Skip to comments.GOP sees lessons, silver lining in Tedisco loss
Posted on 04/26/2009 8:53:01 PM PDT by CutePuppy
A fundamental urge for change and a subpar get out the vote program doomed Assemblyman Jim Tedisco's (R) congressional campaign...
..... About six months after President Obama won the White House, a race in which Obama's economic policies played a significant role featured Tedisco, who has been in public office for more than two decades, and Murphy, a venture capitalist who had never sought public office.
"This race tended to be more of businessman versus politician," said one GOP strategist close to Tedisco's campaign when asked to offer a postmortem. "Fresh face [versus] guy who's been around for a while."
Though Tedisco led by more than 20 points in an initial survey and was running in a district with a 70,000-person Republican registration advantage, Murphy strategists were able to label Tedisco as a career politician. Meanwhile, Tedisco's chosen line of attack -- that Murphy supported the economic stimulus package along with a provision that allowed executives at AIG to receive millions of dollars in bonuses -- fell flat.
..... Tedisco strategists recognized after the fact that their absentee ballot program fell well short of Democratic efforts. Absentee ballots were a higher proportion of votes in counties predisposed to supporting Murphy than they were in counties Tedisco won.
"You look at where the absentee ballots came back from, it's clear that they had an absentee ballot program and we didn't," the strategist said. "That's the glaring, obvious thing that stands out."
..... Tedisco's initial poll showed him leading by a wide margin, but only because he was better-known throughout the district. In fact, the generic ballot tests never showed anything other than a statistical tie.
..... "The Republican Party must be competitive in districts like NY-20 if we are going to regain our Congressional majorities," Steele said...
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.thehill.com ...
A party at war with itself cannot win and shall not survive.
“that Murphy supported the economic stimulus package along with a provision that allowed executives at AIG to receive millions of dollars in bonuses”
Big Mistake by a Republican, not playing to your strengths.
You know they consider you big business and this just sounded insincere.
There are certain things that you can’t over come, but you can turn them into a positive.
The Republican Party is run by RINO’s, they are extremely comfortable being the minority party. Its all those pesky conservatives that bother them.
Watching Republicans in recent years fumbling the issues and going with the polls, trying to be more and more populist instead of explaining the principles and history behind their decisions or solutions - as if they ever could outbid Democrats for any "program" - I doubt if they know what is really positive for them.
I did see them, however, turn some positive developments into complete disasters, by either not responding or explaining the positives, or folding and changing their position under political / media pressure.
I see a silver lining, too: This loss may send Steele out the door.
Otherwise, no, I don’t see a silver lining. Tedisco’s concession (instead of dragging it out Coleman-style) has been hailed as a smart move, preserving his image for a possible rematch next year. His problems will be that unseating an incumbent is harder than winning an open seat, and the NY Republican Party will be hard-pressed to field strong top-of-the-ticket candidates for Governor and Senator. I think Murphy’s in office for a long stretch.
That would be surprising, in the sense that it would be an acknowledgment of a mistake and totally out of character for GOP, in addition to bad publicity. Of course, there is always an option of leaving him as titular figurehead while having someone competent (if they can find one) to run operations and PR in the background for next couple of years.
If you look at the elections of 2006 and 2008 what you see is that the RINOs, or blue state moderate republicans, were decimated by the democrats.
This particular district was held by a RINO who lost to a moderate democrat in 2006, who was then appointed to the Senate. And a republican can't win the district back.
And it is not just the democrat's "Blue State Strategy" that is effective, but also the "Western Strategy" and the "Southern Strategy".
Exactly, with a
little lot of help from their "friends" in the Stupid Party.
Democrats win with "All politics is local" on Congressional level by putting "Blue Dog" faux-conservative Democrats on ballots in conservative states and districts, and because the national issues generally work against them. Why on Earth Republicans don't employ national strategy (running against and tying their opponents to liberal leadership of Democrats) in these same districts, is beyond me. Reagan defined how to do that in the 80's and Gingrich did it in the 90's with great success, not on the margins - the way Bush / Rove strategy backfired in 00's.
