Turning sharply to the left in rhetoric and economic policy cost the Democrats over 60 house seats.
Nominating under-qualified rightwing extremists in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Alaska and West Virginia cost the Republicans 4 Senate seats or 5 if Murkowski caucuses with the Democrats.
Meanwhile, moderate and qualified Republicans won in Illinois, New Hampshire and North Dakota. A Moderate Republican did unexpectedly well in blue Washington state, on a night when most Republican Senate candidates underperformed.
The first lesson is that most of the time, going to the center wins you votes. There are some exceptions, such as if you need a clear message to be percieved as an alternative or if you are winning anyway, like Rubio. But the rule works, on average.
The second lesson is that 100% of the time, with no exception, you win by nominating qualified candidates. Nominating individuals with little ability and second-rate cognitive skills such as Christine O'donnell and Sarah Palin always costs you votes. This is particularly true if these candidates combine this with extremist positions on social issues.
I hope the 2010 results at least means Sarah Palin has less power and is less likely to run for President.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pardon me, Tino, but wanting fiscal sanity does not make you a right wing extremist. Or maybe it does- since massive deficit spending seems to be a universal feature of western social democracy. But if it's extreme, we need more extremists.
ReplyDeleteThis is written from the perspective of the voters in each state, not from the perspective of libertarian economists.
ReplyDeleteLots of people want fiscal discipline without advocating repealing the minimum wage, privatizing social security or banning abortion.
Lots of people want the U.S to move towards the path of fiscal balance, without attacking gays or making statements about private sexual acts.
Mark Kirk wants fiscal discipline as much as Christine O'donnell and Sarah Palin. The main difference is that Kirk attracts voters and makes fiscal discipline more likely, while O'donnell and Palin repel voters (who are right to be repelled) and put more American Social Democrats like Reid and Pelosi in power.
I recall before reading a blog post that actually had a number for the electoral benefits of being perceived as a moderate (or alternatively, the cost of ideology), but now I can't find it. You'll just have to settle for some pretty pictures about the previous presidential election.
ReplyDeleteHere's a post more relevant to the recent elections.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'd agree that O'Donnell was a weak thinker, it's not clear to me that the real Sarah Palin has second rate cognitive skills.
ReplyDeleteIt's also clear to me, that the more the elite media bash Palin unfairly, the more the undecided non-elite will be supporting her in protest against the unfair elitist attacks.
One of her recent starting paragraphs quoted lots of Obama's bloopers, including his stupid "Austrians speak Austrian". Judging Palin on her bloopers, but nobody else, is obviously unfair -- especially if the somebody else's are claiming intellectual superiority.
If Palin is more correct on policy, it is better to vote for her than somebody smarter who is wrong on policy.
I actually disagree with her opposition to QE 2 at this time, but mostly do agree with her policies. Those who are emotionally opposed to her, unfairly insult her intelligence as a rationalization to avoid admitting that they are led by emotions, not fair evaluation.
Insofar as the Tea Party is a movement of outsiders against insiders, please describe a more successful post-WW II movement at unseating incumbents in their own primaries. If you can't, your evaluation of them as "losers" seems more wishful thinking than based on firm criteria for such a movement.
I think they were wildly and unexpectedly successful, relative to most such outsider movements.