Results of NY-20 Special Election: Why Jim Tedisco is Behind

By Christian Hine

As I write, it appears that Jim Tedisco stands only 65 votes behind in an election that I hope becomes yet another wake up call for the GOP. I haven't given up on a Tedisco victory just yet since there are roughly 6,000 absentee ballots left to be counted and those tend to favor Republicans. However, I think what is continuing to be a disturbing trend in GOP electioneering made this race closer than it otherwise should have been.

Since 1994, we have witnessed the Republican Party rise and fall based on what I believe is their ability, or lack thereof, to actually frame an agenda that rallies people toward the cause of freedom and limited government. Newt Gingrich understood this well and I believe the "Contract With America" is one of the greatest political feats in modern American history. Unfortunately, as members elected during that historical year either retired or simply fell to the power of Washington corruption, we have seen the GOP go from the Party of ideas to a Party split between gutless panderers and overzealous attack dogs.

By the panderers, new ideas and a bold agenda were shunned in favor of a grand experiment to see if power could be acquired to a greater degree by giving up on core values and instead seeking alliances with the other side and "compromises" designed to coax a few in the left leaning middle ground to vote GOP instead of Democrat. That strategy has obviously failed. For each new voter brought into the "big tent", two were escaping out the back door feeling betrayed by those they had fought for.

On the other side of this, and bringing me back to the NY-20 election, is a group of Republican elected officials and activists who rightly saw the destruction of the Party and decried loudly the abandonment of core principles. Sadly, those who I refer to as the overzealous attack dogs ended up violating Gingrich's genius by spending more time, effort, energy, and money criticizing other Republicans and the Democrats than actually presenting the electorate with an agenda to stand FOR.

As I watched the Tedisco/Murphy race, I was barraged by emails from varying special interest groups (especially America Deserves Better PAC) that were filled with all the dirt they could find on Murphy. Truly, there was dirt to be found. Email after email asking for help in defeating the "big-spending, tax-cheating, anti-military, liberal Democrat (Scott Murphy)". Unfortunately, lost in the negative emails, commercials, YouTube videos, etc, was any actual positive agenda being laid out by Jim Tedisco! Perhaps he tried within the district, but all that was filtered through the media and my inbox was the repetition that I should vote for Jim Tedisco because Scott Murphy is evil.

I'm sorry folks, but that isn't good enough.

If Tedisco ends up losing this election, I believe the primary reasons will be twofold. First, people were turned off by the negativity and simply closed their ears and became disinterested. Low turnout is common in special elections, and in this case it is no wonder. I don't believe we can ever truly move forward until we have participation by an educated electorate. When you numb people to the message, the opportunity for education is lost. No movement can be built if the audience has moved on to other things out of frustration.

I would also suggest that based on the numbers and election history of the area that this was the wrong race to attempt any type of full blown campaigning. Conservatives trying so shortly after the election of Obama, who still tops 60% approval, to "make a statement" in a district won by Obama was near suicidal. You don't want to reenergize those new Obama voters to come out again and win another one for their "man" by making the race contentious. Deeper still, why embrace a strategy tying Murphy with Obama when Obama was the winning candidate? Rather, since the GOP holds a 41-26% voter registration lead over the democrats, a highly targeted get out the vote effort without the anti-Murphy grenades drawing attention to the battle would have been a better strategy. Republicans had controlled the district from 1993 to 2007. In low turnout elections, expect only the party faithful to vote. If that were the case in this election, I think Tedisco would have emerged victorious with a much safer margin of victory because my gut tells me the new Obama voters simply wouldn't have turned out and the overall number would have been lower. As it is now, I believe they did. The average Congressional special election draws 91,000 voters. This races turnout was over 154,000. Still low turnout, but significantly higher than average for a race of this type.

Whatever the reasons, and there is still hope for a Tedisco victory, it is time for the GOP to realize that the panderer strategy needs to end and we need to get back to the basics as a Party. I think this is starting to happen. On the other side of things, the attack dogs need to calm down a bit and start focusing their efforts on developing an agenda that people can support and feel good about without the constant criticism of the other side. It is right to point out faults and mistakes, but come to the table with your own folder of ideas, not just a shredder for the other sides. Make people want to support you by offering reasons to do so.