No.
The Democrats seem to be taking this whole special election in NY as a huge victory for them. They’re claiming that this is a referrendum on the Republican budget plan, specifically the proposed Medicare solution from which many Republicans are trying to distance themselves.
When you look at the results of the election however, this election is clearly not a mandate and is politics as usual. All you need to do is look at the percentages. Kathy Hochul received only 47% of the vote over Jane Corwin’s 43%. Where did the other 9% of the vote go? It went to a third-party Tea Party candidate.
My reasoning should seem clear at this point, but in case it hasn’t I won’t leave it at that. My guess, and I think it’s a well reasoned one, is that had there not been a Tea Party candidate, those voters would never have given their votes to Hochul. Why? Because they’re Tea Partiers which is nearly everything antitethetical to the Democrat party.
Now I looked into Jack Davis, a former Democrat turned Tea Partier. On his webpage he does say that he disagrees with the proposed Medicare overhaul, but that doesn’t mean he’s a true-blue bleeding heart. He’s more of the Ron Paul type: a fierce fiscal conservative who believes that Washington spending is out of control. Had those who voted for Jack Davis not had Jack Davis as an option, they would have either abstained or given their votes to the next best conservative candidate, Jane Corwin.
So when you put this into its proper context, 52% of the voters in NY’s 26th District voted for a conservative candidate. That hardly seems like a referrendum to me. Now it might be that all 52% of them don’t like the Medicare idea, but that is besides the point. The Democrats seem to think that voting Republican means you implicitly support the Medicare voucher plan. According to a Gallup poll that came out about a month ago, nearly 80% of the people polled said that they think the Medicare plan is a bad idea.
Looking foreward, I doubt that Hochul will serve more than one term in the House. The 26th District Republicans will likely rally a lot harder and do what they can to stomp out 3rd party candidates next time around. Even without that sort of political organization, the idiots who threw their votes away to a 3rd party candidate and now have to deal with the fact that they’re represented by a Democrat will likely not support a 3rd party candidate again. Would you if you knew your vote could result in you being represented by a Liberal?
Besides, 47% of the vote is not an overwhelming majority, seeing as how she only beat her oponent by 4% of the vote, an oponent who had to battle against a Tea Party candidate who likely sucked away many much-needed votes. If the Republican budget proposal was as unpopular as the Democrats are claiming, wouldn’t Hochul have won by a far more commanding margin than 4%?
And I know this flies in the face of what they’re saying, but if this can be counted as some sort of referrendum on a specific issue, then it’s funny to know that still only half of the voters supposedly rejected the Republican budget proposal. What about the other half? Oh right, the Democrat idea of democracy is one side wins and imposes its ideology on the other. “Compromise,” to them is just another dirty “C” word.
Have no doubt that the Republicans will stamp out third party candidates. It just happened here in Ohio. The GOP just changed the ballott access rules in a way that just happened to take ballot access away from the Libertarian Party. We will take the GOP back to court, and we will win again, as we always do.
“Stamping out” third parties and their candidates is political fascism. When I was younger I thought we lived in a land of political freedom. That is false. We live in a country where 2 large, corrupt parties feel they are entitled to be one of only 2 options for voters. It’s political welfare.
People who vote for 3rd party candidates aren’t “idiots” who “throw away” their votes. Many are intelligent people who vote for the person they believe is the best candidate. It’s was 91% of folks who wasted their votes on candidates who will go to Washington and bow down to the Gods of Special Interests.
We’re in the current mess because of the corruption of the two major parties. I don’t see how voting in favor of the establishment and the status quo is such a brilliant political move.
Well the reason third party candidates get stamped out is because of this. Because those Tea Partiers voted for a third party candidate the Democrat won. They should have discerned that guy’s unlikely chances of winning and thrown their hat in with the next best thing.
I didn’t mean idiots in the sense that they’re unintelligent, and I don’t mean that everyone who votes for a 3rd party candidate is an idiot. Voting for the establishment and the status quo in this situation is indeed a bad ideological move, but it’s a good political move. How often do third party candidates beat the major party candidates? Historically, they generally just siphon away votes. In this case, voting for the Tea Party candidate worked against them, because now they’re stuck being represented by a liberal.
Ideologically, voting for a candidate that does not fully represent their views, interests, and sentiments would be a bad thing. Politically, it’s better to vote for the guy that is both most likely to win and most closely aligns with your personal politics.
Would you rather the Democrat be in office or the Republican? With the Republican there’s at least a shadow of a chance that he or she will support ballancing the budget in a somewhat pragmatic way, but with the Democrat you know you’re screwed.
Now if it were apparent that the third party candidate was going to actually have a chance at winning, then it would be a good idea, politically and ideologically in that case, to go with that candidate. Political strategy and theory seldom line up with ideology.
Voting your conscience doesn’t mean you’re unintelligent, it just means you put ideology above politics. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it increases your chances of getting completely screwed at the polls, as was the case here with the Tea Party folks.
I agree with you that voting third party means you place principle over expediency. I disagree with the “siphon off” language, however. Neither Republicans nor Democrats “own” any vote, in spite of their belief to the contrary. Votes must be earned, in my opinion, and “less worse” isn’t very appealing, and isn’t even wise.
