I’ve long been something of a champion of partisan redistricting, but maybe that’s not right.[read_more]
I don’t mind the idea that to the winner go the spoils and, frankly, it’s more honest because everyone knows it’s an issue you’re deciding when voting for a General Assembly candidate. Politics will always be in place when it comes to redistricting, let’s at least be honest about it and air it publicly. But the more I’ve seen this war escalate since Eric Cantor was defeated last year by Dave Brat, the more I’ve realized that the single biggest cause for constant fighting within the partisan redistricting.
First, let’s all be real for a second. There is no reason Virginia’s congressional delegation should be 8-3 Republican and the House of Delegates be 2:1 Republican. Since 2001 the Democrats have won 13 of 18 statewide elections counting president, senator, governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general. That is 14 years of precedent. Partisan redistricting has constricted the voting base of the commonwealth that is constantly seen in statewide elections. The Virginia Senate is probably the closest to what Virginia actually is when it lays dormant. The effect of this redistricting, which by the way is nothing new in Virginia politics, is to stifle any sort of dissenting energy both on the Democratic side and the outsider Republican side. What we have had in Virginia for a very long time is the Establishment of either party running the state while dissent across the spectrum cannot accurately be represented in Congress or in the House of Delegates. This means that the Republican primary for both Congress and the General Assembly (including state senate here, because most of the GOP seats are safe R) are the only way to get elected.
Primaries are controversial because they are open to all Virginia voters (the horror, in a state with barely any political competition). This means in many of these gerrymandered districts Democrats vote in the GOP primaries because it is the only way their voice can actually matter. It also means that outsider conservatives push for conventions because open primaries can make it more difficult for a conservative to win based on the power many of these delegates, senators, and congressmen have in their districts. This, by the way, is vice-versa in places like Arlington. Since there is no unifying opposition to rally the party against, internal fights become the only fight that matters. Would conservatives have abandoned Eric Cantor if the Democrat running in the 7th had been a real candidate with a chance of winning? I tend to doubt it. In the end, we all want to win elections. Furthermore, establishment candidates like Cantor would take more care not only of their base but also their districts in general if they knew every year voters would have a real choice.
Assembly seats up for grabs, merely 50 are contested between a Republican and a Democrat. It’s not natural, and we are on the wrong side of this. I truly believe that the first step in bringing peace to the party is that we need to finally accept where we stand in this state. Unnatural majorities based on gerrymandering is bottling up a lot of energy and we are seeing it released in insurgent conservative primary challenges and Democratic lawsuits. It is not sustainable. Hanging on to these majorities has become more important than growing the party and it has created the mess we are in now.
This goes to a deeper issue with Republicans. We seem to be afraid of political competition. Anyone who dares launch a primary or convention challenge is lambasted and attacked for trying to split the party when, in actuality, the status quo is that there no choice. You either like your delegate or you’re SOL. All this does is further lead to internal pitched battles we see on issues like the method of nomination. We are clinging to the House of Delegates and Congressional seats because we know it’s not a natural representation. If we want to unify the party, we need to stop stifling political dissent, both internally and externally.
Virginia feels like a soda can that has been shaken violently but not opened yet. Eventually that can is going to be cracked open by someone and we are going to be stuck with soda all over us. The federal ruling on our congressional districts is just the first part of this, mark my words. If the state had real political competition open to everyone, I believe RPV would be much more united because the issues would be more focused on our vision versus that of liberal Democrats, rather than internal fistfights over methods of nomination and other nonsense issues. I’m probably in the minority on this because what I’m basically saying is that in order to unify the party we might have to sacrifice our furthest outposts of power in the General Assembly–the last vestige of Republican power in the state. That isn’t good enough.
Virginia’s political energy has been stifled since at least the old Tom Martin machine and it seems for the last 100 years both parties have been fighting each other not with our ideas but with exclusion. In this era of social media and democratization of news, that is no longer a sustainable position to have. We either need to make the painful choice to adapt now, or we may be in for even more problems.
18 comments
After many long years of association with party politics (in my case Republicanism) and with no axe to grind outside of adherence to constitutional goverance I have become more and more convinced that the age of traditional party politics from the voter perspective is rapdily receding into history, not of course for the party functionaries, those personally invested economically or the thriving private sector corporate interests, but for the average voter the traditional party distinction from both a political marketing and results delivered perspective just doesn’t carry the socioeconomic impact it did even a generation ago. I realize this will sound the blogging scoff alarms but one only has to look at something as simple as the public polls regarding voter party favorability to realize neither party comes close to cracking a 40% number and that this measure has been dropping for years. This isn’t a conservative vs establishment argument because frankly the Republican conservative base is shrinking as well. The existing approval ratings across all parties and members of the US Congress are at all time historical lows hovering at around the 16% level. The only area of growth is the record high 43% of US voters that identify themselves as political independents and this trend line has actually grown nationally since 2008 from 35% to the current 43% result today. It’s difficult for me to see how any type of redistricting addresses these facts unless of course you chose to ignore them. The plain, simple truth is the party system in the US is continuing to fail to capture both the imagination and the committed electoral votes of the modern American public. If you doubt just observe how quickly Obama’s spun up progressive wing of the Democratic “party” dissipates into mist in Hillary Clinton’s hands once he has left the beltway political scene. If you have a rotting substructure you can spend all the time you have available pounding more nails into it but it’s not going to improve the inherent soundness. If you forget it’s the people of this country that are the source of all political power not the parties vested special interests you are in for a future fall.
How about closing the primary to Republicans so that Democrats can’t muck about in them any more? It’s richly ironic to me that those who push for conventions (because Democrats can muck about in primaries) don’t seem to care that Libertarians and Constitution party people can muck about at our conventions. I favour the closed primary, not to obey any one faction, but because it also keeps out our active duty military, our service academy students, our foreign service, and the contractors that work abroad with our military.
That would help slightly but you would still have a bunch of people voting who know little about the candidates and could be swayed with the money that buys mailers, signs, phone calls, knock and drag. Military are now able to vote in conventions, although they rarely apply to vote. If they are deployed elsewhere, it’s very unlikely they would know anything about primary candidates or care about them. It just doesn’t happen. It’s a red flag argument for those who support primaries, those with buckets of money to buy a primary.
“a bunch of people voting who know little about the candidates and could be swayed with the money that buys mailers, signs, phone calls, knock and drag”
What you just described is known as a “successful campaign”. We want MORE of those, not fewer. See my point about how not everybody is concerned about winning elections.
No we don’t. We want to nominate our candidates based on their qualifications, not their money.
The ability to raise money and persuade voters are essential parts of those qualifications. Not just meeting whatever random litmus test you and ConservativeReview.biz have for justifying calling conservative leaders “Democrat-lite”.
i thought Dave Brat had zillions less that well-funded Eric Cantor? Brat didn’t have “buckets of money to buy a primary.”
those that voted in that primary knew something, right? are you saying now that those primary voters knew “little” about Dave Brat & Eric Cantor?
for those of us who want primaries, we realize that when we live by a primary, we might also have to die by a primary. you can’t have it both ways.
Those same uninformed voters can also vote in general elections, so wouldn’t it be prudent to start earning their support as early in the election process as possible?
Further, a primary incentivizes campaigns to turn uninformed voters into informed voters through outreach, while a campaign with a convention doesn’t ever have to talk to them, turning focus inward and leaving uninformed outsiders ignorant.
Of course, I’m assuming our party’s focus is on electing conservatives to public office, rather than nominating martyrs for conservatism. Perhaps that’s my mistake.
ahhhhh…dinner’s done. birds and dogs fed. Think I’ll dial up the Jeanine-verse on the old Stargate and pop on in. Selecting all the proper hieroglyphs…queuing up the booming theme song….and here we are! The Jeanine-verse! So what’s happening up in here?
OH!!!! How nice! It’s a conspiracy theory: “those with buckets of money to buy a primary.” You’re just going through the stages of grief, Jeanine….this is the denial stage. Back in the Prime Material Plane (i.e. reality) where everybody else lives that passes. Not sure how things work in the Jeanine-verse, though.
But isn’t interesting when a candidate or issue that Jeanine supports wins, like the marriage amendment, it’s “the will of the people, fair and square, even steven!!!! Huzzah!!!!” ? With lots of references like “it passed with 75% support of Virginians! Take that!”
But when it’s a candidate or an issue the Jeanine opposes and loses by a similar margin? Well….that’s a conspiracy. In the Jeanine-verse, conspiracy theories are the rocking all-night party where the cool kids go let off some steam. But back in reality, you know…where everybody else lives, a conspiracy theory is the faculty lounge for losers.
Well I hate to run, guys. We’re getting storms back in reality and I need to run the dogs out again so it’s back through the Stargate to reality!!!! Come see us sometime! Bye now….ya hear?!?!?!?!
Methinks party unity is overrated. Why? Look at the results of all this “discord” which is, in reality, competition. While people bemoan Republican infighting, I put forth an opposing supposition: it’s good for us. In fact, I’ll go as far to say it is very, very good for Republicans.
So, this infighting brings about competitors that primary (in one way or the other) incumbents. Like pruning back dead limbs on a tree, this stimulates growth. The winners of the primary have already gone through a local battle (and won) before they get to the general election. Their political skills have been sharpened before they ever see a Democrat.
The result: the USA is currently awash in Republicanism. Republicans have never enjoyed more power than they hold today. We hold the federal House and Senate. In Virginia, we hold the same. Across the nation, Republicans hold states houses by a 2 to 1 margin over Democrats. We have a 3 to 1 advantage in Governorships. We have more than 1,000 more state legislators than Democrats. Over the past decade, we’ve cleaned the Democrats collective clocks.
Now, there is a legitimate gripe that Republicans aren’t doing much for the conservative movement based on the amount of power that we currently have. But, the fact remains, that our raucous caucus, while seemingly sloppy and even acrimonious is producing some spectacular results.
“In the end, we all want to win elections.” Chris, you and I both know that this isn’t true.
this is becoming increasingly clear
I sure hope so, if it means we will nominate real Republicans. If not, it doesn’t matter.
Why would we want anything else? Of course we want people who represent conservative principles to win because we believe that’s what will help America the most. If we can elect Republicans, more Americans will prosper. Our economy grows and everyone benefits. Elections matter when we have two (or more) parties. They matter much less when we have one Democrat running against one Democrat lite. When that happens, whatever candidate wins, America still loses. We go down hill and off the cliff a bit more slowly if the Democrat lite candidate wins. It’s hardly worth it. Sometimes people and parties need to hit rock bottom before they try something different. I’m ok with that, if that’s what’s necessary to get real changes in our country.
Jeanine, you just proved exactly what I said. You are more interested in passing judgment on Republicans by calling them “Democrat-lite” based on your own irrational and holier-than-thou criteria.
It’s your blog, as you so frequently and defensively remind us. Post what you want. But we all know, and you just confirmed, that winning elections is not your concern. Frankly, it goes a long way in explaining your lack of knowledge about campaigning.
You are correct. I do not view winning as always the most important thing. Sometimes real change involves hitting bottom first.
I know how campaigning works and why the establishment candidates are most likely to win, I just don’t agree with it.
I am fiscal conservative who doesn’t want to leave my kids and grandkids in massive debt. Is that really too much to ask of a candidate for office?
Earlier on Bearing Drift, you tried to make the argument that no campaigns ever have access to who votes in primary elections. Then in this thread, you’ve decried campaigns that engage in such underhanded tactics as “mailers” and “knocking on doors”.
Thank you for your admission that you are not interested in winning elections, but in helping the Republican Party achieve rock bottom. I’d say you’re doing a yeoman’s effort all on your own.
Fortunately, the rest of us conservatives don’t seem to be falling with you.
To answer the question raised in your article … ” Would conservatives have abandoned Eric Cantor [for Dave Brat] if the Democrat running in the 7th had been a real candidate with a chance of winning?” My answer is YES.