Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
"The Republican brand is dying," Mike Murphy famously declared in Time magazine last month. Preparing to chat with Mike during the weekly podcast this morning, my instinctive, visceral response, I confess, would run along the lines of, "Oh, Mike, Mike. The Republican brand isn't dying. We just ran a lousy candidate."
My instinctive, visceral response, alas, would prove very badly in error.
In an article on National Review Online that I'm afraid is both terribly distressing and of really central importance, Ramesh Ponnuru:
The first thing conservatives should understand about the electoral catastrophe that just befell us — and it was a catastrophe — is that any explanation of it that centers on Mitt Romney is mistaken ....
Romney was not a drag on the Republican party. The Republican party was a drag on him. Aaron Blake pointed out in the Washington Post that Romney ran ahead of most of the Republican Senate candidates: He did better than Connie Mack in Florida, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Pete Hoekstra in Michigan, Deb Fischer in Nebraska, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Josh Mandel in Ohio, and of course Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. In some cases Romney did a lot better. (He also did slightly better than Ted Cruz in Texas, a race Blake for some reason ignored.)
None of those candidates were as rich as Romney, and almost all of them had more consistently conservative records than he did. It didn’t help them win more votes.
I wish it weren't so -- Lord, do I -- but Mike and Ramesh can't both be wrong.
- Comment (77)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (24)
Comments:
Nov '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
The fact remains that Romney didn't turn out his base effectively. Winning the middle doesn't win elections if you don't turn out your base. A good republican candidate can do both. That he ran ahead of all those senate candidates doesn't say much seeing as almost all of those senate candidates were lousy. What's more, while we're comparing what type of conservatism outran another, traditional marriage the biggest socially conservative cause in the last decade, outran Romney by at least 5 points in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. Explain that.
Sep '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
If the party is dying, why are we doing so well in the states? I think the rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated.
Sep '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
I think the reason Romney did somewhat (or a lot) better than many of those Senate races is he failed to nationalize the election. So all the Senate candidates had to mostly fend for themselves. He was too scared to lose, so he didn't make it about big ideas and the need for him to have the votes in Congress as well.
Sure, if he won things would have been better, but he wouldn't have been able to do most of the stuff he wanted.
His fear of failure led him to failure.
Edited on December 13, 2012 at 4:25pmRe: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
Thom, if in the next 15 minutes you can get me the figures on that--are you referring to ballot measures in those four states? In this past election?--I'll ask Mike. (I don't mean to put you on the spot. If you don't happen to have the time, no prob.)
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
An excellent point. We have 30 of the 50 governors, after all. Thanks.
Jan '11
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
I re-listened to a podcast Dec 2010; after the republican sweep. Murphy sounded the same then like he does now.
He is not nuts, he just learned how to sell his snake oil.
Nov '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
I still contend that Democrats can't repeat this performance unless they can find a smooth talking, charismatic minority to run in 2016. Just look at the rout dems suffered in 2010 when Obama wasn't heading the ticket. It is going to happen to them again in 2014, watch. Minority voters won't turnout unless someone they see as coming from their ranks is on the ballot.
Murphy tried running his brand of conservatism in California, it did just as badly if not worse than traditional conservatism. The message Murphy needs to get is that you don't build a party by telling the majority of it that they and their most deeply held beliefs are losers.
Mike wants to change the party to mirror his beliefs so he can feel more comfortable fighting the fight. The problem is, his beliefs are wrong and he can't build a winning coalition behind it, no matter how much he sneers at the people who built the party.
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
Peter Robinson
Thom, if in the next 15 minutes you can get me the figures on that--are you referring to ballot measures in those four states? In this past election?--I'll ask Mike. (I don't mean to put you on the spot. If you don't happen to have the time, no prob.) · 4 minutes ago
Link.
Nov '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
Thanks, Mollie. Also, our own guest contributor Ryan Anderson wrote about it on NRO.
Jun '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
The Obamacrats have convinced 51% of the nation that taxing "the 1%" will get them free phones, etc.
America is doomed, and so is the GOP.
Mar '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
Everyone seems to forget that Romney was the guy who was the best friend of abortion when he was running against Ted Kennedy, then pro-life when he ran for the presidency. His malleable position taking worked against him with people who he really needed.
I remember when one of his surrogates suggested that Obamacare might be "corrected." That flew like a lead balloon, and it was another indication of Romney's malleability.
