Election Update

It was obviously not a good day for Republicans.  But it was not disastrous, and could produce some unexpected benefits later.   We will discuss local, state and national results.

1. Local/State-- One of the key findings in the U.S. Congressional races is that the general public was trying to send a message about GOP corruption, particularly in the House of Representatives.   In Guilford County and in Raleigh, we have more than our share of improprieties, conflicts of interest and corruption.  It never came to be seen by the electorate as a mandate for change.

Of course, this is nothing new.  North Carolina and Guilford County/Greensboro have had de facto one party government for a long time.  Republicans know better than to expect otherwise, although this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Republicans need good candidates willing to work to get elected; a better donor base; and more visible, active, efficacious campaign operations.  Easier said than done.

To some extent, these results are preordained by gerrymandering of district lines.  But the demographics are also powerful.  The Democrats in North Carolina have at least three solid demographic groups that will vote for them reliably, regardless of merit-- the old Yellow Dog Democrat prototype-- and its descendents; African-Americans; and northern liberal transplants. These groups, and perhaps others, provide a rigid, inflexible base of support that is quite predictable. 

But there is also a major difference in the manner in which the media has treated the Bush White House and the national Republicans, and the manner in which state and local Democrats have been  treated.   The national  Republicans are subjected to relentless, negative, prominent, intense, repetitive unfavorable coverage; whereas the state and local Democrats engaging in corrupt or quasi-corrupt activities get an occasional mention, an article buried in the B section of the daily paper, or an outright pass.  The drumbeat is usually not employed.

Republicans  should have won the House in the light of Jim Black's multiple scandals, but it did not happen.  A number of local Republicans should have been in a position to win given the ethical lapses of their opponents.  The people of the state and county, respectively, were ignorant and oblivious on what has happened in their state and local government-- but they knew about macaca.

There were a few bright lights.  Phil Berger, Jr. won the District Attorney's race against the incumbent in Rockingham County.  Congratulations to Phil for a good campaign that effectively differentiated himself from his opponent.   Garth Hebert won a school board seat. 

The judges that were elected to the State Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, with few exceptions, represent question marks in my mind.   We do not know the extent to which they will try to  grab power and legislate from the bench on social issues.

A majority of the city bond proposals failed.  Notwithstanding the sloganeering, Greensboro will "keep going" in spite of these results.  The failure of so many of the bond packages represents a mild repudiation of the City Council and the interest groups with which it was attempting to curry favor.   Voters probably approved more than they should have, but this result still has to be  viewed with some degree of relief in view of the pre-existing tendencies  of local voters and the governing culture they elect.

2. National-  On one level, the Republicans got what they deserved.  Excessive spending, corruption, mixed signals on immigration and Iraq have all been problems.   George Bush's Clintonian strategy of triangulation has finally caught up with him.    He sought to soften the hard edge of conservative fiscal Republicanism by opening the spigots of federal spending.   He  sought to defuse the oppositional  forces in the media and the Democratic Party on matters of war by waging it in an equivocal fashion.

There are several strains of oppositionist zeal that have been working against Bush's efforts.  One group never wanted to go to Iraq in the first place.  Another wants us to withdraw.  Yet another is willing to shift gears, but otherwise finish the job.  Yet more have been inordinately concerned with such issues as Abu Ghraib, GTMO, surveillance, the Geneva Convention, occasional mistakes made by US soldiers, and the legal rights of accused terrorists.  Some were highly concerned about American casualties and the presence of our boys overseas; whereas others were quite concerned about Iraqi casualties.  And of course, these groups sometimes overlap.

At least, this is what the oppositionist forces would have us believe.  But the point is two-fold-- first, that even with a Democratic Congress, it will be very difficult to unite these discordant voices behind one strategy-- and, as a result, they in some respects do the nation a disservice at a time when unity should be paramount;  and second, Bush's approach to war, designed to forestall some of their criticisms, was seemingly inadequate.  The new ground rules are that we cannot wage a war in which we will have significant casualties and collateral victims-- even if it means our nation will not be able to survive, as we know it, in the long run.  We can't send more young men to battle, or draft them.  We can't fight back against the  nations waging war against us.

