Rove's Misread of Tuesday's Elections

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal Karl Rove presented a thoughtful opinion piece on how to read the results of elections to be held Tuesday in Virginia, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. Regardless of Rove's projected outcomes in these elections, he makes the mistake of seeing the results, as most of Washington will see them, through the lens of partisanship, and he measures the outcome, only as Washington has come to measure all outcomes, in terms of partisan advantage.

According to Rove:

Voters have lived under Democratic rule for nine months, and many of them, especially independents, don't like what they are seeing. Tuesday's election will provide the most tangible evidence of how strong a backlash is building - and just how frightened centrist Democrats should be of 2010. For Republicans, it looks as if hope and change are on the way.

I have a different view of what Tuesday's results may tell us and not because I am a Democrat.

To Rove "us" is the Republican party and "them" is the Democratic party. This isn't just Rove's problem - most in both party establishments view the political world this way - with just as many seeing "us" as Democrats and "them" as Republicans. But this view masks what is truly happening - and makes the establishments of both parties blind to what is coming in 2010.

Voters are increasingly seeing themselves as "us" and both parties in Washington as "them." They are not going to discriminate between the two parties in 2010. The results next Tuesday will likely demonstrate the voter's frustration with those in power, regardless of party. Far from signaling a backlash against Democratic rule and hope for the Republican Party, the results on Tuesday will signal that in 2010 incumbents in both parties, of all ideological stripes should be frightened.

Take off your partisan glasses on Tuesday night and this is what you will see.

In Virginia, where Democrats have held the Governor's office for 8 years, I agree with Rove that Republican Bob McDonnell is likely to win. Republicans will see this as a sign of resurgence. That would be a mistake. Question: If George Bush were still President does anyone think Bob McDonnell would have any chance in Virginia today? The reality is that something else is at work here. And the results in New Jersey and New York will expose exactly what it is.

Virginia's race for governor does not include a viable third candidate outside of the two major parties. The races for governor of New Jersey and for Congress in New York's 23rd district do have independent or third party candidates who are shaping the outcomes.

In New Jersey, Rove is correct in pointing out that, incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine has been at 42% or above in just 6 out of 59 polls in the race conducted since January. And Rove is correct in pointing out that this condition is usually terminal for an incumbent. But it would be incredibly blind to see a GOP win in New Jersey as a sign of renewal and strength for the Republican Party. Even with an incumbent governor who cannot rate much higher than 42% of the vote, the Republican nominee Chris Christie can't seem to poll much higher and, as of today, the race is a dead heat because independent candidate Chris Daggett is pulling votes away from both major party candidates. And, as Rove points out, the Republican Governor's Association's only attack that has worked against Daggett is that if you vote for him you might get Corzine. In typical two party mind sync it won't be long before Democrats start arguing to the same people that if you vote for Daggett you might get Christie.

If Corzine wins on Tuesday, it would be a mistake for Democrats to breathe a sigh of relief and view it as a sign of voters returning to the party fold - and, if Christie wins, the GOP would make a mistake to read such a victory along with a win in Virginia as a rejection of one party for another - or as evidence of renewed strength for their party. Though no matter which of the two outcomes the mandatory partisan spin will claim differently.

The reality is that in terms of 2010 Republicans and Democrats should view the emergence of independent Chris Daggett and the antipathy that both major party nominees engender in New Jersey as a sign that both parties may be in trouble in 2010. Incumbents from either party should be ready for surprises from the voters at the polls in November a year from Tuesday's results - out with the old, and in with the new, may be in regardless of party.

New York's 23rd Congressional District may be the race in which the outcome could be the most surprising and the most misread. If Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman wins in New York's 23rd district this Tuesday the GOP will claim victory and say that Hoffman was a disgruntled member of their party who ran as a third party candidate only because the GOP didn't pick him - and alas their mistake was corrected by the voters and the GOP will welcome Hoffman into their fold. This is pure folly. If Hoffman wins it will be a rejection of both parties in a contest in which the hand picked party nominees and the party campaign committees themselves have spent millions of dollars, and many of those dollars are now being spent to attack Hoffman.

But it's too late - Hoffman may not pull it off - but even if he doesn't, and one of the major party candidates wins by a slim margin, his emergence in the race at all is a signal that 2010 is likely to be a very different election.

What we are seeing in 2009 is that incumbents or the "in" party in each race is having trouble holding on, and that where voters have a choice outside of both major parties enough voters are choosing the independent or third party candidate to rattle both major parties and effect the outcome, if not win the election outright.

I am a Democrat and have been a Democrat all my life and I want Democrats to win in 2009 and 2010. But Republican, or Democrat, it would be a mistake to not see that both of our parties are in trouble and that many of our incumbents in 2010, in both parties, will be in jeopardy.

The Republicans may have two gubernatorial victories on Tuesday and they may claim a victory in NY's 23rd - or they may win none of the three contests. In the best and worst cases the mistake will be to see a partisan victory or the results as a rejection of a single party.

What voters are ready to tell anyone who will listen is that they would like to reject both parties right now if they could. They are trying to find a way to say to both parties, "We want you to change or get out of the way." Both party establishments are in denial. Both party establishments are hard of hearing. And, both party establishments are likely to see the results on Tuesday as Karl Rove sees them - a victory of one party over another. That is the real danger in 2010 and beyond for both parties.

 

Follow Joe Trippi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joetrippi

Comments

[bodiwarrior]

There is one more word I have for Karl Rove "NO FEAR". The far right likes to state that Americans in general are just sooooooooo frightened of change and any attempt to rein in the Greenspan economy and undo the damage done by bush and clan. I am not afraid of any of this type of talk nor was I afraid of Bush and Channey. See they like to use language to manipulate people and are quite aware of how to sucker people into their trance like buzz words. Americans you have nothing to fear but fear itself and that our ancestors faced every obstacle with complete fearlessness. Do we want to allow the republican pundits to classify us as cowards in facing real life problems. I think not and see America only moving forward if we follow our brave founder's who would of laughed at rove and party as appeaser's.

[bodiwarrior]

The Virginia race is about voter's using there vote to punish. They are getting into the same trap set by Gilmore. They like personality over substance and think that is the answer, They refuse to face the budget shortfalls and then ahh reality comes. Mconnell is just more talk and goody goody so people eat it up and disregard reason and logic. He is a catholic who will have to go against his church's teaching if he goes after immigrant's and opposes health care. I am tired of republican religious hypocracy. I remember the budget shortfalls in Virginia and how Gilmore promised to end the personal property tax end only to awaken to the real math number's. Virginia voter's stop using your vote to punish and reward and vote for what matter's for your well being and your neighbor's.I guess halloween is not over as we still keep doing trick's, and never get treats..

[GranE]

I don't totally agree with Trippy. He made some good points but still, how would a third party in Congress ever get their agenda to the floor? The Blue Dogs chose a hard time to try to control an issue, and health care is not the issue for them to play their cards. We will see how well they fare when banking reform starts which is where they could make an impact. These kinds of coalitions have gone on before, and will continue in the Democratic party. The Republican party is wholly owned by Wall Street and will forever be, that's why they only have one vote and their platform is religion.

The rise of a third party will be when both parties prove they cannot lead. Ross Perot and Ron Paul each had a chance at it and money to support their efforts, but voters did not see either as making an impact. If we can't get term limits imposed in America, then by state statutes we should have a recall system of our States' representatives in Washingon instead of trying to vote them in.

[MimiGardner]

It's always interesting to read comments from Karl ("durable republican majority") Rove. Apparently, he still considers himself a pundit and strategist. He may alone in that regard.

[ECJLA]

No person of conscience or compassion should put (unconditional) party loyalty over country.

Like the Whigs in the 1850s today's Democratic leaders have (sinfully) failed to recognize that limiting the expansion of (already obscene) material inequality is the 21st Century's moral equivalent to ending the expansion of slavery in the 19th century.

On the contrary, hiding behind Orwellian rhetoric and neoliberal (voodoo) policy chicanery, Democrats and Republicans alike are now "all about" WORSENING the hyper-stratified contours of our zero-sum Not-Great Society in which the haves conspire daily to profit from and exploit the have-nots in myriad ways. (The blatant human trafficking in typical teenage youths by judges and private prison operators in Michael Moore's Capitalism, a Love Story is painfully exemplary.)

Nowadays elected Democrats use politics the way the great Marine patriot Smedley Butler finally admitted he had used America's imperialist wars: as a "racket". Butler confessed that he had become a "gangster for capitalism". This describes virtually every modern elected Democrat (and every elected Republican).

