Instead of making a bunch of predictions for New Years, I like
the idea of opinion-mongers taking the time to admit the predictions they
got wrong in the past year.
1. The 2010 elections will be good for Republicans in
Massachusetts. For years, I’ve paid attention to
Republicans with little hope in my home state. I wrote a
column about
Jim Ogonowski’s Senate campaign, the year he failed to even qualify
for the Republican primary ballot. I followed up with a piece on
the guy who eventually got the GOP nod to run against John Kerry. I
even penned an NRO column with a headline referring to an
upset — about Bay State Republican candidate who ended up losing
by 40 points. (The rest of the column holds up pretty well,
though.)
This year, I was convinced Massachusetts Republicans would be
able to follow up on the January success of Scott Brown. To a
certain extent, they did — they increased their numbers in the
state legislature, won seats on the governor’s council, and ran
more competitive congressional and statewide candidates than they
had since 1994. But I thought at least one of those congressional
or statewide candidates would actually win. None did. Massachusetts
remains the single most frustrating place in the country outside
D.C. to be a Republican.
2. Every Tea Party-aligned conservative Senate candidate
who won the Republican primary would win the general, except for
Christine O’Donnell — and even she would break 40 percent of the
vote. Well, O’Donnell did break 40 percent of the vote
(barely). But while Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Ron
Johnson won, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck also lost. Which brings me
to:
3. Harry Reid can’t win reelection. My view was
that Reid’s numbers, generally stuck around the mid-40s and never
breaking 50 percent, were too enduringly awful for him to win
another term no mmatter how badly his Republican challenger
campaigned. I thought the only exception would be a None of the
Above vote (allowable in Nevada) larger than any in history. Well,
Reid won reelection without that. I know a lot of readers are
skeptical that Reid won fair and square, but his margin of victory
is outside the margin of shenanigans.
4. Christine O’Donnell is a no-hoper in the
primary. I wasn’t confident enough in that one to make the
prediction publicly, but I did dissuade an intern from writing a
piece that took her ability to beat Mike Castle seriously. Oops!
Though in my defense, it was before she caught on with
conservatives nationally — the prerequisite for a successful Tea
Party challenge this year.
5. Dino Rossi. Yeah, I believed those late
polls that he was pulling away. Nope.
I’m sure there are others, but these are the ones I got wrong
off the top of my head.
Reaganaut| 12.31.10 @ 4:19PM
One correction re your first point- largely because of Christine O'Donnell, it's even more frustrating to be a Republican in DE than in MA. "We coulda been contenders" and sent another R to the Senate and won several other down ticket races here if she wasn't at the "top" of the ticket.
Ed in North Texas| 1.4.11 @ 8:49AM
Another RINO who would support Harry Reid and vote with the Democrats on every important vote? No thanks. Having another "R" who votes with the "Maine Sisters" is not a positive. Andm while beating up on RINOs, I'll mention the Republican "establishment" showing their true colors by working to defeat O'Donnell even after she won the party primary. Including that POS who is erroneously alleged to be a Texan. At least most national Republican figures shut up after she won the primary.
Larry| 12.31.10 @ 4:30PM
It can't be more frustrating to be a Republican in Massachusetts than one in California. I feel sorry for those folks especially. But I won't agree to bail them out, either.
RJ| 12.31.10 @ 7:55PM
As a Californian I may be biased, but it is more frustrating to be a Republican here than in Massachusetts. The California GOP, with Whitman spending about $160M of her own money and Carly Fiorina running the strongest race against a dreadful Barbara Boxer lost every single state race, most by 10% or more. The GOP also found a way to reduce its minority status in the legislature. While Republicans ran strong in most of the country, it looks like 1932 in California as we return to the same man who was governor three decades ago. Jerry just announced yesterday that he wants to call another special election to support tax increases.
Don't worry Larry - I don't want anyone to bail out California. Our problems have been self inflicted. The only help I would like from American Spectator readers is advise on a good place to relocate. Williamsburg, Virginia has a very nice charm to it, but I am looking at all reasonable options. California is too crazy and parts of it already resemble the poverty and corruption of the third world. We have also been promised a major earthquake in Southern California on the San Andreas fault line in the next 10 to 15 years. It will be much worse when that hits.
