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
Mike “The Loser beat by ‘The Broom'” Castle.
Oh and Dittohead, please, please give it a rest. ·Jun 30 at 5:53pm
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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
And the TEA Party blew three seats that were absolutely winnable in organizing the Senate.
I have been watching Bachmann for longer than virtually anyone here- from up close. She is a fine lady, and she is also the GOP’s mirror image, in every way, of Howard Dean. Do I need to spell out the parallels?
…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”.
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.
Duane,
We’ve had this argument before, but let me try once again to unravel some of your preconceptions. The Tea party is not organized they don’t have control of voters. This is also true of the GOP itself. Voters can’t band together on internet sites and agree to not vote for someone because she is unelectable. So you have to take it as a whole. That’s reality.
The tea party movement or those who were energized against the status quo in the GOP prevailed in the primaries and they handed the GOP a net gain in the Senate along with considerably better quality in terms of conservative principles. Also it is quite clear that Tea party enthusiasm accounted for the unprecedented landslide in the House.
We can’t sit back and pretend voters aren’t going to vote for the candidate they want because we know better.
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.
Absolutely!
#143 continued
Moreover, elections have real-world consequences in the political realm. They aren’t just numbers and coalitions as you seem to obsess over. There are intangibles that are very important and it seems that your faction remains willfully ignorant of this fact, very likely because you don’t agree with the more conservative line. Perhaps you believe we need “grown-ups” who are centrists and will be thought of highly in the press and represent some middle ground.
What I also find interesting is that when Mike Murphy makes an overstatement he can’t back up, everyone is silent. If you are going to include my quote you should address the substance at some point so far no one who is sympathetic to Murphy has.
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….
Franco, I am not an idiot. I actually understand the TEA Party very well. I refer to it generically as a description of certain element of new activists. And those activists, of a certain type, pushed hard for four Senate candidates in four states because the alternatives were considered too liberal. In other states, particularly Wisconsin and Florida, very solid TEA Party-backed candidates ran excellent campaigns and won. In a third category of states, e.g., Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri, more traditional, but more conservative than their predecessors, candidates, won. In Kentucky, it is almost assured that either primary Republican candidate would have won.
The count I see is that there were just those two Senate seats where explicitly TEA Party candidates won, and four where they blew likely pickups. That is not an outstanding batting average.
We support most of the same policies and programs, contra your little shot about “my faction” not agreeing with “the conservative line”. What we have is an honest,and fundamental disagreement over strategy and tactics.
And that is where I part company with you, as do WFB and others. We do not believe in surrendering winnable ground- to seek purity.
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.
There is plenty to argue about with the two variables in WFB’s famous equation. I think what many, including me, dislike about Mike Murphy’s analysis is that:
48%?
Sooo- Perry?
I don’t try for any audience. First she got the Concord/Lexington thing all scrambled up. Then John Wayne. Run for President wanting to lead the only Superpower? Gaffes count. Rules of the Game.
No Squishy, higher…
Edited on Jun 30 at 11:57 am
Might as well give up then. eh? Just nominate Huntsman, the game’s over. trouble is, he won’t win either. If what you say is true, I’m prepared to make the stand now with a solid conservative and get it over with. It hasn’t been tried. I’ll tell you, though, to keep up with appeasing the left is a sure losing strategy long-term and the long-term isn’t so long anymore.
Edited on Jun 30 at 11:57 am
55%?
I am probably wrong, but something tells me that we should throw the old rules out…this time is different.
I’m scratching my head over this. I feel like this could become Palin all over again, but mostly because reasonable people like the respectable Mike Murphy swallow the media line instead of questioning it. And then parrot it, instead of correcting it. Double check the John Wayne story.
60%
55% is right. We have a winner. Bush 2000 and McCain 2008 both got same % of white vote. Bush tied and won, McCain lost by 7. Less base GOP vote out there in Prez elections. Makes it even harder for a strong movement conservative, let alone a weak one like Bachmann.
I don’t say give up. I say nominate a GOP candidate who can prosecute economy. Tpaw, Romney, and Huntsman all could win. But race is going to be very tough. Under-rating Obama is foolish.
Who reads TIME magazine anymore? Who watches Meet the Press? Democrats that’s who. Talk about demographics!
So if that is true , why do you claim she confused John Wayne with JWG? She didn’t confuse those two. She was in error that John Wayne was born in the town of Waterloo. His parents lived there.
But JWG wasn’t born there either – he was once arrested there.
Gacy was born in Chicago
So Mike, it is a complete falsehood that Michele Bachmann confused these two people as you claim. So why write it that way?
Beasley,
I’m swallowing anyone’s line. Call it as I see it. Simple as that.
Why do some conservatives judge all commentary as being good if it simply follows the knee-jerk anti-MSM line? Why the assumption that all MSM journalism is part of some big lib conspiracy. Silly to think that way. Reality is more complicated than that, one “line” versus another “line.” Argument and opinion should not be based on a bunker mentality.
I don’t mean any disrespect by this question, and I ask it because I trust the answers here more than I trust answers I might get on the web, in Wiki, etc:
What are Mr. Murphy’s credentials, prognosticating and otherwise?
We hear predictions from everyone under the sun, but what we never hear are those people’s track records with predictions and campaign successes.
I believe that Paleologus is about right- I wanted to say 58%, but I know the number was noticeably higher than Bush got. Obama got a massive turnout of AA voters and swung the Latinos significantly.
Guys, can’t I get you to understand? I like Bachmann. She is a lovely lady. A great mom. A good lawyer. An energetic politician and activist. Would I vote for her over Obama? Are you kidding? I’d even vote for Olympia Snowe or Romney over Obama.
But her support is 26.2 miles wide and one millimeter deep, which is as deep as her experience and views on every subject except for the Minnesota public school curriculum, tax law, and across-the-board spending cuts. I hate to agree with Conor Friedersdorf, but his list at Peter’s post was just about right.
She will not win the nomination- but if she did, she would do as well as Goldwater did, for many of the same reasons. And her national vote percentage would be halfway between the percentages Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell got in their state races, for similar reasons. In GOP primaries, Perry would eat her lunch.
Franco,
Nope. Prove that about MTP and TIME. Show me numbers, not your accendotal assumptions.
Not a falsehood she was wrong about JW; he never lived there. JW Gacy moved there in 1967, started committed crimes and was arrested.