Tactically Bad vs. Strategically Bad
Posted on | February 15, 2010 | 19 Comments
by Smitty
Instapundit points to the Las Vegas Sun with an article about the Tea Party movement going full-on third party.
Insty:
I think it’s smarter for Tea Party activists to target primary races, rather than starting their own party as seems to be happening in Nevada. Two words: “Ross Perot.” Two more: “Ralph Nader.”
As a Perot voter during my virgin booth-screwing, I take just the slightest umbrage. Bush41 was just another affable Progressive. You can argue there was a Cold War to finish off, but he was just as domestically committed to the collapse of e pluribus into unum as the Bubba that won in ’92.
The substantial difference in Bush vs. Clinton would seem to be the rate at which they were going to have DC devour the rest of the country. The Bush route may have been slower, more genteel, but so what?
Full circle, then, I say let Nevadans express their political will as desired. Succumbing to some brow-beating about the folly of dividing the conservative vote may afford as much fallacy as validity, depending on whom the GOP are running.
Comments
19 Responses to “Tactically Bad vs. Strategically Bad”
THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD
This spot rotates to honor those who link us in shameless obedience to Rule 2 of "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog."
HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!
Search
Recent Posts
- In The Mailbox: 11.04.24
- Rule 5 Sunday: Pre-Coffee Lounging
- FMJRA 2.0: No Expansion This Year
- Election 2024: Be Prepared for Anything
- Election Fraud: Democrat Firm Identified as Source of Suspicious Voter Registration Forms in Four Pennsylvania Counties
- In The Mailbox: 11.01.24 (Evening Edition)
- In The Mailbox: 11.01.24 (Afternoon Edition)
- Vote Trump, and the Media Will Die
- In The Mailbox: 10.31.24
- Can We Stay Sane a Few More Days? (Also: Has Trump Always Been Winning?)
Click here to manage your email subscription options.
RSS reader subscription
MEMEORANDUM
Recent Comments
- OK, who did not see this coming? | If You are Left you ain't Right on Aspiring Rapper Update
- The Club Can’t Even Handle Venezuela Right Now | vulture of critique on In The Mailbox: 07.29.24
- Goodbye, Blue Monday | Animal Magnetism on Rule 5 Sunday: Hangar Queen Double-Scoop Sunday!
- Why don’t we put violent predators away forever? | If You are Left you ain't Right on ‘Ghost’ Gets 28 Years in Federal Prison
- Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup - Pirate's Cove » Pirate's Cove on In The Mailbox: 07.26.24 (Evening Edition)
THE AMAZING GONZO FEED
Major Leagues
ADVERTISEMENT
Axis of Fedorables
- All-American Girl for the Restoration of Values
- Allergic to Bull
- Cat House Chat
- Chris Cassone
- Conservative Daily News
- DaTechGuy
- Fishersville Mike
- Girl on the Right
- Haemet
- Hogewash
- Just A Conservative Girl
- Marooned in Marin
- Paco Enterprises
- Sissy 'put moi in your blogroll' Willis
- So It Goes In Shreveport
- SWAC Girl
- The (Perhaps Slightly Less) Lonely Conservative
- The Camp of the Saints
- The World's Youngest Blogger
- Uncoverage
- VA Right
AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!