It is past time for what Lincoln called a "new birth of freedom", one that starts with the founding of a successor to the complicit and complacent Democratic Party: a new principled party militantly devoted to the public interest, the abolition of extreme inequality and improving the lot in life of everyday people. And continues with the mass exodus of all real Democrats into their new political home, stage left.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[oldgeek1]

Little if anything will be decided on Tuesday.
Bush will remain a failed President who damaged our country, Rush will continue to be a clown and Rove will hope people will continue to pay him for his advice

[S1m0n]

There's an obvious partisan payoff to be had for claiming the result is a referendum on the president, but whether Rove actually believes this is another question entirely. In his position I'd be saying the same thing if the polls showed any likelihood of a democratic loss.

[freshnotbitter]

Like I have been saying all along, health care is the bell weather. The sausage making process is killing the incumbents.

Many other countries woke up and said "hey, there is this thing called health care reform out there that can bring technology and knowledge to the general population and we owe it to the people to do something so we will appoint a board of specialists to study our situation very carefully and come up with a plan that the people can vote on."

We never did that. Instead, we said that the adversary process would produce a plan and look at the result. Of course there are other issues but health care is prima inter pares.

[meldah]

I agree absolutely with you Mr. Trippi, and having said that let me add that I’m afraid of the aftermath of the 2009 and 2010 elections. To see this country disgruntled with both the major Political Parties is not new. But to witness the U.S. again turn to the Conservative ideals that always leaves America behind the beat compared to the other Industrial Countries, is saddening.

The last major shakeup of the American Political Two Party System was about 156 years ago. I’m not comparing our modern times with the rift in American Politics and social ethnicity of that day, but let me put across one similarity to 1856 that is slightly analogous to our 2009: States Rights. I have heard the 10th Amendment cited as an argument against Health Care Reform by the Leaders of the GOP. The State Rights argument was used by the Southern Members of Congress to fight against the National eradication of Slavery.

The history lesson aside, The Republican Party is poised to go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by an Ultra-Conservative Political Party, and the Democrat Party remain (split into two fundamentally diverse factions (kinda like the present)). In my opinion that would be awful because I don’t think that Ultra=Conservatism can find middle ground with even the most moderate Democrat. And I would not want them too, Ultra-Conservatism would be bad for America. Really bad.

[billstewart]

As one of Joe's predecessors said, "It's The Economy, Stupid!" The Bush League got away with a few years of fear-mongering and exploiting Americans' traditional patriotism to let them start wars and keep their military-i­ndustrial-­complex buddies well-funded, while running record-high budget deficits that helped cause the current collapse. By contrast, Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since at least Eisenhower, though that was partly because the tacky Republican attacks on his personal morality problems kept him from promoting the new programs he'd have liked.

As a Libertarian, I get to bash both of the big parties, and my own party's lack of political skills is at least well known to insiders. Our last serious chance at a major third party ended when Ross Perot not only turned out to be somewhat delusional but also wouldn't let the Reform Party he'd called into existence become a grassroots party as many of its activists wanted instead of staying his pet astroturf factory. The Greens are great people, and good at organizing, but too far from the center to be a major force. Maybe the Blue Dogs can split off and take the moderate Republicans away from the wreckage Bush and Rove left of the former Republican Party.

[meldah]

I’m assuming that you were being whimsical in your claim that Bill Clinton was the best Republican President, by that count, Abe Lincoln was one of the best Democrat President in History.

My theory is that the Republican Party is being transformed by the ultra conservative sect, and having lost the confidence of their Urban and Rural base, they are to be delegated to History as another also-ran. They lasted 156 years, that’s a good stretch.

I think that the left over Republicans will find a home in the Democrat Party, and the Independent Party will be the new Liberals. I’m not sure where I will stand when its all over. I think this will take years, the GOP will not go quietly, they will yell and scream, and for years to come, they will insist that they are still something. But, I could be wrong. I’ve been wrong heap of times, plenty. I’m willing to be proven wrong.

What I fear is the Religious Right, The Family led by Doug Coe. Read the book The Family, by Jeff Sharlot.

[essexmike]

Mr. Trippi,

Weather you realize it or not, you have just identified the basis for the Tea Party movement and the popularity of Glen Beck. "A pox on both their houses". While this is being manifested as opposition to the Obama Administration, in reality it is opposition to business as usual by both parties. I agree, 2010 will be a referendum on incumbency. Both Parties need to wake up.

