The cries of treachery and betrayal have hit a fever pitch. Kavon has bizarrely declared Justice Souter’s decision to resign during a time when a president bound to replace him with a justice of similar legal sentiments to be akin to the treason of Benedict Arnold. In this, he’s echoing Michael Steele, who declared similar thoughts about Arlen Specter.
There is some utility in a party chairman asserting such a case: although Steele’s words were, in my judgment, over-the-top, he had little choice but to declare Specter a turncoat and a political opportunist. Certainly it is not the job of a party chairman to engage in public, dispassionate analysis with the party base. Perhaps Kavon, at times like these, views himself as fulfilling a similar role.
A problem arises, though, when political strategists and commentators actually buy into their own rhetoric. Quite simply, a political world in which virtue, loyalty, and the pursuit of pure principle over self-interest is an utter fantasy. Of course Specter is an opportunist. Of course he’s self-interested. Our question as tacticians is not to rage at him for not giving us our way, but to ask: how can we make his self-interest work for us?
Specter is not a partisan conservative; he is not dedicated to any particular movement. He is a true centrist interested in advancing a consensus agenda. He has usually leaned more toward the Republicans than the Democrats, and thus properly belongs in the Republican Party. He is not a party man, though, and doesn’t feel especially out of place siding with Democrats. Being neither a conservative nor a strong Republican, it begs the question: how could he betray what he was never committed to?
Let’s step out of the world we’d like to exist and into the world that does: majority parties are not made up solely of committed conservatives. As Newt Gingrich himself has noted, majorities are by their very nature messy, as it is difficult to get half of a delegation to agree to an entire agenda. Defectors here and there are inevitable; some will defect more than others.
Such people are needed in majorities, however. If we’re actually interested in being a majority party again — which we ought to be, given that we’d like to advance the conservative cause — it would behoove us to shoot the opponent, rather than our feet. People who sign up for the Republican Party are not necessarily signing up to be agents of the conservative agenda. It’s about coalitions. And it’s why it’s absurd to declare Specter a “traitor” of any sort. Aren’t we the ones constantly saying that we’re conservatives first and Republicans second? Why is Specter not allowed to be a centrist first and a Republican — or Democrat — second? If the party doesn’t want him, why should he stay?
The party must stop whining about Specter, because it won’t do us any good in winning Specter types — which we need — back. Stop this ‘traitor’ talk, and start with the values talk.
Let’s take aim at liberal Democrats first. It’s something that we all — yes, including moderates like Specter — can agree on. Specter left because he consistently found himself, rather than liberal Democrats, the target of conservative ire.
We now live in a political era in which the Republican Party is more interested in purifying its own ranks than taking down leftists. In what kind of warped world is Arlen Specter a larger enemy than Jean Carnahan or Ted Strickland? Not a world in which the Republican Party is the majority.
Try not to think about it too much. It becomes very depressing.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:54 pm
May 1st, 2009 at 10:59 pm
No, he left because he is a career politician and wanted to get re-elected. Everyone knows this.
No shit, Sherlock. But he had to leave because he consistently found himself, rather than liberal Democrats, the target of conservative ire. If conservatives like Toomey would have left him the f**k alone and directed their resources AT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS instead of FELLOW REPUBLICANS, then he wouldn’t have left!
May 1st, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Alex,
“Stop this ‘traitor’ talk, and start with the values talk.”
Actually, when we chastise traitors, we are highlighting the virtues of integrity and loyalty. While you seem to be content with a sort of honor-among-thieves, I think most of us are tired of politicians who base their decisions on self interest, and whose self interest must be tapped and stoked in order to persuade them to do the right thing.
Please, Alex, stop with these St. Arlen the Martyr posts.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Actually, when we chastise traitors, we are highlighting the virtues of integrity and loyalty. While you seem to be content with a sort of honor-among-thieves, I think most of us are tired of politicians who base their decisions on self interest, and whose self interest must be tapped and stoked in order to persuade them to do the right thing.
You missed the point of this post.
Integrity, loyalty, honor — give me a break. This is politics. Get into the real world. If you don’t like the game, don’t play it.
The sordid truth is that politics is heavily about self-interest. The question at hand is: how do we make these people’s self-interest work for our agenda?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:04 pm
“But he had to leave because he consistently found himself……the target of conservative ire.”
Gosh, I can’t imagine why.
Why do you think, Alex, that in a Republic leaders of our own party should be above criticism or challenge?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Alex,
If you are that interested in subverting grassroots democracy…Obama is your guy.
Based on electoral results the last 2 1/2 years, it might be time for new leadership in MY party.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Would you sacrifice The Right Thing for the sake of upholding some abstract principle? Would you allow a greater goal to be sacrificed because you can’t bear the gagging you have to endure when you appease a hack like Specter?
My advice is simply thus: train your gag reflex, because we need people like Specter in order to put together a coalition capable of shrinking the government, fighting militant Islam, and empowering individuals through capitalism. The alternative is Jim DeMint’s Secret Club. It may have more principle, but it certainly doesn’t have any power — which is needed in politics.
Quality over quantity does not apply in politics — in politics, you NEED a certain quantity to get your agenda passed!
May 1st, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Why do you think, Alex, that in a Republic leaders of our own party should be above criticism or challenge?
I’m all for purging the Specters of our party…if we already have sixty Republican senators.
Right now, our sole enemy should be LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. NOT fellow Republicans! WHY are we throwing away resources at fighting intra-party battles WHEN THE DEMOCRATS CONTROL EVERYTHING????
May 1st, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Abstract??????????????
winning elections, opposing the trillion dollar spending bill and reforming government is not abstract.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Alex,
“The sordid truth is that politics is heavily about self-interest.”
I take a back seat to noone when it comes to political cynicism, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any selfless leaders. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to uphold virtue. It doesn’t mean we should simply silently resign ourselves to the further prostitution of what our founders intended. Yes, the GOP kept Arlen on board for as long as Arlen thought it served Arlen. But I guess there comes a time when a party just can’t kiss any more ass.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
9 – Um, I’m talking about “integrity, loyalty, virtue.”
It seems that I’m the only one on this site actually interested in winning elections. Most of you seem to support Jim DeMint’s Secret Club.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
#8, your argument is weak, and no one is buying it. You are still going on about this…
Erase the ego…move on.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Alex,
“Would you sacrifice The Right Thing for the sake of upholding some abstract principle?”
Wouldn’t “The Right Thing” itself be an “abstract principle?”
May 1st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I take a back seat to noone when it comes to political cynicism, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any selfless leaders. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to uphold virtue.
That’s why I said “heavily” and not “completely.”
It doesn’t mean we should simply silently resign ourselves to the further prostitution of what our founders intended. Yes, the GOP kept Arlen on board for as long as Arlen thought it served Arlen. But I guess there comes a time when a party just can’t kiss any more ass
I think we should if the alternative is worse.
Don’t buy into the utopianism of liberals: sometimes, there are only ‘least bad’ options. Arlen was a ‘least bad’ option, given our awful minority status.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Three words I would not use to describe Specter.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Alex,
“It seems that I’m the only one on this site actually interested in winning elections. ”
You’re right Alex. We’re all just here to be as close as we can to you.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:12 pm
#8, your argument is weak, and no one is buying it. You are still going on about this… Erase the ego…move on.
If my argument is weak, why is your only counter-argument to it “LOL ALEX UR SOOO KOS AND A SECRET DEMOCRAT
”?
Wouldn’t “The Right Thing” itself be an “abstract principle?”
Fair enough, but I would say that The Right Thing is our ultimate goal, and that sacrificing the goal for some lesser virtue would be a terrible thing.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Three words I would not use to describe Specter.
Oh, good grief, you’re either not reading my posts or you’re dumb as a box of rocks.
My entire POINT is that Specter IS an opportunistic little cretin — and that it’s totally irrelevant, because integrity, loyalty and virtue are not our ultimate goals in politics…getting our agenda passed is. And we need to make the self-interest of politicians work for our agenda. Politicians are means to an end, not the end in themselves.
You’re right Alex. We’re all just here to be as close as we can to you.
Heyyyy, maybe you should be if you wanna win.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Alex,
“Fair enough, but I would say that The Right Thing is our ultimate goal, and that sacrificing the goal for some lesser virtue would be a terrible thing.”
People following that philosophy form a classic motif in literature. It’s really timeless- the notion of “gaining the whole world and yet losing your soul.” Shakespeare dealt with this well in Macbeth.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Those interested in kicking out the “RINOs” might want to take a look at this.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/party-of-nobody.html
Looks like your strategy may be working.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Yeah. People are acting like Toomey’s running with complete disregard for his own self interest. Of course he’s doing it for The Children – or something. In the mind of any politician, self-interest and self-sacrifice intermingle.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Heh… Ted Strickland is significantly more conservative than Arlen Specter.
No offense Alex, but you do not know what you are talking about. The Republican Establishment, Republican Presidents, the NRSC, Conservative Senators, etc…, bent over backwards for 20+ years to support Arlen Specter. And when he finally crosses the line with members of the Pennsylvania Republican State Party (those rabid Right-Wingers them!!) he throws it all in the garbage and joins Team Obama. Turning your back on your comrades when the need you the most is the very definition of being a traitor.
Like I have written a thousand times. There are people that fit the mold that you desire (i.e. Norm Coleman). Let’s do everything we can to keep/support them but shed no tears for POS like Arlen Specter.
And any Republican that defends David Souter is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and should probably read some WFB or somethin’…
May 1st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I’m not trying to gain the world and my soul will not have been lost. Politicians are just individual people. If you can’t deal with self-serving people properly, then you’re just enabling statism, socialism, radical Islam, and multiculturalism. Jim DeMint’s Secret Club might ostensibly stand against those things, but it has no means of stopping them. There’s a classic term for that, too. It’s called a lost cause. I’m not interested in seeing conservatism become one.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Alex,
You post makes little sense. All you are doing is repeating the same failed argument that you have made in two other posts and dozens of arguments.
Take this post down, it is a waste of space.
As your buddy Andrew Sullivan if we will post it.
You do not realize how idiotic this post is.
You are asking conservatives to hold off on principle for the sake of power, yet the party has neither at the moment.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Heh… Ted Strickland is more conservative than Arlen Specter.
So you think that Ted Strickland supported the Republican position 55% of the time in 2007?
No offense Alex, but you do not know what you are talking about. The Republican Establishment, Republican Presidents, the NRSC, Conservative Senators, etc…, bent over backwards for 20+ years to support Arlen Specter. And when he finally crosses the line with members of the Pennsylvania Republican State Party (those rabid Right-Wingers them!!) he throws it all in the garbage and joins Team Obama. Turning your back on your comrades when the need you the most is the very definition of being a traitor.
The problem is that none of them could save him this time around, much as they (rightfully) wanted to.
What exactly did you want him to do? Bend over and take it from Toomey? You’re telling me you wouldn’t have done the same? You don’t think Specter wants to support his agenda, just like you want yours promoted?
Toomey — who, as Big S pointed out, isn’t exactly acting out of virtuous altruism himself — never should have run. All he’s done is enable liberal Democrats.
Like I have written a thousand times. There are people that fit the mold that you desire (i.e. Norm Coleman). Let’s do everything we can to keep/support them but shed no tears for POS like Arlen Specter.
I hate Arlen Specter. He’s a bastard.
But he was our bastard. Now he’s their bastard. I’m willing to accept bastards on my team if they further my political agenda. Apparently you’re not — but just know that you’re only enabling liberal Supreme Court justices, statism, multiculturalism, and radical Islam.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Alex, stop sniveling over Specter and tell us how his voting record displays a philosophical vector that could be considered “centrism” — and then please tell us what principles that -ism is based on. Bonus points if you can do so without using the vague, but extant, philosophical touchstones of “conservatism” or “progressivism” in your answer.
Something tells me that Specter’s record displays nothing but 1) naked political ambition/total opportunism and 2) a philosophy of “centrism” that demands strict adherence to the principle “do whatever buys the votes of those stupid schmucks back home.”
May 1st, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Alex, You post makes little sense. All you are doing is repeating the same failed argument that you have made in two other posts and dozens of arguments.
Great argument.
Take this post down, it is a waste of space.
Great argument.
As your buddy Andrew Sullivan if we will post it.
Great argument.
You do not realize how idiotic this post is.
Great argument.
You are asking conservatives to hold off on principle for the sake of power, yet the party has neither at the moment.
There’s an argument! Now try expounding upon that.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Alex,
If you want to see what power without principle gets us, take a look at the federal budgets from 2001-2006.
Tell me what your win-at-any-cost bought us when we had to pay for the self-interest of politicians.
Our party is PAYING FOR the sort of cynicism you think we need more of.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Alex, stop sniveling over Specter and tell us how his voting record displays a philosophical vector that could be considered “centrism” — and then please tell us what principles that -ism is based on. Bonus points if you can do so without using the vague, but extant, philosophical touchstones of “conservatism” or “progressivism” in your answer.
How does his voting record display that? Well, you can take that up with the National Journal. They seem to have devised a proper methodology.
Something tells me that Specter’s record displays nothing but 1) naked political ambition/total opportunism and 2) a philosophy of “centrism” that demands strict adherence to the principle “do whatever buys the votes of those stupid schmucks back home.”
Ah, but not Toomey — not formerly pro-choice Toomey. He’d never do anything out of calculated self-interest. Conservatives are in it for the principle. Those centrists just want to buy off votes!
Has it never occurred to you that SPECTER MIGHT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN HIS CENTRISM?????????
May 1st, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Time for me to go. Big S is a socialist clown, who spent the better part of last year pretending to be a republican to subvert the party and divide conservatives on this site.
The fact that you are quoting his ‘junk’, makes me question your ability to think on your own.
More liberal buzzwords, please.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:29 pm
That’s more like it. The reason why Specter had to become a Democrat to remain viable is that a large proportion of like-minded moderate Republicans in PA left the Republican party in the past few years, and many became Democrats. A few hundred thousand or something like that. If anything, Specter’s party switch is kind of a perverse result of actually listening to what his constituents in PA have been saying.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:29 pm
If you want to see what power without principle gets us, take a look at the federal budgets from 2001-2006. Tell me what your win-at-any-cost bought us when we had to pay for the self-interest of politicians. Our party is PAYING FOR the sort of cynicism you think we need more of.
No, no, no, no, no! You misunderstand me.
Once we HAVE power, we need to use it to further conservative goals. We blew it BADLY in the Bush years, and there was no excuse for it. And it’s why our party leaders should be conservatives — real ones, unlike Tom DeLay — so the party is kept in line in its goals. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan — they should head the House once we take back power.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
It is just so strange how you are now chastising Jim DeMint… Is DeMint going to be the new Frum/NM bogeyman of the Right that no sophisticated Republican could ever support?
Jim DeMint is the living embodiment of what a Republican should be. Erudite and sensible, modest and dignified; Demint is the kind of Cincinnatian Everyman that we used to celebrate in this country.
How you can have such vitriol for someone like Jim DeMint, and fight with such vigor for the walking bag of dog feces that is Arlen Specter, I will never know.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Time for me to go. Big S is a socialist clown, who spent the better part of last year pretending to be a republican to subvert the party and divide conservatives on this site. The fact that you are quoting his ‘junk’, makes me question your ability to think on your own. More liberal buzzwords, please.
Kristofer, you’re an embarrassment. You used to be reasonable when you were a commenter, but your naked attempt at playing The Role you think you should be in as a senior editor is ruining your credibility. You’re so awful at it. You become a caricature of a hardliner, because you are not one. You support goddamn partial-birth abortion, for crying out loud.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
It is just so strange how you are now chastising Jim DeMint…
Because he openly admits that he would like to see a Senate where there are only thirty Republicans, so long as they all agree with him. In other words: he openly admits that he wants the liberal agenda to pass.
Is DeMint going to be the new Frum/NM bogeyman of the Right that no sophisticated Republican could ever support?
If by “sophisticated Republican,” you mean “Republicans who want to win,” then yes.
Jim DeMint is the living embodiment of what a Republican should be. Erudite and sensible, modest and dignified; Demint is the kind of Cincinnatian Everyman that we use to celebrate in this country.
OK, besides the identity politics.
I think that Jim DeMint is a good senator, judging by the votes. As a tactician, he should be given tranquilizer shots on a daily basis.
How you can have such vitriol for someone like Jim DeMint, and fight with such vigor for the walking bag of dog feces that is Arlen Specter, I will never know.
Are you willfully ignoring my words? I loathe Arlen Specter. Are you unable to see that I both loathe him and find him an important part of the coalition? It’s the same way that I feel about DeMint.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:35 pm
#31 “If anything, Specter’s party switch is kind of a perverse result of actually listening to what his constituents in PA have been saying.”
Um, yeah, isn’t that kind of the point of being in politics? If anything, Specter is slightly to the right of his electorate, which voted for Obama by double digits.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Alex,
“No, no, no, no, no! You misunderstand me.
Once we HAVE power, we need to use it to further conservative goals. We blew it BADLY in the Bush years”
…..because we had too many self-interested charlatans like Arlen Specter that you think we should coddle. The Republican voters of PA preferred someone else, and Arlen couldn’t accept that, so he switched. It’s as simple as that. Essentially, your solution is to deny primary voters their choice in the naive hope that by keeping more Specters around we WON’T repeat the mistakes of 2001-2006. You know the old cliche about the definition of insanity, right?
Bottom line, I defer to a pearl of wisdom my dad drilled into me. It’s better to be in a bad situation with good people, than to be in a good situation with bad people.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Stop blaming Pat Toomey for gosh sakes! Toomey was just the instrument. Any Republican who challenged Specter would have beaten him this time.
It is not a fault of the Republican Party that we will not tolerate people who are directly responsible for the passage of the Obama Administration’s economic agenda.
I want friends who we can depend on during the hard times. Not traitors who jump ship to save their own skins when they screw up so badly that it can’t be smoothed over.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:39 pm
…..because we had too many self-interested charlatans like Arlen Specter that you think we should coddle. The Republican voters of PA preferred someone else, and Arlen couldn’t accept that, so he switched. It’s as simple as that. Essentially, your solution is to deny primary voters their choice in the naive hope that by keeping more Specters around we WON’T repeat the mistakes of 2001-2006. You know the old cliche about the definition of insanity, right?
You think it’s the fault of people like SPECTER that we blew the 2000s so badly?
It was FALSE CONSERVATIVES like Tom DeLay and Bill First who cost us!
With their big-government, big-spending, pro-NCLB, pro-Medicare expansion, pro-federal government-expanding, anti-accountability, anti-federalism (Terri Schiavo) agenda.
Don’t blame Arlen Specter for that! He’s not the one that pushed those issues!
May 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Alex,
” he openly admits that he wants the liberal agenda to pass.”
That’s intellectually dishonest on your part. You know that Demint wants the conservative agenda to succeed. What he meant is that he wants the party to stand for something. If the GOP doesn’t stand for something, then conservatism has no voice. If conservatism has no voice, then all your fantasies of corralling self-interested politicians into supporting limited government is a farce.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Stop blaming Pat Toomey for gosh sakes! Toomey was just the instrument. Any Republican who challenged Specter would have beaten him this time.
Why would I stop blaming Toomey?! Toomey’s the one who decided to actually run! Sure, any Republican who challenged him could have beaten him (because all of the moderates have bolted for the Democrats!!!), but Toomey’s the one who went through with it!
It is not a fault of the Republican Party that we will not tolerate people who are directly responsible for the passage of the Obama Administration economic agenda.
They seem to have a high tolerance for electing liberal Democrats, though — which is the result of the Club for Shrinkage’s agenda.
I want friends who we can depend on during the hard times. Not traitors who jump ship to save their own skins when they screw up so badly that it can’t be smoothed over.
I want such things, too, but that’s NOT the world that we live in!!! Stop working from this utopian perspective and come into the real world.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Socialist clown? But of course!
Actually, I criticize this far-right exclusivist crap – the idea that Republicans are unpopular because they haven’t been conservative enough (!) – because it’s patently ridiculous. I’m not a Party person, but I do appreciate the need for more than one sane, engaged political party in this country. If all that’s left of the Republican party is DeMint clones who are content to give up their own power for the sake of the warm fuzzy feelings ideological purity gives them, then I’d have to say that the Democrats are the ones who better fit the sane/engaged criteria I mentioned above. Especially if they are joined by relatively sane ex-Republicans cast off during the current Republican losing streak.
Hey! Lay off my junk!
May 1st, 2009 at 11:42 pm
The Republican voters of Pennsylvania forced Arlen Specter out.
Arlen voted for the stimulus and that was just one too many slaps in the face.
Your problem isn’t with anyone in authority in the party (most of them have supported Arlen). Alex your problem is with the Republican voters of Pennsylvania who rejected him based on his actions.
Democracy means voters act as they wish not as pawns in some partisan political strategy.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:42 pm
That’s intellectually dishonest on your part. You know that Demint wants the conservative agenda to succeed. What he meant is that he wants the party to stand for something. If the GOP doesn’t stand for something, then conservatism has no voice. If conservatism has no voice, then all your fantasies of corralling self-interested politicians into supporting limited government is a farce.
No, he wants the liberal agenda to succeed. If he would rather have a 30-member Republican body in the Senate than compromise a little, then he wants the liberal agenda to succeed.
Of course the Republican Party must stand for something. That “something” can’t be a narrow ideology hellbent on enacting witch hunts.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Alex,
“It was FALSE CONSERVATIVES like Tom DeLay and Bill First who cost us!”
And what should happen to false conservatives who betray party principle?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Oh, absolutely. You’d be surprised how many people here don’t realize that though.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
The Republican voters of Pennsylvania forced Arlen Specter out. Arlen voted for the stimulus and that was just one too many slaps in the face. Your problem isn’t with anyone in authority in the party (most of them have supported Arlen). Alex your problem is with the Republican voters of Pennsylvania who rejected him based on his actions. Democracy means voters act as they wish not as pawns in some partisan political strategy.
The voting masses can be unbelievably dumb; it was Toomey’s job as a responsible party official not to play into their we-want-blood attitude. He did, and now we’re down one in the Senate and are once again embarrassed.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
And what should happen to false conservatives who betray party principle?
Be removed from positions of leadership.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Alex,
“Be removed from positions of leadership.”
And who is going to take such a courageous step? All those self-interested charlatans you say we need to fill the party ranks?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Alex, I am not the embarrassment. Your steady move to the left is causing this site and the other FPP’s, embarrassment. Ask them.
Let me provide you with some advice Alex;
Unless you drop the ego, start being part of the team (meaning – act like a Republican)you will spend the rest of your life writing obituaries for the Catskill Commentator with act-blog.
If foreign affairs is the only policy you agree on with the majority of this party…write about it.
Alex, all of our visitors can see your steady move to the left, towards the inevitable, of you becoming a moderate democrat. You lack passion when writing articles in favor of republican causes and candidates, yet you are a fire-breathing nincompoop when you attack the rest of us and the party. You are so immature and ignorant, you cannot see what the rest of us see.
A perfect example is the fact that you keep stating that I support partial birth abortion. That is a lie.
I oppose a federal amendment outlawing abortion and gay marriage. I also oppose the federal income tax, federal delivery of health care services, education, etc… This is based on my belief on what our federal system should be/was designed to be. You just view abortion and marriage as a liberal vs. conservtive issue, which it is not.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:47 pm
49 – No, because a lot of politicians aren’t self-interested charlatans. I recommended Mike Pence or Paul Ryan. Do you have a problem with either of those two?
May 1st, 2009 at 11:48 pm
#47, You sound like a Marxist.
“We must subvert our desired vote for the good of the party. We can’t hold politicians accountable because that might enable the
counter-revolutionaries… er Democrats.”May 1st, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Knepper, you should read this op-ed in the Journal by DeMint. He articulates pretty clearly the views held by many on this blog…
How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party
It’s the Democrats who won’t tolerate a diversity of views
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124121871475178899.html
May 1st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Thank you Mike Huckabee and Bernie Sanders.
Knepper, you liberal squirrel! You are such a f*&%ng progessive.
Let me give you some more advice. You cannot call yourself a laissez-fair capitalist, then tear down the stronger pro-growth organization our country has.
The truth comes out….liberal school, liberal friends…cannot think on his own…now transforming in to a liberal.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Alex,
I love what I see of Paul Ryan, and actually pump him up on this site.
But the Senators and Reps that you say we need to be a majority are going to produce leaders like DeLay and Frist. You remove the medicine and demand the cure. We need Congressmen of principle, or we will not have a Speaker of principle. We need Senators of principle, or we will not have a Majority Leader of principle. We cannot plant the weed and expect good fruit.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Where did this “the Republican party has moved too far to the right” theme come from? In his statement, Specter noted: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.” Yeah…that’s what Ronald Reagan was known for – being a big lib/moderate Republican. Huh?!? I suppose Medicare Part D and NCLB were indicative of a far right-wing agenda now? These people make no sense.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Your steady move to the left is causing this site and the other FPP’s, embarrassment. Ask them
What “move to the left”? I’ve always been pragmatic. My ideology has not changed.
(meaning – act like a Republican)
Hahaha, that’s rich. In order to “act like a Republican,” one must be a hardliner. Brilliant strategy for electoral success.
If foreign affairs is the only policy you agree on with the majority of this party…write about it.
Um, I don’t know many times I have to go over this, buddy: I’m anti-multiculturalism, a laissez-faire capitalist, a strong judicial originalist, and a total hawk. About the only issues I disagree with the GOP on are abortion (and I even oppose Roe!) and gay issues. I’m pretty goddamn conservative.
Alex, all of our visitors can see your steady move to the left, towards the inevitable, of you becoming a moderate democrat. You lack passion when writing articles in favor of republican causes and candidates, yet you are a fire-breathing nincompoop when you attack the rest of us and the party. You are so immature and ignorant, you cannot see what the rest of us see.
Yes, I’m going to be a bomb-Iran, support-Alito, deregulate-the-market, drill-baby-drill, overturn-Roe, privatize-Social-Security Democrat. That makes sense. Shut up, Kristofer.
A perfect example is the fact that you keep stating that I support partial birth abortion. That is a lie.
You are such a liar!!!!! You’ve told me that you support partial-birth abortion and that you come from a family of strong pro-choicers!!!
May 1st, 2009 at 11:53 pm
#50
Alex doesn’t need me to defend him, but I don’t think he is moving left. He never really hid the fact that he’s more of a libertarian conservative than a down-the-line movement conservative, and he fit comfortably within what was once the Republican coalition. Now, as the party shrinks, he’s getting closer to the edges of the coalition and is probably more sensitive to the peril of the witch hunts than the more traditional conservative FPPs here.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Let me give you some more advice. You cannot call yourself a laissez-fair capitalist, then tear down the stronger pro-growth organization our country has.
Strongest?
Can you point to an example of a success that the Club for Growth has had in furthering capitalist policies, please, Kristofer?
The Club for Growth, I’m convinced, is a Democratic troll organization, meant to trick conservatives into spending millions to help the left.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
#56, I think what Arlen meant was that many people had moved into the GOP that he didn’t understand and wasn’t comfortable with.
A lot of the older GOP elites are uncomfortable with the Republican electorate that developed during the 90′s and 00′s.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Alex doesn’t need me to defend him, but I don’t think he is moving left. He never really hid the fact that he’s more of a libertarian conservative than a down-the-line movement conservative, and he fit comfortably within what was once the Republican coalition. Now, as the party shrinks, he’s getting closer to the edges of the coalition and is probably more sensitive to the peril of the witch hunts than the more traditional conservative FPPs here.
It boggles the mind, because for my entire short political life, I’ve been sensitive to one thing and one thing only: how much liberals utterly despise my ideology. When I speak on campus, I’m known as the firebrand right-winger. I come on here and talk about promoting right-wing ideology through pragmatic means and I’m branded as a heretic. It’s bizarre. The party is degenerating into a Secret Club, which, in a democracy, is utterly useless.
But the Senators and Reps that you say we need to be a majority are going to produce leaders like DeLay and Frist. You remove the medicine and demand the cure. We need Congressmen of principle, or we will not have a Speaker of principle. We need Senators of principle, or we will not have a Majority Leader of principle. We cannot plant the weed and expect good fruit.
Toomey is principled?
Toomey was pro-choice while he was in Congress. That changed as soon as he needed the support of hardliners.
Yeah, real principled.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I know, it’s the biggest bunch of BS ever. The Reagan Administration is about a thousand paces to the Right of anything the GOP has put up in the subsequent 21 years!
May 1st, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I wonder if you all are aware that the number of Republicans has decreased by about 5 percent since Inauguration Day, it’s now down to 22% if you average all the polls.
22% is an incredibly low number for one of the major political parties. It’s very rare that party identification numbers dip below high 20s/ low 30s. And this is not the result of Bush, this is in response to the first 100 days of the Obama presidency and (presumably) the Republican response to it.
Even after the exodus of Republicans into the independent camp, Obama stills gets a 57% approval among independents according to the Pollster.com average of polls. In other words, the gap in terms of what voters are missing is not in terms of hardline conservatism, it’s on the center-right.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
FPPs, let’s tone down the rhetoric. I sense two overreactions….one from Knepper and another in response to Knepper.
The odd thing about this post and the comments is that Knepper isn’t even asking for an idealogical shift as much as he’s asking for a strategical shift. I think his ideas have merit but I do not believe they apply in the case of Pennyslvania.
Everyone, read DeMint’s op-ed…he seems to get it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124121871475178899.html
“Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party this week is no reason for Republicans to cheer. But his reason for leaving — he faced an unwinnable primary election next year — is no cause for soul searching. There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together?
In the wake of two successive electoral defeats and the likelihood of a 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, what does it even mean to be a Republican today? Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.
The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.”
