hoffman or scozzafava?

Okay, I've made it clear that I'm against third-parties.  But we do need some mechanism to communicate with GOP leadership.  And that's particularly true in New York's 23rd Congressional District where the patently liberal Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was chosen in back-room deals.

The problem is that there's a real conservative running on the third-party in that race -- Doug Hoffman -- and he's clearly splitting the right's chance for victory.

What's the answer?

I'm particularly disappointed with Newt, who's thrown in with Scozzafava.  By doing this, Gingrich implies that he's a Republican first, and a conservative second.  The problem is that the GOP needs people who are conservative first.  But I recognize the imperative of getting more "R"s on the roll call (Speaker Pelosi, anyone?).  Arrrggh -- it's frustrating.

What is the answer?

Comments

[ConservativeLibertine]

There is absolutely NO POINT in sending another Olympia Snowe Republican to the senate. It does more harm than good.

[twitter.com/tylermitchell]

As the politicians on both sides continue to show their true colors I'm more and more convinced of the need for a third party.

The use of R or D now is merely a power play. Dede Scozzafava is a perfect example. How is she Republican other than saying she is?

People who scream racism, ironically, want you to vote on race alone. Is this not a race game, blue vs red? I'd rather vote for values, let them keep their washable markers.

[John Galt]

Tyler, do we really need a third party, or do we just need conservatism to take over the one party that already has all the conservative voters?

Starting a new party isn't just about bringing new voters to the polls -- it's about winning over voters from the existing parties. Seems to me you'd do more damage splitting the conservative vote than by wresting the party from the grip of moderates.

That's not to say that I wouldn't vote for Hoffman in this case -- it's just a reason not to vote for him.

LOL, there really is no easy answer...

[Hank Rearden]

Ah, but Republicans no longer have the conservative vote. No one does. Typically, if a conservative (stop me if you disagree) can't differentiate between two liberal candidates, he'll decide it's not worth wasting 2-3 hours of his life standing in line at the polls. I think it's become a self-perpetuating cycle: conservatives aren't showing up because they're being ignored, and politicians are ignoring the conservatives because they aren't showing up at the polls. <insert fat bastard brogue>

[TQ]

I agree with Hank that a lot of conservatives have left the Republican party (and/or the Republican party left them) already. I don't agree with the logic of "oh, well we don't want to split the vote." By not splitting the vote you are conceding defeat. If we have to hold our noses every time we vote for the "R" because it is our team then we're going to keep getting more Scozzafava's and her ilk. And Hoffman, who seems to be ahead of both candidates in some polls now, shows that it is entirely possible to have a third party running on an actual conservative platform.

I understand the argument that has been by Newt and others that they don't want to give a conservative third party any momentum because it might cost the Republicans in 2010. But see that's precisely the problem--for Newt it isn't about conservatism anymore, it's about winning, about the party first, staying in power, beating the other team. But I fail to see what we gain by increasing the number of "Rs" in Congress if not a one of them is capable of being an articulate, principled spokesperson for limited government and free markets. The fact that Obama hasn't passed through any terrible legislation yet has more to do with infighting amongst Democrats and the public uproar than Republicans making a stand. So putting more of these wishy washy Republicans in office does nothing for us--I mean these are the same people that rubber stamped Bush expanding the size and scope of government (albeit not to the extent of Obama).

The vote splitting argument is also based on the premise that the third party won't actually win. Given the recent Gallup poll results, the country leans right. If you get the conservative vote and then split the moderate vote, a third party could actually win some seats. And getting a third (or more) parties in there is the best possible thing that can happen (besides waking up one morning to find all politicians and their bureaucrats miraculously disappeared from the face of the Earth). The more parties, the more obstructionism will go on, the more people will need to be satisfied, and the more difficult it will be to pass any legislation for any side. They'll never get anything done if we add more parties--which is precisely why both the Democrats and Republicans try so hard to keep them out. And getting nothing done is the lesser of evils if the other option is the government doing something to "solve" something.

I understand the need to "defeat" the direction we're going in, but, we've been set in that direction, with very few setbacks, for about a century now. Another Republican Congress will not stop that as they haven't taken any meaningful steps to reduce the scope of government in the last century.

[Akston]

There's a pretty strong correlation that demonstrates that as libertarianism and independent parties gain ground, so does the republican party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

First table under "Historical Party Strength."

Remember: there are no contradictions. Check your premises.

[Mitch Baker]

This entire "third party spoiler" discussion is pretty interesting, and most everyone agrees that it is at some level a question of degree. If the Republican in a race was just slightly less conservative than a third party candidate, I imagine almost all conservatives would go Republican. The rub is how much is too much - that's where we argue.

However, I don't get why people are even getting into this argument in NY-23. While the purist can argue for Hoffman, why would even the most cynical conservative vote for Scozzafava? One more Republican vote in Congress for the next year isn't going to do anything to slow the leftist agenda; the H of R is majority rules, and even the blue dogs aren't enough to stop the rampant Statism (in general, I think blue dogs are just yellow dogs holding their breath to get more earmarks). If the Democrat wins, that's just low-hanging fruit for the regular '10 election.

If it were the Senate, maybe it would be different - the difference between Snowe and a Democrat might be nothing but opposition to the public option, but that could be a big deal (for the record, I assume she eventually goes along to get along). For president or governor, maybe it is worth calibrating (of course, President McCain would be taking us down a similar road to serfdom, if at a slightly slower speed). Representing one district, though, we might as well try. Of course, only people in NY-23 get to vote, so the most we can do is send a buck or two. I imagine the Republicans who live there are similar to the ones who nominated her.