Archives
- November 2024 (8)
- October 2024 (47)
- September 2024 (43)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (63)
- June 2024 (59)
- May 2024 (48)
- April 2024 (43)
- March 2024 (55)
- February 2024 (46)
- January 2024 (45)
- December 2023 (53)
- November 2023 (62)
- October 2023 (57)
- September 2023 (56)
- August 2023 (53)
- July 2023 (69)
- June 2023 (67)
- May 2023 (53)
- April 2023 (60)
- March 2023 (73)
- February 2023 (65)
- January 2023 (56)
- December 2022 (60)
- November 2022 (64)
- October 2022 (58)
- September 2022 (68)
- August 2022 (75)
- July 2022 (69)
- June 2022 (73)
- May 2022 (74)
- April 2022 (57)
- March 2022 (79)
- February 2022 (65)
- January 2022 (58)
- December 2021 (62)
- November 2021 (68)
- October 2021 (73)
- September 2021 (63)
- August 2021 (60)
- July 2021 (80)
- June 2021 (64)
- May 2021 (64)
- April 2021 (58)
- March 2021 (73)
- February 2021 (57)
- January 2021 (71)
- December 2020 (77)
- November 2020 (81)
- October 2020 (84)
- September 2020 (94)
- August 2020 (75)
- July 2020 (68)
- June 2020 (83)
- May 2020 (77)
- April 2020 (65)
- March 2020 (85)
- February 2020 (94)
- January 2020 (95)
- December 2019 (88)
- November 2019 (60)
- October 2019 (113)
- September 2019 (91)
- August 2019 (91)
- July 2019 (88)
- June 2019 (80)
- May 2019 (74)
- April 2019 (97)
- March 2019 (100)
- February 2019 (85)
- January 2019 (93)
- December 2018 (90)
- November 2018 (83)
- October 2018 (96)
- September 2018 (79)
- August 2018 (107)
- July 2018 (98)
- June 2018 (86)
- May 2018 (78)
- April 2018 (78)
- March 2018 (97)
- February 2018 (61)
- January 2018 (70)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (68)
- October 2017 (67)
- September 2017 (70)
- August 2017 (68)
- July 2017 (52)
- June 2017 (60)
- May 2017 (56)
- April 2017 (80)
- March 2017 (80)
- February 2017 (102)
- January 2017 (104)
- December 2016 (65)
- November 2016 (86)
- October 2016 (77)
- September 2016 (81)
- August 2016 (66)
- July 2016 (83)
- June 2016 (81)
- May 2016 (65)
- April 2016 (64)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (74)
- January 2016 (66)
- December 2015 (64)
- November 2015 (85)
- October 2015 (71)
- September 2015 (80)
- August 2015 (67)
- July 2015 (79)
- June 2015 (69)
- May 2015 (72)
- April 2015 (94)
- March 2015 (122)
- February 2015 (71)
- January 2015 (93)
- December 2014 (99)
- November 2014 (67)
- October 2014 (109)
- September 2014 (87)
- August 2014 (106)
- July 2014 (132)
- June 2014 (154)
- May 2014 (126)
- April 2014 (145)
- March 2014 (144)
- February 2014 (142)
- January 2014 (185)
- December 2013 (192)
- November 2013 (174)
- October 2013 (175)
- September 2013 (181)
- August 2013 (172)
- July 2013 (147)
- June 2013 (135)
- May 2013 (128)
- April 2013 (105)
- March 2013 (162)
- February 2013 (191)
- January 2013 (206)
- December 2012 (190)
- November 2012 (176)
- October 2012 (240)
- September 2012 (206)
- August 2012 (235)
- July 2012 (223)
- June 2012 (161)
- May 2012 (230)
- April 2012 (269)
- March 2012 (282)
- February 2012 (247)
- January 2012 (267)
- December 2011 (285)
- November 2011 (300)
- October 2011 (302)
- September 2011 (297)
- August 2011 (288)
- July 2011 (297)
- June 2011 (245)
- May 2011 (260)
- April 2011 (344)
- March 2011 (293)
- February 2011 (201)
- January 2011 (263)
- December 2010 (265)
- November 2010 (266)
- October 2010 (305)
- September 2010 (280)
- August 2010 (272)
- July 2010 (230)
- June 2010 (244)
- May 2010 (256)
- April 2010 (222)
- March 2010 (271)
- February 2010 (286)
- January 2010 (229)
- December 2009 (21)
- October 2009 (1)
Free Agents
SHAMELESS CAPITALISM
The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Triple-A Franchises
- All-American Blogger
- American Power
- Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
- Athens & Jerusalem
- Barney Quick
- Bartholomew's Notes On Religion
- BatesLine
- Bear Creek Ledger
- Bearsears Patriots
- Blog de KingShamus
- Bride of Rove
- Cold Fury
- Daily Pundit
- Dr. Helen
- I Own The World
- Legal Insurrection
- Moe Lane
- No Runny Eggs
- Obi`s Sister
- Protein Wisdom
- Rhetorican
- Small Dead Animals
- The Conservatory
- The People's Cube
- The Sundries Shack
- VodkaPundit
- Vox Day
- Zilla of the Resistance
Blogroll
- 90 Miles From Tyranny
- A Conservative Shemale
- A Point of View
- Adrienne's Corner
- AmSpec Blog
- Bad Blue
- Blazing Cat Fur
- Calvin Freiburger Online
- Carol's Closet
- Catholic Bandita
- Caught Him With A Corndog
- Cecil Calvert
- Common Cents
- Conservative Hideout
- Conservative Watch News
- Conservatives for America
- Conservatives For Palin
- Crazy For Liberty
- Dad 29
- DC Damsel
- Dr. Flap
- Dyspepsia Generation
- Effing Conservatives
- Election Dissection
- Eric Reasons, IT Genius
- Eye of Polyphemus
- Finding Ponies. . .
