America remains a center-right nation. In 2008, many voted for Obama because they believed he’d be a smart, post-partisan leader, and instead got a smooth-talking mega-spender who only grows jobs in the government sector. Yes, there are certainly hard-core left-liberal and hard-core right-conservative states and districts, but the margin that makes for a national majority is not on the extremes.
In several states/districts, Democrats who rubber-stamped the Obama/Pelosi/Reid big liberal agenda lost. But in several states/districts, Republicans who were viewed as flakey Tea Party extremists also lost. In many cases, Republican primary voters sabotaged their own party’s chances. In Delaware, in particular, where GOP Rep. Mike Castle would have easily won the Senate race if he hadn’t lost the primary to Christine O’Donnell. Also in Nevada, where Harry Reid, despite his low approval ratings, beat out Sharon Angle, who was viewed as a wingnut. It looks like in Alaska, Palin-backed Joe Miller will lose to the GOP incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, running as a write-in candidate.
And then there’s California, where Carly Fiorini, an opponent of gay marriage, lost to the very left-liberal Barbara Boxer. In the GOP primary, Fiorini beat former GOP Congressman Tom Campbell, a deficit hawk who supported marriage equality. At the time, polls showed Campbell would beat Boxer and Fiorini would lose to her (as I discussed here). GOP primary votes went with Fiorini and paid the price.
More. Had Harry Reid lost, New York’s Chuck Schumer would probably have become Senate Majority Leader. Although Schumer can be insufferable, he would have been better for advancing gay equality. It’s becoming clearer that Reid all but sabotaged the “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal vote. By not allowing any GOP amendments to be brought up, and not trying to strike any deals with GOP moderates (especially Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, who had been supporters of repeal), he all but ensured a united GOP would filibuster. His continued tenure doesn’t bode well for us.
Furthermore. David Boaz offers advice to the winners, writing in Politico, GOP won on economy, so focus on it:
Avoid social issues. When the Bush Republicans spent too much time on issues like the gay marriage ban and the Terri Schiavo intervention, they alienated suburban and professional women, college graduates, young people, libertarians and independents — overlapping groups, of course. And they lost two elections. After 2008, they seem to have learned their lesson. Even in the face of several states instituting marriage equality, Republicans kept their focus squarely on overspending, health care and big-government overreach — issues that united opponents of the Obama agenda.
They shouldn’t blow it now. They should stick to the economic issues that won them this election and avoid the divisive social issues that cost them 2006 and 2008.
21 Comments for “Election Reflection”
posted by Alfred E. Newman on
The test for Stephen H. Miller is whether New Hampshire repeals marriage equality. Republicans appear to have huge majorities in both houses (250-150 house/20-4 (!) in Senate) that can override pro-SSM Governor Lynch’s veto.
Question for Mr Miller/Jorge et al.: If the “Live Free or Die” NH GOP succeeds in repealing the SSM law there, will you try to justify it? Or will the scales at that point finally fall from your eyes and you’ll scream “Eureka – They hate us, they really hate us”.
posted by Carl on
Considering that NH elected a US senator who opposes both gay marriage and gay adoption, then that would suggest the public will also support these bans if they go to the forefront of New Hampshire.
While I’m not sorry to see Democrats pay the price for their cowardice and laziness and bumbling, I can’t see this as some center-right victory. Where is the center? Many extremely conservative Republicans won, and they did not win because of libertarianism or fiscal issues.
Is this a sign of what’s to come in the GOP? Vicky Hartzler, known for banning gay marriage in Missouri in 2004, ran against Ike Skelton (who helped build DADT) as not being conservative enough on gay issues. Here are her views on gays in the military:
http://www.pulaskicountydaily.com/news.php?viewStory=2225
“I think (gays in the military) would be detrimental to our national defense; I think it would hurt recruitment, retention and morale, and I don’t think the military should be used for a social experiment,” Hartzler said. “It’s not a right to get to serve in the military … we’ve got rogue judges now and of course we have an administration and others that want to repeal that.”
This isn’t any type of talk about let the generals decide, this is just flat-out repudiation of gays ever openly serving in the military or the idea of homosexuals being in the military at all.
Hartzler has been a very prominent force against gays in Missouri for years and now she has a national platform.
Many conservatives are going to see this election as a mandate on social issues, and I can’t say as I can blame them. I just hope that those who have some moderate ties to the GOP will try to work with these Republicans if they start speaking out against gays in the military, gay adoption and foster care, marriage and civil unions, et al.
posted by Jeremy on
Carl:
I have been saying this all night, and I stand by this. I firmly believe that any attempt to revoke marriage rights for gays in NH will fail a Federal challenge. It matters that it was a legislature, not a court, that found homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships were non-different in regards to the fundamental right to marry, found in Loving. It made this determination through lengthy debates, fact-finding, and other legislative processes. The result was that homosexuals have, within NH borders, the exact same right of marriage as straights. They were not granted something different, like Civil Unions. Homosexual relationships were brought under the umbrella of the fundamental right to marry. Unless NH could prove that a revocation of an already existing, fundamental right for this arbitrarily defined minority advances compelling state interests, they will fail.
And the longer gay marriage exists in NH, the more established this status quo becomes, the harder it will be for social conservatives to undo it. I think a Federal challenge to a potential revocation of homosexuals’ marriage rights in this instance would be far, far better than Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I bet Ted Olsen and David Boies would agree with me.
posted by David Link on
You might have been watching too much Bill Maher, who also gets Carly’s name wrong. It’s “Fiorina” with an “a.” Not that it makes much difference any more, but for the record. . .
posted by PaulP on
“In many cases, Republican primary voters sabotaged their own party’s chances.” This seems to be ok with them, in the interests of social-conservative purity. Think how much worse it would be for the social conservative agenda if a (fiscally-conservative) Republican like Tom Campbell voted for gay marriage and gays in the military. It would be much harder to attack those issues from a partisan anti-liberal point of view, as they begin to be the compromise position instead of the liberal position.
posted by Carl on
Jeremy, I hope you’re right, and I would like to believe it will stand up to a challenge. I guess between the removal of 3 Iowa judges who voted for marriage equality, and the hectoring of Walker over his overturning Prop 8 (after which he decided to leave office), I just wonder how many federal judges will still uphold these types of laws. It helps that federal judges are appointed and don’t have to worry about voters, but they still must be wary.
I was hoping that this being passed by a legislature might make it more likely to stay. We’ll see. Sometimes I just feel like the voters keep moving further away from gay rights…
posted by Jorge on
Yes, I voted for Schumer too for about the same reason. The previous two elections I voted against him.
They showed an amazing Harry Reid ad on the O’Reilly Factor today, on health care no less. It was like wow, what a true believing patriot he is. I never feel that way about Reid. Only Pelosi. Well, now we’re gonna have a racist majority leader and a racist president and a homophobic House speaker… fun! No I don’t remember why John Boehner is supposed to be homophobic.
Question for Mr Miller/Jorge et al.: If the “Live Free or Die” NH GOP succeeds in repealing the SSM law there, will you try to justify it? Or will the scales at that point finally fall from your eyes and you’ll scream “Eureka – They hate us, they really hate us”.
Well that depends. If I justify it now, will you refrain from asking me when it happens?
I think I’ll pass. I don’t take same sex marriage seriously as a litnus test issue for whether one supports gay rights, and I doubt one more state is going going to change my politics on SSM, which haven’t changed much in seven years.
posted by Jorge on
But in several states/districts, Republicans who were viewed as flakey Tea Party extremists also lost. In many cases, Republican primary voters sabotaged their own party’s chances.
Conservatives say fairly often that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 defeat was the beginning of a Republican resurgency. Perhaps it was unreasonable to expect bigger tea party victories this election. But the tea party now exists.
I would like to hope that the tea party movement’s successes and energy can give hope to people who are not part of the tea party. So many tea partiers said they’d never been involved in politics before. Well, my goodness, look how easy they made it look. People derided the 7-man (oops, 6-man/1-woman) NY governor’s debate (for good reason), but it had its moments of refreshing talk by real people, too. I see hints of a new hope on the center-left. Oh, and then there’s the obvious: the two left of center rallies in Washington in the past month. Another grass roots power will rise to challenge the tea party.
posted by Carl on
“I don’t take same sex marriage seriously as a litnus test issue for whether one supports gay rights”
I don’t either, but it seems like a lot of Republicans, especially in politics, tend to oppose a lot more gay rights than just marriage. It’s usually not either/or.
posted by Tim on
This ‘analysis’ of the election results is lightweight and largely BS. More centrist (e.g., blue dog conservative) Democrats lost than liberal Democrats. And good luck getting the Republicans to stick to economic issues, not social issues. Talk about wishful thinking. As for Obama being a big spender, let’s not forget the deficits created by Bush II and the GOP Congress when wartime spending was taken off the ledger and tax cuts bestowed on the upper crust. You trust these guys to control their own spending? The election is another windfall for Wall Street, the energy industry, the upper 2% and the defense industry. All the rest of us are screwed.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t either, but it seems like a lot of Republicans, especially in politics, tend to oppose a lot more gay rights than just marriage. It’s usually not either/or.