In this case, I’m glad the Tea Party candidate “siphoned” enough votes to put a Dem in office. The GOP now knows it either has to become something other than a special interest handout machine, or the Tea Party candidate will prevail some day. I still believe that the GOP will go the way of its predecessor, the Whigs. In my opinion it can’t happen soon enough. We need a conservative/libertarian alliance, not a RINO party of big government, which is what the GOP is.
Obviously I don’t think a “takeover” strategy of the GOP will work. The top-down money distribution structure makes it irredeemably corrupt. It would take 20 years to take over the party if it’s possible at all.
So at the end of the day, I have put both politics and ideology on equal footing. The GOP is not capable of becoming a party that represents me. That is why I am a Libertarian. Youy can say that they’re less worse all you want, but I think it’s a fool’s errand.
Well of course “less worse,” is not appealing, but it’s the reality of the situation. Sometimes there are no good options.
In this case they had to either vote for a candidate that fully represented them but they knew wouldn’t win, or vote for a candidate that only sort of represents them but would probably win with their support.
I think you laid it out pretty well there, Jack. Thank you for a good civil debate on something about which I think we disagree – which is okay. At least we covered more ground than the average “debate” program on television which usually devolves into yelling within 30 seconds!
Of course. There’s no point in calling each other names. I’d be a poor example of a good liberal arts student if I tried to stifle debate with such ridiculousness.
A professor of mine, a political science professor, once told me that I think too much like a political scientist. I’m always looking for which avenue is going to be most successful, sometimes even if it’s against my principles. If there were a third party candidate out there that I felt better represented me, believe me when I say I’d want to vote for him or her.
Unfortunately, my cynicism gets the better of me, and I vote for the next best option that has the better chance of winning. It was wrong of me to call them “idiots,” or to suggest that they were “throwing away,” their votes. You were right to call me out on that.
I actually think that this was some successful false flag. The “Tea Party candidate,” in my opinion, was a Dem plant. The real disappointing thing is that 9% fell for it. As for the MSM, they are so desperate to find good news for the Dem’s narrative, that they’ll grasp at anything.
It was a testing ground in my opinion. The left wanted to see if this would work in a close race and it did. Expect to see much more of this in the future. I agree with Ted that at some point we need to stand on principle, the problem is the battlefield has not yet been prepared to make the advances we need. Too many people are still too ignorant out there and will make their decision off of talking points.
The antidote is principled talking points. Take the absurd ad showing the GOP throwing grandma off the cliff. Don’t respond directly to the ad, but to the issue. “Where is the Dem plan to stop grandma from falling off the cliff? There is none because they don’t care. They’re worried more about bureaucrats than grandma.” That’s what I’d say.
The left is going to try to use this to intimidate the Washington Republicans in the upcoming budget debate and I can only hope that the Republicans do not back down and stand up for what is right.
I agree with JC’s view that as a Democratic Party test it worked; the only confusion is that the question remains weather the false third party plant worked or the demagoguing of Medicare worked.
That is the question. Even the two smartest conservatives disagree in this issue – Karl Rove and the WSJ. I think it was both; or as a 2012 strategist I would treat both factors equally important. And this is the silver lining – we have the head’s up. The Republican candidate, who ever it is, must find a solution to both.
I also agree with CT on the solutions he gave us in his piece for the later – the demagoguing of Medicare. But the former – a third party plant – can only be solved if the Tea Party formalizes its movement into an official political Party where they can control who runs under their banner.
I’m inclined to believe it was the third party “plant.” I suppose I didn’t look at it that way before, but I suppose it makes sense.
I don’t see the Tea Party as a good thing in terms of conservative solidarity. There’s a two party system for a reason. The Democrats crap allover each other all the time; “you’re not progressive enough,” or “you’ve betrayed the people!” The thing about Democrats, though, is that even though they seem to hate each other inside their party, they still all vote in lock-step at the polls.
The Tea Party is going to fracture the Republican Party if it ever organizes itself as a political party, and that would mean a long period of Democrat reign I think. Of course that is all speculation, but we saw how the Tea Party candidate likely ruined Jane Corwin in NY.
The Dems’ political propaganda goes beyond trying to deceive the people. Rather, it is a form of self-delusion.
The Tea Party should only be a contestant in the primary process. It should never enter a third candidate once the Republican candidate has been chosen. It would divide the conservative vote. But it is fair to allow it to determine who that Republican candidate is in a fair primary contest. The Libertarians should have the same opportunity in the primary process only – and ‘only’ is the determinate word if we want to beat the Democrats in the national election. And to beat this new Progressive-Democratic Party is to save America. Petty (or not petty) quarrels need to be put aside.
I agree with that assessment John. It’s only fair to give everyone a voice, even if we don’t necessarily agree with it, but if we want to beat the Democrats then we have to be just as disciplined as them at the polls.
Jack and others, thanks for the valuable debate.
This was an interesting debate but I must take a huge exception to this comment by Jack: “The thing about Democrats, though, is that even though they seem to hate each other inside their party, they still all vote in lock-step at the polls.” If that was true then Ralph Nader would not have garnered any votes in 2000 and Al Gore would have won the presidency. You guys give the Dems entirely too much credit for political machine organization when they’re actually just as screwed up as everybody else.
Trackbacks: