The American Spectator

Tim| 4.16.09 @ 2:15PM

"Five years later, with the Democrats one seat a way from a 60-seat Senate majority, Specter doesn't look so expendable. At the moment, Toomey looks even riskier. "

Five years earlier we had the same kind of arguments about Jim Jeffords. We took the path of least risk and the rest is history.

Bob| 4.16.09 @ 2:21PM

Antle, even with some level of "inference", I agree with your post except the proposition that you can win by losing. Your definition of "imperfect candidate" is interesting. He may be imperfect in YOUR eyes, but if he wins, he was probably the "perfect" candidate by definition.

The concept of winning by losing depends on the loss causing a major restructuring of the party, i.e., it is so bad we must change. I thought the party was virtually there now. If there is no restructuring, the loss does not stimulate any change in voting patterns.

So the issue becomes how to restructure. If you restructuring leads to the same type of candidate that lost in the first place, there is no reason to believe that the results will improve. When you bang your head against the wall, doing the same thing will also result in pain.

Please correct me if I make the wrong inference here (insert smile), but your strategy of winning by increasing the odds of losing depends upon convincing others you were right in the first place.

So let me ask what would be acceptable to you? Would you support a fiscal conservative who is socially libertarian? Would you support a pro-life candidate who is fiscally moderate? Where do you draw the line?

Martin| 4.16.09 @ 2:25PM

Far more than the Main Line 90-year old liberal Republicans, Pennsylvania contains huge numbers of blue-collar Democrats who found candidate Obama very underwhelming in '08.

If the Republicans take New Jersey this November, or even come close, a new face like Toomey who offers a clear choice not a me-too should have an excellent chance of creating "Toomey Democats" in Pennsylvania that will hugely outnumber the Main Line remnants.

It's not as if Specter's personality or mix of policies is particularly attractive, to anyone but himself.

Specter_Must_Go| 4.16.09 @ 2:39PM

No way could I vote for Specter against Toomey. Toomey is a Republican, Specter isn't. When Specter sides with the Dems it is used as propaganda by the media. If Toomey can't win the general, even a Democrat would be better than Specter. He'll be eighty and he's ill, anyway. He needs to retire or be retired.

toad| 4.16.09 @ 3:32PM

I second the notion that one of the reasons the Republicans are a minority is that they threw their weight behind tax and spend and etc. RINOs for supposed control. So comes the day a number conservatives sat it out. Voters don't always give a rat's if their views are going to be ignored anyway. Disloyalty is viewed as a disgusting attribute. Go ahead a back Spector, Snow, and etc. See more loss, become even more of a minority party NATIONALY you fools.

Jeremy Davis| 4.16.09 @ 3:47PM

Republicans would be wise to spend more time figuring out how to be relevant as a party, and less time worrying about RINOs, etc. Those who want to "purge" all moderate Republicans will be left with a weak party that does not influence the drift of the country. That's fine, if you seek purity above all else, but understand that the only legislative winner will be the Democrat party.

Bob| 4.16.09 @ 4:43PM

Martin...

"Far more than the Main Line 90-year old liberal Republicans, Pennsylvania contains huge numbers of blue-collar Democrats who found candidate Obama very underwhelming in '08."

Obama 3,276,363 votes -- 55%
McCain 2,655,885 votes -- 44%

They did?

Red Phillips| 4.16.09 @ 5:14PM

"But ultimately, it is more important to try to shift the political climate in a more favorable direction than to win by accepting the current climate as a given."

Amen. I don't know how you "shift the political climate" without actually attempting to shift the climate. The people who "accept the current climate as a given" either think it is going to some day for some reason shift back in a more favorable direction without anyone actually attempting to make that happen or they have just thrown up their hands. I suspect the later is more often the case. (Or they actually like the new moderation, in which case they are being disingenuous.)

W. James Antle III| 4.16.09 @ 5:37PM

The question isn't so much "winning by losing" but how you define winning. If you are involved in politics to advance certain policy goals, then winning is defined by moving toward those policy goals. If you consistently support candidates who work against those goals, then even if they prevail on election day you are really losing by winning.

Where do I draw the line in terms of which candidates I personally support? The line varies depending on what issues are in play, what's at stake in the election, and what the alternatives are.

Do I have a good option? Is one decent candidate more viable than another? Is there a candidate who is so close to my views that I would be remiss not voting for them? What is the likely impact of a specific candidate's election going to be?

I would vote -- and have voted -- for fiscally conservative but socially liberal candidates when I think the likeliest result of their election is to promote lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, etc. If I didn't think they would have much impact on fiscal policy but would make their presence known more by ratifying social policies I disagreed with, I'd vote against them.

Or if a candidate I find preferable on domestic policy supports a foreign policy I regard as irresponsible and I thought their impact would likeliest be felt there, I'd vote against them.

In 2004, I'd have voted for Toomey over Specter in the primary and Clymer over Specter in the general. But in 2010, it might depend on other factors. Can Toomey win? Do the Democrats achieve a filibuster-proof majority if Specter loses? Those are the questions I'd ask before casting my ballot.

BJC| 4.16.09 @ 6:36PM

Very good post, Jim! And lest anyone have forgotten (and permitted their preconceived political biases to distort their assessment) that was Pennsylvania that BHO was describing when he identified those supposed unworthies who "cling bitterly" to their religious faith and their Second Amendment rights instead of placing their reliance on big-government promises delivered by a Leftist-socialist like ... well, Obama. In other words, don't count Pat Toomey out prematurely -- Barack Obama certainly didn't and wouldn't.

And you're further correct, Jim, in taking note of the necessary prioritization in making wise voting choices. I say this as someone -- a former conservative Democrat turned Reaganite Republican, mind you -- who didn't vote for George W. Bush in 2000 but did pull the lever on his behalf in 2004. What changed in the interval? Domestic issues were still the main ones in play in 2000, and a close examination of Bush's stands proved that his "compassionate conservatism" was a dodge hiding his favoritism of big government, corporate welfare, leaky borders, general unwillingness to confront the Leftist cultural marauders of the gay agenda and pro-abortionist varieties, and so forth. By 2004, our self-defensive war with the Islamic extremist terrorists was most important in that election, and George W. Bush had racked up a fairly good record in prosecuting that war. (I had expected him to be less forward-leaning than his father had been in Gulf War I, leaving the job undone and terrorists threats to fester; but the son proved better than the father.) In fact, I think the Declaration of Independence sets the priorities just right -- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (a.k.a. free markets).

Your Majesty| 4.16.09 @ 7:26PM

A few more thoughts on PA:

In general elections, PA notoriously re-elects incumbents even with nagging issues like death, imprisonment, or being Murtha -- with remarkably rare exceptions. (Santorum lost because he traveled nationally to promote what PA residents considered fringe issues, and for issues related to his Virginia residency.)

Nobody in PA likes Specter, but he'll still win by landslide if he gets through Toomey. Only Rendell would have a shot, and he's not running.

Secondly, the rest of PA feels like Philly's sugar daddy -- especially since Rendell became governor. A Philly redistributionist candidate would face a difficult general election given the national mood and anti-Philly sentiment.

The two most likely Democrats are both Philly congressmen. Allyson Schwartz is a dim-bulb far-lefty who might beat a potted plant in the general election -- maybe. But she can't be discounted in the primary -- if, for no other reason, her mother is high up in the Philly Democrat political machine.

Patrick Murphy is reasonably smart and fashions himself (disingenuously) a conservative Democrat. Murphy vs. Toomey would be highly competitive. But will he give up his seat for a difficult primary and on the chance Specter loses the primary?

Personally, I'd rather see Toomey as Governor -- he could re-shape the PA GOP for years to come. But, now that he's declared for Senate, enough with the hand-wringing.

john smithson| 4.16.09 @ 7:59PM

It is my opinion that no greater priority exists for federalist conservatives than the effective reconstitution of the GOP. Arlen Specter, and the two gals from Main do not figure into that mix. Add to the list the likes of Arnold and McCain and you will find yourself at the center of the storm within the GOP. We have been held hostage to the notion of "winning" elections for far too long. The compromise of the GOP goes back to at least the time of Bush 41. Since that time, the goal of smaller government has become only a dream. The "wisdom" of compromise for the sake of winning elections has proven to be self-destructive to the conservative cause. Elections are about choices. I say, let us never retreat from this offering. Give the people that choice. Conservative principles versus liberal views. If we cannot win with that in mind, we must conclude that we have not done enough in the name of conservative principles and philosophies. We must never conclude that those principles and philosophies must be abandoned or compromised. “The ends justify the means” and “win at all cost” should be the mantra of Democrats only. The GOP must stand on principles. If we cannot win without Specter, then that is the choice made by the voters. Political climate is a dynamic that tricks many into compromise. In the face of defeat, what works in favor of the Conservative is the fact that we live in a center-right country – even now. If that is true, when we lose an election, it is because we have not been consistent in the presentation of conservative principles and values. If we define this “presentation” in terms of stated principles combined with practical and consistent social application, we have the full picture of a winning reality for Conservative victory.

Compassionate conservatism, a Reagan era phrase, is at the heart of the GOP’s resurrection, not continual compromise that leaves the GOP without any sense of independent value. If we care for the life of the unborn, we must be leaders in the care of the abandoned child. If we pursue an effective national defense, we must be leaders in détente. We can be leaders in environmentalism without giving in to junk science and populace opinion. We can be strong against crime and lead the nation in the concept of effective and caring restorative justice implementation. Idealism without foundation is short-sighted and offers unreal solutions. Law and order without a practical and idealist base is equally off-base. I, for one, am committed to the transformation of a GOP politic that stands in the shadows of what I have just said. A return to Reaganist principles is a return to the notion of a compassionate and uncompromising conservative politic.

John Smithson
Editor, Midknight Review
http://midknightreview.blogspot.com/
sorry for the length

CB| 4.16.09 @ 9:42PM

Bob...

