Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.)
Published in General
Tommy, Christie agreed with me re Tea Party O’Donnell in DE. Our last ricochet kerfuffle.
Mike Murphy – this is not your father’s oldsmobile. The old way of thinking is gone. Just look at the Tea Party and its nationwide success. ·Jun 30 at 2:13pm
The four most obvious critical examples, of course, being Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, and Colorado. Thanks, guys.
Tommy, seems to me that it is easy to run on the TEA Party in Utah. Utah was not a swing state, last time I looked.
Mr. Murphy, nearly every time you post on Ricochet, a kerfuffle seems to follow. Not that I dislike that. Just sayin’…
Duane, exactly.
Humza I like to challenge dogma, especially when it is so disconnected to reality.
Hey, guys, stop bludgeoning poor Mike Murphy.
If you feel the need to spew venom at someone, that’s what I’m here for.
He has also advised and run a great number of losing campaigns. His average is better than Bob Shrum but the thing one gets from “consultants” is that they win campaigns and the ones that they lose are lost by the candidates or something else.
I’ve often heard (and read), for example, that Mr. Murphy helped get Spencer Abraham get elected to the Senate from Michigan. On the other hand, I’ve never heard him take credit for his loss just six years later to a rather light-weight Debbie Stabenow.
Politics are a combination of good organization, a sense for capturing a moment and sheer luck. It’s also a matter of defining oneself and not allowing the opponent to define you instead. The problem with Mr. Murphy is that he seems to revel in destroying candidates that are supposedly on his side.
Mike you can just as easly list places the Tea Party won.
I’m not claiming the Tea Party won EVERY race in 2010.
Sometimes it takes more than one flush. See you in 2012.
But then, you and I both know that political affiliation of viewers is not something that’s going to be measured consistently as it means nothing to advertisers. They care more about age and income level.
But the Time Magazine split looks like America? 22% to 40%? If it’s that bad we might as well all quit now.
Wow, what a great thread! I’d like to address a few of the broader points.
Item 1. Electability – I agree with Jay Cost who argued that once someone has made it through the crucible of a primary process, they are ipso-facto electable. By that time you’ve oiled the gears, and have got a generally smooth running operation. There is a reason that Michelle Bachman looks so good on TV and sounds so good on the radio; it’s that she bears little or no resemblance to the legacy-media created image of her.
Item 2. Gaffes – Speak often enough, and no amount of careful construction, or factual statements-past, is proof against making an error or saying something cringe-worthy
Item 3. Campaign Optics – I remember hearing that Obama was VERY careful in ’08 to never appear angry or annoyed as it might not play well with a white audience. This is Bachman’s HUGE saving grace… what would it look like, to said audience, to have a big black guy, (rhetorically) beating up on a tiny white woman. I’m just saying Bachman might be the only candidate unsafe for him to mock, intimidate or interuppt.
He has also advised and run a great number of losing campaigns.
EJ – let me tell you a story about an insurance defense lawyer I know who is often seen in the paper on the losing end of cases with million dollar verdicts.
Those in the know will tell you – there is a reason the insurance companies send him the million dollar cases: Without his defense, it would have been a $10 million verdict.
Political consulting works the same way. You can’t always look at loss as a defeat. You have to look a lot closer than that.
Diane, I’m not “going after” his credibility (and I’ve said nothing disparaging about his integrity). I’ve simply and repeatedly asked for evidence of credibility. I can’t disagree (or agree, for that matter) with him until and unless I know whether his words are credible. Are they? Why? ·Jun 30 at 1:38pm
Mr. Murphy has advised a number of successful campaigns (just check out his profile). You’ve made your point persistently and rudely. I’d kindly ask you to to desist. ·Jun 30 at 2:05pm
And how many unsuccessful campaigns has he advised? How many political predictions has he gotten right, and how many has he gotten wrong?
Simply stating that he’s “advised a number of successful campaigns” says nothing of substance to my question. Bob Shrum “advised a number of successful campaigns,” too, but ZERO successful presidential campaigns.
