Bachmann, Schmachmann!
First, Happy 4th to my friend Peter who I greatly respect. But on this, we disagree. Come to think of it, happy 4th to everyone.
Second, a plug for my new "Murphy's Law" column in TIME. Topic is Michele Bachmann's impact n the GOP Race. Please don't send me any angry letters or cardboard Uncle Sam hats. Send them to Rob Long.
My view is this: I think she will have an impact on the race, but I think her odds are being nominated are ziltch, as I told Matt a few months ago. I think her support will crumble with time in the spotlight, and deservedly so. I think her appeal is limited to one part of the primary; real estate Rick Perry may well challenge her for. Finally, I think she would lose a general election in a landslide. Conservatives need to remember that until the country changes what it thinks, nominating a candidate that pleases only conservatives (and only one part of the conservative electorate at that; remember her insane Kucinich vote on Libya?) is always going to be a losing plan. Why ape the Democrats circa 1972 and find a George McGovern?
Finally, if Rush - to his credit a Ricochet reader - wants to tee off again, I want the record to state that I don't live in DC and care less about cocktail parties there. In fact, the last time I had dinner in a four-star restaurant in Georgetown, it was with Rush Limbaugh! (Some years ago; it was a fun dinner.)
- Comment (155)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
And I would argue that Mr. Murphy got the "endgame" wrong with regard to Delaware's impact on the Senate GOP, which error reflects in part (and not favorably) on his expertise as a political analyst, and his reaction to which suggests he may be somewhat agenda-driven in his analyses. (Is it rude or illegitimate to suggest that, inasmuch as we're debating his Bachmann analysis?)
To clarify for those who need it, I'm not saying O'Donnell could've beaten Coons.
If his endgame is winning elections, can he (or anyone) credibly dispute the notion that O'Donnell's hopeless candidacy may have helped usher in a more conservative and more GOP Senate than would otherwise have happened? Isn't Toomey/Kirk/Coons better than Sestak/Giannoulias/Castle?
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
I'm sorry but this whole idea that O'Donnell running somehow helped us in other states smacks of spin and sour grapes from the crowd who was proven demonstrably wrong about her chances of winning. Making her some sort of sacrificial lamb that pulled funding from other races overstates the chances she was ever credibly given of winning, and it sells short those candidates who DID win like Toomey, et al, because they were strong candidates who appealed to their constituents. They won because they were strong candidates; she lost because she was a weak candidate. That race cost us a seat plain and simple. Let's learn from our failures and not repeat them.
Oct '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
TeamAmerica:
Oh and Dittohead, please, please give it a rest. · Jun 30 at 5:53pm
I think Mr. Murphy got the big picture wrong with regard to the effect O'Donnell's candidacy had on the Senate GOP in 2010 (and with She Who Must Not Be Named, in early September 2008, when he disparaged her on MSNBC a few days before her addition to the McCain ticket propelled McCain ahead of Obama in the polls for the first time), and this all leads me to question his analysis with regard to Michele Bachmann.
Can I say any of that?
Oct '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
There's little substance to your argument, Sam. She did pull Dem funding from other states. It's a fact that the Dems spent more money in Delaware than they otherwise would have, when they realized they could win the seat. That kept money out of other races, like IL and PA, where the two GOP candidates barely won (Toomey 51/49, Kirk 48/46). BTW, Toomey, the "strong candidate," actually trailed Sestak by 3 points on Oct. 20. His and Kirk's wins were not foregone conclusions by any stretch.
May '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Candidate Obama mixed up Sioux Falls with Sioux City, and referred to an asthmatic's inhaler as a "breathalyzer" and an "inhalator", thought he had visited 57 states, and claimed we had a shortage of Arabic translators in Afghanistan, where few speak Arabic.
He also said that a single tornado in Kansas had claimed 10,000 fatalities, a preposterous figure which would have made it 14 times more deadly than the deadliest tornado on record, as well as the largest natural disaster in American history.
Don't put too much emphasis on gaffes. Either that, or the way the media covers them gaffes only count against Republicans.
Edited on Jun 30, 2011 at 6:36pmJul '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Ditto, you don't know what the baseline for spending in that campaign would have been with Castle running, and you don't know where else that money would have been spent instead. It's pure conjecture. Maybe that money goes to WV which we lost anyway. You're cherry-picking two races to support the axe you're intent on grinding against Murphy's credibility. Is he supposed to provide a curriculum vitae every time he posts here in case someone else doesn't know who he is or why he has credibility? He was invited to post as a contributor which shows he has credibility with the people who run this site. You can find out his qualifications by spending five minutes doing a Google search.
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
One final word on all this, then I'm off on vacation. My point is that the history of politics in the last five decades does give insight into who can and cannot win national elections. During the last election, we had a fun rumpus on this site about Christine "The Broom" O'Donnell in DE. My point was that when the primary base gets excited and elects a candidate all about their dogma and not the bigger electorate, we lose. See: McGovern, George. Posts poured in saying why I was wrong, why consultants who do this professionally are dumb, why we win by losing, why we are in a new era of politics with new rules. Then she lost big. We also made the same mistake in Nevada and some would say CO. Now we have to negotiate the budget and taxes with Harry Reid instead of Mitch McConnell. That is a conservative fiasco, not a victory. Now, here we are again. I might be wrong. Been wrong before. But I doubt it on this one. Michele Bachmann is a stone cold loser in a general election. Prob in primary too. Happy 4th!
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Mike "The Loser beat by 'The Broom'" Castle.
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
dittoheadadt
TeamAmerica:
Oh and Dittohead, please, please give it a rest. · Jun 30 at 5:53pm
I think Mr. Murphy got the big picture wrong with regard to the effect O'Donnell's candidacy had on the Senate GOP in 2010 (and with She Who Must Not Be Named, in early September 2008, when he disparaged her on MSNBC a few days before her addition to the McCain ticket propelled McCain ahead of Obama in the polls for the first time), and this all leads me to question his analysis with regard to Michele Bachmann.
Can I say any of that? · Jun 30 at 6:10pm
'Course you can. I'll also note that you are clearly (in my amateur opinion) a sharp political analyst.
There are plenty of relatively skillful handicappers on Ricochet.
I'll also note that every single time a contributor or member posts tactical and/or strategic political advice, it might be a touch awkward to demand a resume.
Edited on Jun 30, 2011 at 7:15pmJul '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Mike, I'm sure you're right about all this, and you certainly know more about winning elections than I do. But is there any particular reason I have to make up my mind right this instant, a year-and-a-half before the election, fer cryin' out loud? Is there really no chance that, for example, Bachmann will get her "gaffes" out of the way early, earn a few lumps, and emerge a stronger candidate?
Look, I'll hold my nose and vote for whatever potted plant the Republicans nominate to run against President Obama. I've done it before, heaven knows. Is it really necessary to apply the thumb and forefinger this early in the process? What's the hurry?
Sep '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Now we have to negotiate the budget and taxes with Harry Reid instead of Mitch McConnell.
...because you have a scenario how the GOP could have won the Senate last year?
Apr '11
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
I agree, but by extension shouldn't Castle bear a tiny bit of responsibility for loosing the primary. I mean if your primary voters can't determine if you would support their ideals then "electability" means little. I am not saying that we should have a purity test but, by the same token shouldn't my vote be for more than the letter beside your name on the c-span crawl?
Apr '11
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
I am sorry I got to this one really late; however, I respectfully disagree with Mr Murphy on this one. The MSM will make any Republican candidate look smaller, less credible, and less electable then Obama. That is just the way the field is striped. The candidate who can beat him is going to have to contrast their positions with his. Huntsman and Romney can't. They will try to run the Nixon '60 and McCain '08 "I can do it better than Obama" to which the MSM narrative will be "no you can't" This is a 50-50 shot it may work for them but it probably won't. It almost certainly won't work if you are right about Obama's skills at campaigning and the influence of the MSM, The only solution is a campaign which offers a bold contrast i.e. Reagan '80. I think that campaign is a 60-40 winner or better. T-Paw hasn't shown the ability to run this kind of campaign Bachmann has, She may not be the nominee but she has hit on the right strategy.
Apr '11
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Franco: Now we have to negotiate the budget and taxes with Harry Reid instead of Mitch McConnell.
...because you have a scenario how the GOP could have won the Senate last year? · Jun 30 at 7:45pm
This is true. If I remember correctly the establishment candidate melted down in the primary. Once again if the moderate is the best choice they have to provide something compelling in the primary. Plus the fact that the Tea Party did pick up seats in 2010 against the establishment probably puts a lot more backbone in Sen. McConnell's negotiations. One of the reasons that even loosing the general can be helpful is it disciplines the establishment politicians. We need some checks to keep them from "going native".
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Raxx, I'm not at all endorsing always back the "electable" RINO. But I'm also not on the side of backing the most ideologically "pure" candidate if that candidate has personal baggage or a penchant for making absurd statements every time a microphone is put in front of their face. We are always going to be prey to the media's "Gotcha!" mentality, and they don't hold the Democrats to the same standard, so why make it easier for them by nominating weak candidates? That seems to me to be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
May '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Bill Buckley framed it as a constrained optimization problem, though he didn't use that term (forgive me, my engineer is showing): Support the most conservative candidate who can win.
"Most conservative" is the thing you optimize, and "who can win" is the constraint one how conservative you can go.
Sep '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Absolutely!
Jun '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Yes... this is all well and good...
But, why does Mr. Murphy think her support will crumble and deserves to crumble in the spot light when often the opposite is true?...
Still doesn't make sense to me...
Vacation sounds nice....
Jul '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
Whiskey Sam: ...
The bar is higher for Conservatives because we start off facing a media culture skewed against us. We need charismatic candidates of substance with executive experience, and there is a dearth of that right now in the GOP field.
Tony Snow showed the way to counter the media bias. Call them on it. All of it. Every. Single. Day. Use humor. Keep it light. But put laser-like focus on whose water these folks are carrying.
Oct '10
Re: Bachmann, Schmachmann!
There is not a single Republican Candidate that is running, and that includes Gov. Perry, that can win in 2012. No one is talking about economic growth.
The fact that the Republican cannot rename Ryan's Medicare Plan - "No Change to Medicare for those 55 and Over" means they are truly clueless. And, the GOP needs to pound the message: OBAMACARE REDUCES BENEFITS FOR 55 and OVER by almost $1 Trillion.
The other problems are: 49% of the American People pay no income tax and 47% are fine with wealth redistribution. In the EU everybody pays something, so America is a better socialist paradise than the EU. Please remember that FICA was never intended to be used as general revenue, as it was for amny years. That caused our debt to grow even more. Now, the FICA collections are not enough. More Americans today receive a direct payment from government, than pay taxes.
As to the McCain and Bush numbers, in 2008 many more young voters and minorities voted than ever before. If the only way the Republicans can be successful, is for them to obtain super majorities of White voters, then it is over. We need a new party.