The election just passed has been exhaustively analysed and hashed over during the past week and, without doubt, will continue to be chopped up, deciphered, re-ciphered, interpreted, neglected, detected and inspected for the coming months. We’ve been told that this isn’t as dominant a win for the Democrats as it seems (true), that it is a dire warning for the Republicans (also true) and that it signals a decisive turning point for the (choose one) (a) makeup of the electorate; (b) future of the country; (c) accepted view of what constitutes “normal”; or, (d) all of the above. (Hint – go with “d”). Of course, you can, with equal certainty, say the same thing about every presidential election ever held. I’ve heard people compare this to the 1948 election (and they are right), to the 1800 election battle between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson (they’re right again) and to the 1912 barn burner between Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes (they’re right on this one too) – and every person making the comparison points to their particular past contest of choice as definitive – and, yes, every point they make is absolutely correct.
You see – when you are talking about a country as large and important as the United States every such election is definitive. They are all equally important (in that they define the mood of the country at a given point in time), but, just like Animal Farm says – some are “more equal than others”. So when you read the analyst who trumpets that the Republicans either have to adjust their focus to include Latinos (or gays, or a graduated tax system, or health care reform, yadda, yadda, yadda) they’re talking complete sense. And trust me, you are going to get loads of people talking complete sense to you in the coming months. If you’re a political junkie (the author, at this point, is looking sheepish and raising his hand) this is the stuff you complain about (“Jesus – not another person telling me what this was all about”) - and still you read it.
But often, in the rush to explain what was really important, a couple of things will get overlooked. Those are the things I like to examine. Leave the big issues to someone else – I like to look at the fringes. This is how I justify having majored in Political Science. So, out of these outliers scenarios I’ve picked a couple that aren’t getting looked at very closely but might possibly end up being the big take-aways from the election just held if things happen to fall - just – exactly --- into --- the --- right ---place. Here’s the first one:
The Real Republican Achilles Heel
Look – if you are a Republican I feel for you this week – I really do. You must be like the fighter who gets knocked out by a lucky punch – everyone acts like you got absolutely creamed, but you feel just fine – so why is the doctor standing over you and your trainer throwing water in your face? What the hell just happened – waddya mean I lost? Get those smelling salts away – I’m fine dammit!
And then you try and stand up – your legs feel a bit wobbly. And your head hurts a bit. That’s all – you’ll get ‘em next time.
And maybe you will – but – to strain the analogy a bit further – you gotta learn to keep your left up. Your left arm that is – something the Republicans aren’t really known for having. They better get one. The Republicans only started to get back in to the race when Romney started to moderate his views. And everyone from Mario Rubio to Fox News itself is telling them they better start to address the “Latino” problem. In this case you really should read “Latino” as meaning “everyone who isn’t white, male, straight and rooting for a team inside the Southeast Conference”. But the election was only lost by a few percentage points and this is, after all, the party of the aforementioned Rubio, of Condoleeza Rice, of Herman Cain, of – well, a bunch of others whose names escape me at the moment – but my point is – this is a fixable problem.
Which is true – there is no reason why the various gaps plaguing the Republican party can’t be plugged without compromising the basic conservatism at the party's core. I’m not a huge fan of that philosophy but I do think it is vitally important that it be represented within the political arena. If you were to poll the party membership I bet you could find a 70-30 margin in favor of compromising on something like immigration, for example. Hell – both of the Republican nominees before Romney were big proponents of immigration reform.
And that’s where things get dicey. Look at that second number. That 30% isn’t going to necessarily go along with your plan. In fact – it wouldn’t be surprising if a third party candidacy would be spawned out of that “base”. Just this year, for example, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul and Donald Trump all flirted with a third party candidacy. And this was in a year when the Republican nominee didn’t move leftward at all. He ran as far right as he could. He chose a right wing VP nominee. He disavowed the very health care reform that he invented! He attacked Big Bird for crying out loud!
Move left on immigration, birth control, gay rights - and you are flirting with a third party candidate arising. History shows this is what happens when parties try to shift away from a long time base. Ask an old time Democrat who George Wallace was. Ask an even older one who Strom Thurmond was. And this Republican party, right now, would be utterly destroyed by a third party candidate that springs from its right wing.
The vulnerability to a 3rd party candidacy is reflected in the numbers surrounding the various states that could be considered “in play”. These would include not just the states that the Republicans won by a narrow (within 10 point) margin, but the states that they lost within that margin as well. This is because once a state leaves the “competitive” column it no longer commands the single most important resource associated with elections – money. So, let’s take a look at the states that qualify for such treatment:
Narrow Republican Wins:
N.C. – 51-48% (3%)
GA – 53-45% (8%)
Ariz – 54-44% (10%)
MO – 54 – 44% (10%)
SC – 55 – 45% (10%)
Narrow Democratic Wins:
FL – 50-49 – (1%)
OH - 50 -48 – (2%)
VA - 51-48 – (3%)
Colo – 51 -47 (4%)
IA – 52 – 47 (5%)
PA – 52-47 (5%)
Wis - 53-48 (5%)
NH - 52-46 (6%)
Nev – 52-46 (6%)
MN - 53-45 (8%)
Mich – 54-45 (9%)
NM - 53-43 (10%)
Some people would look at this and say “there are more states that were close for the Democrats than for the Republicans – the Republicans only have to win a few of those” – and they’d be right. But look what happens when we introduce a right wing third party candidate. Just for arguments sake let’s say that this candidate only does about 25% as well as the last truly viable third party candidate – Ross Perot, who got about 20% of the vote. So we’ll give our imaginary candidate 5% of the vote and take it from the Republican totals – then we get this:
3rd Party Revisions For Close States:
Republican Wins
N.C. – 46-48%*
GA – 48-45% (3%)
Ariz – 49-44% (5%)
MO – 49 – 44% (5%)
SC – 50 – 45% (5%)
* (Becomes Democrat Win)
Democratic Wins:
FL – 50-44 – (6%)
OH - 50 -43 – (7%)
VA - 51-43 – (8%)
Colo – 51 -42 (9%)
IA – 52 – 42 (10%)
PA – 52-42 (10%)
Wis - 53-43 (10%)
NH - 52-41 (11%)**
Nev – 52-41 (11%)**
MN - 53-40 (13%)**
Mich – 54-40(14%)**
NM - 53-38 (15%)**
** (Becomes “Comfortable” State)
This does two things. First, it adds a state to the Democrats that they won in 2008 and just barely lost this time. That’s bad enough news for the Republicans. But what it also does is free up all the money that was spent on the five now comfortable states to be used in the now extremely competitive states. And here is where the math kicks in – when calculating what the 3rd party candidate subtracts from the Republican percentages all you do is take the amount from their vote and lower it by five. The Democrat doesn’t benefit directly. But when that money starts flowing into states like Georgia, and South Carolina – you don’t just subtract from the Republican vote – you add to the Democrat. So let’s say those extra resources only shift a measly three percent of the vote from the R to the D column. Just 3%. Well, here’s what happens:
3rd Party Revisions For Close States:
N.C. – 43-51% (8%)*
GA – 45-48% (3%)*
Ariz – 46-47% (1%)*
MO – 46 – 47% (1%)*
SC – 47 – 48% (1%)*
* (Becomes Democrat Win)
Democratic Wins:
FL – 50-44 – (6%)
OH - 50 -43 – (7%)
VA - 51-43 – (8%)
Colo – 51 -42 (9%)
IA – 52 – 42 (10%)
PA – 52-42 (10%)
Wis - 53-43 (10%)
NH - 52-41 (11%)**
Nev – 52-41 (11%)**
MN - 53-40 (13%)**
Mich – 54-40(14%)**
NM - 53-38 (15%)**
Republicans would be left with one state - Texas - in the top dozen of electoral vote prizes. If this happens we’re in 400+ electoral vote territory – that’s a meltdown.
“But” – you say - “you’re not taking in to account that the new Republican nominee would be taking some of those moderate votes, and Latino votes and closeted gay Republican votes back from the Dems”. Maybe I’m not. But you’re also forgetting that the Democrats won’t be running a black guy who is coming off a four year recession in 2016. It’s likely that they could be either (i) running a woman (what’ll that do to the gender gap?), or, (ii) running a southerner in the Bill Clinton mold (think you’ll hold on to Georgia then?). Or both. If this happens and there is a third party candidacy out of the Republican right wing – and there is historic precedent for this when a party adjusts – you could be looking at Republican Armageddon.
(Actually – I’m going to copyright “Republigeddon ©” right now).
No comments:
Post a Comment