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.
Establishment Victory in North Carolina Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up To Be
Thom Tillis wins and the Tea Party is dead. That seems to be the narrative in some corners after the establishment candidate for the U.S. Senate in North Carolina won by 19 points over the Tea Party candidate, Greg Brannon.
Jennifer Rubin called the election a “wipeout” and proof that Tea Party groups “waste doners’ money.”
But is that the case? Not in North Carolina.
Rubin claims that Tillis is the most electable candidate and that everyone should have supported him, including Senator Rand Paul and Senator Mike Lee, both of whom endorsed Brannon, an obstetrician from Cary. But this is far from the truth. According to the RealClearPolitics average, in a one-on-one matchup between Tillis and Democrat Senator Kay Hagan, Hagan would win 43.3 to 42.5.
While that’s close, Hagan didn’t poll as well against any of the other Republican candidates in the field—candidates like Baptist minister Mark Harris and Army nurse Heather Grant, as well as Brannon, all of whom are to the right of the establishment candidate. In an election against Hagan, Harris wins 44 to 40; Grant takes her with 43 to 39; and Brannon wins 42 to 40. The rest of the not-so-well-known candidates beat her by 1 point.
But not Tillis. He loses. Yet, the establishment has crowned him the “most electable” candidate. Does that make sense to you?
In addition, Tillis had to move to the right to draw votes away from Brannon and the others. Brannon and Tillis had similar high favorability ratings (as did Harris, which hurt Brannon). Both men were embraced because of their conservative ideas. Tillis was forceful about the fact that he was heading up a conservative revolution in North Carolina. The messaging was hardly a loss for the Tea Party.
So why did Brannon lose?
The primary reason is money. Karl Rove and the Chamber of Commerce pumped in $2.5 million into North Carolina. Voters saw far more ads for Tillis than Brannon or Harris.
The second is that there were too many people in the field. All seven of the candidates to Tillis’s right added up to 54 percent of the vote. Once again, hardly a ringing endorsement of the establishment. Also, according to Public Policy Polling, if there had been a runoff between Tillis and Brannon, it would have been very close. So close that the establishment was quaking in its boots. They didn’t want to see another Ted Cruz-like victory.
But they can thank Harris for keeping that from happening—as well as Brannon himself.
While Brannon had good favorability ratings, so did Harris. And the more people got to know Harris compared to Brannon, the more they turned toward Harris—or settled for Tillis, who came across as conservative and measured in the last debate. Brannon didn’t fare as well in that forum, and this is a lesson the Tea Party—and conservative candidates in general—can learn.
During the debate among Brannon, Harris, Grant, and Tillis at Davidson College on April 22, Brannon came across as impersonal—an academic who could only quote the Constitution. While people cheered for his ideas, some people were put off by his approach. In a piece I wrote at The Federalist, I compared him to a biblical scholar who can’t seem to engage with people—he can only quote Scripture at them.
As I listened to Brannon respond to questions with citations of article, section, and clause from the Constitution, I just shook my head. He reminded me of my days in the ministry and debates with fellow Christians about the best way to evangelize. There was the “Declare the Truth” crowd, and then there was the “Build Relationships” crowd.
I have to confess that back then I was more of a quote Scripture, chapter and verse type. I’ve learned a lot since then. Connecting with people is what’s important. Touching their lives. Entering into their world and engaging with them on a personal level. Talking to them in a real and personal way. That wins converts. Not quoting Scripture. Or the Constitution. That doesn’t mean your message is watered down. It just mean that you’re communicating it in a way that inspires and motivates people. That’s how you make ideas real and principles personal.
Brannon’s approach caused some voters to turn away from him to other candidates, particularly Harris. They didn’t reject his message or the Tea Party platform. They simply wanted someone who connected with them.
The lessons learned from the North Carolina primary are that people want freedom, they find the Tea Party message appealing, and they want a “conservative revolution” — but they also want a candidate they can identify with and believe in. They also want a candidate who is electable, and in North Carolina, most (54 percent) believed that candidate was someone other than Tillis, the sole Republican candidate who trailed Hagan in the polls.
We shall see how it pans out in North Carolina, but to think that all is well because the establishment has won is folly. It’s going to be a hard fight against Hagan. My hope is that the Tea Party and conservatives will support Tillis, as Senator Paul has done, so that we can help Republicans take back the Senate.
Published in General
This is why there is opposition (both Democrat and Republican elite) to the Tea Party organizing in a formal fashion (think IRS scandal). One of the strengths of the Tea Party is that it is not a formal, organized party. However, I believe that if it were to become so, it would be a formidable force, provided it organized along the lines of the NRA: non-partisan single issue. It’s charter would be “stop wasteful spending and reduce our debt”. Liberals could be members, as long as they believe their liberal causes could not be advanced unless the nation was fiscally sound.
My guess is this is the real reason he didn’t win. People want to like their representatives, feel like they are real human beings. While money is important, there have been a lot of races where an underfunded candidate came out on top. In the Florida 13 Congressional race, Sink outspent Jolly by 3 to 1 on TV advertising (Fox News report), yet he won.
I agree. I voted for Brannon but to overcome money obstacles you have to excite and inspire people.
So the cat is out of the bag Tillis is a conservative but because he supports “amnesty” it writes him out of the picture. This anti immigration obsession will be the death of the conservative movement as a governing option. And by the way Rand Paul is for amnesty he should doesn’t have the guts to vote for it. So where did that leave his endorsement of Brannon.
I meant to write “Rand Paul …doesn’t have the guts …” For some reason I can’t edit it.
Here is what Rush had to say about the North Carolina elections (from Rush 24/7):
“There happened to be another election in North Carolina on Tuesday that is far more representative than the Senate race was. And that was North Carolina Third District, where the incumbent is a Republican, Walter Jones. The Democrats and the establishment types in the Republican Party went in there, there was a combined one million dollars spent on a single district race to get rid of the 20-year incumbent, Walter Jones, and they failed. And that is the true indicator of the strength of the Tea Party and of, I would say, the weakness of the establishment.
The Republican establishment wanted to get rid of Walter Jones because he went against the leadership on the debt limit vote and a couple of other really defining things. So the leadership, quite naturally, was out to get him. The Democrats piled on, they wanted his seat, and it went up in flames. Walter Jones held on.”
What’s the bottom line? You win some, you lose some. The Democrats never give up when they are defeated, and neither should we!
What about Renee Ellmers in the Second District beating back an anti-immigration challenger and David Rouzer winning the Seventh District beating a Huckabee backed challenger? Perhaps it was a night for incumbents (Rouzer was the candidate last time) ?
One more thing if some conservatives believe that Walter Jones winning his primary against conservative Taylor Griffin is a good thing then the US conservative movement is going to hell in a handcart. Walter Jones is a Democrat turned Republican with extreme isolationist views famously saying just last year, “Lyndon Johnson’s probably rotting in hell right now because of the Vietnam War, and he probably needs to move over for Dick Cheney.” No wonder Pat Buchanan was so delighted that he won.
I’m more than a little disappointed to hear that Rush backed Jones. David effectively describes the man and the reasons for opposing him. Not every anti-Republican is conservative.
Lax immigration policy, ineffective border security, and the sending of our troops to die in worthless third-world rat-holes – policies all endorsed by the GOP establishment – have already sent American conservatism to hell in a handcart. Walter Jones, whatever his faults, is at least trying to correct those errors.
Actually immigration itself will be the death of the conservative movement as a governing option. And it won’t be long now…
Rand Paul has indeed declined from the 2010, when he made a few statements supporting an immigration moratorium. Like most libertarians, he has never really thought much about the issue, so I imagine it was very easy for D.C. groupthink and the donor class to turn him around.
You don’t think that the big pro-amnesty push is from the Libertarian organs that consider amnesty a major priority (Reason, CATO, the Libertarian Party, etc.)? I don’t think that Paul needs to pay a lot of attention to the donor class; so long as McConnell has his back, Paul’s going to cruise to re-election. If he’s going to run for President, then he needs the donors, and I’m sure he’ll come out for amnesty, but unless Republicans take the Kentucky House in November, this probably means that he’d have to stop being Senator, which probably means that he won’t run this time.
In other words, the Republican efforts to unseat McConnell are likely to prevent the Tea Party’s second favorite candidate from running, by preventing McConnell from doing as he generally has and focusing on supporting the state party.
It’s not that he’s awful on everything. He’s one of the most liberal Republicans in the House, having not moved so far from his days as an isolationist Democrat, but even the most liberal Republican is better than the most conservative Democrat. It’s just that we had an opportunity to replace him with a Sarah Palin backed genuine conservative and we blew it. You don’t often see Rush siding with Buchanan over Palin.
Due in great part to Ronald Reagan’s “pro-immigration” outlook, no national Republican candidate can compete in California anymore. Thanks, Ronnie!!!!
I would have no problem with mass deportation; all it takes is the will to do it. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Hispanics don’t vote Republican because of “vile and heated rhetoric” against them. As poll after poll shows, Hispanics don’t vote for Republicans because Hispanics are liberals( both socially and economically.)
Rush wasn’t backing Walter Jones per se. He merely observed that in his opinion, the establishment didn’t win in that race.
Wow what kind of police state would it take to deport 12 million people.
The same one Dwight Eisenhower, the greatest Republican President of the 20th Century, used to deport a huge number of Mexican illegals (numbers vary, but the official figure seems to be 2.1 million deported or left voluntarily under threat of deportation). I figure if we could actually deport 2 million, probably twice that number would self-deport. I would be glad to be thus rid of half the illegals in the country.
The number of deportations under what was known as Operation Wetback appear to have been exaggerated and the consensus is that it was about 1.3m. They were mainly agricultural workers and crucially this had the support of the Mexican government who were concerned at the damage being done to the Mexican economy by the loss of workers. Since Obama has deported nearly 2m since he has been in office the thought of deporting 12m beggars belief.
In any event this is all a red herring in terms of electoral politics I haven’t even heard Steven King calling for mass deportations !
You did read my response, right? I said 2.1 million For Eisenhower, adding up those actually deported and those who left voluntarily under threat of deportation. I then said that I would be satisfied at ridding ourselves of half of our 12 million illegal aliens (although getting rid of them all would be our goal).
You are, btw, using old talking points on Obama’s deportation record. As a few liberal outlets have reported, the”Deporter in Chief” reputation is based on slippery use of statistics.
Recently, Israel’s Deportations have been hitting tremendous heights. Scaled up, this would be the equivalent of the U.S. deporting hundreds of thousands of people per month. Israel is an ally and a nation with which we are culturally sympatico; why not just adopt their policies on illegals?
You are, btw, using old talking points on Obama’s deportation record. As a few liberal outlets have reported, the”Deporter in Chief” reputation is based on slippery use of statistics.
Cato is neither liberal (in the sense you mean or out of date) http://www.cato.org/blog/president-obama-still-deporter-chief
It helps to know that Cato wants open borders. They do seem to be using the administration’s catch and release definition of a “deportation.” But if the point is simply that Barack Obama is more stern with illegal aliens that George W Bush was, then I would accept that. Bush was notoriously awful on immigration issues.