May 1st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Alex, I just have a question:
You keep reminding us that we live in the real world, full of imperfect, self-interested people. How then can we expect to partner up with ideologically ambiguous people like Specter, in the hopes of building large enough coalitions to return to power, and expect to maintain them to vote along with the party often enough to advance our agenda? After all, with power come tantalizing opportunities to extract personal benefit from that power, at the expense of the coalition’s greater interests. For example, as we saw under the Bush administration, Republicans in Washington become noticeably less enamored with cutting spending. Without evidence of firm conservative convictions in our elected officials, how can we assure ourselves of the strength of our hypothetical coalition? Just a thought.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Alex,
“When I speak on campus, I’m known as the firebrand right-winger.”
Yes, but you live in D.C.
You should roll with my hommies.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:59 pm
I didn’t even post the two best paragraphs in this incredibly well-written piece by DeMint….
“Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.
Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don’t want to make decisions for them. That’s why I’m working to reduce Washington’s grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals, so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism. It’s the Democrats who want to impose a rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans. Freedom Republicanism is about choice — in education, health care, energy and more. It’s OK if those choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California.”
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Jim DeMint:
To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.
Freedom? What the hell does that mean? I agree, but who would disagree?
The problem with such vagueness is that the words mean different things to different people.
I would consider freedom to include the freedom to have an abortion, or to get a divorce, or to enter a union with my same-sex partner — all freedoms that DeMint would like to see either tightened or eroded. What about flag-burning? He wants to criminalize that. Marijuana? He likes the fact that it’s criminalized. Prostitution? Gambling? Is DeMint for “freedom” in those areas of life?
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 am
“I know, it’s the biggest bunch of BS ever. The Reagan Administration is about a thousand paces to the Right of anything the GOP has put up in the subsequent 21 years it is ridiculous!”
Uh huh. And would you say the current GOP is to the right or the left of the country as a whole? I’d suggest there are far more people out there who share Arlen Specter or Mike Bloomberg’s ideology than that of Demint or Sarah Palin.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
Alex,
“Toomey is principled?
Toomey was pro-choice while he was in Congress. That changed as soon as he needed the support of hardliners.
Yeah, real principled.”
I wasn’t referring specifically to Toomey. I honestly don’t know a lot about him. Rather, I was referring to your naive belief that a bunch of self-interested charlatans will (miraculously) elect principled leaders to positions of leadership. You’ve already seen what YOUR tactics produce- Delay and Frist.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 am
The odd thing about this post and the comments is that Knepper isn’t even asking for an idealogical shift as much as he’s asking for a strategical shift.
Exactly!
Our ideology is not the problem — it’s our strategy!
You keep reminding us that we live in the real world, full of imperfect, self-interested people. How then can we expect to partner up with ideologically ambiguous people like Specter, in the hopes of building large enough coalitions to return to power, and expect to maintain them to vote along with the party often enough to advance our agenda? After all, with power come tantalizing opportunities to extract personal benefit from that power, at the expense of the coalition’s greater interests. For example, as we saw under the Bush administration, Republicans in Washington become noticeably less enamored with cutting spending. Without evidence of firm conservative convictions in our elected officials, how can we assure ourselves of the strength of our hypothetical coalition? Just a thought.
Why do you criticize Specter for his “ideological ambition,” but Toomey’s own ambition is just fine? Plenty of people JUST LIKE TOOMEY came to Congress promising to cut spending and yet did not.
That’s why proven leadership is necessary…no appointing people based on words. Make sure our leadership is dead serious about their principles. The principled will keep the merely ambitious in line. The latter will do it to save their hides.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 am
#63, It doesn’t appear there is anything Republicans can do at this point to influence polling. Republicans depend on what Obama does and how the media reports it. So far the media has taken the position of ignoring positive stories on Republicans and only paying attention to negative stories about them.
In this climate we’re lucky to get more than 15% of the voters identifying with what the media portrays of us. In the media’s coverage Republicans are sometimes a troupe of clowns and other times racists/fascists.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 am
We should use pragmatism to achieve power.
Once we’re in power, principle should come first, because we can afford to BE principled. No more catering is necessary. That’s why we try to acquire power in the first place: to implement the principles!
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:04 am
#59
I do tend to agree with you Alex about the CFG. I haven’t seen anything successful out of them for a long time. For instance, they strongly supported Andy Harris against Wayne Gilchrest in the 08 primary in MD-1 and Harris won. He lost the November election in a district that voted for Gilchrest for 9 terms. How was that helpful to the GOP or to conservatism at all? Instead, we now have yet another seat to have to fight and take back in 2010.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 am
WA_Independent,
“And would you say the current GOP is to the right or the left of the country as a whole?”
To the right. And the Democratic party is well to the LEFT of the the country as a whole. That’s why the ol’ cliche is tack right (or left if you’re a Democrat) in the primary, and run for the center in the general.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 am
The problem is you cannot take an “average” of the polls when polls are showing such disparities in the percentage of Republicans that comprise the electorate. Somebody has to be right and someone has to be wrong. The gaps between pollsters are just too jarring.
If Rasmussen, PPP(D), and SurveyUSA are correct in showing 33%, 33%, and 29%, respectively, Republicans with a gap of 7-10 points with the Democrats, then Republicans are in no worse shape than on November 4th.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 am
Alex,
“We should use pragmatism to achieve power.
Once we’re in power, principle should come first, because we can afford to BE principled. No more catering is necessary. That’s why we try to acquire power in the first place: to implement the principles!”
But your goals and your tactics are at odds. That is why I keep asking you how a den of unprincipled thieves are going to produce principled leadership? You can’t really answer, other than to restate your goals and tactics- which I contend are mutually exclusive. Does a room full of Arlen Specters (who can’t be challenged in a primary, mind you) elect a Paul Ryan Speaker of the House?
I’ll support pragmatism to an extent, but your ‘pragmatism’ subverts the goal, and hence, is no longer pragmatic.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
#74 Harris was a sub-par candidate. It’s almost as if CfG has a knack for picking fiscal conservatives who are fatally flawed. There are several candidates who could have beaten Gilchrist and Kratovil. CfG preferred a tone-deaf candidate who ran very odd advertisements.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 am
#59, are you on heavy medication??? That is a crazy statement!
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:15 am
#78:
Do we have any one interested in the race? I know it is tough in MD to be a Republican, but surely a State Delegate or Senator can win. This is part of our problem; we have lots of Republican districts, but run candidates who can’t win. We need to be (dare I say it) more… pragmatic with selecting candidates who not only have our policies, but can actually win an election.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 am
#76 – Really, you can’t average polls?
