Now that the dust has cleared from the Nov. 5 elections in Virginia, New Jersey, Alabama and New York, Republicans must consider the various successes of their candidates. Candidates with broad, mainstream appeal — Chris Christie in the New Jersey governor’s race and establishment candidate Bradley Byrne in a special election for an Alabama congressional seat — were victorious. Tea Party-backed candidates without appeal to independents and moderates — Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson in Virginia — were defeated. These races should indicate to Republicans that the path to electoral success, particularly the presidency, runs through the establishment candidates, not the Tea Party ultraconservatives.
To be sure, the Tea Party has achieved tremendous electoral success. There are currently 48 members of the House of Representatives “Tea Party Caucus,” and this bloc represents a formidable obstacle in passing legislation. Adding to their power is the fact that they often break from more establishment Republicans, such as Speaker of the House John Boehner, on important votes. The most powerful speakers of American history — Sam Rayburn or Tip O’Neill, for instance — ruled their caucuses with an iron fist, forcing fellow party members to step in line. John Boehner lacks this ability. Time and time again, the Tea Party caucus has thwarted his attempts at compromise, putting Boehner in an uncomfortable position as mediator between the Tea Party firebrands and the more mainstream Republicans.
This tension is indicative of the conflict that defines the Republican Party to this day. Tea Partiers seem to think that the path to electoral success runs through candidates such as Ted Cruz, whose uncompromising principles place him at odds with Republicans willing to work with the other party. The Tea Partiers seem to think that the answer is for Republican candidates to be even more conservative than they already are. This has led to the vicious primary fights between establishment Republicans and Tea Party types.
But the Tea Party largely consists of politicians who are unable to find success beyond the district level. Former congressmen such as Todd Akin of Missouri, Denny Rehberg of Montana, Pete Hoekstra of Michigan and Zach Wamp of Tennessee all were defeated in bids for statewide office (either for governor or a Senate seat). Their losses have largely been attributed to their unbending conservatism. Not coincidentally, all hail from states with penchants for electing both Democrats and Republicans. Mainstream appeal matters.
Tea Party-backed, ultra-conservative candidates appear to be unsuccessful at the statewide level, especially in more moderate states. Perhaps Cuccinelli would have triumphed had he run against Terry McAuliffe in Texas. But in a purple state that swung for Obama in 2008 and 2012, a successful gubernatorial candidacy requires mainstream appeal. Cuccinelli’s uncompromising conservatism was not politically practical in Virginia. I would argue that a more moderate Republican nominee — perhaps Bill Bolling — would have bested McAuliffe. On the other hand, in New Jersey, Chris Christie, who has built a reputation as a principled conservative who is able to compromise with Democrats, won a resounding re-election to the governor’s office.
The lesson could not be more obvious. Candidates such as Cuccinelli lack the mainstream appeal to win in moderate states such as Virginia — states that are necessary for the Republicans to regain the presidency. Candidates such as Chris Christie, who prove that it is possible to be conservative and to compromise, have the ability to win even in traditionally Democratic states such as New Jersey. If the Republicans are looking for a model for electoral success, this election should provide them with one: mainstream appeal trumps Tea Party fanaticism.
John Connolly is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Thursdays.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 7 hours agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | YesterdayIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
