Republicans struggle to agree on candidates who can win

Reuters

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) gestures during a news conference of newly-elected House GOP leaders for the 112th Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington November 18, 2010.

Article Highlights

  • An interesting trend of recent elections is that Republicans have tended to do better farther down the ballot.

    Tweet This

  • Republicans have been doing better in elections to state legislatures than at any time since the 1920s.

    Tweet This

  • Assessing whether a candidate has good political instincts is a matter of judgment about which people will disagree.

    Tweet This

One of the interesting things about recent elections is that Republicans have tended to do better the farther you go down the ballot.

They've lost the presidency twice in a row, and in four of the past six contests. They've failed to win a majority in the U.S. Senate, something they accomplished in five election cycles between 1994 and 2006.

But they have won control of the House of Representatives in the last two elections, and in eight of the last 10 cycles.

And they've been doing better in elections to state legislatures than at any time since the 1920s.

One reason for this is that, as I have written, Democratic voters are clustered in large metropolitan areas, which helps them in the Electoral College but hurts in legislatures with equal-population districts.

But there's another reason, which has been particularly glaring in races for the U.S. Senate: candidate quality.

Over the years I've noticed that Democrats tend to have a disproportionate share of candidates with sharp political instincts and ambition.

Probably that's natural. Democrats tend to want more government, and smart Democrats like to go into politics. Smart Republicans tend to take other paths.

This helped Democrats maintain congressional majorities and big margins in state legislatures when Republicans were sweeping five of six presidential elections from 1968 to 1988.

They lost that edge in candidate quality in the 1990s, but they seemed to regain it in the later Bush years.

That's the main reason why Democrats have a 55-45 majority in the Senate after the very Republican election cycle of 2010 and a 2012 cycle in which 23 Democratic and only 10 Republican seats were up for grabs.

It's generally agreed that Republicans booted sure Senate wins in 2010 in Nevada and Delaware and perhaps Colorado.

Foolish statements about abortion and rape cost Republicans wins in Indiana and Missouri in 2012. They also lost two very winnable races in North Dakota and Montana and two races in which former officeholders fell just short in Wisconsin and Virginia.

Last month Karl Rove said his American Crossroads group would spend money in primaries to prevent the nomination of weak candidates.

He was promptly attacked by the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell, who said conservatives, not the Republican establishment, should choose party nominees.

Actually, both insiders and outsiders have made bad picks. Rove can cite the Senate races listed above.

His critics can cite the elections of Marco Rubio in Florida in 2010 and Ted Cruz in Texas in 2012. The National Republican Senatorial Committee originally supported Gov. Charlie Crist, now a Democrat, over Rubio. Almost all Texas Republican leaders supported Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst over Cruz.

But neither Rubio nor Cruz was a total outsider. Rubio was speaker of the Florida House and had quiet backing from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Cruz was solicitor general of Texas and had a nationwide network of fans.

The fact is that some candidates who rise up from nowhere turn out to have good political instincts, like Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, while others make game-losing mistakes.

The Republican Party has benefited on balance from the infusion of new people symbolized by the Tea Party movement, just as the Democratic Party benefited on balance 40 years ago from the infusion of people from the peace movement.

But such outsider movements also produce some candidates with a gift for campaign-losing gaffes. And they produce primary electorates who prefer a disastrous purist over someone not far off in views but also capable of winning an election.

Assessing whether a candidate has good political instincts is a matter of judgment about which reasonable people will disagree.

Rove has had a good record of doing this over the years. He really was the Republican establishment in 2002 when he picked winning candidates in key races.

Of course, it helped that he had the backing of a Republican president with 60 percent-plus job approval.

There's no Republican establishment like that today. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is by definition an insider.

He also seems to have good political instincts -- good enough that in Wisconsin he backed a newcomer like Ron Johnson in 2010.

So I don't see this as a fight between the grass roots and the Washington establishment. It's a struggle to find candidates with serious convictions and good political instincts -- which is usually an uphill struggle for Republicans.

Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at [email protected] His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine

What's new on AEI

AEI Election Watch 2014: What will happen and why it matters
image A nation divided by marriage
image Teaching reform
image Socialist party pushing $20 minimum wage defends $13-an-hour job listing
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 27
    MON
  • 28
    TUE
  • 29
    WED
  • 30
    THU
  • 31
    FRI
Monday, October 27, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
State income taxes and the Supreme Court: Maryland Comptroller v. Wynne

Please join AEI for a panel discussion exploring these and other questions about this crucial case.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | 9:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
For richer, for poorer: How family structures economic success in America

Join Lerman, Wilcox, and a group of distinguished scholars and commentators for the release of Lerman and Wilcox’s report, which examines the relationships among and policy implications of marriage, family structure, and economic success in America.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | 5:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
The 7 deadly virtues: 18 conservative writers on why the virtuous life is funny as hell

Please join AEI for a book forum moderated by Last and featuring five of these leading conservative voices. By the time the forum is over, attendees may be on their way to discovering an entirely different — and better — moral universe.

Thursday, October 30, 2014 | 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
A nuclear deal with Iran? Weighing the possibilities

Join us, as experts discuss their predictions for whether the United States will strike a nuclear deal with Iran ahead of the November 24 deadline, and the repercussions of the possible outcomes.

Thursday, October 30, 2014 | 5:00 p.m. – 6:15 p.m.
The forgotten depression — 1921: The crash that cured itself

Please join Author James Grant and AEI senior economists for a discussion about Grant's book, "The Forgotten Depression: 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself" (Simon & Schuster, 2014).

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.