Bill's Notes

[Industrialblog, November 8, 2006]
A good summing up of what happened
Via the Corner, Rep. Mike Pence, summarizes the bottom line and what went wrong:

Election day 2006 will be remembered as a turning point in American political history. Twenty-five years after the Reagan Administration came to Washington with a conservative agenda of limited government, the American people chose a different course.

It is the duty of the losing party in a free election to humbly accept defeat and to acknowledge that the people are sovereign in the People's House.

As we examine the results of this election, it is imperative that we listen to the American people and learn the right lessons.

Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government. In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, "enough is enough." Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.


Chris (mail) (www):
How does he know that republicans wouldn't have won if they were in favor of raising the minimum wage, raising taxes, expanding social security even farther, and other more moderate things.

In all seriousness, they might well have.
11.8.2006 10:59am
Mike__Lafferty (mail):
I'd say Pence is on the money.

Preliminary analysis of exit polling shows evidence of a decent amount of voter defections.

For instance, one third of all white evangelicals report voting Democrat in this election.

Not to throttle a dead pony - but that just doesn't normally happen in American politics.
11.8.2006 11:13am
Chris (mail) (www):
Sure, but what proof do you have that if republicans hadn't been more moderate and less conservative that they wouldn't have taken more moderates and staid in power?
11.8.2006 11:41am
Mike__Lafferty (mail):
"stayed" in power.

Anyone can arm-chair quarterback - so, I've got as much proof for my analysis as you've got for yours.
11.8.2006 12:07pm
Chris (mail) (www):
Mike,

It's not my analysis. I'd like to believe that the reasons that the republicans lost is that they were too much like democrats, and had they just been more economically conservative they would have picked up seats in the house and senate.

But it seems like a very odd analysis that republicans lost because The People wanted stronger economic conservatives. I'm open to the idea, but I'd like some better proof for it than the wishful thinking of economic conservatives, including the various prominent conservatives of the blogosphere.

But if your interpretation — that the republicans lost because they weren't economically conservative enough — becomes the prevailing wisdom, it will certainly do the republicans good.

But republicans took away a rather different lesson, I think, after being punished for the government shut down under Clinton.

(Btw, sorry for the typo; I'm a fast touch typist and so I end up making word-level typos much more often than letter-level typos; sometimes this is much more amusing than merely substituting "staid" for "stayed"; they're not always phonetically similar words.)
11.8.2006 12:18pm
Mike__Lafferty (mail):

When you see a usually loyal segment crossing party lines (as with the 1/3 or white Evangelicals) - it invites that sort of speculation.

Evangelicals have plenty of other reasons to be displeased with the GOP right now - so they might not have been crossing party lines because of fiscal policy.

At this point, an equally valid (ie speculative) analysis might be that they crossed party lines because of disenchantment with the direction of the war. Or it could be down to local issues.

I'd argue that the biggest lesson that the GOP got from Clinton is how to frame/spin an issue to your benefit - and I think Rove has learned it very well.
11.8.2006 12:56pm
Chris (mail) (www):
"I'd argue that the biggest lesson that the GOP got from Clinton is how to frame/spin an issue to your benefit - and I think Rove has learned it very well."

Obviously not well enough. :)

Instapundit has posted another republican congresscritter saying that the election results were the result of runaway spending and other non-economically conservative measures. So perhaps your view will become the dominant one.

And in many ways, that's what really matters. There's too little information in elections to really figure out what they mean, so this may well be one of those situations in which perception is more important than reality.

Especially since depending on who is running, a very different set of people might end up voting in the next election than voted in this one.
11.8.2006 1:46pm
Super G (www):
I watched Dick Armey on TV last night on MSNBC. He politely took a few jabs, but said he had been warning the GOP about this for a while. Basically he gave the same argument as above. I caught myself feeling it a little bit for the guy even though I didn't think much of him in his heyday.

I think the GOP could bounce back quite rapidly if it would get back to core principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and acted with a little bit of humility in the face of corruption issues (America almost always accepts a sincere apology). In addition to moving from it's base values, I think the GOP was being punished for not putting any kind of reasonable check on the performance of the White House.

You may be happy to hear that I split my ticket because there was a GOP County Commisioner that I thought was good. Otherwise, the Democrats ran unopposed or have proven to be responsible representatives.

If the GOP reacts to this election by thinking they just need to be meaner and get a few more gay marriage bans on the books, then you may find the Democrats will continue to gain power. In a way, the GOP was fortunate so few Senate seats were up for grabs.
11.8.2006 2:15pm
Bill (mail) (www):
There's no such thing as a "ban" on "gay marriage"!
11.8.2006 3:18pm
Super G (www):
From an article titled "Voters reject abortion, gay marriage ban":

Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage

Bill, I don't believe the Bible supports gay relationships. However, I think that if the GOP focuses on this type of issue over the war and the deficit you guys are in trouble. Contrast Bush's rushing back to DC to sign a bill directed at Terry Schiavo and his initial response to Katrina. That kind of stuff killed the GOP.

However, I still think you could have carried off a lot of the legislation of morality stuff if the GOP had taken care of the deficit, the corruption, and the war. What I really mean is first things first.
11.8.2006 4:17pm
Bill (mail) (www):
all right, SuperG, you won one election in the sixth year of an incumbent presidency; a time when the incumbent party usually loses. Reagan suffered worse in 1986 and Clinton did all right, but only because the bloodletting happened in his second year, 1994. Ike got clobbered in his sixth year, too, in 1958, which the Dems won huge. So it's a normal historic swing; and it's only one win. When we lose three in a row, like you guys did, not to mention seven straight congressional elections, you can point out the party's faults :)
11.8.2006 5:07pm
Super G (www):
Fair enough. The House win was equal to variious other sitting war Presidents.

I'm screwed anyways --- I don't see any of my pet desires at the top of Democrats list either: 4-6 year plan to balance the budget, etc.

Thanks for being so cordial about this.
11.8.2006 9:20pm
Bill (mail) (www):
SG: The sun don't shine on the same dog's ass all day long, as Catfish Hunter says. Besides, mebbe it'll work out. The Dems may try to teach the GOP a lesson by being fiscally responsible and more forcefully prosecuting the War on Terror. If they get serious about immigration, they'll win the next few elections.
11.9.2006 9:43am