-
Recent Posts
- Kamala’s brother-in-law fleeced taxpayers for billions to give to left-wing groups and lawyers | New York Post | 8.24. 24
- Coming: Global Political Recalibration
- Clark Judge: FDR, Reagan, and European Nationalism | NatCon Rome 2020
- Lady Gaga Tells All
- Trial Lawyers Use COVID-19 to Prey on America’s Corporations | Real Clear Policy | 12.1.20
Categories
- Book Reviews (12)
- Communication Strategy (23)
- Constitution and Law (14)
- Economic Policy: General (33)
- Economic Policy: Health Care (30)
- Economic Policy: The Great Financial Crisis (15)
- Economic Policy: US Debt Crisis (32)
- Education Policy (1)
- Global Issues (57)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2008 (18)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2012 (43)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2020 (5)
- Political Commentary: General (122)
- Politics & Policy (6)
- Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Administration (11)
- Speeches/Lectures (9)
- Uncategorized (6)
Archives
- September 2024
- March 2023
- July 2022
- April 2022
- December 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- November 2019
- December 2018
- September 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- June 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- June 2006
- October 2005
- August 2005
- March 2005
- November 2004
- August 2004
- June 2004
- December 2003
- October 2003
- August 2003
- April 2003
- July 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- May 2001
- December 2000
- June 2000
- January 1995
- August 1994
- August 1992
- June 1991
- July 1990
- September 1989
- July 1989
- March 1989
Tags
2012 2012 election Benghazi campaign constitution debt debt crisis Democrats economy election 2012 Energy Financial Times fiscal cliff foreign policy Gingrich Global Warming GOP Hoover Digest hughhewitt HughHewitt.com Immigration IRS National Review New York Post New York Times Obama Obamacare Republicans Ricochet Ricochet.com Romney Russia Scandal Senate SOTU speech Supreme Court Syria Tea Party Trump U.S. News Ukraine Wall Street Journal war Washington Times
What Will Tuesday’s Voting Mean? | HughHewitt.com | 11.02.09
We have all heard the prognosticators by now. The fate of the Administration’s health care legislation could be sealed tomorrow, when voters in Virginia and New Jersey pick their new governors – or not.
It has become something of a superstition in Washington that if the two Democratic candidates go down in defeat, next year will be 1994 all over again. That was when the GOP took back Congress after (on the House side) decades in the wilderness.
As of this morning, Virginia can be considered a done deal. I live in the DC area, so am exposed daily to the two Virginia gubernatorial campaigns. A good campaign has a clear message. It speaks to the moment and to the candidate’s plans for addressing voter concerns. It conveys a perspective on government. It merges the candidate’s public personal and that perspective with his or her program. Each comes to validate the others, giving voters confidence both in follow-through and flexibility to meet the unforeseen demands that will come during four years in office.
The GOP candidate in Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is running one of the best I have ever seen. I am sure that I have seen worse campaigns than the one Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate, is running, but I can’t think when. Had this year been last year, Deeds would have been able to embrace the president and been swept through on his message. But in 2009 that message isn’t selling in Virginia, and Mr. Deeds has nothing of his own to say.
New Jersey is another story. As of Friday, the daily report from the Rasmussen polling organization (see http://www.rasmussenreports.com ) showed Republican Chris Christie still leading (though barely) incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine.
In New Jersey it still makes sense for a Democrat to embrace a president whose national approval ratings leave him no longer a reliable plus for his party. So Mr. Corzine is calling his campaign “Yes We Can 2.0”, and the president is stumping for him almost daily. But the governor is also one of the wealthiest men in the nation, having shared the CEO position at Goldman Sachs with former Treasury secretary Hank Paulson before getting the boot in a C-suite dustup. He has outspent Mr. Christie by… well, at last count is was over five to one, but the final tally will undoubtedly climb much higher.
If a Democrat has to spend that kind of money to win an election in a state that in recent years has voted consistently Democratic, what does it say about his victory as a national indicator? Only that Democrats in Congress won’t be able to draw a breath of relief if he squeaks through. If New Jersey goes Corzine by a hair, it will still be bad news for the Democrats nationally. If it goes for Christie, look for a run on security blankets in the House Democratic caucus on Wednesday morning.
Though it is not well understood in the media, the battleground in American politics today is a particular kind of voter. That citizen cast his ballot for George W. Bush and a GOP member of Congress in 2004. Between then and 2008, he or she began voting Democrat.
Several issues moved this voter, but the anchor — the one he or she was most concerned about — was Federal spending. Before 2006, he or she had voted primarily Republican, because the GOP said it was the party of limited government and limited spending. But starting in 2005, this voter stopped believing that line. A big spending Republican Congress and a Republican president unwilling to veto a single spending bill took their toll.
Party professionals tell me that 2008 exit polls showed that the Obama victory margin came from Republican voters who expected the kind of sharp leftward turn we have seen. They didn’t care. They wanted to teach their own party’s leadership a lesson. Recent polls have Republican voters still deeply suspicious of the GOP in Congress. The collapse of support for the highly liberal Republican candidate in New York’s 23rd congressional district in favor of the Conservative Party nominee was another sign of the disgust of former loyalists with the GOP. This suspicion is one thing that the Democrats still have going for them.
The betting now is that Tuesday’s election will not prove enormously conclusive. The betting is wrong. However it turns out, the election is already speaking volumes about where the disaffected GOP vote – the swing vote in American politics — stands today.
In Virginia we know the answer. They have gone home. This probably tells us a lot about the prospects for moderate Democrats outside of major metropolitan areas all over the country.
In New Jersey, a narrow Democratic victory and even more a loss will signal significant Democratic weakness inside the major metropolitan areas. The GOP’s heartbeat is back, much stronger than was expected only a few months ago.
Finally, the race in New York-23 already shows that GOP voters remain fed up with the politics of label trumping the politics of principal. A product of the local GOP organization, the Republican candidate blamed outsiders for the collapse of her campaign. But NY-23 is one of those districts that went for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2008. Those outsiders only pointed out that if elected she would have proven the kind of congressperson that had made the typical American swing voter turn away from the GOP in the first place.
So here is the verdict that this year’s election has already handed down. Establishments in both parties are on notice. The key swing voters of the past half-decade want change. And what the change they have received to date is not change they believe in, from establishments on either side of the aisle.