Pollster average of all polls on election day = 52/ 44.4
Final result – 52.9/ 45.7
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 am
There are two fundamentally flawed assumptions here. The first is that anyone is asking for a room full of Arlen Specters; I don’t think Alex wants that, he just wants to allow a few Specter-like politicians to remain in the coalition in order to keep the GOP legislatively viable. The second is that we’re ever going to get someone like Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House. The biggest mistake being made by Republicans right now is in expecting to put someone in that seat who will be a 100% down-the-line ideologically pure conservative. If you make that your goal without anything in the way of plans except for a list of “principles”, moderate voters will continue to ignore you and you’ll stay in the minority.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:18 am
Jonathan,
Yes, we need a principled pragmatism. But a pragmatism that expects a den of thieves to choose an honest man as their leader- as Alex is suggesting- is hopelessly naive.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 am
Wa_independent,
Did you miss my qualifier on why you couldn’t average the percentage? The disparity between the pollsters pre-election for Obama v. McCain was not that great. The disparity between what pollsters are using for the percentage of the electorate that is Republican is incredible. We’re talking about 10-15 percentage gaps between pollsters. There were no such gaps with the polls for pre-election data between Obama and McCain
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 am
Wa_independent,
This pollster is showing Republicans at 33% (the same percentage as PPP(D) in its last national poll), a far different percentage from most pollsters and the national average. Care to challenge his record on national polling? Either Rasmussen is wrong or the pollsters showing Republicans at under 25% are wrong…
“President George W. Bush won the popular vote on November 2 by a 50.7% to 48.2% margin over Senator John Kerry. The final Rasmussen Reports projection had shown the President winning 50.2% to 48.5%.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2004/election_2004_bush_kerry
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 am
Big S,
“I don’t think Alex wants that, he just wants to allow a few Specter-like politicians to remain in the coalition in order to keep the GOP legislatively viable. ”
Ah, but if we are relying on the Specters of the world to tip the balance of power in our favor, then such unscrupulous charlatans will use their strong position to their own maximum benefit. In effect, you have handed them the whip hand, and being the sorts of individuals that they are, they will use that to great effect. To the extent that we rely on them for power, they will take that power as their own. If we don’t need them, then the argument is moot. But if we do, then we get Tom Delay and Bill Frist.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 am
Republican ID
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/04/republican-id.html
Taegan Goddard points to a couple recent national polls showing the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans down around 20%.
I don’t think there’s much doubt the GOP is a big old mess right now, but I don’t think it’s that bad either.
We’ve polled in eight states over the last two months and all of them had at least 28% of voters describe themselves as Republicans. Here’s the breakdown:
State
Republican Identification
Texas
44%
Kentucky
39%
Colorado
38%
National
33%
North Carolina
33%
Arkansas
31%
Illinois
30%
Delaware
29%
Minnesota
28%
Illinois, Delaware, and Minnesota are all pretty darn blue so if they’re averaging 29% of voters identifying as Republicans the true number still has to be somewhere in the 30s.
Maybe this is some sort of twisted Bradley Effect where Republicans are more willing to share that allegiance in an IVR poll than a live interviewer one.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 am
#83:
The problem is we nominated a guy for President who some purists considered a traitor and then he picked a purist as his running mate and some so-called pragmatists had a hissy fit. We can’t be entirely pragmatic or we lose our principles, yet we can’t be so principled that we lose everything else.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:27 am
I really don’t understand all the fuss over Specter. It’s done and over. Specter has moved back home to his Democratic party. Frankly, I’m happy for that. When we do have slim majorities (or are near a filibuster-proof minority status), we spend so much time and resources trying to placate the fence-sitters that we end up losing a few reliable seats. It happens every damn election (anyone remember the NRSC dumping all that money trying to save Linc Chaffee’s sorry butt only to lose the MT and VA Senate races by very slim margins?)
I’m not one for ideological purity. In fact, I would like more pragmatism in the GOP. By all means, let’s have more Norm Colemans and Gordon Smiths. I also no longer expect politicians to have honor or loyalty (those days are long gone, unfortunately). But when someone like Snarlin’ Arlen Specter takes all the support he can get (Bush, Santorum in 2004) and then stabs you in the back…well, all I can say is don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
Jonathan,
I agree with your sentiment, but would add that one can be a purist and a scoundrel, just as one can be a pragmatist and principled. I think McCain was principled (for a politician) if not pure. What I believe Alex is arguing for is an impossible tactic whereby unprincipled pragmatists produced principled leadership and purity.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
#82 Big S
You said: “The biggest mistake being made by Republicans right now is in expecting to put someone in that seat who will be a 100% down-the-line ideologically pure conservative. If you make that your goal without anything in the way of plans except for a list of “principles”, moderate voters will continue to ignore you and you’ll stay in the minority.”
But isn’t Nancy Pelosi a 100% down-the-line ideologically pure liberal? Why do moderate voters tolerate her? Do you think it was a “check” on Bush? Why can Dems get a 100% pure lib as Speaker but Repubs can’t do the opposite? Do you see the country as far to the left as Nancy Pelosi?
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
Tommy Boy,
“Maybe this is some sort of twisted Bradley Effect where Republicans are more willing to share that allegiance in an IVR poll than a live interviewer one.”
What you are referring to is the “Shy Tory” effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 am
MWS,
Yeah, the line is actually from the PPP(D) blog in response to Wa_independent’s post about Republican Party ID.
The point is that even PPP(D) is stating emphatically that the Republican ID is in the thirties, significantly higher than the national average. With disparities this large, my point is that some pollsters have to be right while the others wrong and that’s why examining the average is misleading.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 am
#80, I think Luis Luna would be a good choice. Mike McDermott or Nancy Jacobs would start out ahead of Kratovil.
MD 1st is a relatively conservative district on everything but environmental issues.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
#94:
I’ll take a tree-hugger as the GOP nominee if they can take back the seat.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 am
Alex said; “We should use pragmatism to achieve power.”