Bush's opponents were smart, and he allowed them to tie him up in knots by establishing ground rules that made it inordinately more difficult to win.  On Iraq, and also on Katrina, the national media dutifully acquiesced in a relentless barrage of negative reporting.   

Bush shares responsibility for the fate of Republicans.  But he was also severely undermined by those that wanted Republicans to fall.

It is hoped that the war on terror will somehow shift to the right track in spite of what has happened.  This war is one of the major potential casualties of yesterday's election.

Judicial nominations will become even more challenging, but not impossible.  Republicans will need to strategize and act aggressively to preserve the President's nominating prerogatives particularly in the event any more Supreme Court vacancies occur.

Vernon Robinson lost handily.  He scored less than Virginia Johnson two years ago, but more than the opponents of Howard Coble and Mel Watt.   A ultra-liberal Democrat-- Brad Miller-- continues to represent what is apparently a very liberal Democratic district.   It would be interesting to know how the demographics of that race worked out at the polls.

George Allen also apparently lost in Virginia, although the race has not been officially consummated.  He was an excellent Governor and Senator.  He managed his campaign poorly, and this provided a valuable dress rehearsal for what could have later been a disastrous Presidential campaign.   A leader who previously appeared to make few mistakes was thrown off balance and never recovered.  In spite of all the vitriol and criticism, the magnitude of his putative offenses were nothing compared to some of the things we have seen in Guilford County and Raleigh.  But he lost, causing the Senate to change control; whereas North Carolina's status quo remains.

But Allen was victim of a intense, prolonged, negative pattern of media coverage that was undeserved.  His race became a vehicle for all those seeking to undermine the President, change control in the Senate and derail Allen's Presidential ambitions-- simultaneously-- and they succeeded.   A Benedict Arnold was propped up  to run against him, and the rest is history.

One perceptive commentator-- I believe it was Thomas Sowell-- said that a flood of "moderate" Democrats was elected to bring increased power to immoderate Democrats.   It will get worse before it gets better.

Comments

[Lex]

In one sense, Sowell actually underplays the nature of the disaster for Republicans. On the national level, there was no flood of moderate Democrats. Most of the Democrats elected were more liberal (or, to use their term of art, "progressive"). The more centrist, DLC-type Democrats (e.g., Harold Ford) tended to lose. Heath Shuler (anti-abortion, pro-gun, etc.) got most of the publicity Tuesday night, but Heath Shuler was the exception, not the rule.

[Jim Caserta]

Joe the word you're looking for is thumpin. If Republicans were serious about winning Miller's seat, they would have nominated a better candidate. Saying the game isn't fair after it's over is not the attitude to have.

"On Iraq, and also on Katrina, the national media dutifully acquiesced in a relentless barrage of negative reporting." So the problem was the reporting, not what was actually going on?

People voted for change. When there are problems, and the people in charge refuse to acknowledge them, there is no chance they will fix them. Acknowledging things have gone wrong and not according to plan in Iraq, or that there were problems during Katrina (at all levels) is a simple necessary step to improving things for the future.

Bush acknowledged a need for "a fresh set of eyes" yesterday. My problem with our Iraq policy has been the best-case scenario planning, the ignoring of the situation on the ground, the obstinance to change, and the demonization of anyone criticizing the official policy. Bush's press conference was uplifting yesterday. He got the message and seems ready to work hard his last 2 years. I don't know why he doesn't hold more open press conferences, as he handles them well.

I never saw a good argument for why one should vote for Allen over Webb. The issue that seemed to come up with conservatives was court appointments, but you should base your choice of a senator on a wider range of issues.

Lex, there were a lot of very moderate Dems elected, especially to the Senate, Casey, pro-gun Webb & Tester.

[Jim Caserta]

I totally missed this, "A Benedict Arnold was propped up to run against him, and the rest is history." Do you mean a Republican turned Democrat, or a traitor?

[Joe Guarino]

Lex, Jim is right. The election of Webb and Casey-- two so-called moderate Democrats-- was enough to change the balance of power in the Senate.