My question is, what is his record? Providing only the “wins” is meaningless. The Houston Astros have twenty-eight wins this year! (But they’ve lost almost twice as many.)
Why is it illegitimate to ask for the success rate (as yet unprovided) of someone who’s providing political analysis?
tabula rasa
. . . . Is Mike Murphy our Bob Shrum? If not, why not? Where’s the beef? ·
I have no clue what your qualifications are either, since you do not engage in reasoned argument re Mr. Murphy (who has been around the block a few times in the political world). My point is this: Engage the argument instead of demonizing the messenger. If he’s wrong, make your case.
As to Shrum, you see him very differently than I do. If Murphy were Shrum, he’d be saying that every Republican candidate will beat Obama.
Mike, it’s great to see you here stirring things up again.
I appreciate your professional perspective–I couldn’t run a campaign for school librarian–but will nevertheless persist in supporting whoever is most likely to pull the national conversation in a Reaganesque direction. If someone more “electable” takes Bachmann’s issues and runs with them, I’ll be there. But victory in 2012 needs to mean something.
The Republican Party might want to try running on Reaganism again–he too was deemed unelectable early on, after all. I don’t think we pull back from the precipice without a full-spectrum conservative leading the charge. Too many of our candidates give cover to the left by needlessly conceding foundational points, as with Romney on anthropogenic global warming, green fuels and state-directed health care, for example.
Here’s the part of the O’Donnell thing that no one has rebutted or even attempted to rebut. I’d love to hear Mr. Murphy’s take on this:
Running O’Donnell against Coons gave the Dems hope of winning that seat. Accordingly, they pumped far more money into that race than they otherwise would have had Castle been the GOP nominee. The Dems would’ve written off that race.
The dollars they spent in Delaware were dollars NOT spent in Illinois and NOT spent in Pennsylvania. Had the Democrats spent the DE dollars in PA and IL (which they would have, had it been Coons vs. Castle), they very possibly would have won the PA and IL senate seats. (And exit polling in DE suggested that even Castle mightn’t have beaten Coons.)
So with Castle vs. Coons, we likely would have Senators Sestak, Giannoulias, and either Coons or Castle.
With O’Donnell vs. Coons, we instead have Senators Toomey, Kirk, and Coons.
I’d say the O’Donnell candidacy paid off nicely.
What say you, Mr. Murphy?
I have no clue what your qualifications are either, since you do not engage in reasoned argument re Mr. Murphy (who has been around the block a few times in the political world). My point is this: Engage the argument instead of demonizing the messenger. If he’s wrong, make your case.
As to Shrum, you see him very differently than I do. If Murphy were Shrum, he’d be saying that every Republican candidate will beat Obama. ·Jun 30 at 2:58pm
Where have I demonized him?? I’m just asking for some empirical evidence of his analytical credibility! Why is that blasphemous? Why won’t anyone provide a substantive defense? Is it because they can’t? And I’m asking for it so that I can have a footing for engaging the argument…other than the empty “he’s been around the block” defense.
My point in bringing up Shrum was to demonstrate that while he was good, generally, he was terrible with presidential campaigns. How’s Mr. Murphy’s track record on those? I don’t know. That’s why I asked. Still waiting…
dittoheadadt: I think what you are missing, is that the beauty of Ricochet is that we are all given a voice on a level playing field regarless of what our credibility may be. In fact, neither you nor I are even using our real names (as Mike does), but Mike was kind enough to give both of us the time of day and enough respect to address comments on their merit, not our reputation.
That’s insane re: DE. Castle would have won. O’Donnell was obviously going to lose, which she did. That was point I tried to make back then on Ricochet.
Per my record, I’m one of the most successful GOP media consultants in the country. At the Senate/Gov level I have run lots of winning campaigns for candidates like John Engler, Spence Abraham, Jeb Bush, Lamar Alexander, Jeff Sessions, Mitt Romney, Christie Whitman, Steve Symms, Dirk Kempthorne, Terry Brandstad, Slade Gorton, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Also did Mike Harris’ campaigns in Ontario; first Conservative Premier to win two back to back terms in 40 years.
