To be honest, the Senate should have flipped also. Democrats owe Sarah Palin and her teabagger friends a great big "thank you" for making sure that didn't happen. They were so intent on nominating only the craziest extremists available, and in a couple of cases they nominated candidates so far out of the mainstream that voters just couldn't accept them (even though they wanted to vote Republican).
The first case is in Nevada. Majority Leader Harry Reid was ripe for defeat. For more than a year now every single poll showed nearly any decent Republican could defeat Reid. Even most Democrats and progressives (myself included) figured he was a goner. So what happened?
What happened was Sarah Palin and the teabaggers in the Republican Party. In the primary, Palin went to Nevada and threw her support behind the nuttiest candidate running for the Republican nomination -- Sharron Angle. And her teabagger minions (who are strong in the Republican Party in that state) followed her lead and nominated Angle over several more moderate Republicans.
Angle was so extreme and downright crazy that even some Republicans decided they couldn't support her. Then she compounded that by running a very racist anti-immigrant campaign in a state where Hispanics have some voting clout (90% of them voted against her -- a far larger percentage than Democrats in other states received). Palin and the teabaggers got the extreme candidate they wanted, but it cost Republicans an almost sure senate seat.
The other senate seat the Republicans should have had was in Delaware. Republican moderate Rep. Castle was a shoo-in according to all the polls. He was more popular than any Democrat running and chances are he could have won a general election fairly easily. But the Palin factor struck again. She went to Delaware and fired up the teabaggers to ignore Rep. Castle and nominate an unqualified extremist nut named Christine O'Donnell.
While the teabaggers had enough votes to affect the Republican primary and nominate O'Donnell, they didn't have the votes to swing the general election. And the people of Delaware took one look at O'Donnell and decided she was not qualified to be a senator. They gave her opponent a clear and commanding majority on election day.
There is little doubt that if the Republicans had nominated a moderate or even a conservative candidate, they would have won both of those senate seats. But Palin swung enough weight with the teabaggers and the teabaggers had enough numbers to nominate an extremist in both states, and it cost them majority status in the United States Senate.
There is a difference between a primary and a general election. General elections are usually decided by Independents -- not party regulars. And most Independents don't like extremists (on either end of the political spectrum).
The problem, of course, with so-called "moderate" Republicans is that they can be trusted about as much as Blue-Dog Democrats. To use the analogy I used earlier: Toyotas with Chevy labels.
ReplyDeleteTwo cases in point: Arlen Spector and Charlie Crist. Spector, who actually started out as a Democrat, switched to the Republican Party in the mid-60's when it was politically expedient to do so. Throughout his years in the Senate, he did little or nothing to further the conservative cause. When faced with certain defeat in the Republican primary, he put personal ambition ahead of party loyalty and switched back to the Democrats, only to be defeated in that party's primary.
Charlie Crist is even a worse case than Spector. When he was ahead in the polls against Marco Rubio, he exclaimed on national televsion that he would never leave the Republican Party. But after losing to Rubio, he had a sudden change of heart and rationalized that independents needed someone to speak for them, when in reality he was only looking out for his own political skin. By the end, he was so desparate, he promised to caucus with the Democrats if elected and was willing to throw Kendrick Meek under the bus to do so.
What happened in a few of the Senate races was unfortunate, but I'd rather lose with a true conservative than have to rely on the likes of the so-called "moderate" Republicans to further the conservative agenda.
It's the difference between tactics and strategy. Tactically, the Republicans lost in gaining control of the Senate. But strategically, they may be in a better position over the long haul. The Republican House can put forth conservative bills and budgets, forcing the Democrat-controlled Senate and White House to be the "Party of No" for the next two years. If the economy continues to tank, the GOP can deflect the blame onto the White House and the Senate, both of which will have blocked the Republican agenda.
Also from a strategic point of view, the gains that the GOP made in governorships and state houses is largely being overlooked. With reapportionment coming up, control on the state level is going to have far reaching effects when the new congressional districts are drawn. And the new governors and state representatives that were elected amount to a strong "farm system" for future candidates on the federal level.