For the first time in over 100 years, the 23rd District of New York will be sending a Democrat to Washington. The vaunted Conservative Party insurgent, Doug Hoffman, lost the race he was expected to win. What does this mean? I'll give my view in a moment, but let me say that Jonathan Tobin makes a weird and unpersuasive point here:
The loss of this seat ought to cast a shadow on what was otherwise a big night for Republicans. But the villains here aren't the tea-party rabble-rousers who sunk Scozzafava, but a local and state Republican leadership that imposed an incompetent candidate on a Republican electorate eager for leaders who could offer an alternative to the Democrats, not someone who would be a halfhearted supporter of Obama's agenda. ... The lesson here is not the danger that the right poses to the future of the Republicans but rather that a party leadership that is insensible to the interests of its voters is doomed to defeat. Had the Republicans chosen a candidate who could have counted on the support of the party's base to start with, the seat could have been held despite the changing demographics in the district. It was Scozzafava's dismal campaign that lost the seat, not the fact that it was impossible to convince most Republicans that they had no reason to support her.
Huh? Granted, the GOP bigs who put Scozzafava up for this seat made a bad choice, Q.E.D. She was driven out of the race. We've been told over and over these past couple of weeks that Hoffman, the Palin-Beck candidate, was giving NY23 voters "a choice, not an echo." Well, guess what? Voters chose Democrat Bill Owens -- which is to say, they rejected Hoffman. Blaming the New York GOP for Hoffman's loss strikes me as an attempt to dismiss evidence that challenges the dogma that running to the Tea Party right is a winning strategy.
Now, it could well be that NY23 voters rejected Hoffman because of his demonstrated inability to articulate a position on key local issues. That would speak to his being a flawed candidate, not necessarily a rejection of Palinista Republicanism. Or it could mean that people aren't necessarily against Palin-Tea Party-ism, but that it's simply not enough to win a majority of voters. Or perhaps this traditionally Republican district simply found Hoffman to be too ideologically conservative for them. Whatever the real reason, there's no justification for assuming going forward that the kind of conservatism Doug Hoffman represents is the future of the GOP. That's not to say that social liberalism is the future either. From where I sit, the most sensible lesson for Republicans to take out of yesterday's defeats is that economic anxiety and a related concern about competent governance are the issues that most determine voters' choices.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It means bigfoot intervenors can hurt a candidate, even if he seems on the surface to reflect his district. And, as I keep saying, that tone matters. There’s a marked contrast in tone and emphasis between the GOP candidates who won and who lost on Tuesday.. As we’ve seen here on this message board, some of Hoffman’s outside supporters pointed to issues of interest to social conservatives. Many voters in NY-23 seemed to focus instead on jobs and the economy. Ability to read and understand local sensibilities in policy and tone does matter, it turns out. The New York Times is correct in stating in an editorial this morning that McDonnell and Christie won by emphasizing jobs and economic issues and that they avoided issues of interest to social conservatives. The editorial’s takeaway for the near future: “voters want their leaders to focus on sound policy making, not party orthodoxy. And the No. 1 issue in every poll is the economy.”
That’s the message coming out of the camp of the other big winner, as well. In an article posted on its website this morning, The Washington Post reports that following McDonnel’s win,“Virginia Republicans insisted Wednesday that they had gained no broad mandate and would make their top priority the pragmatic platform that drove voters to the polls.” The winners have some challenges ahead. “McDonnell is likely to face competing pressures, in Virginia and elsewhere, from the party's social conservative base and moderates who fear alienating independents. Those voters backed Barack Obama last year but supported McDonnell and other Republicans on Tuesday.”
McDonnell avoided mentioning abortion or gun rights in a post-election victory press conference, instead emphasizing jobs creation and budget issues. According to the newspaper, his tone is very different from that of previous GOP winners of the governorship in Virginia, such as George Allen, who promised in his Inaugural speech to knock Democrats' "soft teeth down their whiny throats.” Red meat doesn’t always bring results, especially in areas where swing voters matter. And red meat rhetoric by big foot outsiders, no matter how well intended, isn’t always going to be a plus for a candidate. “The center of the electorate is for limited government and tolerance on social issues," said Chris Chocola, president of the conservative Club for Growth. "If the Republicans want to grow the tent, I think they should look at limited government, and then the candidates can reflect the social views of their districts."
Peter,
Your own graphic supports my point. Am I missing something? I think you are referring to the counties that are contained within the entire district. I am referring to the congressional district. To make the claim, as Pelosi and our dear blogger have, that the citizens that live in that district have never, in their lifetimes, had Dem representation is simply false. It is true for SOME, but not for ALL. That is my point.
"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."
Is that a New Jersey joke?
Seriously, quit eating the junk that the media spoon feeds you. This seat has been held by eight republicans and FOURTEEN democrats in the last 100 years, most recently in 1993.
Check it out for yourself on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district#1843_-_present:_one_seat
Quite eating the media junk yourself and read that article closely, Xaxar. What is now called the "23rd Congressional District" is not what has been called the 23rd Congressional District in the past. Up until the reapportionment following the 1980 Census, the "23rd Congressional District" was an district centered around the Bronx and areas to the north of there. The __geographic area__ NOW known as the 23rd has voted solidly Republican for many decades.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.