It’s hard to be an ideological Republican without disagreeing with the assumptions of a lot of civil rights legislation.
So that leaves John McCain’s opposition to repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell as a starting point. I will see what happens.
posted by Alfred E. Newman on
And here you go:
http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=John+DiStaso%27s+Granite+Status%3a+Repeal+of+gay+marriage+is+a+priority+for+Republicans&articleId=08133ccd-fb5e-45d2-adad-04972de150ab
In Jorge’s evaluation, if they don’t gas us, then they support “gay rights”. Thanks.
posted by BobN on
And here you go
LOL. It appears that the Union Leader has issued to diametrically opposed “analyses” of GOP strategy in NH. The one Alfred linked to has been replaced with one that repudiates pursuing anti-gay measures.
This is, I believe, the same right-wing newspaper which refuses to print SSM announcements. Seems to me they tipped their hand with the first version and then rushed to cover it up.
On a side note, I predict an Indiana constitutional ban on SSM and CUs in five, four, three, two…
posted by BobN on
TWO diametrically…., not “to”
posted by Carl on
We’ll see if Minnesota – home to some very vocally anti-gay Republicans – will get the “no social issues” memo now that they have majorities in the state legislature.
http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/S1823673.shtml?cat=10349
“The president of the Minnesota Family Council says the Republican takeover of the state Legislature is a major boost toward banning gay marriage and civil unions in Minnesota’s Constitution.
Tom Prichard tells The Associated Press Thursday that conservative activists want a statewide vote in 2012 on the definition of marriage.
Republican state Sen. Warren Limmer, the likely next chairman the Senate Judiciary Committee, says even though the main Republican emphasis will be on economic issues that there’s “a lot of bottled-up desire” in the party to put gay marriage in front of voters. “
posted by Carl on
“It’s hard to be an ideological Republican without disagreeing with the assumptions of a lot of civil rights legislation.”
I don’t think it’s that difficult to agree with legislation that lets you have the right to plan your partner’s funeral. Yet apparently Republicans like Pawlenty and Carcieri disagree.
posted by Jorge on
In Jorge’s evaluation, if they don’t gas us, then they support “gay rights”. Thanks.
No. My evaluation is if they support full and equal citizenship and civil rights for gay people, they support gay rights.
After all, which is the party that has done the most to fight and kill those radical religious extremists who do want to gas us? Which is the party that strives for all people to have an equal opportunity to make their own success on their own merits, rather than giving a handout to special “disadvantaged” populations? Which is the party that, time and time again, stands for getting tough and crime and against making excuses for criminals?
I urge you to look at the why, the values that underlie the Republican party’s beliefs in a strong national defense, in capitalism and free market enterprise, and whatever you call getting tough on crime. Look at the absence of these values among so much of Democratic party politics. Ask yourself where Democrats of good character have to go, and where that leaves the gay community.
I don’t think it’s that difficult to agree with legislation that lets you have the right to plan your partner’s funeral. Yet apparently Republicans like Pawlenty and Carcieri disagree.
Did they win that fight?
posted by Jorge on
“getting tough and crime” >> getting tough ON crime.
posted by Carl on
“I don’t think it’s that difficult to agree with legislation that lets you have the right to plan your partner’s funeral. Yet apparently Republicans like Pawlenty and Carcieri disagree.
Did they win that fight?”
I think Pawlenty did, yes, although I’m not sure. Carcieri’s veto was overridden by the legislature.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, we’re talking about governors.
Hmm…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/gay-funeral-rights-bill-v_n_353893.html
“The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a “disturbing trend” of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage.”
http://purpleunions.com/blog/2010/05/mn-governor-pawlenty-promises-to-veto-gay-funeral-rights-bill.html
“Supporters balked at the governor’s rationale, saying his suggestion that same-sex couples could achieve the same rights through a will still leaves gays on unequal footing with their heterosexual counterparts – married couples have those rights without a will.”
Fine, I let them sink or swim on this one. They’re even farther to the right than Sarah Palin.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I believe it is quite obvious that people in New Hampshire recognize that gays and lesbians like BobN, Carl, and “Alfred E. Newman” fully support and endorse bans on gay-sex marriage and in fact give money to those candidates who promote it.
In other words, it’s merely political pap. Gays and lesbians do not care about gay-sex marriage; they care only about attacking Republicans and mindlessly obeying their Obama Party massas.