Occam's Tool| 1.1.11 @ 1:26AM
RJ,
if weather is NOT a major issue with you, strongly suggest the Dakotas. Low taxes, great schools, nice people.
RJ | 1.1.11 @ 10:14AM
Thanks for the information. While I would like warmer weather, I have noticed that North Dakota is one of the few states that is doing well these days. Sounds like a great place. I will keep it in mind. Happy New Year.
Anthony| 1.1.11 @ 9:27AM
One thing you guys in CA do have is Duncan Hunter, a man who would've made a great president.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.1.11 @ 9:33AM
RJ,
Y'all come on down and welcome! Your work will need to be considered.
But if you will tell me what kind of work you do, I can give you some great alternatives.
Also, if your wife likes to go braless...hands down, move to Austin. (Grin)
RJ| 1.1.11 @ 10:34AM
Thank you. I am an attorney working as a corporate counsel. In the early 90s (the first signs to me that California was in decline), I served on my former employer's site relocation task force. Two of the nine locations under study were Alliance Field in Fort Worth and Houston. Ross Perot Jr. was developing Alliance Field. He and his team's presentation were most impressive. Happy New Year.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 12.31.10 @ 5:26PM
The title of this column is right on the money. Anyone who believes the election of Arlen Brown up in Massachusetts was a victory for conservatism has no idea what conservatism is. Voting for a left winger simply because he calls himself a Republican is insane. If Arlen Brown is the best the Massachusetts Republican Party can do they may as well join the Massachusetts Democrat Party. The only discernable difference between Ted Kennedy & Arlen Brown at this point is Arlen Brown hasn't caused any drownings yet. His voting record is no different than Kennedy's would have been were he still alive today. As Rush Limbaugh has said numerous times, "Liberals are always liberals before anything else in this world." Arlen Brown may call himself a Republican, but he is a liberal first & foremost. The election of Arlen Brown was a DEFEAT for conservatism.
Ken (Old TexicanVI| 12.31.10 @ 6:13PM
Hey W. III
Don't feel so bad.
I don't suppose I ever snapped to the fact that you are from Massachusetts.
Somehow, I had assumed you were from Virginia.
I shall always give you a break from now on, I promise...heh...you poor guy.
Here in Texas we ants still outnumber the grasshoppers, thank goodness, and our winters are mild enough that the grasshoppers can get by.
As I have stated here many times...one simply cannot fix stupid.
There must be something in the water over there that has made people stupid.
Or perhaps up there you simply have the "haves" and "have-nots".
Down here we have some "haves"...and "gonna' haves" in the mix.
So come on down, drop the III and call your self "Junior-Junior", and you will do fine.
Seriously, thank you for your articles, and have a good year.
Teflon93| 12.31.10 @ 7:41PM
Okay, I'll bite---what are the limits of the margins for Democrat "shenanigans"?
Are these limits wider when automated voting machines default selection to Harry Reid?
Dean from Ohio| 12.31.10 @ 11:40PM
Humility becomes you! Thanks and have a Happy New Year!
Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.1.11 @ 3:48AM
"3. Harry Reid can't win reelection."
Many people, including myself, believed that Reid would be defeated in 2010. Sadly, the Democrats ensured that he would be reelected, relying on dead people's votes, non-citizens, and Hispanic citizens bussed to polling stations.
Mike W| 1.1.11 @ 11:19AM
Without Brown in the Senate we might have had the DREAM Act approved.
around the track| 1.2.11 @ 7:11PM
Sorry, you folks don't know what it's like being a conservative or Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state until you've lived in Rhode Island. This summer I moved to Virginia and voted here in November. Couldn't believe my county went over seventy per cent for the Republican congressman. In RI, a Republican couldn't get there even unopposed.
John Rich | 1.3.11 @ 2:06PM
Scott Brown's unexpected victory, on the heels of our win here in Virginia in November 2009 with Gov. McDonnell, gave us, to coin a phrase, "hope and change." The 2010 mid-terms continued in the right direction.
Sure, Sen. Brown is a RINO, but something for y'all to consider: isn't someone who votes with you 6-7 out of 10 times better than someone who votes against you all the time? It's not like we have a choice, given the political nature of Massachusetts.
Can a true conservative ever be elected from Massachusetts? Hasn't been one in over half a century; wouldn't hold my breath.
Be grateful for small favors, I say.