction.
Carumba!
Maybe Xian IS becoming a Republican and a (true) True Conservative. I am sure he ain't there yet but connecting the dots, he is headed in that direction.
Well, it depends on what this nebulous term "conservative" really means. Democrats are incredibly wise to try to even the playing field in the "social conservative" arena. Gun control, abortion, gay rights, etc. These are battles that will not be won or lost in the political arena - they will be decided (for the most part) in the judiciary. So why cling to these issues?
The economic conservatives are easily attacked and destroyed. In fact, America has never wholeheartedly embraced concepts like "trickle-down economics", and most Americans today are pretty sick of conservative economic policies that essentially steal from the poor to give to the rich. We could argue if that is what the policies actually do (I think they do), but either way the perception in America is that the richest Americans have done very well under Mr. Bush while the rest of us have struggled. This is the area where the Democrats can make the most hay, as we see in Mississippi.
I won't even bother addressing the idea of conservative foreign policy. Nothing will destroy a political party quicker than overseeing a loss on the battlefield. It will be many years before a Republican will be trusted by the American people with the keys to the military. Even if McCain wins, he will need to clear a much higher hurdle with the American people in regards to any military action than Obama will.
And then there are issues like the environment, or health care which the Democrats clearly own. Spending billions in Iraq while only attempting half-measures on the environment and health care will look really, really stupid to the American people. We can't afford universal coverage for our children because we are building bridges in Iraq? Gee, there's a winning issue.
This is a disaster of your own making, Republicans. You worked for and helped elect one of the worst Presidents in American history. You defended him until most of your credibility was destroyed. You sat by with hands folded as our citizens were rounded up and placed into camps in the name of fighting "terror". You talk about smaller government and saving tax dollars will never criticizing the $5000 a second that is spent on Iraq. What exactly did you expect?
You talk about smaller government and saving tax dollars will never criticizing the $5000 a second that is spent on Iraq.
Boon, you rightly state that it is a totally illogical non-sequitur to say that one is for small government and at the same time try to be the Imperial Policeman of the whole friggin' world. This is quite frankly the strangest un-think about the neocons, and anyone who dares to question the Imperialistic National Aggression of the Neoconservative Establishment (INANE) policy is said to be an unpatriotic believer in aliens in black helicopters. There is no doubt that the GOP does deserve to have their collective arses kicked for lapping up the drivel of the neocons and regurgitating it unto the masses. It may be what the neocons did post-911 is not to be the crime of the century. We have more than 90 years to go, eh?
How can Republicans win in 2008? By switching party.
Cole apparently has decided to go back to what he knows in the cold light of the morning after. Talking Points Memo reports today that "GOP To Continue Using Obama To Bash Down-Ticket Dems"
"On a conference call with reporters today, NRCC chair Tom Cole confirmed that the party will continue using Obama to tar Dem House candidates, in much the way the GOP has historically used figures like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi to do the same."
(snip)
"But Cole is undaunted by yesterday's results, calling the anti-Obama strategy a "useful tool" for hitting Dems in conservative areas: "I think reminding people that we have a very liberal, and I think very inexperienced Democratic nominee, and that your opponent is likely to be supporting that individual, is interesting.""
Quoted in Slate, today:
"The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006."
-- Rep. Tom Davis, former leader of the GOP Congressional campaign committee
"This is as bad as I can remember since post-Watergate."
-- Craig Shirley, Republican strategist
Yep. And our national leaders are going to counteract that atmosphere by running against Barack Obama.
Brilliant!
Yep. And our national leaders are going to counteract that atmosphere by running against Barack Obama.
It is a particularly stupid idea. And wins like the one in MS make me wonder about the whole electoral college strategy. Is Mississippi, of all the states, actually in play? In Dems can win in the suburbs south of Memphis, why can't they win the whole state? And if it is possible to win a state like Mississippi, what about Georgia or South Carolina? How vulnerable is the GOP this year?
Well, either way I think this particular election shows the limits of the attacks against Obama. Rev. Wright seems to have had a negligible effect, even with (especially with?) Republicans. Maybe it is because more Repubicans go to church and understand that going to a church doesn't mean you agree with every sermon that one of the many pastors from that church ever gave? Or maybe the power of Bush's unpopularity is just too strong to be counter-acted with character attacks?
I don't know the answers, but pursuing a campaign devoid of solid ideas in lieu of attacking the black candidate doesn't seem like a very smart strategy. If Obama is so weak on the policies, why not attack him there?
"And wins like the one in MS make me wonder about the whole electoral college strategy. Is Mississippi, of all the states, actually in play?"
No. Obama will not win in this district, and will almost certainly not even come close, as he's much, much more liberal than Childers, the Democratic candidate in this house race.
"How vulnerable is the GOP this year?"
Potentially very vulnerable, if Obama's campaign can ramp up turnout to record levels in the right places. But you'll notice that even under Obama's "best case" scenario that McCain still wins MS.
"Well, either way I think this particular election shows the limits of the attacks against Obama."
Not really. It shows that you cannot attack a conservative Democrat congressional candidate using Obama's liberal views or questionable associations. Which should have been obvious all along.
But it doesn't show that Obama is invulnerable to being attacked for his liberal views or questionable associations. It doesn't show he's vulnerable, either.
"If Obama is so weak on the policies, why not attack him there?"
He will be attacked on his policies, and on his associations, as will McCain.
But Obama wasn't on the ballot in MS, despite Tom Cole and the NRCC trying to put him there. Neither was Bush, but the lack of credibility of national Republicans certainly was.