Wednesday, May 23 , 2018, 8:19 pm | A Few Clouds 62º


David Harsanyi: GOP’s Virginia Loss Tells Us Little About the State of American Politics

Before it's all over, President Donald Trump may well obliterate the Republican Party's prospects for the coming decade or longer. But despite much wishful thinking among liberals, the big GOP losses in Virginia do not prove this contention.

There's really nothing unprecedented about cyclical pushbacks in politics. And if every election were really imbued with the kind of game-changing importance that political pundits claim, it would mean Americans were going through massive ideological fluctuations every year, which seems unlikely.

A theory: Even if Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie had mimicked Trump's populism to complete perfection, he still would have lost. As it is, he outran Trump by about 1 percent.

The idea that Trumpism — however people define it — is especially popular in general, or popular in a state with many Democrats, is merely theoretical considering no one other than Hillary Clinton has been beaten by it in an open election.

There are two types who want us to think there was a sea change among the GOP over the past year: liberals who want to paint all Republicans as a bunch of white supremacists and Trump populists; and those who are trying to convince everyone that post-World War II conservatism is dead.

Neither of these things are true.

What's more plausible is that Trump's victory was predicated on general distaste for Clinton, and people voted for a Republican after eight years of a progressive White House.

As it is, voters tend to embrace change after two-term presidencies. The majority of GOP candidates ran ahead of the president in their states in 2016, and most ran on traditional conservative issues.

Another theory: Republicans would have lost Virginia even if Mitt Romney or Sen. Marco Rubio were president. They would have lost even if Congress had passed tax reform and overturned Obamacare.

Virginia is a blue state. Clinton handily won Virginia. So did Barack Obama — twice.

Winning a blue state in what is by any historical standard a good environment for blue candidates is exceptionally normal. The majority of the seats Republicans lost yesterday leaned Democrat or were competitive to begin with, and Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam ran a milquetoast, moderate campaign, even promising to work with the president.

That's hardly resistance-level stuff.

"The high level of turnout is a clear signal to our Republican friends they are facing an energized electorate that understands how cruel and misguided President Trump's policies are," claimed Sen. Richard Blumenthal. 

Actually, voters are always this energized. They just happen to be a different set of voters. In 2009, when conservatism was forever buried and then-President Obama boasted high favorability numbers and legislative accomplishments, there were gubernatorial elections in both New Jersey and Virginia.

In both cases, the governorship changed hands from Democrats to Republicans. (I don't recall much talk about these results being a rejection of all liberalism and Obama's policies, but perhaps that was the takeaway.)

In 2001, a year into President George W. Bush's first term, Democrats took back the governorships in New Jersey and Virginia.

It's conceivable that the GOP will be trounced in the 2018 midterms. It's likely, in fact.

Since 1862, the president's party has averaged 32-seat losses in the House in the first midterms after his election. In 2010, Republicans gained 63 seats in House, just two years after a resounding Obama victory.

The only difference would be that Democrats used their two-year window of power to pass a massive entitlement program. Republicans don't seem to have the courage to pass even piddling reform.

Republicans deserve to be admonished for their poor organization and bad candidates. They may be able to mitigate their losses by scoring some legislative successes. Republicans are impotent and in disarray. This is obvious.

Was the Virginia loss also a backlash against the president? I'm sure that's part of it, too. Trump is historically unpopular, and his presidency has become the all-consuming topic in Washington, D.C.

But Virginia was not unique. Arguing that these conventional political losses denote colossal shifts in American politics is disingenuous, unless you can explain why these results are different from what's happened in the past.

The more likely explanation for what's going on is that our votes aren't as well-thought out as pollsters imagine.

Maybe elections, both presidential and local, tell us less than we think. Maybe voters are instinctively averse to those in charge because those in charge always let them down. And maybe once a president is elected, the other half intuitively begins working to strip him of power.

Maybe politics is a tribal endeavor rather than a policy-driven decision.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @davidharsanyi, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >