This just in: the Internet is not a fad.
Minnick vs. Labrador: Bellwether For America's Future?
Submitted by Bubblehead on Fri, 07/30/2010 - 11:26am.
[Cross-posted from TSSBP based on Sisyphus' urging.]
As the midterm elections approach, most of the talk is about whether or not the Republicans will be able to take back the House of Representatives (or even the Senate). More than that, this election seems like it will be a referendum on whether or not Constitutionalism (represented mostly by the Tea Party and Libertarians) has the strength to re-emerge as a dominant force in American politics for the first time since basically the end of the Polk Administration. I submit that the Congressional election this year in Idaho's 1st Congressional District between Democratic incumbent Rep. Walt Minnick and Republican challenger Rep. Raul Labrador is a key battle between those who seek to return American political philosophy to the Jacksonian era and those who prefer a more modern interpretation of the Constitution. Basically, if the Paulites and their ilk can't win here, it's unlikely they'll be able to ever emerge as more than an occasionally humorous sideshow to the main ebb and flow of the American body politic.
Idaho is a very conservative state (Sen. McCain got 61.3% of the vote in 2008, even higher in the 1st District); the only reasons that Walt Minnick was able to win in 2008 is that 1) he's a fiscally conservative social moderate who would be a Republican in most other states, and 2) his opponent in 2008, then-Rep. Bill Sali, was a complete buffoon. This year, however, adds the dynamics that most of the 1st District electorate has been fairly unhappy with President Obama's policies, and the Republican nominee is a perfectly normal person. However, in coming from behind to win the Republican primary against an establishment candidate with one of the worst-run campaigns in modern history, Rep. Labrador had to position himself pretty far to the right -- well into the territory being staked out by the Tea Party.
Rep. Labrador, knowing that he really can't attack Rep. Minnick on his record (Minnick was the only Democrat to receive the endorsement of the Tea Party Express, although Minnick later rejected the endorsement), seems to be running the campaign as a referendum on Speaker Pelosi. I'm not really sure that's going to resonate among the vast majority of voters here in Western Idaho, but it's probably his best shot. Unlike other districts where there might be 35% of the electorate who will always cast their ballots for one party or the other with the opponents fighting for the middle 30%, this district seems to have about a 45-25 split favoring the Republicans (the 49% Sali got in 2006 and 2008 seems to be a floor). Most of the "Pelosi Bad, Boehner Good" voters are included in the already-locked-in 45%, so Labrador needs to focus on winning 5% of the "floating" 30% of the electorate to win. Currently, Minnick is up in the polls, and has about a 16:1 advantage in cash on hand.
This money will enable Rep. Minnick to use Rep. Labrador's own stated positions against him, with little opportunity for Labrador to respond. Examples of Rep. Labrador's positions beloved by the Tea Party but unlikely to find favor with the broader electorate include:
1) Repeal the 17th Amendment (also known as the "Sell Idaho's Senate Seat to whichever company can give the highest paid 'consulting' jobs to the wives of 53 Idaho lawmakers" plank);2) Return to the Gold Standard (aka the "Give all our gold to China when they cash in their Treasury Bonds" philosophy);
3) Withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations (or the "Look how well our decision not to join the League of Nations worked out" plank);
4) "Publish all campaign donations on your website, including date, name of parent organization as well as the donating entity, and the amount of the donation". (Actually, Idaho voters will probably like that pledge; the problem is, Labrador isn't fulfilling it; his webpage contains no such information. I'm sure he'll say that his "pledge" only takes effect if he wins.)
Here's the deal. The May primary election showed that only about 7-10% of the electorate really supports the extreme Paulite/Tea Party positions (based on the clearly "Constitutionalist" candidates for Governor and the 2nd District Congressional races getting only about 25% of the vote with 30% turnout, in an election where the Constitutionalists would seemingly be much more motivated to vote than the general public). They think there are more of themselves because they're loud, and they mostly hang out with themselves, creating a self-perpetuating fantasy that most people agree with them (or would, if only their voices weren't censored by the mainstream media).
Basically, it comes down to this -- if the Constitutionalists have any hope of becoming a real political force in this country, they need to win this election. This would be the one to win, since they have a personable candidate (one who I personally think doesn't actually believe in all these extreme positions he's officially supporting, based on no real data except for one meeting) and a district that reflexively tends to vote for anyone with an "R" after their name. Unfortunately for them, since their actual political views aren't supported by the vast majority of the "floating middle" (or the political elite who give actual money to candidates), they aren't that likely to do so. The Minnick campaign, I'm sure, wants a race where voters get a chance to compare Minnick's experience as a businessman, a veteran and a bipartisan problem-solver to Labrador's record as an attorney and politician; if they can define the campaign that way, they'll probably win. It'll be an interesting 3+ months until November 2nd.
»
- Bubblehead's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Thanks Brother Bubbles.
A good analysis.
Not sure I agree that those were the "only" reasons Walt won in '08. But they certainly factored in.
Also not sure Labrador "had" to position himself next to Attila the Hun. Labrador won be default. While the reason for his win was pure politics, very little of it was his which won the race. Ward lost the race. 15% of the primary vote went to none of the above. And Walt certainly got the candidate he wanted. That was no coincidence.
On the Pelosi tactic, I would add that its failed in most of the special elections up to this point. And Boehner, whose favorables are much lower than hers, is not a reasonable alternative.
You give a lot more credit than I on voters actually studying a candidate. Motivating forces in modern campaigns are much more targeted these days and it takes money to do it. The simple fact is that Labrador's votes have alienated the typical money, Republicans have come to rely on, in much the same way Sali did. He sells himself as a nice Sali, but this superficial packaging did nothing to ameliorate that deteriorated relationship. The Ward money split 2:1 for Minnick. And without it Labrador will be sorely pressed to reach the people he'll need to get to 50%. National Republicans took note of his extreme stands, but they ironically rejected him because of his tepid fundraising, not his koo koo politics. Minnick will use that money advantage to brand the newbie and wrap his words around his neck where they belong so that "floating middle" can see them.
Thanks to you both
Your precise assessment was great, Bubblehead! I'm glad to see you firing away again, too!
I also agree with Sis' views, especially in his last remarks.
Idaho's big businesses, and most other big businesses nationally, donate their money to those who they think will do them the most good. Business is business, and those guys know full well that politicians come and go. Their leaders certainly hold personal political views and philosophies, but those are secondary to their financial success or failure. They're going to give their money to the candidate who will work on their behalf, even if doing so sometimes requires hopping the political fence. Since Minnick is a successful businessman himself, and owns a large company, it's only natural that they would see him as their guy.
Very much of the new Repub platform runs counter to the desires of big business these days. The large industries, where international credit is everything to them, certainly would not agree with the Idaho Repub's desire to return to silver & gold tax payments.
Nor are they going to agree with stronger state's rights vs. a weaker federal govt.- this stance would create a thicket of conflicting and ever-shifting regulations, requirements, and prohibitions from one state to another at a time when the big companies are much more interstate than at any other period in our history. They would much sooner deal with OSHA, for example, than a state equivalent that strengthens or weakens at state's passing political whims or natural catastrophes.
Big business likes to take a long view if possible- most have long-term strategies. The Idaho Repubs have ignored this fact with their philosophy driven platform. Too much of the platform is also too regressive as well, favoring obsolete practices that are no longer functional in a world-wide high speed economy. And make no mistake- agriculture is very much a part of modern big business. Farmers see things very similarly to Hewlett-Packard.
All these factors make Minnick and Allred appealing. Business wants officials who can seek practical compromise or officials who are on their side. This was largely what brought the Repubs into state dominance in the first place, and it will be the party's downfall now.