I’ve done losing campaigns for Ollie North, Meg Whitman, Doug Gross, Mack Mattingly and Spence Abraham.
That’s fine, Beasley – I have no problem with members’ credibility or lack thereof. I’m not looking for their credentials, because I myself wouldn’t stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
But when an “expert” weighs in on an issue that is to become a discussion thread, I think it’s only fair to be able to see a disinterested, dispassionate summation of that expert’s successes and failures. How else can we evaluate the expert’s credibility?
If an alleged expert is shown to have a bad track record (e.g. he/she’s not much of an “expert”) (and I’m not referencing Mr. Murphy here), then why waste our time debating the issue he/she has presented?
That’s fine, Beasley – I have no problem with members’ credibility or lack thereof. I’m not looking for their credentials, because I myself wouldn’t stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
But when an “expert” weighs in on an issue that is to become a discussion thread, I think it’s only fair to be able to see a disinterested, dispassionate summation of that expert’s successes and failures. How else can we evaluate the expert’s credibility?
If an alleged expert is shown to have a bad track record (e.g. he/she’s not much of an “expert”) (and I’m not referencing Mr. Murphy here), then why waste our time debating the issue he/she has presented? ·Jun 30 at 3:46pm
sigh…
Mike, you totally avoided the point of my comment! I’ll grant you that Castle would’ve beaten Coons. Fine. Now how about the rest of what I wrote, which was the substantive part of my post:
Running O’Donnell against Coons gave the Dems hope of winning that seat. Accordingly, they pumped far more money into that race than they otherwise would have, had Castle been the GOP nominee. The Dems would’ve written off Delaware.
Instead, the dollars they spent in Delaware were dollars NOT spent in tight races in Illinois and in Pennsylvania. Had the Democrats spent the DE dollars in PA and IL (which they would have, had it been Coons vs. Castle), they very possibly would have won the PA and IL senate seats.
So with Castle vs. Coons, we likely would have Senators Sestak, Giannoulias, and Castle.
With O’Donnell vs. Coons, we instead have Senators Toomey, Kirk, and Coons.
I’d say the O’Donnell candidacy paid off nicely.
Edited on Jun 30 at 03:40 pm
Beasley: Mega Dittoes, if Rush hasn’t trademarked the term. Agree or disagree with Mike Murphy, he has scads of credibility, and fortunately is on our side of the great political divide to boot. This still leaves us plenty of room for debate–as between, for example, electoral tactics and strategy geared towards moving the center rightwards. But it would be foolish to discount Mike’s counsel.
I’ve done losing campaigns for Ollie North, Meg Whitman, Doug Gross, Mack Mattingly and Spence Abraham. ·Jun 30 at 3:41pm
Ok, that stuff sounds very good. I didn’t see that kind of detail on the Web, which is why I wanted to get it here, where I trust much of what I read. I just wish I had gotten it about 40 posts ago.
Where have I demonized him?? I’m just asking for some empirical evidence of his analytical credibility! Why is that blasphemous? Why won’t anyone provide a substantive defense? . . .
Last try, then rave on without me.
Ricochet has never required commentators to provide “empirical evidence of [their] analytical credibility.” What would that be? His grade in Statistics? His record in picking winners and losers in races? His college transcripts? In post 65, Diane linked to information about Mr. Murphy’s past involvement in political matters which, to me, is more than sufficient to allow him to state his opinion on Bachmann’s chances.
You obviously disagree with his opinion (which might be wrong) but are either incapable or unwilling to make a substantive response to it–instead you’ve, over and over and over, called his credibility (and thus his honor) into question. The demonization is, therefore, inferential. If you think he’s a charlatan, go ahead and say it.
Also, there’s a difference between “demonization” and “blasphemy” (for the latter to occur, Mr. Murphy would need to be a deity).
