Politics Blog

Category: Voter Disconnect

Hoffman's Quest More Than Just a Win...But Don't Celebrate Just Yet.

When Doug Hoffman voted, I'm sure he already knew he had won the election. Perhaps not the seat in Congress until 2010, but the will of Americans in his district.

Yes, Democrat Bill Owens did actually win, but let's take a look at the numbers.

The actual returns, still as of yet published by the state of New York, is awfully close, and many pundits are correct in noting that Doug Hoffman's popularity curve was simply cut short by time.

For the GOP, desperate for an answer to Train Obama, may have found the outlet that ironically, brought the President to the White House.

Change, in fact, is arbitrary. While entrenched Democrats continue to spin a victory as a victory, they ignore the real treasure at hand here: The Independents.

Doug Hoffman is an example of value rather candidate. And not to take anything from his brief yet awe-inspiring campaign. What the GOP must learn, however, is that their "star power" didn't win the day. Independent reason won. Forget the visits of staunch social conservatives to support Hoffman, and the infighting of outbound Dede Scozzafava's position in the greater party.

The advancement of Hoffman was directly from insiders in the GOP structure itself, a "greater good" choice of local color, and not the "values" presented through Hoffman's run. The result was that the GOP corporates, Mike Steele included, have a serious problem on their hands.

They have two parties in one banner, and only one can win for the GOP to remain the opposition party. Will this signal a greater emphasis on independents, those who appeal to the logical voter, or will this signal a gamble to bet it all on social conservative values?

It worked in 2000 (just barely), but in the subsequent elections, curved out to infinty at around 45-47% of the vote.

The GOP did lose in this race, but also won, if they can navigate the commitment of their conservative base.

The pool of interested voters is large and awaiting the pickings of 2010, where President Obama finds himself actually at a disadvantage. We wanted change, we wanted to believe in hope for a better tomorrow.

But was the Democrat's "change" what we wanted? After all, even the most level-headed Independent is really wondering what they voted for. It's not buyer's remorse, but it's a real question of change. Was the decision to vote for change just because of Democrat ideals? Or was it the collective combination of disgust we all share in-between both parties?

And 2009's special elections a symbol of the real "change" of what we wanted? We wanted change, real change, not the semblance of both "change" candidates in the past decade--Bush in 2000, and Obama in 2008.

If you look back to President Bush's message in 1999, change was the message. And going to Washington as an outsider, were we duped twice? To pull from Ian Fleming, "One is happenstance, twice is coincidence...The third time is enemy action."

Is 2010/2012 that third time? Or is social conservativism our true base?

Our system of government should be our decision, but as of late, seems out of our control. And for almost ten years, people seem to have decided that enough was enough. Virginia and New Jersey are prime examples of it.

As local politics are still local, state politics are something completely different. But then, once Christie won, McDonnell swept, will Virginia and New Jersey suddenly become rife with employment and GDP?

I doubt it. Unlike Michigan, who really has no hope, two states who leaned heavily on federal support have no "small government" argument to make.

Our desperation shows here, and for the GOP leadership, a crux upon a crux. NY-23, while a loss, emboldens the independent to challenge not the Democrats, but the GOP as well. And for Democrats (who won because Bill Owens wasn't Dede Scozzafava), a boon of opportunity if they so embrace it.

Imagine national races in this fashion, where the bold hopeful independent loses en masse 49-46.

It would actually increase Democrat influence, rather the GOP rebellion.

Like Ross Perot, Independents must make their beds knowing a candidate of their own will never win. What they will do, is derive a greater good for their lesser-preferred candidate.

And in that, we see the power of a two-party system that must be challenged. Independents must break this system back to a three-party system, without being hijacked by charisma. The tea parties were the confluence of like-minded values, but the true Libertarian shares little with a Bachmann or Palin.

The third party, the true fourth estate (the media hijacked that continuation long long ago), is the swing vote.

Fred Thompson voiced this opinion yesterday, noting the Independent is the real power of the electorate.

So what the heck are the Independents doing giving money to the other two parties that they BOTH don't belong to?

Why support a GOP that gives you Dede Scozzafava?

And in the transition of a party like the GOP, where do you place your bets? Do you choose unreliable and emotional candidates who might self-implode a year in (read: Sarah Palin vs. 4 years), or decent centrists (read: Charlie Crist) who are being challenged by the very beast they unleashed?

For any reasonable GOP supporter, Charlie Crist isn't the enemy. But for the demented mob, is.

Take the GOP version of Obama into consideration here. President Obama rode the wave of discontent to victory, because he campaigned specifically on change. Our current problem is defining what the heck he meant by it.

But for the GOP upstart, like Marco Rubio, is it any different? If Florida votes out Crist, and receives Rubio with open arms, does the equation or the solution change? Does the end result mirror the same problems a "change candidate" inherits? Whether Rubio or Crist, the immense problem of a consumer-driven, service-based economy remains. If the stimulus improves the economy, will the party last? And more importantly, if the economy improves because of the President's continuation of Bush's GOP fiscal policy, will the Independent's sell-out to the GOP end up marginalizing them again for another decade?

Ross Perot might weigh in to this, fully knowing now that his entry then guaranteed Clinton the win. Mako out.