- Free Will
- Grandpa John's
- Granite Grok
- GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
- Hoosier Access
- John William Perry
- Judicial Watch
- Jumping in Pools
- KURU Lounge
- Laughing Conservative
- Makes My Brain Itch
- Marathon Pundit
- Martin Eisenstadt's Blog
- Media Fade
- Michael Leahy
- Mister Pterodactyl
- Naked Villainy
- Nice Deb
- noot's observatory
- Not One Red Cent
- Okrahead
- Ollieander
- Pileus
- Pinup Girl
- Point of a Gun
- Political Pit Bull
- Reaganite Republican Resistance
- Red Alexandria
- Red State Eclectic
- Red, White & Conservative
- Republican Redefined
- ResCon1
- Ric's Rulez
- Ricochet
- Right of Course
- Robipedia
- Robomonkey
- Ruby Slippers Blog
- Saberpoint
- Scared Monkeys
- Sentry Journal
- SI VIS PACEM
- Skepticrats
- Smash Mouth Politics
- Sooper Mexican
- Taking Hayek Seriously
- Tel-Chai Nation
- Tequila & Javalinas
- The Aged P
- The Classic Liberal
- The Izzy Report
- The Minority Leader
- The NeoSexist
- The Nose on Your Face
- The Republican Mother
- The Right Sphere
- The Saint Angilbert Press
- The Snooper Report
- The Underground Conservative
- Thunder Tales
- Tom McLaughlin
- Tory Anarchist
- TrogloPundit
- Vets On The Watch
- Watcher of Weasels
- Western Experience
- World's Only Rational Man
- WyBlog
- Yankee Phil
- Zingstrom's Blog
February 15th, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
So. Past experience with 3rd parties no longer applicable? Draining votes from the Republican candidate to virtually ensure that Reid wins is suddenly a good idea now that a group of people self-identified as “tea partiers” throws their hats into the ring?
Ah, the magic of magic words…
February 15th, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
So. Past experience with 3rd parties no longer applicable? Draining votes from the Republican candidate to virtually ensure that Reid wins is suddenly a good idea now that a group of people self-identified as “tea partiers” throws their hats into the ring?
Ah, the magic of magic words…
February 15th, 2010 @ 10:44 am
So. Past experience with 3rd parties no longer applicable? Draining votes from the Republican candidate to virtually ensure that Reid wins is suddenly a good idea now that a group of people self-identified as “tea partiers” throws their hats into the ring?
Ah, the magic of magic words…
February 15th, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
Has anybody checked this “Tea Party” out? What are the odds it’s a Reid/Dem ‘false flag op’?
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:04 am
Has anybody checked this “Tea Party” out? What are the odds it’s a Reid/Dem ‘false flag op’?
February 15th, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
Well now I am baffled, the only possible way this is good for conservatives (as opposed to republicans) is if there is no possibility of finding a Nevada republican who can pass the 80% test. Flipping three senate seats would be symbolically important enough to overlook a certain level of squishiness. I don’t think Scott Brown is a rino/squish and I think he may be more conservative than some think. His taking of “Teddy’s” seat overrides the importance of exactly how conservative Sen. Brown is or is not. Congressman Kirk in Illinois has cast some disconcerting votes, enough to make one question if he is “conservative enough”. As I live in NC it’s easy for me to say that since Kirk is running for Bolshevik in charge’s seat that I don’t care if he’s not a real conservative. If he was running in Ohio or Indiana I doubt I’d favor his election over taking the risk of running a true 3rd party conservative. I don’t know much about the republican primary candidates in Nevada. If they’re that bad then 3rd party go. But it sure would be sweet and have larger implications than a single senator to unseat the democratic Senate Majority Leader.