If we must now provide our resume on each post, we’re going to need more words.
I’m still happy that creep Castle is not a Senator. It is better that he’s not in the Senate. Once these RINOs get in they trash other Republicans, they trash any conservative and run down conservative ideas on shows like MTP and Face the Nation where “independents” are influenced unduly, and since Democrats have squandered most of their credibility are INVALUABLE for advancing arguments the left wants to make.”Here is a Republican saying this”, so it has more value and interest, than a raving left-winger.
But Mike Murphy is an operative hired to win seats. He’s a professional first and I’m not blaming him for that, but he could care less what happens after that. A McCain a Lindsay Graham a Mike Casle can do real harm as a sitting Senator, and I strongly believe they are a net loss for the mission. Now, if your mission is just to elect Elephants and keep things static well them Murphy is right.
I love Mike Murphy posts. I love Ricochet.
Beasley: dittoheadadt: I think what you are missing, is that the beauty of Ricochet is that we are all given a voice on a level playing field regarless of what our credibility may be. In fact, neither you nor I are even using our real names (as Mike does), but Mike was kind enough to give both of us the time of day and enough respect to address comments on their merit, not our reputation. ·Jun 30 at 3:37pm
Edited on Jun 30 at 03:40 pm
What about his gratuitous smear, which, through all his work on political campaigns he should know is a gratuitous smear, of Bachmann in a national magazine? Shouldn’t we question his veracity and analysis if he has an agenda -which he apparently does?
I ….. will nevertheless persist in supporting whoever is most likely to pull the national conversation in a Reaganesque direction. If someone more “electable” takes Bachmann’s issues and runs with them, I’ll be there. But victory in 2012 needs to mean something.
·Jun 30 at 3:10pm
I agree. At this point as a memeber of the conservative faithful, my big question for Mike, is what are we missing? What do staunch conservatives not understand about selling a candidate nationally (I know that ignorance is broad on this point) I think we often look back to Regan as our last standing example of a good mix of Principles and Popularity.
We want that again, but what should we look for in a messenger? We all have our policy litmus tests, but do independents vote on policy variances or personality? Leadership or inspiration? I watched Ken Buck’s (R-CO) senatorial defeat closely. It was disappointing and now I wonder how do you make the national case for a conservative politian?
I feel like I’m on a Liberal website. For simply inquiring about an expert’s credentials I’ve been called rude, foolish, unkind, a demonizer.
Mr. Murphy “…was kind enough to…address comments on their merit, not our reputation.”
But…he’s the expert, and yet inquiring as to the validity of his reputation is off-limits? That’s just soooo Liberal. Everyone said Obama was brilliant…but asking to see his college transcripts was forbidden.
Mr. Murphy “…has scads of credibility…” so a pox upon me for asking for supporting evidence? He has credibility because…someone says so? That’s just soooo Liberal. George Bush’s tax cuts were for the “rich”…because the Left said so (despite IRS data to the contrary).
Don’t expert witnesses typically undergo cross-examination of the foundation of their alleged expertise? Why, on this website of all, are so many so unwilling to engage in what should have been a simple exercise, not even a cross-examination? Just, why is he an expert?
I meant no disrespect to Mr. Murphy at any point in this thread, and still don’t. I just wanted to know why I should heed his words?!
Mike Murphy is a professional campaign consultant, and a very good one. However, as a professional, his job is to help more Republicans get elected, or if hired onto a campaign, to get the candidate elected. Therefore, his opinion is always going to skew towards electability, and rightly so. I suspect Mike would point out that choosing a candidate perfectly aligned with your ideology doesn’t help one bit if that candidate doesn’t get elected.
However… Mike, for a minute forget that you’re working for a party or an individual, and instead that you’re working to help pass specific policy. Now you have to factor in the likelihood that each candidate will actually manage to pass that policy if elected.
This is the real split between beltway professionals like you, and issues-oriented grassroots people like most of the commenters here. You have different goals.
For example, let’s consider two candidates:
<cont’d>