More Republican Purity, Please

Politics is about doing what you can do, ideology is about what you want. There is a difference. In order to get things done you have to get the votes, whether in an election or in legislation. Our favorite lizzard Newt has pointed this out to some of his "compatriots" in regard to a special election in upper NY. There is a Republican candidate and there is a Conservative Party candidate and prominent (R)s have been coming out for the non-(R). Dede Scazzafava seems to be way too liberal for "the base" and Doug Hoffman is the cat's pajamas. Now I'm not going to comment on the political leanings of the (R)s in that district, though it does have a conservative leaning area.

What I will comment on is what the former revolutionary Newt had to say, it takes 50%+1 to win. Primaries are low turn-out elections to begin with and special elections are particularly low, this means that a dedicated minority actually can determine outcomes. That sort of thing doesn't mean a lot at General Election and what is even more meaningful is putting a 3rd party candidate forward kills the Party loyalty vote. There is a large segement of voters who don't so much vote policy, rather they vote the (initial) after the name. It is a low information group, but their votes count.

Bill Owens (D) doesn't seem to be a knee jerk liberal Democrat, but he's not a Republican by any real stretch. If the potential (R) vote splits much at all 2 ways a Democrat will very probably be the outcome. Another (D) in the House isn't really a very big deal, the (R) caucus is now so small as to be immaterial. I am aware that a Representative here and there can add up to something, but this election is to replace a Republican.

A lesson for Republicans could be taken if Hoffman were a Republican candidate and was defeated by Owens. That isn't the case, it will be a 3 way election and the loon wing will once again make the argument that their loss was from the Republicans being insufficiently conservative/right wing. It has become an issue of faith with that bunch that the right wing can't fail, only be failed by others. The difficulty they have with that argument is that there is no real modern backing for it. This idea would seem to rationally include the concept that insufficient rightness caused people to vote for people actually well left of anything remotely like that.

It is surely true that if the Conservative Party candidate can cause a loss in NY23 their swat within the (R) will increase, simply due to that threat. It does not mean that they will win squat in anything other than some narrow range of localized races.

More of that please