Say what you will about blogging pioneer / curmudgeonly Democratic gadfly / U.S. Senate candidate Mickey Kaus, but he sure knows how to set expectations low. Here’s his take, in Calbuzz, on his chances in today’s primary against Barbara Boxer:
My friend Jill Stewart of L.A. Weekly bet a friend dinner that I wouldn’t top 5%. But I don’t want to set expectations that high. I’d say anything over 3% is a startling rebuke of Barbara Boxer’s lockstep Democratic orthodoxy. Every vote for me makes that point. I don’t have to win to win.
And, a few days later, in Sunday’s New York Times: “To win I just need to get more votes than I’m expected to get. And since I’m expected to get zero, the threshold for success is low.”
Alas, Mickey’s relentless campaign of expectations-lowering hit a snag in yesterday’s L.A. Times, which reported that “he’ll be thrilled if he gets more than 5% of the vote.”
Personally, I think the bar for “success” should be that Kaus gets a higher percentage of the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate than Orly Taitz gets in the GOP primary for Secretary of State. Unfortunately, that’s probably an unattainable goal, which says at least as much about California’s GOP voters as it does about Kaus, Boxer or the Dems.
Republicans bad, bad
Democrats gooood
Gahrie, am I wrong? Do you honestly think it says something GOOD about Republicans that a crackpot like Orly Taitz is likely to get a non-negligible share of the vote? (For the record, I suspect the MSM noise that she “might win” is seriously overblown. But even if she gets, say, 20% or 25% of the vote, that’s a disgrace.)
I agree it’d be bad if she won the primary, but why is it bad if she wins 25% of the vote? If GOP registration in California is ~25% of registered voters, and half of those vote in the primary, the math says that you’re seeing the effects of a birther phenomenon commensurate in size with only 3% of the electorate (and last I checked, the birther movement had favorability ratings closer to the teens and twenties than single digits). Whoop-de-do!
Even being super generous in saying that the GOP is 35% of registered Californian voters, and 75% of them vote in this primary, that’s still only 6.5% support for a birther candidate. Again, whoop-de-do.
You also have to factor in the fact that the majority of her support will, in all likelihood, come from people who have no clue she is a nutty birther. Rather, they will be reacting in support of her hard-line but reasonable push for better ID and anti-fraud measures for elections.
This is such a far cry from the David Duke scenario, where everyone knew he was a racist KKK guy, and he still managed to get the second-most votes in an open primary. By comparison, this is less than a tempest in a teapot.
Fair points, AML. (Although, if there are huge numbers of “people who have no clue she is a nutty birther,” wouldn’t that seem to cut against the narrative that the biased MSM pulls out all the stops to tar and feather conservatives as crazy nutjobs? Surely every report on Taitz enthusiastically points out that she’s a nutty birther, no?)
I just hope I’m right that the national MSM is vastly overstating her appeal, and she doesn’t win. (Even though it would be, in a certain sense, hilarious.)
I think you vastly overestimate the number of voters who A. listen to the national MSM, and B. accept what they’re saying as truthful and/or unbiased. Most voters get their information from local TV news, which is hardly any better, but TV newscasters are far less inclined to spend minutes of precious air time ranting and raving about nutty birthers.
The only thing that’d influence a sizable number of voters in this instance is if her opponent embarked on some negative campaigning, but he’s already committed to “taking the high road”.
AML, kudos on your perspicacious citation of the David Duke Scenario. (Made me recall how fiercely opposed, as a matter of Conscience, was our then-Repub CT SOTS to placing the Kluxer’s name on our GOP PresPrimary ballot in ’92. In tyhe end she Did it — reasonable & consistent interpretation of our Statute demanded it — but Boy was she pissed. ;}
So then, as regards the historical Reasonableness & Consistency of rank-and-file California Republicanism: what’s your statistical analysis of the 1968 primary Defeat of incumbent Republican (admittedly, liberal) US Senator Tom Kuchel by the radicalrightie Maxwell Rafferty? (That would be, Max Rafferty the then-Superintendent of CA Public Education, not the British musician — albeit the latter is, coincidentally enough, former bass guitarist for The Kooks. 🙂 Of course Dr. Max’s triumph did produce a good result — Alan Cranston in November — but still. ;>
[Now keep yer Shirt on, Buddy, I’m just Baiting yez here. / And, as usual, fondly recalling My Era. Though even I, a member emeritus of Barry’s Boys & a redhot Reaganite at the time, felt pretty Nervous about yer man Rafferty. ;]
Brendan:
Frankly I believe you have begun to not only take cheap shots at Republicans, you have begun to manufacture opportunities to do so.
