Post Primary Depression: So You Lost, Now What?
If you’ve ever felt the rush of emotions that having your team in the “big game” can bring, then you have an idea of what campaign season is like for political activists…with a few exceptions. Imagine if the Super Bowl lasted for eight months, the fans played the game, and neither side knew the score until it was all over. That friends, is campaign season in a nutshell.
With the end of the 2014 primary season last week, an important and ever contentious discussion is now taking place among the activist volunteers. It’s a debate that needs to be had, and while it instills a great deal of passion, both sides have valid positions. At issue is what to do if your candidate lost the primary: get on board with the winner or sit out the election. The dueling perspectives represent the clash of a short term versus long term strategy.
Those with the short term view recognize that their particular candidate lost and that reality dictates either they get on board with the winner of the primary or risk another six years of the other side’s incumbent. They may not like it, but they are “team players” and they believe the lesser evil should be supported.
This is a completely legitimate viewpoint. It is entirely likely that the winning primary candidate, if elected to office, will cast votes more aligned with the beliefs held by supporters of the losing primary candidate than with the incumbent. Certainly there will be differences as well, but it is logical to rally behind someone who agrees with you 70% of the time as opposed to accepting victory of someone who only agrees with you 30% of the time.
Some would disagree, but they are not “sore losers”.
Those with a long term view recognize that not all Republicans are created equal. Indeed, the Party label itself is not altogether a definitive answer to the question “what do you believe”.
There are “good” Republicans and “bad” Republicans and the branding of the Party is of significant importance to its future…if it has one. Having “bad” Republicans elected to office does long term damage not only to the conservative brand the Republican Party tries to capitalize on, but to the future success of principled limited government philosophy.
During the tenure of the “bad” Republican, Party loyalists will find ways to defend the actions of the elected official even if they violate very basic conservative principles. “You can’t criticize members of your own Party” they’ll say. The end result is that it serves to legitimize wrong headed behavior, creates confusion in the public as to what the GOP actually stands for, makes hypocrites of many, and is altogether uninspiring to the base, leading necessarily to future losses.
A short term loss by a “bad” Republican may ultimately save the Party long term by keeping conservatives focused on the issues and allowing a good candidate to be the standard bearer in the next election. There is power in incumbency, and being stuck with a “bad” Republican is a long term detriment to the limited government movement.
Furthermore, the election of “bad” Republicans serves to embolden the consultant class that gets them elected in the first place. It teaches them the lesson that they really and truly do not have to listen to conservatives; rather, all they have to do is raise enough special interest money to blanket the airwaves with their names, get nominated, and get conservative support no matter what they advocate.
It is logical to put principle over party. Like pruning back a living plant, sometimes a little short term destruction is the proper remedy to ensure a more fruitful future.
This debate is part and parcel of why the continuance of the domination of the party driven political system is dangerous. The party duopoly has convinced too many people that their access to government is via the party structure. “Loyalty” to ones club begins to take precedence over the actual beliefs espoused by its representatives. The people end up with an “either / or” choice that doesn’t necessarily reflect their values or beliefs, but they are led to feel like traitors if they happen to voice opposition.
This is leading many to abandon the party structure and become political “free agents” with no obligation other than fighting for their beliefs. Most will still support “good” Republicans, but will feel no shame in not supporting “bad” Republicans.
Your decision is up to you. Do what makes you feel comfortable and allows you to sleep at night.
In terms of the current race, would Thom Tillis be more likely to vote right than Kay Hagan on a number of issues? Yes, he would. That is a short term gain. However, does his victory make long term trouble for more limited government conservatives? Does it empower those who could continue to shut out the Liber-Tea movement? Yes, it does.
It really is short term vs long term thinking here. It’s up to you to decide which is more important to you. There is no right or wrong answer, but never begrudge anyone for voting their conscience.
There is an even deeper level to consider. That change is painful and in the end takes a long time.
The losing parties in the primary did their job – they influenced the debate if not the outcome, brought up unpopular issues for discussion and pushed the main-stream into uncomfortable waters. To now take their ball and go home dishonors this effort. If they become just a temporary inconvenience,then what real power do they have? The answer is not to A) Not vote, or B) Vote for the opposition, BUT to vote for the winning candidate from the primary. This shows that even if they lost the primary – they still marshal enough votes to make a difference.in the final election. That is how you maintain power in a coalition: by making it felt in support – not in opposition. That way your threat to take away the vote next time is real and you remain in the debate. If not – then they will ignore you. And what good is that for either the long or short term?
There is a (C). Get together and take over your Local Democratic Party precincts from the McGovern Radicals who control them now. Move the Democratic Party to the Center.
I think short vs. long term view, or conservative vs. more conservative, misses the point that as long as there are political puritanicals we are stuck in gridlock and the world is passing us by. In a democracy, partisans are usually misguided and the majority of the electorate knows it.
The world is going to hell in a hand basket. The European Socialists have finally gotton to the point where robbing Peter to pay Paul is useless as Pete is broke. The only reason their Socialism has worked is that the US has footed the Bill for their defense since 1946. Gridlock is preferable to a surrender to socialism and the complete economic collapse that will result. Once Putin moves against the Baltics expect to see amazing times.
A very difficult decision. Especially when your heart is in the game to reach the Conservative voter. A voter you wanted for your Candidate. Now do you go out among the playing field and roust up votes for the mediocre Conservative, Winning Primary Candidate, or do you stay home and let the voter learn for himself. I still can choose on Nov 4th & cast my vote. But the question is do I lend my support to secure a win for the mediocre, go into my Precinct and share info in a positive way? Or justify my beliefs and say: ” I would like you to vote for this man but realize he is not a true Conservative.” pretty crazy life we have in the political world.
Yes, because, unless the world delivers to me exactly what I wanted, I will fold my arms, put all my toys away, stomp the ground and go home. Talk about entitled nonsense. So, a candidate isn’t “one with you” on every issue, apparently provoking you to label him with the moniker of “mediocre Conservative” and possibly compelling you to sit at home on election day until the good lord delivers you your perfect conservative so that you can feel like he or she will never say anything that will ever make you mad at him/her.
Or you can discuss this all in code with winks and nods, as Mr. Hine has decided, calling some out as “good” and others “bad” Republicans. And ponder the future by declaring that the party may need to learn their lesson if all they can do is put a “bad” Republican forward to the election.
I feel as though I’m reading the output of folks who had their best friend lose the 7th grade student council election. “Good” and “bad”? Or, “I’ll show them, I won’t vote at all – that’ll teach’m!”
Grow up kids, it ain’t the first election you’ll go through where you don’t agree with everything the candidate stands for. I would have never voted EVER if that was my criteria.
Maybe Mick and Keith had it right, “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime you find you get what you need.”
We had Republican majorities in the House and the Senate while simultaneously controlling the Executive branch in the mid-2000’s. Did we shrink government? Did we close departments? Did we fix the tax code? Social Security? Anything? No. We grew government. We created new departments. We passed new mandates.
.
.
.
We got Obama.
When the wrong people are in charge of the Party that is supposed to support less government, lower taxes, and more personal freedom…when they do the exact opposite, you end up not only with bad government in the short term, but even worse government in the long term.
This isn’t about “picking up your toys and going home”. It’s about fundamentally changing the dynamic of politics in America. The duopoly just doesn’t cut it anymore. The grand debates of our time are over 5% of the problems…and even then nothing gets done.
The Parties *do not want change*. They are quite comfortable making millions of dollars for their consultants while selling the rest of us down the river. Change is hard. You need a backbone.
Are the Nov. ballots available for viewing?
Unfortunately, Christian, those with a backbone tend to end up with a broken back. Just ask Robert Brawley.
A choice between Democrat and Democrat Lite is like choosing between a Great Microbrew beer and Miller Lite. You might as well vote for the real thing instead of the watered down version that only looks great with slightly less spending.
To Scott, I appreciate your dream world as opposed to mine. We were not 7th graders loosing a great grassroots effort to elect a Constituional Conservative Republican to run against a progressive Democrat; we WERE the cream of the crop volunteers from the GOP volunteer base across NC. My personal experience ( by the way I attended a one room school house in my younger years) 7 days before the critical primary election was an eye opener for me. I witnessed a so called mature organization use every dirty tactic available to them to alert the low informed Conservative voter who to vote for. A mature led group who made rules for me as a GOP Precinct Chair to not personally endorse a candidate in my precinct during the months previous. The same mature led group who I personally emailed in Wake County “Why did you choose not to give a simple piece of paper to the voter as they walked into the polling place?” their reply: “we didn’t have the money and we don’t endorse a candidate” . Oh, I replied: ” but a Registered Republican Citizen at the highest level of NC government can? ” Her comment about the 8 names was it wasn’t necessary. I beg to differ: 1) the person I poll greet needs to realize ahead of time what will be on the ballot for lack of shock value. 2) the GOP along side of others worked to change the order of names on the ballot FOR this year. (how convenient) 3) name recognition cost the Karl Roves Regime 10 million $ for name recognition for their candidate 4)the propaganda used in emails sent from this “adult” group labeled the GOP : “vote for the most electable candidate” . Now who uses 7th grader tactics? Oh, by the way… Would you like for me to share your comments to the 15 yr old home schooled student who made hundreds of phone calls, poll greeted & socialized with peers like me?
Sounds like the Tillis Army is out in full force. I will take the path less traveled.
I am looking for a conservative third party that actually follows the Constitution.
I feel ya, but how about rather than a new Party, which would ultimately suffer the same fate as what we have now, we encourage easier ballot access and a rise of Independent candidates? Meanwhile, we build an infrastructure of like-minded people who can better influence primary elections AND policy. The policy part is important. The parties typically ignore, especially on a local level, bad policy when it’s their own members pushing it.
Been tried. Ain’t working.
Where’s all the purity talk, now?
I struggle with this issue of supporting flawed candidates. I suppose not all flaws are equal as the author points out and one must determine if they are deal breakers or not.
Perhaps another point to consider is what is the long term effect of a flawed Republican candidate not getting support and losing.
Suppose the GOP nominates a rino. This candidate runs against his Democratic opponent and loses. If the reason for his loss was that true conservatives decided or stay home and not vote, is it possible that this message will finally get through to the party leadership? Will they perhaps accept the fact that without running a candidate who truly embodies conservative principles, they will not get enough turnout to win elections? I do not know if this is the case but I believe its worth considering.
When we consistently support “our” guy even though he’s not a good conservative, aren’t we sending the message to the party leadership that we will hold our nose and accept whatever candidate they choose to thrust upon us? How will they or the candidates ever learn they must align themselves with conservative principles if they wish to win?
Here, with the “rino” label. Now, when you are referring to a “rino” does that mean they don’t agree with you on issues like gay marriage and abortion – or are you just talking about taxes, smaller government and so-called constitutional conservative issues? Because it’s hard to keep straight what part of people not agreeing with you on 100% of the issues categorizes them as “bad”.
Let’s check the record for Mr. Tillis: (1) Amnesty–for it (2) The Affordable Health Care Act–No repeal (3) Deficit reduction–Senator Burr is his advisor, so none there (4) Subsides for Big Business (Plus see #1)–Advisor is Senator Burr (5) Takes A LOT of lobbyist money, example Autism Lobby, see #2; for the social conservatives–“If I stay twenty years, I will vote for same-sex marriage” and “…paid off his staff of adulterers…”. It would seem he is not conservative, constitutionally or socially. So 100% subtract 50% = 50%. A moderate Democrat? Are we/you/us trying to define what “is” is? And the bills to have tax reform (along with other action) here in NC originated in the State Senate, not the State House.
The Tea Party died but did not inform their few members remaining. Give it up. The GOP has to move to the left to remain relevant. In another 4 years the only reference to the Tea Party will be on Comedy Central.
The majority of people in this country self identify as conservatives. The GOP is dying *because* it has already moved too far left, or at least won’t actually conservative philosophy in a meaningful way. People supporting limited government are out in the wilderness looking for a home. The incredibly weak leadership at the national level has all but killed the party.
To say it needs to move left to survive makes the premise that we are a left leaning nation. That is demonstrably untrue. If anything, I think most people are libertarian. We just want to be left alone. Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff!
Uncouple the social agenda of the right wing part of the base and then you’d be right regarding self-identifying as conservative. I can tell you there are plenty of women that self identify fiscally with conservative tenets but you stick an old white guy in front of the crowd who wants to have the state force an ultrasound in their vagina if they needed to terminate a pregnancy and you’ve pretty watched that train leave the station.
Abortion and gays,abortion and gays, abortion and gays. This is ALL that matters to the left. All thoughts ,all ideas, all opinions MUST be formed with these two in mind.
Actually Bruce, the reverse is true. It is the right that continues to allow these to be part of the agenda. If they stepped away from these issues and allowed them to a function of personal freedom they would no longer be fodder for the left. Neutralized.
The Republican Party is not the conservative party of America, never has been, never will be. It really stands for nothing except its own consultant class and incumbent statist politicians. As such, it is eventually doomed to oblivion. The sooner a new Conservative Party is organized for our country, the better. There is no future in the GOP.
Will there be a Conservative Party candidate on the Nov. ballot?
Thanks for writing this. I share many of these sentiments. Very good read!
Another great post, Christian, but there are two things I think your post-mortem misses. First is the corrosive influence of money on politics. Quite simply, in this election the candidates that spent the most (Tillis, Pittenger, Fraley, Bradford) won. Outsiders raising and spending millions to influence the outcome defeats the purpose of representative government, whether it’s Karl Rove or George Soros doing it. No GOP candidate even mentioned campaign finance. In the 98th, Rinker and Bradford raised over a quarter of a million dollars, and by the time the general election rolls around that number will be closer to half. Half a million bucks to send someone from our LKN community to Raleigh. That’s just nuts.
The second issue is the candidates themselves. In the Senate, Tillis had the longest resume, but sometimes an inspiring candidate with a thin resume can be successful (although that’s getting harder to do). The current White House occupant is a case in point. But I always found Brannon’s answers bookish. When he was asked about high gas prices he ended up talking about the Coinage Act of 1792. Huh? And I would cringe when he advocated for political impossibilities like doing away with the IRS and Federal Reserve. The most thoughtful and articulate answers came from Mark Harris. Unfortunately, the Left Wing Hate Machine would’ve burned up a clutch spinning out stories on his work as a minister. That being a Baptist preacher is a liability speaks more about our society than it does about the Rev Harris.
The lack of credible candidates coupled with the corrupting influence of large, outside donors emaciates our republic.
[…] We wonder why our Republican Party is seemingly struggling for relevance. Frankly, it is because we do not prune out the progressives within our own party. Christian Hine of Pundit House articulately described this recently. Click here to read. […]
Christian – the issue you failed to mention is the larger effect of the election – Senate Majority Leader and as long as those “long term thinkers” are comfortable with Harry Reid, the few true conservatives in the Senate will have a harder time implementing their policies.
Which is better Jack, Harry Reid giving amnesty to illegals or the GOP? Harry Reid bailing out banks or the GOP? Harry Reid implementing new entitlement programs or the GOP? We had Republican majorities in the 2000’s. They grew government…big time. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, The Patriot Act, TARP, etc, etc. They killed the GOP brand and harmed our ability to grow a movement because too many people saw the hypocrisy. No Jack, Harry Reid scares me a lot less than big government Republicans. Why? Because at least we know who the enemy is and don’t make fools of ourselves defending government growing Republicans while trying to take credit for being the party of less government.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.