The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

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.

Category: Politics

Comments

19 Responses to “Tactically Bad vs. Strategically Bad”

  1. Huey
    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 Past experience with 3rd parties no longer applicable?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…

  2. Huey
    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 Past experience with 3rd parties no longer applicable?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…

  3. Huey
    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 Past experience with 3rd parties no longer applicable?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…

  4. richard mcenroe
    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’?

  5. richard mcenroe
    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’?

  6. Adobe Walls
    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.

  7. Adobe Walls
    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.

  8. Huey
    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.

  9. Huey
    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.

  10. Adobe Walls
    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.

  11. Adobe Walls
    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.

  12. unseen
    February 15th, 2010 @ 7:57 pm

    look behind this far enough and you will find Reid’s fingers all over it

  13. unseen
    February 15th, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

    look behind this far enough and you will find Reid’s fingers all over it

  14. Roxeanne de Luca
    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. 🙂

  15. Roxeanne de Luca
    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. 🙂

  16. Michael Bates
    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.

  17. Michael Bates
    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.

  18. Adobe Walls
    February 16th, 2010 @ 12:11 pm

    I doubt we’ll get instant runoff voting between now an November.

  19. Adobe Walls
    February 16th, 2010 @ 7:11 am

    I doubt we’ll get instant runoff voting between now an November.