Thanks,
Christian Hine

Arlen Specter Leaves the GOP, Becomes a Democrat

Opinion piece by Christian Hine

Arlen Specter finally came out of the closet and announced his decision to join the Democrat Party.  The yawns should be deafening given the no-brainer of this situation, however, the web is buzzing and twittering with folks from both sides singing either Conservative praise hymns or Liberal victory chants.

Conservatives, long annoyed at Mr. Specter's propensity for voting with the left on issues ranging from choice to gay rights to multi-billion dollar bailout bills, are simply ecstatic that the GOP has now taken one step closer to the ideological purity they seek. 

Liberals on the other hand now see a reversing trend of party switching where they finally get to be on the side gaining membership.  For them, the "Obama Revolution" continues to strengthen and the feelings of invulnerability will continue to nudge their way into the liberal psychy.  (This is ultimately harmful to them, but they'll have to learn that the hard way.) 

I can't say I disagree with the elation felt by the Conservatives, but it comes with a price. 

I am a Conservative and I am a person who calls things like I see them.  I have no agenda other than my own opinion.  For me, having a person like Arlen Specter be a member of the same party that I reluctantly call home is a hard pill to swallow.  It creates confusion among people less politically aware.  Indeed, how can I claim to believe certain things when others in the same party espouse the exact opposite belief?  Someone looking for consistency will tear off their head trying to understand GOP policy.  For that reason, I am happy to see Specter leave.   It gives the Party a stronger standing to recruit new members as the debate becomes much more black and white.

On the other hand,  to my dismay, we are a living under a two party system in this great country.  I would love to see this change because there is no way the multitude of political opinion in this country can be expressed with only two categories.  The system as it stands is a disgrace to political discourse and only serves to expand the power of the Parties themselves.

With that said, losing a member of "my team" will have consequences.  I don't believe that a two party system will ever allow the complete radicalization of either side because they will constantly struggle with the Specters in their midst.  In order for either side to win elections and gain the power they seek, they must appeal to the middle ground because neither the hard core Liberals nor the hard core Conservatives have enough followers to ever become dominant on their own.

What happens though is that by giving up our moderates to the other side, it only strengthens their ability to elect and enact more liberal policy.  It's a numbers game that has moved us from the center-right to the center-left and we are worse off because of it.

Again, I wish for the conservative utopia and will forever fight for the candidates I believe will take us there...especially in primaries.  However, once the primary dust settles, and as long as we are stuck with a two party system, losing membership doesn't do us any favors.  We'll get to rightly claim a purer agenda, but that will not lead us to success at the ballot box and will not help to implement Conservative policy over the long term.

Case in point... I place blame on purists who wouldn't vote for McCain in the general election for the victory of Obama.  Shouting fire while the village burns won't smother the flames.  Grab a bucket and do something about it already.

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.

I am conducting a survey for my Senior Thesis "Do Political Campaigns Truly Matter? United States' Presidential Elections Under Review", and your response would be greatly appreciated. Here is a link to the survey:
SURVEY
Thanks for your participation!

*****************************************************************

1. Having worked on a political campaign, do you believe that
political campaigns are crucial in determining US presidential
outcomes (who wins, who loses and by how much)?

Yes, absolutely.  There are limits of course.  While the greatest candidate ever wouldn’t win without a strong campaign, the best campaign in the world wouldn’t necessarily be triumphant if the candidate being supported was no good.  The combination of the relative strengths of both candidate and campaign go a long way to determining the ultimate victor of a race.

2. If so, to what extent?

A tremendous extent.  Especially coming from a grassroots perspective as I do, nothing (aside from the candidate…see above) is more important than your get out the vote efforts. (GOTV)  Politics goes to those who show up.  We live in times where the vast majority of folks are hopelessly ignorant of what’s actually going on in the world around them.  Our lives are too complicated without having to worry about everyone else’s problems at the same time.  For most people, it is only through the campaign that they even know an election is taking place.  The campaign must grab and hold attention and excitement long enough to get the butts to the voting booths.  Without a campaign, and relying only on the press to report the important elements of your case, you would see a decreased turnout for your side. 
Take for example the 2008 elections in SC.  The Presidential campaign brought 1.9 million people to the voting booth.  Of those, only 1.7 million voted on the two amendments on the statewide ballot.  200,000 people were there, only had to push a button, but still didn’t vote.  These amendments had no campaigns behind them. Just imagine if the Presidential campaigns didn’t exist.  If people at the voting booth didn’t vote, what do you think would happen if they never went in the first place!
          

3. What do you think is the cause of the apparent cyclical
relationship between Democratic presidents and Republican
Presidents between the years of 1992 and 2008?

Oh boy….this would take pages and I’d ramble on about the natural business cycle relating to the economy and people placing blame on the current office holder for things not really under their control.  That would open up another can of worms for you though!
To sum up in terms of your topic, I think it comes down to the combination of campaign and candidate as mentioned above…with a little bit of message thrown in.  I would argue that the campaign presenting the most conservative candidate won each of those elections.  Bill Clinton ran as a moderate for middle class tax cuts against a older, less dynamic candidates in Bush (who broke a promise and raised taxes) and Dole, ever the moderate himself.  GW Bush ran (but didn’t govern!) as a conservative against a tree-hugging socialist in Gore and a spoiled “I can afford more taxes” liberal in John Kerry who also was pegged as weak on terrorism by an effective campaign during a time that issue was much more important.  Last year, we had well spoken and energetic Obama talking tax cuts against yet another old guy with a record that didn’t’ appeal to conservatives.

4. Do you think presidential campaigns played a role in the
aforementioned cyclical relationship or do you believe that it was
caused by external factors such as the national economic
conditions, international events, incumbency poll ratings,
party loyalists, etc?

Sheesh.  Serves me right for not reading all the questions before answering.   See above.

5. How do you think US presidential election outcomes would differ if there were no presidential campaigns, but rather people voted based on the external conditions that surround campaigns?

I really don’t know if that question can be answered.  Are you suggesting we wouldn’t be presented with candidates, only with a “do you want change or not” button at the voting booth?  In that case, I would say outcomes would differ, but depending on how the questions were phrased and results determined.
For example, while people have given the Democrat majority in Congress approval rankings in the mid to low 20% range, they still not only voted them in again but gave them a bigger majority.  If people weren’t satisfied based on the external conditions, thus creating those poll numbers, I would assume they would have been voted out under your hypothesis.  The campaigns then had to play a rather large role in determining winners since the outcome didn’t match the externalities.
 
6. It has been said that "campaigns often determine how your
followers feel...if your campaign is strong, your voter base
will be strong". Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Why?

I agree on the whole, but love one of the exceptions.  I worked for Mike Huckabee during the last GOP primary.  (Not on staff, but I ran one of the national grassroots groups supporting him)  Here is an example of the candidate strength bolstering a weak campaign effort.  To a large extent, the volunteers and supporters became the campaign and did things without direction, oversight, or money from the “real” campaign.  Volunteers created their own energy based on a strong like for the candidate.
In most cases though, I would agree with your presented statement.  Under usual circumstances, a weak campaign will lose followers based on a lack of energy and care.  People fall back to their “I have other things to worry about” mentality.   

7. How do you believe campaign events such as crises or
scandals can affect a voters decision or do they even play a role?

They absolutely play a role!  Remember Sim City?  You’d build a great city and then test it by letting Godzilla wage war and you’d get to see how you fare?  Well, that’s sort of what’s happening with a crises.  You’ve built a campaign and presented a candidate, the crises then tests both.  If it changes people’s perceptions of the candidate, the candidate could be weakened.  The campaign’s response is of vital importance.  This is where the time factor also comes into play.  People are very fickle.  Look at the last GOP primary.  I think every candidate led in the national polls at one point or another.  People flock to one until something happens and then they flock to another…only to switch again.  Being the front-runner with months before the election is a very dangerous position to be in!  The tide will likely swing.  Will there be enough time to fix the situation or let people forget about it before voting takes place?  Is the campaign strong enough to turn things around? 

8. Taking campaigns out of the picture, what would you say is
the number one reason for people voting the way that they do? Explain.

Personal philosophy.  Partisans on each side will never vote for the other regardless of candidate or campaign.  These are a minority of people, however, and need simply be solidified before moving into the actual campaign fights for the “undecided”.
Personal relationships also play a big role.  How many times have I heard people say they will vote how their husband/wife/girlfriend votes.  It’s less about issues than acceptance from loved ones.
Well-being is also a consideration.  People blame or praise the government for how their personal circumstances are.  Things bad? Vote the challenger.  (I really hate these people by the way! If you rely on the government to create your well being, you’ve already lost!) 

9. What are the most important "periods" of a presidential
campaign in which voters make the decisions of who they are
going to vote for?

The press will assign front-runners well in advance based on money and name recognition.  The very early stages are very important in terms of what kind of coverage you can get.  Of course, that can be a blessing or a curse. 
The biggest fight is in the 72 hours leading to the election.  People need reminding to vote and most of the vast number of undecided (by “vast” I mean big enough in numbers to sway the results) will make their decision during this time frame.  Now, a strong middle period is important as well, but if a person is still undecided by the end, the last campaign they hear something positive from will likely nab that person’s vote.  Never be controversial in your campaign during the last 72 hours.  One wrong word will lose a vote.  Be positive, but be fluff.   

10. Even though you work(ed) for a presidential campaign, do you agree or disagree that presidential election outcomes can be predetermined by incumbency poll ratings, national economic conditions, US international relations, and party loyalty?

To an extent, yes, I agree.  However, I’ve never seen a strong campaign run with those factors at play so it’s hard to be certain.  Those factors forecast an Obama victory, but the McCain campaign was so beyond anemic and pathetic that the outcome could have perhaps been different given a different campaign…even with Bush’s low numbers.  (Obama ran against Bush, not McCain).
I will say, I HATE polls.  Sometimes I think polls are more effective than both campaigns and candidates in determining election outcome.  People want to be on the winning side and will often just vote for the frontrunner because they feel that everyone else must know what they’re doing.  Lemming syndrome.  If I ever hear again, “I really like candidate X, and would vote for him, but he won’t win, so I’m voting for candidate Y”, I’m going to shoot myself!     

11. In general, would you say that presidential campaigns
simply exist to reinforce YOUR PERSONAL voting decision or do
they help you make your decision? Explain.

In my case, they reinforce. I’m a Libertarian/Republican.  A smooth talking candidate with a strong campaign behind him won’t get me to vote for him if I disagree philosophically with him.  I will never vote for a Clinton or Obama.  They are very dangerous people IMHO because of their beliefs.

12. In general, would you say that presidential campaigns
simply exist to reinforce voters decisions or do they help
voters make their decisions? Explain.

For the majority, they help make. Most people just don’t pay attention or know enough to vote intelligently.  Sad but true.  I may be by myself on this limb, but I believe if you don’t pay taxes, you shouldn’t be able to vote.  I also think you should have to take a test on the issues before you can vote to prove you are competent enough to do so!