Silver Lining: Christopher Reed's Loss

Last night, listening to Bill Salier sub for Steve Deace, I was astonished at the point he made about electoral success in comparing "moderates" to "conservatives".

First, I've watched Salier's fascinating career for quite a while now. He's a talented speaker with an interesting story, and his race against Greg Ganske had a certain Bob Roberts quality to it that was mesmerizing. However, last night he showed that he's swimming in a gene pool that's about two inches deep.

He ranted about the candidates we've put up in the past against Harkin: "Tom Tauke – how'd that work out for ya? Jim Ross Lightfoot – how'd that work out for ya? Greg Ganske – how'd that work out for ya?"

Well, I was no math major, but here's how it worked out according to the voters:

Tauke lost by 9.06 percent
Lightfoot lost by 5.09 percent
Ganske lost by 10.4 percent

Add 'em up and you get a combined losing margin of 24.5%

And our conservative hero?

Christopher Reed lost by 26 percent. His losing margin beats all three of the so-called "moderates" combined! That's not easy to do...

Why? He centered his campaign on issues that Iowans didn't want to hear about, and he was unable to attract enough support either financially or in terms of volunteers with that message. In the face of a crumbling economy, a seemingly endless war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an out-of-touch government, Reed's website was focused on re-hashed platitudes and read like the Republican Party of Iowa platform (it's not a wonder our outgoing Chairman didn't read it – we did and it was awful).

Of twelve "issues" listed on Reed's website, the first one was "Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill". Huh? Then he lectures that the United States is good (take that, Tom Harkin, yeah!!). After reminding us of America's goodness, he scolds Democrats for their "blame America first" mentality (how did Harkin survive this onslaught?!)

Finally, he gets down to brass tacks. GOD, ABORTION, and KEEPING MEXICANS OUT OF AMERICA.

For all of you arguing that we have to be more conservative if we want to win elections, read a poll. Read a few polls. Nowhere is there evidence that America is dying to return to the days of Archie Bunker. Nowhere is there evidence that voters rejected us because our message wasn't conservative enough. They rejected us because our ideas are tired, our leadership is rudderless and there are far too many examples of candidates and elected officials who don't walk the walk. But to suggest that we need to be more conservative is not an accurate interpretation of the results.

I know, I know. You say we can't define the party with polls. You're right. We can't. But we can't ignore the overarching political and demographic realities that are turning our party into a regional party (and the region ain't here in the upper Midwest, folks, it's Appalachia and the deep South). Today, white Americans are 66% of the voting population. In a few decades, that number will shrink to 46%. And it goes down from there.

We had better figure out a message to attract Hispanic, Asian, and yes, even black voters if we're going to be relevant in future generations. What do those groups care about? Well, a few care about abortion and gay marriage, but not enough to win elections.

The voters want competence. They want calm. They want optimism in the face of difficult circumstances. They want people who inspire them to greatness. They want a government that is friendly towards productivity and success. There is no reason that the Democrats should own that profile. We can own it again. But we have to first figure out what our priorities are.

Christopher Reed could be a good candidate someday. Today, he is not. His message is too narrow and too weak to attract enough followers to fund and win a campaign. His priorities are not aligned with real voters. He doesn't speak to the hopes and fears of average Iowans.

A final thought before the hate mail starts: all this doesn't mean we should nominate moderates instead of conservatives. That's just not going to happen. However, we should look to the overall ability a candidate brings to the table: persuasion, message discipline, consistency, charisma, fundraising, experience, organizational skills, and leadership. If the person who fits that bill happens to support a "life of the mother" abortion exception, are we really willing to throw the election away in favor of six more years of Tom Harkin?

The scary thing is, I think the answer is still yes. As long as that remains true, Iowa Republicans will be trapped in an enduring, futile minority.

 del.icio.us  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments

Leave a comment

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.