Jim, I am not sure, at this point, that any Republican would beat Miller. Two years ago, Virginia Johnson was an attractive candidate who "played nice" in a manner that did not ruffle the feathers of those on the left in the media. She lost by a large margin also.

On Iraq and Katrina, the reporting was always part of the problem-- a big part of it-- but not the entire problem.

You are correct that some change needs to be made to the Iraq strategy. But Tuesday's election did not even remotely provide the consensus to suggest what that change should be. Retreat still is not an acceptable option-- so where else do we go according to the election results?

The argument in favor of Allen was always a very good record as an incumbent senator and former governor. Judicial nominations had something to do with it, but was not the whole thing. Again, this was a guy who was on many Republicans' short lists for President six months ago.

Jim, with respect to the Benedict Arnold remark, I meant both.

[Lex]

Sorry, guys, Tester and Casey are indeed moderates like Shuler, but they remain exceptions if you look at the total pool of new faces going into the House and Senate.

Rick Perlstine names names here: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806

[Jim Caserta]

Recognizing the need for change is a necessary step towards fixing the problem. There are many who argue that the biggest problems associated with Katrina & Iraq have been how they have been covered by the media. With no media coverage, those would still be huge problems. Hiding it doesn't help.

Lex, you could add Webb to the moderate list, and without those three, Dems would still be down in the Senate.

I was checking state-by-state house elections and noticed that NC is now more Democratic than FL, 7/13 seats Dem, vs 16/25 seats Rep in FL. I'm going to check, but I'd imagine many republicans in FL are at least as liberal as Shuler.

[Jim Caserta]

Not a TNR subscriber. Any free links to the shift towards the left?

[Joe Guarino]

The degree to which the federal response was represented as being a critical lynchpin of response to local/regional natural disasters was mistaken based on the historical roles respectively played by each level of government in these matters. But Katrina played a major role in the declining perception of the Bush Administration. In some respects-- as in the case of the Coast Guard-- the federal response was admirable, even critical-- but it was also unreported.

Yes, the handling of Iraq and the war on terror has been a problem, but the steps needed to fix it would not be agreed upon by the national Democrats-- or permitted by the national media-- short of withdrawal. The national Democrats and the media coverage help create the political environment that makes it very difficult to do what is necessary.

[Jim Caserta]

Part of what Lex is referring to may be the near sweep of New England. "New England will send 21 Democrats and only 1 Republican (Christopher Shays) to Congress next year." http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/11/view-from-massachusetts.html

[jw]

So, then, for you the possibility that the voters were careful and deliberate in making their choices does not exist? Are elections just a matter of gerrymandering and demographics and predictable special interest groups? Why can't it be that the citizens of this country made thoughtful decisions regarding the direction of their country?

[Jim Caserta]

Is FL more conservative than TX? http://jimcaserta.blogspot.com/2006/11/nc-more-liberal-than-fl.html
By %age of representatives in the House, the answer is yes.

[Joe Guarino]

JW, I imagine there are a few out there that are thoughtful and deliberate, but I expect that the gerrymandering and demographics in NC are nearly dispositive for many races.

Jim, it would not be surprising to me if Florida was more conservative than NC. NC is an anomaly for the southeastern United States.

[Fred Gregory]

Joe,

Good points on Virginia Johnson. Brad Miller sat in Raleigh and drew the lines for Utah's , er NC's 13th district for which he knew he would be running. It is comprised of two thirds of his old NC Senate seat . By registration it is 55% Democrat and 28% Republican . It is also heavily weighted with minority preincts in Wake and Person Counties. Congressman for life ! ( unless he gets caught in bed with a 12 year old boy )

[Carl Strohmeyer]

This is my opinion what the Republicans need to change:

• Lose the arrogance.
To often Republican leaders lose touch with little guy, my local State Representative just stepped down, but while in office he had an attitude of arrogance when disagreed with on issues and would attack the source rather than truly discuss the issue. He also really looked down on the youth in our community. Thankfully he is being replaced by a more humble Republican man.