You have already published a piece on Orly Taitz. It was ignored because we all agreed with the premise…she is embarrassing and obsessed with conspiracy theories. She is not the only one, but we don’t need to have that argument again.
This began as an interesting piece on Kaus, and what success for him would look like. That could be an interesting conversation.
Sadly, you had to throw in a gratuitous attack on the Republicans, and now that is the focus.
I actually agree, gahrie, that it’s a bummer the thread has moved in that direction, as the Taitz comment was really a throwaway remark that I didn’t put much thought into. It started not as a “cheap shot” but as a simple joke — “har har, the bar for success should be doing better than this person we all agree is a nutjob” — but then I realized that’s probably unrealistic, and I felt the need to add some commentary on how sad it is that that’s unrealistic. So I wrote what I wrote. And you commented on it, and nothing else. And the rest is history.
In retrospect, I wish I hadn’t said it, and maybe we’d be talking about something more interesting (i.e., Kaus’s challenge to Boxer) right now. Or maybe you wouldn’t have commented at all, and no one else would have commented, and we wouldn’t be have having a discussion here at all — who knows? But there’s at least a chance we’d be talking about Kaus’s quixotic bid instead of re-hashing the same ideological fight.
Of course, your hypersensitivity to criticisms of the Right is also part of the reason we’re here. Although this particular comment was ill-chosen for this particular post, I will continue to call it like I see it, with regard to both parties, without regard for the fact that it will lead committed partisans of the Right to believe — just as committed partisans of the Left believed a few years ago — that I’ve completely lost my way, if not my mind, and am just a biased hack now, whereas before (when I agreed with them) I was a quality blogger with some measure of wisdom. Meanwhile, you will, I suspect, continue to whistle past the graveyard of the Right’s declining status as a genuine force for serious political opposition and adult discourse and a reality- and reason-based approach to the issues of the day (a decline whose reality is not lessened, but rather made all the more terrifying, by the prospect of the Right returning to power in its current immature state, due to a combination of forces beyond its control, namely a terrible economic climate and some political miscalculations by the Dems and an inevitable pendulum swing after ’06 and ’08).
gahrie, if it’s too difficult to discuss anything remotely negative for Republicans (and dude, Orly Taitz isn’t Republican, she’s nuts – we all agree. I could be mistaken, but I think Brendan was bringing her up more as a comparison of how odd-ball, fringe candidates will show in primaries), then why don’t you bring the discussion back to Kaus with some insightful commentary and thought-provoking questions instead of the usual woe-is-me act?
Posted before I saw Brendan’s reply – still applicable, I think.
So then, as regards the historical Reasonableness & Consistency of rank-and-file California Republicanism: what’s your statistical analysis of the 1968 primary Defeat of incumbent Republican (admittedly, liberal) US Senator Tom Kuchel by the radicalrightie Maxwell Rafferty?
The math is pretty simple, I’ll give you the formula and you can tell me the answer:
% vote won by Rafferty x % of electorate that was registered Republican x % turnout for that primary election
🙂
Maybe no one read it, but on an earlier post about Kaus, I made the comment that if he was to win today, I would gladly cross the aisle and vote for him in November. I think his performance today will be an interesting statement about California’s Democratic Party.
When I went to vote today, my one regret was that I could not vote for Kaus.
And I guarantee you that if I asked 100 Republicans coming out of my polling place if they voted for Orly Taitz, 90% of them wouldn’t have even known she was on the ballot they just filled out.
gahrie, if it’s too difficult to discuss anything remotely negative for Republicans
That wasn’t my point or purpose. If you go look at the original Taitz piece on this blog, I didn’t attack Brendan for writing the post. It was a fair topic for conversation, if there had been any dispute.
I continue to call Brendan on the gratuitous attacks in the hope that he will recognize them and cease writing them. He is better than that. In comment #10, he has given me hope……….
Of course, your hypersensitivity to criticisms of the Right
The only things I am hypersensitive to are personal attacks and gratuitous attacks.
As a Legal Immigrant, myself, I find it fascinating how some choose to decry the GOP as the party of the bigoted few with a too exclusing ‘tent’ – and the same folk turn round when someone like Taitz gets her (his?) nose under the tent-wall and blast the GOP for not having a more exclusive ‘tent’ …
I supposed that I should not be surprised when such folk project as much as they do … they *are* part of the Projective Party, are they not ?
gahrie and Venerable Joe and AMLTrojan – whenever the Projective Party members bring up the Orly Taitz type candidate for something GOP, we just need to remind them about Lyndon LaRouche – we all know how proud the Dems were when Mr LaRouche was their Official Candidate (in Illinois somewhere, was he not?) …
Brendan #10 “a terrible economic climate and some political miscalculations by the Dems “ – masterful understated spin, I must admit … out of curiosity, just whose budgets of the past couple of years have contributed to the economic “climate change”, hmmmmm ??? Have Bush and Rove lost their Powers, yet ?