To have Democratic Senators and Governors in Western states like Montana and Dakotas, Nevada etc or Southern states like Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana etc that nationally mostly vote GOP is ridiculous and points to complete lack of strategy and leadership in GOP election committees.
“. Tediscos concession (instead of dragging it out Coleman-style) has been hailed as a smart move, preserving his image for a possible rematch next year.”
What? Why the hell do you want that loser to run again? He lost cause he ran a poor race. Someone else should run next year.
As to your quip about Coleman “dragging it out”, if Al Franken stole your car and a judge declared it was Franken’s car because he produced fake documentation showing himself as owner of the car at what point would you stop “dragging it out”?
Take the politics out of it and just consider it from a statistical analysis standpoint. A set of 50-50 races should nominally split two ways, yet this has not been the case.
Close race in 2000 between Gorton (U.S. Senate, R-WA), and Cantwell (D). Cantwell wins, and gets a bit swell of late absentees.
Very close race in 2004 between Rossi (Gov. candidate, R-WA), and Gregoire (D-WA). Gregoire mysteriously gets enough late-find votes to put her over the top on the THIRD vote count (Rossi won original count and first recount).
2008, Close race between Coleman (U.S. Senate, R-MN) and Franken (D). Coleman ends the night with a "comfortable" 700-vote lead. Within a couple of days, Franken cuts into that lead like a bandsaw through balsa wood. A series of court decisions on ambiguous matters (also not 50-50) in Franken's favor, Franken "wins."
2009, close race between Tedsico (U.S. House candidate, R-NY) and Murphy (D). Murphy eeks out a "win".
Can anyone think of recent examples where the R has won a close race? I am wondering if my own rightward biases are just contributing to a heightened awareness syndrome and I am perhaps not seeing others. Statistically, half of a set of 50-50 races should, in the end, fall to one party, and half to the other.
Yep, that worked out well for Dino Rossi in 2008.
So you’d just dip into your savings and buy a new tv with an “oh well” shrug? Democrat election theft had got to stop.
No, I’m saying it should be fought at every step. Rossi is a class-act guy. Democrats have no class, will take advantage of class like the homeless person you graciously take into your home who then proceeds to violate all the mores of decency and steals from you. Democrats have no decency and as politicians conduct themselves like trailer trash. They are to be opposed accordingly rather than treated with chivalry and gamesmanship as though they had honor.
Why on Earth Republicans don't employ national strategy (running against and tying their opponents to [extreme] liberal leadership of Democrats) in these same [states and] districts, is beyond me. Reagan defined how to do that in the 80's and Gingrich did it in the 90's with great success, not on the margins - the way Bush / Rove strategy backfired in 00's.
All of your examples take place starting in 2000. Traditional electoral fraud by Democrats notwithstanding, Republicans' electoral apparatus under Rove, while being less conservative and ideological (big government "compassionate conservatism" wears off fast and differences with "moderate" Democrats are hard to explain, i.e. Republicans marginalized themselves), has been designed to squeak out marginal victories based on area demographics and grassroots GOTV. At some point it stops working because of demographics change, gerrymandering process and competitors adjust.
Democrats Rahm Emanuel (House) and Chuck Schumer (Senate) did adjust and came up with their own strategy of squeaking out 1%-2% victories in conservative states and districts by running faux "conservative Democrats" and that was the end of non-ideological fight. While Republicans will never outbid and out-liberal liberals, Democrats have no problems pretending to be "conservative", at least on one or two issues important to people in the districts - against gun control, pro-life, pro-business... you name it.
Yet Republicans keep fighting by enemy's rules and on the enemy's home field - Tip O'Neill's "All politics is local" - when nationalizing campaigns and running against Democratic leadership and ideas at the top (Reagan and Gingrich) led to overwhelming success every time it was tried by credible and competent candidates. Running against Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in conservative districts and states will likely win; running against your friendly, amiable and affable "Blue Dog conservative Democrat" may not, especially if there is a tsunami of negativism about "Republican brand".