PDA

View Full Version : New NYTimes meme - nominating Rand over Grayson neither hurt nor helped GOP chances




sailingaway
09-20-2010, 10:28 AM
"In the other four states, the Tea Party candidate has had little obvious impact. Mr. Lee of Utah upended a Republican incumbent, Senator Robert Bennett. But Mr. Lee is almost certain to defeat the Democrat, Sam Granato, as Mr. Bennett would have been. Mr. DeMint of South Carolina, an incumbent, was under no real threat of losing either the primary or the general election. Mr. Paul of Kentucky, and Mr. Buck of Colorado, were not doing obviously better or worse in general election polling than the establishment alternatives at the time they won their primaries, and both are now favored to win their races."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/assessing-the-g-o-p-and-the-tea-party/?partner=rss&emc=rss

This seems to be the growing Dem establishment view, but the kos krowd still wants to believe conservatism is extreme and will excite voters against Rand.

I find this speculation fascinating, because it is what I have been thinking, and I so rarely agree with the New York Times:

"Dimension 3: Tea Party and perceptions of Republican “extremism”
After several victories by Tea Party candidates, like Mr. Paul of Kentucky and Ms. Angle of Nevada, there has been something of a feeding frenzy on liberal blogs (and to some extent, the political media in general), which have sought to unearth whatever uncouth statements, or unorthodox policy positions, the candidate has in his or her background. This process is still underway with Ms. O’Donnell in Delaware. What liberals seem to be banking on is that candidates like these will pollute the Republican brand by being poor standard-bearers. Indeed, the White House is considering formalizing the strategy, according to reporting by The Times.

Although the risks are perhaps greater to Republicans with Ms. O’Donnell than with the previous candidates, so far it is unclear that the strategy has worked. Mr. Paul, for instance, has seen his standing improve in Kentucky since his primary win there in May, and meanwhile, the Republicans have somewhat strengthened their position nationally.

One problem may be that, if the Tea Party appears extreme to some voters, the Democratic agenda does to others. Arguably in fact, the Tea Party — by normalizing extremely conservative viewpoints — makes mainstream Democratic views seem more extreme by comparison."

The only thing I would change is I don't think conservative views were ever out of the norm, they were just deemed un pc to some extent, and more conservative candidates change the view of pc.

angelatc
09-20-2010, 10:31 AM
So, all that "Rand can't beat the Democrat!" stuff was just nonsense? Who knew? :)

I love how they downplay the significance of the Bennett deal - it's practically impossible to toss out an incumbent.

low preference guy
09-20-2010, 11:20 AM
bullshit. nominating Rand definitely helped GOP chances.

sailingaway
09-20-2010, 11:22 AM
bullshit. nominating Rand definitely helped GOP chances.

Oh, I agree, if he hadn't won a lot of the enthusiasm would have been tamped down; he generated more. But, NYTimes is never going to go that far.

Aratus
09-20-2010, 11:26 AM
isn't the very choise nominate trey grayson the RINO/DINO ex-democrat and 5% to 10% of the goldwater right sits out
the fall election even if SEC' TREY has MORE inroads on either jack conway's or daniel mongiardo's fickle 'indy' moderates?

low preference guy
09-20-2010, 12:12 PM
The following two statements are from the same article in the OP.

Statement 1:


Other then in Delaware, then, the immediate impact of Tea Party candidates upon electoral outcomes is therefore somewhat more ambiguous than you might think (although it [the Tea Party] has probably been harmful to the Republicans on balance).

Statement 2:


One possible course for these midterms was a low-turnout election, with voter apathy toward both major parties. The Democrats might still have lost quite a few seats in Congress – simply because they were the incumbent party and had more of them to lose — but the losses would probably not have been catastrophic [without the Tea Party]. The Tea Party, however, has made some conservatives feel as though they have a real alternative -– something new and fresh and different — to Democratic governance. The impact of this is hard to evaluate, but it could easily outweigh the loss of a Senate seat or two in specific cases like Delaware.

Now, how can you believe that the Tea Party "has probably been harmful to the Republicans in balance" and that it's positive impact on Republicans' electoral chances "could easily outweigh the loss of a Senate seat or two in specific cases like Delaware" at the same time?

Does one have to believe in contradictions to write at the New York times? I think what's going on here is that the first statement is wishful thinking from the author. The second statement is when he accepts the obvious reality that the enthusiasm among Republican infused by the Tea Party outweighs any potential negatives, which might not even happen. What's really interesting is that the author still publishes his first thought, even if it contradicts a subsequent paragraph in the same fucking article.

sailingaway
09-20-2010, 12:30 PM
The following two statements are from the same article in the OP.

Statement 1:



Statement 2:



Now, how can you believe that the Tea Party "has probably been harmful to the Republicans in balance" and that it's positive impact on Republicans' electoral chances "could easily outweigh the loss of a Senate seat or two in specific cases like Delaware" at the same time?

Does one have to believe in contradictions to write at the New York times? I think what's going on here is that the first statement is wishful thinking from the author. The second statement is when he accepts the obvious reality that the enthusiasm among Republican infused by the Tea Party outweighs any potential negatives, which might not even happen. What's really interesting is that the author still publishes his first thought, even if it contradicts a subsequent paragraph in the same fucking article.

They really WANT Americans to consider conservative thought extreme, but America doesn't.