February 15th, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
Well now I am baffled, the only possible way this is good for conservatives (as opposed to republicans) is if there is no possibility of finding a Nevada republican who can pass the 80% test. Flipping three senate seats would be symbolically important enough to overlook a certain level of squishiness. I don’t think Scott Brown is a rino/squish and I think he may be more conservative than some think. His taking of “Teddy’s” seat overrides the importance of exactly how conservative Sen. Brown is or is not. Congressman Kirk in Illinois has cast some disconcerting votes, enough to make one question if he is “conservative enough”. As I live in NC it’s easy for me to say that since Kirk is running for Bolshevik in charge’s seat that I don’t care if he’s not a real conservative. If he was running in Ohio or Indiana I doubt I’d favor his election over taking the risk of running a true 3rd party conservative. I don’t know much about the republican primary candidates in Nevada. If they’re that bad then 3rd party go. But it sure would be sweet and have larger implications than a single senator to unseat the democratic Senate Majority Leader.
February 15th, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
Message to self-identified “tea partiers:”
1) Just because some group has labeled itself a “tea party,” doesn’t mean that it has your best interest at heart. It may, but it may not.
2) Just because some group decides to run a “tea party” candidate doesn’t mean that it is in your best interests (or your country’s best interest) to vote for that person. This is true — even if the proffered candidate seems to be more in line with your values than the one offered up by the Republican party.
3) The time for fighting “purges” or “who is most conservative” battles is IN THE PRIMARIES. If you can’t get “your guy” in, there is a REASON for that. Generally, that “reason” is that HE/SHE DIDN’T GET ENOUGH VOTES. What makes you think that this will CHANGE in the general election?
4) Is there some reason to believe than ANY votes the third party candidate will garner will come from voters who are likely to vote for the DEMOCRATIC party candidate? If not, where will they likely come from? (To refresh your memory, if there were only two candidates, would self-identified “tea party members” more likely vote “Republican” or “Democrat.” In this case “other” or “Reid?”)
GET A GRIP. This is a battle for, not the soul of the Republican party, but for the LIFE of this country. If this type of self-aggrandizing hubris is operative in enough places, the Democrats will retain control of the House and the Senate.
February 15th, 2010 @ 12:23 pm
Message to self-identified “tea partiers:”
1) Just because some group has labeled itself a “tea party,” doesn’t mean that it has your best interest at heart. It may, but it may not.
2) Just because some group decides to run a “tea party” candidate doesn’t mean that it is in your best interests (or your country’s best interest) to vote for that person. This is true — even if the proffered candidate seems to be more in line with your values than the one offered up by the Republican party.
3) The time for fighting “purges” or “who is most conservative” battles is IN THE PRIMARIES. If you can’t get “your guy” in, there is a REASON for that. Generally, that “reason” is that HE/SHE DIDN’T GET ENOUGH VOTES. What makes you think that this will CHANGE in the general election?
4) Is there some reason to believe than ANY votes the third party candidate will garner will come from voters who are likely to vote for the DEMOCRATIC party candidate? If not, where will they likely come from? (To refresh your memory, if there were only two candidates, would self-identified “tea party members” more likely vote “Republican” or “Democrat.” In this case “other” or “Reid?”)
GET A GRIP. This is a battle for, not the soul of the Republican party, but for the LIFE of this country. If this type of self-aggrandizing hubris is operative in enough places, the Democrats will retain control of the House and the Senate.
February 15th, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
Huey, you are absolutely correct that this is a battle for the life of the country, indeed for the very existence of liberty and personal independence. As I write above there are what I consider good arguments for supporting less than ideal candidates. Your battle in the primaries argument is valid to a point. I don’t believe that taking congressional majorities from the Bolsheviks is in and of itself a victory for conservatives, in fact depending on the quality of the newly elected republicans, regaining majorities in the house and senate could in effect be a loss for conservatives. If the republicans regain the majority they will have to produce results. If conservatives have to compromise with moderate republicans the country dies slower but still dies. It’s reasonable to assume that many of the of the gains the republicans make in Nov. will be at the expense of so called moderate democrats leaving a higher proportion of socialists in the house. It is more principled to be forced to compromise with your adversaries than your supposed allies. The democratic efforts to pass health care particularly in the senate are evidence that it could also be cheaper to buy your opposition than your friends. The democrats had the right idea on how to govern, elect an un-assailable majority and push, push, push. Their failure has been in the quality of their policies and of their majority. It’s not enough for republicans to “retake” the congress. The conservative goal must be to reverse decades of patient, slow-motion Bolshevik coup d’etat. In order to save our country the left must be crushed as a force in our political system.