• Image is not everything, in fact it should be number 3 or less:
Often politicians and businesses put image first (real common in our area). Truth should come first; People should come second (or first); Then maybe image (yes image does sell, politically and professionally).
Voters (and consumers) also need to honor those who do put truth and people above image. In my business, I have dropped major accounts do to poor treatment of my employees I have sent out in the field, I also have tried to sell only what I know works based on my testing in my maintenance business. But sadly I see politicians and businesses get rewarded for image and not honesty.

• Stand up for the Truth:
Sadly many politicians will not take a stand for the truth or at least what they believe is right. Joe Lieberman stood his ground against his own party and paid for it in the primary, but not in the general election. I do not agree on the majority of his views, but I have to give him credit here. What happens in my opinion is far left leaning politicians such as Nancy Pelosi get in power when no one Democrat or Republican stands up to them.

• Admit to not always being right:
Unfortunately Republicans are not always right (I sure make mistakes, wish I didn’t). Admit to mistakes.

• You cannot have it all:
This is where the Christian right gets into trouble, they will insist on 100% or nothing, such as no abortion-ever. Start with what you can get, such as a ban on partial birth abortion.
Governor Schwarzenegger is a good example of this, many Republican would not back him do to some more liberal views, but in my opinion, he was vastly better than the alternative.

[Joe Guarino]

Carl, thank you for offering an Oregonian perspective. You make a few good points, especially about the truth, image and arrogance.

Fred, thanks for your supportive comments, although I have to disagree slightly. Based on prior experience, if a male Democratic congressman is caught in bed with a 12 year old boy, he will complain that he has few other social outlets, and will later be elevated to a committee chairmanship.

[The CA]

Joe, let Lex and other liberals like him continue to ignore what actual, living breathing conservatives are saying about why they are upset with the GOP and why they switched sides during this election or stayed home. Many of these races were very close between Republicans and moderate to conservative Democrats, and if preliminary results are accurate, 2% of conservatives stayed home. That's not a lot, but enough to swing a number of these races, especially when combined with the number of independents voting blue over Iraq and also because they feel let down by the GOP.

It's not because of abortion or stem cells as some might have you believe.

All of the conservatives in the local blogosphere have said the same thing- we are mad at Republican's for selling us out. We are mad because they spent money like Democrats. We are mad because they weren't tough on immigration. We are mad because they dropped Social Security reform. And yes, a lot are mad about Iraq.

We did not become liberals overnight, but if that is what they want to think, then fine, let them. It will work to our advantage in 2008 assuming our guys get their act together and return to their Reagan roots. Let them continue to believe that there is some liberal mandate while completely ignoring the results of the ballot initiatives which were overwhelmingly favorable to conservative philosophy.

For some reason, they don't want to hear from real conservatives about why conservatives were disillusioned. They would rather quote theories by professors and liberal media pundits than listen to real people. It doesn't matter that you, me, Stormy, Bubba, Fred or any of the other real conservatives are telling them otherwise. They aren't listening to what Pat Buchanan, Fred Barnes, George Will, William F. Buckley and others are saying. They would rather believe that conservatives suddenly became liberals, and that independents suddenly became blue for a number of reasons that aren't supported by actual evidence.

They do so at their peril, which is fine with me.

[Joe Guarino]

Sam, you are absolutely right. The electorate remains divided, but any head of steam conservative voters and party workers might have brought to the table was undoubtedly diminished by all that has occurred.

In some respects, this dates back to when Gingrich had to leave office after he confronted Clinton over the budget and tried to limit the growth of Medicare. The GOP in the House went to a weaker, more moderate replacement-- Hastert-- who was less driven by principle. And Bush has made some mistakes, but they are not the mistakes many of his public critics cite.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Carl:

Those are excellent points and a good starting place to reclaim the GOP's heritage of liberty, family and prosperity.

[Lex]

let Lex and other liberals like him continue to ignore what actual, living breathing conservatives are saying about why they are upset with the GOP and why they switched sides during this election or stayed home.

Sam, just for the record, I never said anything here about what conservatives said about why they switched sides or stayed home. I was talking about Democratic candidates, period. I wasn't talking about voters at all.