Indeed they did!

2008 Democratic Party primary: Pennsylvania

Obama: 1,046,822 45.4%
Clinton: 1,260,937 54.6%

Clinton +214,115 +9.2%

Tallil 6| 4.17.09 @ 3:57AM

John Smithson for President - or at least Republican Party Chair.....

Well said, John.

My favorite lines: "We must never conclude that those principles and philosophies must be abandoned or compromised. “The ends justify the means” and “win at all cost” should be the mantra of Democrats only. The GOP must stand on principles."

Bob| 4.17.09 @ 7:43AM

Antle -- great and reasoned answers. Now if you could convince most of the posters on AmSpec to use reason instead of absolutes.

CB -- They were all Democrats and older. Analysis of the PA results of the primary showed that Hillary gained older voters (as did McCain), and women voters. That is a demographic difference, not a difference in ideology. Obama and Hillary were pretty close on ideology. That's why you can't look at primary results to determine ideological differences. Hillary voters almost all came back to Obama.

john smithson| 4.17.09 @ 11:07PM

I am encouraged by the stats as they exist now. I use Rasmussen exclusively and that report shows Obama down 10 points. He won the election by 7. Do the math.

In addition, a huge number, several million, Republicans did not vote at all in the last election. Couple that with the notion that Obama's popularity does not extend to his party. Pelosi, for example, is poorly thought of except in San Fran. Things could be worse for the GOP and conservative efforts to wholly confiscate that party.

Bob| 4.18.09 @ 2:52PM

John, while there has been some movement, Obama's overall approval rating has maintained over 60% which is still very high for this time in his presidency. Reagan at this time was lower.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

john smithson| 4.19.09 @ 11:43AM

Hi Bob. Respectfully, I disagree. Rasmussen has proven to be the most accurate pollster in the last two election cycles. My numbers are his. The spread between "approval/disapproval" was 35 point in Jan. Today that spread is 11 or 12 points. Further, the "approval index," a measurement of passionate approval versus passionate disapprove has moved down from a +30 to a +2, indicating the degree of failure in Obama's purpose to be a bi-partisan President. Consensus of polling opinion is something that I care nothing about. Consensus is how global warming is defended. Facts and accurate reporting is the call of the day. The "polling numbers" that really matter with regard to Reagan are his election totals. Obama's election was hardly a landslide and few can argue that his numbers have not diminished since that 7 point victory. I am just saying, "There is hope."

Bob| 4.19.09 @ 1:46PM

John, actually 538.com was the most accurate but Rasmussen wasn't bad. In Reagan's first election he gained only 50.7% of the vote, not as much as Obama. The overall approval numbers and the spread numbers technically talk to two different questions but they are both relevant. The Rasmussen spread indicates the "intensity" of support and the overall approval ratings indicates the "direction" of support. In general, people vote their pocketbooks and the intensity levels always recede in recessionary periods. However, the directional levels indicate more about policy direction and almost the same percentage of people agree with the Obama policy direction as when he was elected. So be careful when you equate these two polling methodologies.

Again, the next election, as with most elections, will be based upon pocketbook issues. If the economy gets better, like FDR and Reagan, Obama will win by a landslide. If the economy does not get better, Obama will still probably win, but it will be much closer.

john smithson| 4.19.09 @ 7:21PM

This will be my last volley on this subject. Reagan's approval numbers at the same time in his Presidency included a 73% approval rating according to the Washington Post.
He won the election by nearly 10% of the popular vote and won all the states in the federation except three.

Also, the 1994 congressional elections had little to do with the economy but, rather, ideology. There is simply no way ideology will not dominate the coming election. And if you disagree, it is only because you are either a Democrat or a RINO [either is fine, by the way] and have no clue as to why the last two national elections went the way they did. (How’s that for a segue to a new or different thread?) The economy will mend itself as it has the habit of doing. Obama is using the current “crisis” to move this country towards an Obama style collectivism and that will be the primary issue, imo. It will be the issue for me, at least. He is currently spending at the rate of 672 million dollars an hour and running a Chicago style political shop to get the job down.

I dare say , that will be the test of the coming 2010 elections as well.

CB| 4.20.09 @ 8:37PM

Bob,

While it is true that "older" voters went more for Clinton than Obama (though, Obama himself would fall into that bracket), that has little to do with what Martin said and you took issue with:

"Far more than the Main Line 90-year old liberal Republicans, Pennsylvania contains huge numbers of blue-collar Democrats who found candidate Obama very underwhelming in '08."

This, in fact, seems to have been the case in Pennsylvania, as polls leading up to the primary indicate:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1165

And the exit polls on primary day show:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/22/pennsylvania-exit-polls-p_n_98069.html

The under $55,000 per anum, non-college grad groups, i.e. "blue collar" folks, went for Clinton and had been leaning that way for some time. Every poll I've seen told that story about the Pennsylvania primary. Do you have some other numbers to point to, Bob?