February 15th, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Huey, you are absolutely correct that this is a battle for the life of the country, indeed for the very existence of liberty and personal independence. As I write above there are what I consider good arguments for supporting less than ideal candidates. Your battle in the primaries argument is valid to a point. I don’t believe that taking congressional majorities from the Bolsheviks is in and of itself a victory for conservatives, in fact depending on the quality of the newly elected republicans, regaining majorities in the house and senate could in effect be a loss for conservatives. If the republicans regain the majority they will have to produce results. If conservatives have to compromise with moderate republicans the country dies slower but still dies. It’s reasonable to assume that many of the of the gains the republicans make in Nov. will be at the expense of so called moderate democrats leaving a higher proportion of socialists in the house. It is more principled to be forced to compromise with your adversaries than your supposed allies. The democratic efforts to pass health care particularly in the senate are evidence that it could also be cheaper to buy your opposition than your friends. The democrats had the right idea on how to govern, elect an un-assailable majority and push, push, push. Their failure has been in the quality of their policies and of their majority. It’s not enough for republicans to “retake” the congress. The conservative goal must be to reverse decades of patient, slow-motion Bolshevik coup d’etat. In order to save our country the left must be crushed as a force in our political system.
February 15th, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
look behind this far enough and you will find Reid’s fingers all over it
February 15th, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
look behind this far enough and you will find Reid’s fingers all over it
February 15th, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
In a larger sense… why not push for instant run-off voting, thus mooting the question of whether or not we are throwing away our votes?
On a side note, for those who paid attention in MA, there was a quote-unquote Tea Party Candidate, whom had, quote unquote, showed up at a Tea Party, never contributed a thing – no money, nor time, nor ideas – and then wanted to run as a quote-unquote Tea Party person… and got all huffy when the Tea Party did not back him.
Lesson: take the label with a grain of salt.
Unless the Tea Party becomes an actual political party, akin to the Libertarian party or the Green party, with a discernible platform and, yes, primaries of its own to sort out these issues, it may be a bit silly to run Tea Party candidates as third party candidates, rather than against Dems and Republicans.
In fact, we should be running in the Dem primaries, especially in right-leaning states. 🙂
February 15th, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
In a larger sense… why not push for instant run-off voting, thus mooting the question of whether or not we are throwing away our votes?
On a side note, for those who paid attention in MA, there was a quote-unquote Tea Party Candidate, whom had, quote unquote, showed up at a Tea Party, never contributed a thing – no money, nor time, nor ideas – and then wanted to run as a quote-unquote Tea Party person… and got all huffy when the Tea Party did not back him.
Lesson: take the label with a grain of salt.
Unless the Tea Party becomes an actual political party, akin to the Libertarian party or the Green party, with a discernible platform and, yes, primaries of its own to sort out these issues, it may be a bit silly to run Tea Party candidates as third party candidates, rather than against Dems and Republicans.
In fact, we should be running in the Dem primaries, especially in right-leaning states. 🙂
February 16th, 2010 @ 1:04 am
I second Roxeanne’s suggestion. The possibility of a third-party entrant splitting the vote is only there because we allow candidates to win with a mere plurality of the vote, instead of requiring a majority. Illinois’ GOP primary for governor is a recent example, with the winner receiving only 20% of the vote. An instant runoff allows voters to vote for their favorite candidate rather than feeling compelled to vote tactically for the least bad candidate with a chance of winning in order to block the worst candidate from winning.
February 15th, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
I second Roxeanne’s suggestion. The possibility of a third-party entrant splitting the vote is only there because we allow candidates to win with a mere plurality of the vote, instead of requiring a majority. Illinois’ GOP primary for governor is a recent example, with the winner receiving only 20% of the vote. An instant runoff allows voters to vote for their favorite candidate rather than feeling compelled to vote tactically for the least bad candidate with a chance of winning in order to block the worst candidate from winning.
February 16th, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
I doubt we’ll get instant runoff voting between now an November.
February 16th, 2010 @ 7:11 am
I doubt we’ll get instant runoff voting between now an November.