Yet he scolds us over Specter who was anything but pragmatic.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 am
Tommy Boy,
“With disparities this large, my point is that some pollsters have to be right while the others wrong and that’s why examining the average is misleading.”
Exactly. We know some polls are good, and we know some polls are bad. Averaging good polls with bad polls doesn’t make for more accuracy. Better to look to the good polls (based on past performance and consistent methodology) and ignore the bad ones.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 am
MWS, this has another parallel.
Power should never be a goal in itself. We start admitting a ton of crooks and con men into our party in the late 90′s to remain in power and then wondered why our party was filled with crooks and con men in the 00′s.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
props to #98.
Now was are a minority party. Let’s not do this again.
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
Doug,
Indeed. There was a section of Buchanan’s book, “Right From the Beginning” that always struck me. I’m paraphrasing here, and he was talking about education, but the sentiment pertains:
We remove the organ and demand the function. We scoff at virtue and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We tell children they are descendants of apes, and express horror when they emulate their forebears.
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 am
#100 sounds much like CS Lewis’s essay in Men without Chests.
“And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 am
#98 Actually averaging polls is widely accepted practice (see sites like RealClearPolitics, Pollster and 538). Even though different polls use different methodologies and some are more accurate (no one is better ALL the time), in general, more data leads to a more accurate result. Even the best pollster is still dealing with margin of error and a relatively small sample size.
Now it is true that Rasmussen has a good record predicting Presidential elections but they also tend to skew Republican on issue based polling. Also worth noting that Pew, who were essentially tied with Rasmussen in terms of accuracy in 08, pegs the Republicans at 22%.
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 am
Wa,
Pew?
Tell me why Pew had Obama leading Mccain 53-38 on a poll released on October 28, 2008 among likely voters and then on a poll released on November 2nd, showed Obama leading McCain 52-46 among likely voters.
According to the Pew storyline, every undecided likely voter and his or her sister went to McCain. Quite a strong close by McCain/Palin eh? If you buy that, then more power to you. Or an alternative explanation is that Pew had no idea what it was doing in the 2008 election and has no idea now.
Compare it with Rasmussen’s steady Obama lead over McCain during the month of October and Pew’s erractic three day swing from a +15 for Obama to +6 for Obama. Rasmussen said it best:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/how_did_we_do
“Down the stretch, the race was remarkably stable. Rasmussen Reports showed Obama receiving either between 50% of the vote and 52% for the last 40 days of Election 2008. The ranged tightened a bit during the final two weeks–Obama received either 51% or 52% of the vote on 13 of the last 14 days.
For McCain, the numbers stayed between 44% and 47% of the vote for the final forty days of the campaign. He was at 46% or 47% of the vote every day for the final nine days of the tracking poll.
This consistency is important because it reflects the reality around us. When it comes to selecting a President, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not change their minds on a daily basis. Any poll showing volatility should automatically be viewed with caution.”
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 am
Here’s the citation for the poll released on November 2nd.
http://people-press.org/report/468/obama-leads-mccain-in-final-days
May 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 am
And the citation for the poll released on October 28.
http://people-press.org/report/465/mccain-support-declines
Both Pew and Rasmussen could not have been right in how the race transpired the final week. You tell me which pollster should be trusted, Wa_independent? I think I’ll stick with the pollster that didn’t show a 60% swing in three days.
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:20 am
Clearly this situation is untenable whilst this Knepper v Kristofer clash of the “titans” (egos) remains on-going. It’s ruining the site.
Obviously one of them has to go. I vote for Kristofer but it should be democratically put to a vote.
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 am
Do You Really Mean That, Senator DeMint?
by Sean Trende
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/05/01/do-you-really-mean-that-senator-demint/
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 am
#105 – Right but Tommy Boy, judging a pollster by a single poll is not going to tell you much.
Mark Blumenthal says it better than I can:
“It is foolish to focus on a single poll that “nailed” the result is given the random variation that is an inherent part of polling. Because most surveys involve random sampling (even internet panel surveys randomly sample from their pool of volunteers), they come with a degree of random variability built in, something we know of as the “margin of error.”
If we make the assumption that the final poll’s “snapshot” of voter preferences comes close enough to the election to predict the outcome, then the best we should expect a poll to do is capture the actual result within its margin of error (although even then with caveat that the margin of error is usually based on a 95% level of statistical confidence, so 1 poll in 20 will likely produce a result outside that error margin by chance alone).
So, if all polls are as accurate as they can be, the difference between “nailing” the result and being a few points off is a matter of random chance — or luck.”
Now it’s true that Rasmussen came pretty close in calling the 2008 national popular vote (as opposed to say, 2000, where they were off by 9 points). But so did ARG, Harris, CNN Fox News, Democracy Corps and a bunch of others. These guys all came within one point – not exactly the dividing line between mastery and hackery.
But really that’s just one poll. Let’s look at how Rasmussen did in state polling in that election. How did their likely voter model (which included more Repubs than other pollsters) hold up over several tests?
Ohio: +McCain by 4
Indiana: +McCain by 4
FL: +McCain by 3.5
etc…
Overall, they got the winner wrong in half of the swing states, calling them for McCain instead of Obama. In 8 of the 20 states polled, they overstated McCain’s support by at least 2.5 points.
And then there’s this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html . Now you tell me if there’s a slant/bias/house effect there. When you dig deeper into Rasmussen’s record, it’s fairly clear that their party ID breakdown is slanted in favor of the Republicans.
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:41 am
[...] makes the same old case. He writes: Specter is not a partisan conservative; he is not dedicated to any particular movement. He is a [...]
May 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 am
Doug,
Ah, yes! He was quoting or paraphrasing Lewis! He gave credit (he’s not Joe Biden).
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Kavon is smart don’t knock him
May 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I’m not “knocking” him. I’m engaging him. I knock Kristofer. Matthew and Kavon, I engage.
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Meghan McCain: Don’t look at us like ‘dirty moderates’
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/02/meghan-mccain-dont-look-at-us-like-dirty-moderates/
May 2nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“Now it’s true that Rasmussen came pretty close in calling the 2008 national popular vote (as opposed to say, 2000, where they were off by 9 points).”
Rasmussen Reports wasn’t around in 2000….so how could it have been off by 9 points?