[Gainsbourg69]

No. The tea party is a pro-corporate, astro-turf movement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the public being over the two party system. The organizers have successfully gathered people to shout republican talking points. If the tea partiers acknowledged that neither the private or public sectors should have too much power over our lives, the movement would grow ten fold overnight. But since you guys have corporations and corporate mouthpieces shilling for your side you'll remain a movement largely ignored by the vast majority of the country. Or haven't you noticed that it was our corporate bought government that led to this current fiasco? So no. Mr. Trippi is in no way identifying the basis for the tea party movement. He's just simply shining a light on the fact that most americans, left, right and center, are largely unhappy with the two party monopoly. The GOP rebranding into the tea party movement is a farce so transparent that anyone with functioning eyes and ears recognizes it for what it is.

[essexmike]

I respectfully disagree. You obviously haven't attended a tea party rally. I have, on April 15th, on July 4th and again this past September. There were no corporate sponsors and the speakers and organizers were local people and previously not politically active. Until these three rallies, neither my wife or I had ever attended a political rally of any kind. That was true for many of the attendees. Do some of the people pushing the Tea Party movement have an agenda or an affiliation with corporate sponsors etc, sure and if it gets out of hand and it becomes another business as usual political group then it will wither and die. But that it is not the intent or the motivation for most of the attendees, at least at the events that I attended.

[Hank007]

The problem with so many people saying 'vote 3rd parties no matter what' is that it garauntees chaos and non-productivity. American society needs to decide what it wants first, which is not easy given the size and divesity of the population. Look at healthcare; goervnment run single payer, with the same private hospitals and docs we have now would turn the economy around, yet half the population wants to protect health insurance companies 'on principle'. It doesn't matter if a candidate is from a third party or not if he disagrees with your point of view. Half the people crying for third party candidates want to return to a magical golden age when America was great, yet the time they refer to had tax rates close to double what they are now, and these are the same people decrying taxes. Agenda first, party second.

[Unimatrix42]

We liberals made the mistake of giving Rove way too much credit during the early Bush years.

This is the same guy who made wild claims of a permanent Republican majority and who predicted that the Republicans would hold on to congress in 2006. Rove's analysis has always shown a sophomoric understanding of the American electorate and an amateurish interpretation of why voters act the way they do.

He's a FOX News hack, plain and simple -- aside from being a slew of other reprehensible things which we're not allowed to post here.

Trippi is right on the mark with this one.

[tribilin219]

Mr. Trippi, You sir hit it right on, I hope there is an Independent running in every state in 2010 and in 2012 so we can vote all these BUMS we have now OUT! Bunch of good for nothings, I like when they are running for office they tell you how their going to Change things in Washington, So you vote them in then they get to washington and they think they are GODS, You know above the laws and all, Well this Country never had a King or Queen, And I don't think we need one now! So let's start voting BOTH Republicans and Democrats out ASAP. I've had a bellyful of BOTH party's

[allonfla]

the independents will not win.

[Dbos]

President Obama needed to be stronger and really made bad choices for advisers consequently the dems are in trouble,thats the bottom line. he can turn it arround but he must change his advisers ie Rahm ,Tim ,Mccrystal etc.

[Ozarks]

I agree, Am ready in 2010 to vote for 3rd party candidates across the board. Am sick of watching this dog and pony show called "health care" debate. The democrats can't govern and the republicans have turned into a right wing cult. If necessary and there are not third party contestants for all slots on the ticket I may have to "write in" Bozo the Clown or Colonel Sanders(KFC),

[dglow]

Totally agree! The only candidates I will vote for will be third party. The PEOPLE must take back America from the corporate run government we now have. Our federal reps have turned a deaf ear to the people for too long. To save the republic, we must choose real change. With internet campaign funding, the voice of the people can prevail!

[rockymthi]

I agree that incumbents have/are not putting the people first. However, we must be cautious about who we support. 2010 should demand Americans become Citizens and prioritize part of their time and energy to studying the issues and candidates. For many, voting is the only act of citizenship we perform. I watched Doug Hoffman on TV, he seemed dull and uninformed, does not live in the district he wants to represent,and is funded by outside monies. Sarah Paylin says he's the one, and her fringe fans with flock mentality get busy on the phone,e-mail, and dig in their pockets for support. No, one has asked if Sarah really knows anything about this candidate. Or, is she positioning herself for personal gain? Sarah's political history would tend to support the latter. We must cast our vote for whom we feel will move our country in the right direction. And be aware of the blind leading the blind.