On the Western Banks of the Shenandoah

On face value, November 3rd was a very good night for Republicans and conservatives. We swept the Governor’s mansion in New Jersey, won the marriage vote in Maine, and came within ten points of denying Lt. Governor John Garamendi of California a chance to move up to Congress (in a district that went 64% for Obama last year).

In Virginia, things were particularly good. Not only were there huge wins for the top three offices, but Republicans padded their House majority to veto proof levels, winning four, count ‘em, FOUR seats in Northern Virginia, exceeding most pundit’s expectations in a region many Republicans were close to writing off. Greg Habeeb has analysis over at Roanoke Valley Republicans, noting the enormity of McDonnell’s coattails. What has gone unnoticed is just how deep Republican wins were–in Shenandoah and Rockingham County, otherwise endangered incumbents were handed big wins. In Winchester, Republicans picked up the Commissioner of the Revenue over a local boy and a former Democratic City Council member, and in Waynesboro the Treasurer’s office went red with a candidate that had performed poorly four years before. It was indeed a very good night.

However, pundits have perhaps been too quick to point to this as the beginning of a Republican resurgence. Yes, there are some big similarities to 1993, which preceded the Revolution of ’94 with wins in both states that hold their Gubernatorial elections following the presidential ballot. However, there was one big sign of trouble to come: the up-and-down, hairy scary race in NY-23. The trouble, however, is not the brand’s presentation to the public–its what happen when a party is schizophrenic in deciding its identity.

Yes, Doug Hoffman has “unconceded” (or is really doing what he should have done in the first place and waited), but keeping in mind that most of the absentee ballots were cast with Scozaffava still in the race and without the intervention of the RNC’s top notch Victory program, there’s little chance of picking the seat back up. Yet the reason I’m pondering this race is not because of the usual punditry that this seat had been Republican since the post-Civil War period and therefore represents Republican troubles in reaching out to independent voters. Let’s keep in mind, as with all historical analysis, that the district is no where near what it was in those days, in terms of both boundaries and demographics. Additionally, John McHugh, the incumbent, was no Ronald Reagan, and the district went for Obama by 5%.

What gives me pause is the way things went down. Observers will recall that Hoffman was initially the Conservative Party nominee, before Scozzafava dropped out and the RNC and NRCC threw its support behind Hoffman. What’s been underreported here, however, is that Hoffman did indeed seek the Republican nomination from the County party chairs. The county chairs were not satisfied that Hoffman was electable, so they instead went with sitting State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava. However, word quickly spread that Scozzafava went against the party platform on several key issues to social conservatives, quickly drawing national attention to the race. While establishment types such as Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, and the NRCC stuck by Dede, outsiders such as Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson (yes, yes, but he’s thrown in his lot with the Beck crowd), and Dick Armey (ditto) went with Hoffman. Hoffman quickly surged amongst the base, eventually leading Scozzafava to suspend her campaign and throwing her lot with Democratic nominee Bill Owens. The final result: Owens 47%, Hoffman 45%, and Scozzofava 6%.

There was much in the process to give one pause. When it comes down to it, it’s very difficult to get a nominee who appeases all the various factions of the party went its down to people who, while not professional politicians in the sense that they’re not paid, know how to play the game. The problem is, however, they have a tendency to overreach when it comes to electability. The system can work well–here in Virginia, when Chris Saxman surprisingly dropped out of his re-election bid, the task of selecting a replacement nominee was given to the county chairs that make up the legislative district committee. Sensing what could go awry, they allowed all the candidates to come forward, speak their mind to the public, and only then selected the nominee. It wasn’t perfect, and in all likelihood eventual nominee (and solid conservative) Dickie Bell went into the process with a good lead. What the process did, though, was allow the hardcore conservatives and tea partiers to feel like their choice, David Karaffa, had a fair shot. Alas, this was not the case in New York.

However, what’s past is prologue. The game was fixed, and conservatives, not satisfied, were going to fight it. And fight it they did, right to defeat. On paper, Hoffman is a good nominee–strong business sense, a history of party service, and a veteran. The problems came in when conservatives weren’t satisfied, went off the reservation, and Hoffman was willing to fight right alongside them.

Given what’s going on in Washington, many conservatives are adopting a zero sum mentality. What is happening is that House and Senate races across the country are drawing outsiders for whom this their first run at public office. I think, on paper, that this is a very good thing. From time to time a party needs to define what it stands for, and new blood is needed now more than ever given the mess that career politicians are preparing to make of our nation’s health care system. Indeed, in many instances, the outsider could very well be the better nominee (as I believe was the case in NY-23). The issue, however, becomes that these battles, particularly when an establishment candidate is in place, can become very ugly very quickly. The NRSC has already stepped in it this year by getting overly involved with certain Senate nominating contests and has had to pull out. What all this does is build disunity, and overall will lead to losses next year.

This is starting to play out in races across the country. In Kentucky, Rand Paul (son of Representative Ron Paul, who last year was the bane of many “establishment” conservatives who disdained his foreign policy, but has now become their hero) is picking up money and support in a big way over former NRSC pick Trey Grayson (who is now running hard from the establishment label) . In Flordia, Marco Rubio is within shooting distance (10 points as of today) of GOVERNOR Charlie Crist. (Although Rubio is a sitting state representative, its very clear he’s a movement guy and their pick)

This is also playing out in House races. In Colorado’s 4th there are four Republicans vying to avenge Marylin Musgrave’s political death at the hands of. State Representative Cory Gardner has national backing, but first candidates keep jumping in. Closer to home in the Fifth District to unseat Tom Periello there’s already three outsider candidates versus two establishment types, with a fourth soon to follow. Indeed, in that race one candidate has already dropped out and will be running as an independent (Bradley Rees). Although said candidate recently received a concealed weapons charge and is a complete gadfly running off Tea Party steam, recall that this race was within one percent in 2008. It’s very dangerous if there’s a conservative independent who could draw even 1% of the vote. For many conservatives, losing on principles is better than losing with a less than perfect nominee. Indeed, there’s talk of primary challengers for both Frank Wolf (a moderate conservative) and Bob Goodlatte (a straight down the line conservative who the right would be ludicrous to sacrifice) In many districts, the Democratic incumbent will be a moderate themselves. In some districts, such as the aforementioned Fifth, the nominee will be walking hand in hand with President Obama. Picking the wrong nominee or getting mad at a less-than-perfect nominee means two more years of a rubber stamp representative.

The lesson? The establishment has to be very careful not to get too involved, lest the grassroots get irate if the eventual nominee is not “good enough.”That’s not too dangerous in Virginia where filing forms for independents are due on primary day–even though someone could come out of a convention and gather signatures, the odds are long. In other states, though, a sore loser independent is a very real possibility. For the grassroots, the lesson is different. Fight HARD for your candidates–this is your chance to define who we are as Republicans. I think we’ll see a number of excellent outsider nominees. However, don’t kill our nominees through a thousand cuts. For candidates, know that a new mantra is spreading through conservatives, brought to us by Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli–from now on activists will trust but verify when it comes to a candidate;s record.

Primary season 2010 will be absolutely crucial in making sure that we end up with top flight nominees who satisfy enough of our base and can relate to independents, who were incredibly important according to exit polls in VA and NJ and are increasingly souring on the Democratic brand. If we do this right, November 3rd may have very well been the beginning of the Republican resurgence. If we flub it, we’ll have picked defeat from the jaws victory and ensured more atrocious policy from a Congress and administration that many independents are already lamenting.