Way to set up a false dichotomy Alasdair. Believing that conservatives are more bigotted as a whole and less inclusive in some areas is not inconsistent with also thinking that they should be more discerning in other areas.
Pushing out candidates based on factors such as age/race/religion is different than rejecting a candidate based on their being unqualified.
I think the GOP is foolish for embracing Sarah Palin. Not because she is a woman or even because some of her views are different than mine, but because she’s an idiot. I believe they should reject Taitz on the same grounds.
What you seem to fail to get is that not all ideas have equal merit, unfortunately that line of reasoning is what gave us Fox News.
Then again there’s empirical evidence that conservatives simply ignore reality and see what they want to see so there you go.
“In retrospect, I wish I hadn’t said it…”
Don’t fret about it, old Kiddoe. Just refrain from saying you Wish you had your Life back & you’ll be in the clear. 🙂
AML, re #13 — prior to Posting my Rafferty whack-fol-the-daddy-O I had looked for the figures that would Plug in to your excellent equation. Didn’t find ’em. Among the sites Not carrying them was CA SOS. Damn Democrats. Where’s the Transparency? OR-LY! OR-LY! (Yes, Alasdair, I know I know: ‘What’s Aéroport de Paris got to do with this?’ 🙂 Have to look Again. Must be Somewhere. My Memory is that Max won quite handily but my memory Sucks. / Of course the fact is that Senator Tom Kuchel was a true Liberal Republican, the Extinction of which species was in that era Imminent but not yet Finalized; and the CA Republican electorate, having in the preceding 4 years (a) Nominated Goldwater via their ’64 PresPrim vote for Himself over the misfortunate Rockefeller-the-Ill-timed-Babydaddy [go lookit Up :]; and then (b) nominated Reagan for Governor by 3 to 1 over the liberal GOP Mayor of San Francisco (!!) in the ’66 primary; AND (c) powered him to a 60% victory over incumbent Dem Pat Brown in November — said CA Repubs, as I Say, were just in No Mood for no damn Tom Kuchel when ’68 rolled around. / So, via the distinguished ;> Dr. Max, they got Alan Cranston in November. Probably OK by Them. Better the Leopard who doesn’t try to disguise his Spots. / Which, I ween, is the Tea Party’s strategy this very Day. ;]
“…instead of the usual woe-is-me act?” kcatnd, Hee Hee!! 🙂
“…As a Legal Immigrant, myself,…” We’ll be the Judge of that, Rob Roy MacGregor. {toothsome smile :} ;> “Way to set up a false dichotomy Alasdair.” And there ye Go, David K. Yer typical Scotian Lowland Wetback always pulls that trick. / Not that I’d Profile anybody or anythinglikethat. I’m just Sayin’. :>
“Which, I ween, is the Tea Party’s strategy this very Day. ;]”
Which, I trow, appears to be Working as Designed. ;}
David K #18 – another davidkism strikes again … from the underpinnings of the cited study “Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.” …
Feel free to be proud that you are not even as accurate as the average pigeon, Mr K … (grin)
Oh – and I apologise for interrupting Venerable Loy’s weeny discussion with himself wherein he was troweling it on …
(douce smile)
Alasdair m’laird, no need to Apologise. There do indeed occur some Occasions when I find I maun Discuss matters wi’ Meself, there being nae ither Worthy interlocators in the near Vicinity. (Admittedly at Other times I wish I was an Oscar Mayer Wiener. / But even if So, I doubt that I’d be the Champ at Troweling it On. 🙂
Pingback: All Around the World News
Venerable Loy #22 – Hmmm … “interlocators”, eh ?
Aren’t those used for times when you cannot find your David K with both hands ?
(/me mallards, grinning)
LOL … David gets pwned by Alasdair.
waw haw haw / ya Got me that time, Ducky. :} Must try to Locate my Locutions more better. :>
*Yawn*
Really Joe Mama? pwnd? Apparently you have a low threshold for what that means. I said there was empirical evidence (which there was) not overwhelming proof.
But hey thats ok, it let Alasdair completely and utterly ignore (as usual) the fact that i tore his argument apart.