If he has a core, and I still don't know if he does, it certainly flexes with the situation.
Romney could attack conservatives, think Gingrich and Santorum, but lacked the conviction to attack Obama. Obama did not lack the conviction to attack Romney.
Romney was a moderate, not a conservative. Romney was a great manager whether at Bain or when he took over the Olympics for Salt Lake City, but ideologues (of which I count myself) look at ideology as important. Romney's ideology was what exactly? I did turn out for him but it was a close thing, and I know that millions of conservatives did not turn out for him.
Murphy and Ponnuru are wrong. Again. Making excuses for Romney doesn't cut it.
May '10
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
The Republican brand is heavily damaged.
After the way they handled the election, the way they are handling the current fiscal "cliff" negotiations, shutting out Tea Party congressmen, and so on, I'm inclined to believe the Republican party will go the way of the Whig party.
Good riddance.
Sep '12
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
The Republican Brand is not the problem. If it were, then the "shellacking" wouldn't happened in 2010. The simple fact is is that the urban populations turn-out in the presidential years and they vote overwhelmingly Democratic. I don't see a change in this voting trend until the entitlements are broke and the Democratic contituencies form working coalitions with Republicans. That's a ways off though...
Edited on December 13, 2012 at 4:35pmJan '11
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
OK - I'll bite ...
Never mind Romney, the media, Obama, Akin, or anything else.
What is the Republican message for the middle class?
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
You might ask Murphy about this Washington Post story headlined
Romney spent more on TV ads but got much less.
I'm curious what he thinks about that strategy that achieved so very little.
Jan '11
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
Peter, I would have agreed with you and Mike Murphy and Ramesh a couple of days ago.
Now, not so much. The brand wasn't the problem; being completely and totally undermanned and under-resourced in technology was.
I wrote a member diary about this, but read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/11/09/how-badly-did-mitt-romney-lose-the-technology-fight/
and then this:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/the-technology-future-of-the-conservative-movement/
In the Internet age, the Republicans were years -- YEARS -- behind the Dems in data mining? Really?
And we kept the House? And Romney still carried a bunch of states?
Yeah, there's no problem with the Republican (more precisely, the conservative) brand. There is a problem with the Republican leadership and consultants and gurus, and I number Mike Murphy in that group.
May '10
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
This is what a friend refers to as a BFO, a Blinding Flash of the Obvious. I've been a life-long and proud Republican and American. I am now fully convinced that both are on life support and neither will long endure. The American educational system has become so poor for so long that we now have a majority of us that are literally too ignorant for self-government.
The king is dead. Long live the king.
May '10
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
Peter Robinson
Who were they running against? Many people voted against Obama, rather than for Romney.
How were their campaigns run? I don't just mean just their funding. The messages and skill of delivery matter, too.
How were their opponents' campaigns run?
Were they charismatic? We don't elect voting machines. We elect people. And many voters (particular swing voters) are clearly swayed more by charisma than by issues.
In other words, the candidates records are not sufficient to explain their wins or losses.
But I agree that the Republican brand is in trouble. Many Republican voters (meaning people who regularly vote Republican, whether they identify themselves as Republicans or not) have lost faith in the party's leadership and even feel betrayed by them. And Republican PR remains consistently poor, allowing Democrats to successfully demonize them.
If the majority of voters support ever-expanding, ever-centralizing, fiscally irresponsible government, well, capitulating further certainly is not going to improve the situation. If power is the party's goal, rather than its means, the GOP is useless to conservatives.
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
You were right Peter. America voted "ABR" just as we Republicans did all through the primaries. We constantly rejected Romney. We did we expect America to vote differently?
May '10
Re: Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts
The problem is that the other side controls the narrative. Republican= Racist, pro-rich, anti-poor, uncaring, unfeeling, in your bedroom, goon.
THAT is reality for the majority of voters. The brand stinks. Who would buy that product?
Is Mike Murphy the answer? I don't think so. I have never heard him say anything that makes me think he has any special wisdom. Wasn't he one of the pro-Romney guys early?
As long as all of the Dems and most of the GOP in Washington want to grow government, then the party that wants to grow it more (Dems) will win. They are better at it.
And they control 90% of the narrative. We will always lose when they get to tell the majority of people what reality is.
Not sure why that is so hard to understand.